|
|
|
|
Bhutan a step ahead of Nepal
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - The two remaining kingdoms in the Himalaya, both of which share
borders with mighty China and emerging India, have monarchs whose instinct for
survival in the 21st century should obviously encourage them not to remain
oblivious to issues that can spark off unrest within their own territories.
They know how Sikkim, the third kingdom in the region, lost its very existence
in 1975 when its ruler chose to ignore popular demands for equality and civil
rights. China had initially refused to recognize Sikkim's annexation by India,
but Beijing's subsequent policy on the matter underwent a change and China
found it expedient to accept what it considered had become a fait accompli.
Last week, during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to India, Beijing handed
over a copy of a new official map that depicted Sikkim as a state of India. To
New Delhi, it is an important achievement, and a clear indication that the
Sikkim dispute (not the overall border dispute) has been resolved once and for
all.
King Jigme Singye Wangchuk's decision last month to give Bhutan [1] its first
constitution can be seen in a related and rapidly changing regional scenario.
The announcement made in the capital Thimphu appears to be the king's first
noticeable move toward addressing demands for democratic change. Whether this
latest royal initiative is a sincere one and can be put into effect quickly is
something which cannot be said at this stage. Provisions made in the draft
constitution, however, make it more progressive than Nepal's, promulgated in
the aftermath of a successful pro-democracy movement in 1990.
The article on monarchy, for instance, makes it obligatory for the king to step
down at the age of 65. Besides, the king also loses his right to remain on the
throne if he marries a non-Bhutanese; he abdicates if parliament adopts an
impeachment motion with the support of three-fourths of the total membership.
"Yes, the chances of the king being removed from the throne through such
methods are remote," said Professor Lokraj Baral, a former ambassador to
Bhutan, "but the king will find it difficult to ignore these conditions once
included in a written constitution." To this extent, the document is
progressive. King Jigme's idea, as inserted in Article 1, is to transform
Bhutan into a two-party state under a "democratic constitutional monarchy". The
draft, which has 34 articles and four appendices, prohibits any other form of
government in Bhutan. If Chief Justice Sonam Tobgye's words are to be taken at
face value, the constitution will come into force once it is ratified through a
referendum to be conducted at the end of 2005. The monarch wants each of his
530,000-plus subjects, identified as citizens, to read and offer their views on
the draft constitution. The draft copies are to be circulated in Dzongkha and
English. (Bhutan's literacy rate is just 30%.)
Constitutional changes aimed at modernizing the feudal institution of monarchy
are important indeed, but it is the timing of the royal announcement which has
attracted considerable attention in and around Bhutan's neighborhood. This,
said the first Britsh Broadcasting Corp (BBC) report of the Bhutanese
initiative, was in contrast to developments in Nepal, where King Gyanendra
seized power in February by dismantling the democratic setup.
To outsiders, the monarch of the smaller of the two kingdoms suddenly appears
as a forward-looking ruler, while the step taken by the king of the larger
monarchy looks starkly regressive. The mainstream Indian media hailed King
Jigme's steps toward democracy, and even favorably compared his liberal
approach with King Gyanendra's proclamation of February 1. In an editorial
comment, The Hindu newspaper billed Jigme as a "popular figure" and described
Gyanendra a "reactionary king". Analysts did not find anything unusual in this
comment, because Bhutan drafted its constitution using Indian expertise. Indian
analyst of South Asian affairs Dr S Chandrasekharan conceded in a recent
writeup that Thimphu had received "inputs from some eminent legal luminaries
from India".
There is also a perception in the Nepali intelligentsia that King Jigme, 49,
unveiled his reform plans at the promptings of New Delhi, which has faced
stinging criticism because of its perceived dual standards on democracy: it
chose to raise hell for democracy in Nepal, while turning a blind eye to
Bhutan, a country ruled by a king through peremptory orders.
