Bhutan: For A Democracy

This is not a wonder, if you think positively. In India, the nearest of all our alliance, the Gandhis-Nehru lineage should always come in the front. In Nepal, it is for the Koiralas. In Bangladesh, the privilege goes to Seikh and in Pakistan, the Bhuttos and their relatives.

All in all, the Maldives is for Gayoom and in Sri Lanka the god has given the authority to rule to country to the Bandaranayakes. The US is for Bushes against the Iraqi Ahmadijijad.

When you play the powers, it is always among the one family versus the other. Bushes quashed Saddams in Iraq. In Pakistan, the Bhuttos are always targeted by military regimes. In India, the Gandhis fall prey to Tamils and Gothes. In Nepal, the fight is between the Koiralas and the Shahs

In our case, the devolution of power has begun, yet in the same line being practiced in the countries I mentioned. It is by words, the campaign to empower the people, and in practice, to empower the relatives. As you empower you relatives, and as you remain above them, you would in no excuse amass the powers. After all this is a new form of democracy to centralize power in one’s hand with devolution of power to family members.

The nearest of the royal family JYT and SN has been announced the leaders to take over the responsibility of the state authority. For years, they had been in the power, they had ruled the country. When democracy comes, words have changes, system pretended, people in the authority have not changed, and the techniques of ruling will not change. Bhutan would get such a vibrant democracy next year that the rulers of a democracy will be dictating the country in the same way they did for the last one century.

It is not the system that works. It is the practitioners who operate the system. Unless, rulers change along with the system, the governance would never change. If you look at the Chinese example, the system had not changed prior to the death of the Mao. India made progress after 1947 because both the system and the rulers changed.

What can you expect in Bhutan? It is a new bottle with old wine. It is a marketing strategy, in a form of branding. The producers do not care of the health of the consumers rather the ways to make products attractive. Democracy in Bhutan has come in a form of brand, a new brand with much attraction. Yet the components have not been changed. When you taste, may be after 2008, you would certainly know the ingredients are the same.

This is the pervasive and most notorious form of capitalism. Every one expects, two extremisms should end – capitalism and communism. Long live the democratic socialism.

You might have wondered why the new posts on this blog are delaying. As I opened y mail there were three mails claiming that I lost my energy to write any more, other five urging for immediate new posts. The comments on the blog and in mail are excellent to read at. The reasons for the delay are different.

Soon after I uploaded by last post, there were news reports saying Bhutan government intended to sell part of the country to India in an effort to secure position from attacks of the southern Bhutanese, especially from those campaigning from their base in Nepal’s UNHCR camps.

It tensed me, if not the Bhutanese regime. The national authority has not reacted to such a sensitive issue. It is said, remain quite sometimes mean accepting what has been said. The government must speak what is the fact, and if it did not do so, the conscience would be that the newly revealed issue would be correct.

After the exposure of the news, I could not tolerate it. I thought this has to be investigated, and if correct the people of Bhutan must not forgive the tyrant Jigme for his lust to power in exchange for losing the sovereignty of the kingdom. Fro years, we have talked of sovereignty and national integrity, foremost by the rulers. In early 1990, during the tussle between the ngalongs and the lhotsampas, the ngalongs blamed southerners of trying to disintegrate the nation. And now, the turn is of the ngalongs to receive similar blames.

Unable to believe, I made up the minds to travel to Delhi, to find out the clue, if possible. For a week I remain in Delhi telephoning people if the news is correct. On eight day, I finally received the copy of the paper being cited by the news.

The posts at bhutantimes.com against this news were of course mixed. Insiders claimed this was propaganda, outsiders claimed this was the best instance of foolish act of the monarch and his aides. Initially, I did not believe such document exists but as I found the copy, it astonished me.

It forced me to believe since the paper was produced for institutions like Oxford University, United Nations University, Tokyo University and it would be again foolish to believe that such reputed institution accept the propagandist document. Somewhere in the corner, the fact is hiding. The Indian and the Bhutanese regimes have the details, yet both remain mum. It is of greater concern for Bhutanese people than Indians, and the rulers must answer the people what the fact is.

There are no exact dates but circumstances presented in the document reveals that the proposal of the wangchuks had come at around end of 1990s, which the Indian government immediately rejected assuring greater support to bar those in Nepal from returning. Incidentally, in around this period, the government had filled up the vacant villages in eastern central lowlands but not in the western.

During my interaction with other people, it was revealed that the district Bhutan proposed to disintegrate was Samtse (previously Samchi). Having failed to find out enough information regarding the cede, I traveled to Gantok, where Mr Lama lives. There I came to know that Mr Lama is the vice chancellor of the Sikkim University. Repeatedly, I urged him to tell the remaining truth, he denied. He only said Bhutan proposed ceding some land from southern belt to India where lhotsampas still categorized as illegal immigrants and those to be repatriated from Nepal are to be settled.

As I traveled back to Samtse, I met a driver who was involved in ferrying people from northern Samtse to other central-southern districts. This was a planned action to vacate the place to settling the so-called illegal immigrants and repatriated lhotsampas. The villagers ferried to other places were called that they have been rescued from that place because government will have war with ULFA and other militants in that area.

I concluded, the proposal was the result of desperation. As people continue to seek rulers committed to national integrity, the desperate move of the regime has pinch the people. They must be given the answer. Question has to be raised if a ruler trying to disintegrate the nation has authority to continue ruling.

May be, realizing this, the father Jigme had abdicated. In early 1990 he said he would abdicate if he could not settle the southern Bhutan issue. His abdication and proposal to disintegrate the country, is the indication of his failure to rule the country. Can the new tyrant, indoctrinated in the same line, work for stability, peace prosperity and integrity of the nation? It is time to question.