A 1949 treaty between India and Bhutan requires Thimphu to accept New Delhi's
advice on sensitive issues, including ones related to defense and external
affairs. It is interesting that Bhutan's decision to reform its system of
governance came out in a sudden manner, reminding its neighbors of an event
that took place several years ago. King Jigme's marriage, simultaneously with
four women, was made in 1988 by his ambassador in New Delhi at a time when the
monarch had already eight children.
"There is no written constitution or bill of rights," said an official US
human-rights report on Bhutan in early 1995. This statement is valid even
today. Besides, there is no timetable when the draft constitution currently
being debated will be made effective, replacing an anachronistic royal decree
of 1953.
The striking absence of provision for an independent judiciary in the
constitution is equally worrisome to people who do not see any room to
challenge arbitrary executive decisions on crucial matters like citizenship.
Tens of thousands of Nepali-speaking Bhutanese have lurking doubts about the
true intention of the king and his courtiers. "Our system is far more
democratic than most democratic countries," the king said in an interview the
Washington Post published in early 1994. What could have led him to change this
comical thought and urged him to issue a constitution that can prove that he is
the head of a constitutional monarchy?
Whatever is being offered now, said some analysts, may provide a temporary
democratic facade to the royal regime, but it cannot provide any durable
solution to the challenges Bhutan confronts, especially after it enacted a new
citizenship law in 1985. "Something is definitely better than nothing," said
former foreign minister Bhekh Thapa, alluding to the draft constitution. But
Thapa, who also had a stint as Nepal's envoy to Bhutan, is skeptical about the
viability of the present constitutional plan so long as the ongoing drive to
end the existing diversity in population is not reversed.
In other words, Thimphu needs to take measures which can absolve the royal
government from the charge of "ethnic cleansing" of Bhutanese of Nepali origin.
More than 100,000 such people have lived in UN-run refugee camps in eastern
Nepal since early 1990s. Fifteen rounds of bilateral ministerial talks have
been held, alternately in Kathmandu and Thimphu, but the process of
repatriation remains evasive to date.
In its latest human-rights/democracy report, released on March 28, the US
government took note of the "process of a fundamental governance shift ...
to a constitutional monarchy" but appeared convinced that Thimphu eventually
had to enlist the support of the Nepali-speaking minority if it wanted
long-term stability for Bhutan.
"The US human-rights and democracy strategy for Bhutan is still largely focused
on finding durable solutions for the Bhutanese refugees of ethnic Nepali
descent who were compelled to leave Bhutan for Nepal in the early 1990s," the
report emphasized. But since Bhutan does not have diplomatic relations with the
United States, the royal government in Thimphu can adopt a policy of
indifference to Washington's suggestion. In fact, Bhutan does not have
diplomatic relations with any of the five permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council. Does this mean that Bhutan, a member of the UN, can
go on defying the voice of the international community forever?
Will not neighboring India's credentials as the world's largest democracy also
be undermined if New Delhi keeps quiet on issues associated with Bhutan? These
are some of the questions now being discussed in Nepal, a country which is in
the midst of its own imbroglio as Maoists and monarchists continue to face each
other.
Meanwhile, back in Nepal ...
King Gyanendra, in the meantime, is being watched by the outside world in the
context of his repeated pledge to restore democracy before long. That he has
not formally suspended the 1990 constitution thus far is an indication that he
does realize the present statute is the best possible instrument to safeguard
the monarchy's interests.
"My understanding of your country's constitution is that it is a document which
works for Nepal's independence as well as for the democratic system it has
adopted," said Rakesh Chhetri, a Bhutanese exile who works as a human-rights
activist. It is the players who are required to be honest, sincere and
patriotic.
Not all Nepalis taking an interest in Bhutanese affairs are critical of King
Jigme's modernization campaign. In fact, some analysts have praised him for
taking Bhutan on a path of slow but steady progress. Since Bhutan's geopolitics
are more precarious than Nepal's, it would be unwise to expect him to take a
short-cut route to democracy. The process has to be gradual and evolutionary,
that is why it looks to be moving at snail's pace.
Narendra Bikram Shah, a former foreign minister, said he did not understand why
most of Nepal's media outlets spent their energy ridiculing Bhutan, a friendly
neighbor that is steadily moving forward to be a responsible democratic
society. "Their role and responsibilities are increasing," Shah said, referring
to the recent appointment of a Bhutanese diplomat as the secretary general of
South Asia's regional organization, the South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC). After Bangladesh hosts the next summit, Bhutan will
probably take over the chairmanship as well. This is the first time in the
20-year history of SAARC that Bhutan has come to the center stage.
Shah's view on the refugee question is also different because he does not think
Bhutan alone is to be blamed for the procrastination. On the contrary, it is
the Nepali side which failed to give prompt and positive responses to Bhutanese
offers - to take back up to 75% of the refugees. Shah, who made several trips
to Thimphu while working at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said Nepal's
leaders as well as officials did not apply the required level of skill and
efficiency at the negotiating table. Shah also noticed a lack of enthusiasm
among refugee leaders to explain why Bhutanese of Nepali ethnicity never tried
to adapt to their new homeland (such as learning Dzongkha, Bhutan's
national language) if their ancestors had gone to Bhutan more than a century
ago.
Tek Nath Rizal, often described as the Nelson Mandela of Bhutan, considers most
of such comments as inadequately informed reactions expressed by people who
know little about the ground reality. Dzongkha, he said, is an artificial
language promoted by the king only about a decade ago.
This language, now used by the ruling Ngalongs, does not have its own script;
hence they use a Tibetan script called Choeke. According to Rizal, of the three
main ethnic/religious and linguistic groups residing in Bhutan, Sarchops are
the other group settled in the eastern region who speak Tsangla, which is not
recognized by the regime. Lhotshmapas, or those living in the south, are the
Nepali speakers. They are the largest of the minority groups in Bhutan. Nepali
initially was a link language, but subsequently became the country's lingua
franca as there was no other language understood by people living in different
parts of Bhutan. History records show that the first group of Nepalis went to
Bhutan in 1624, 83 years before the Wangchuk dynasty, to which the present king
belongs, was established. Most of the migration, however, took place between
1800 and the 1950s in the wake of the Bhutan-British war of 1864.
Rizal, a resident of southern Bhutan, was once a member of the royal advisory
council. But when he protested against discrimination being meted out to
minority communities, he was evicted from the royal panel. He was later chosen
to be the leader of a pro-democracy movement launched in Bhutan. In 1989, he
was jailed for 10 years on treason charges. Currently he lives in Nepal in
exile.
On the proposed constitutional innovations, Rizal is also skeptical. While the
royal promise to gift the country with a written constitution was a positive
step, it was doubtful if the process which had begun now would address the
grievances of different communities of Bhutan, Rizal explained. The draft
constitution had no reference, for instance, to minority communities, and it
failed to understand the difficulties of those who could not read English or
Dzongkha. "The whole exercise seems to be a ploy to deceive the international
community," Rizal, 57, said in an interview with Asia Times Online. "The palace
may use this draft as a tool to institutionalize the absolute powers it already
enjoys," he said.
To the exiled community, it would have been easier, however, to be in touch
with a democratic Thimphu than an autocratic one. But the problem is that the
majority of them do not accept the proposed reform as genuine. And supporters
of the status quo are already on the regime's side. They did not need to be
given a draft constitution to show that changes were in the offing.
A radio report aired by the Bhutan Broadcasting Service on April 8 said that
the number of Bhutanese suffering from depression and anxiety was on the rise.
And doctors in Thimphu described depression as an emotional disorder resulting
in the loss of happiness and enjoyment. This must have been a disturbing piece
of news to the monarch, who is ever eager to talk about his pet theory of gross
national happiness for his subjects.
Note
[1] In 1865, Britain and Bhutan signed the Treaty of Sinchulu, under which
Bhutan would receive an annual subsidy in exchange for ceding some border land.
Under British influence, a monarchy was set up in 1907; three years later, a
treaty was signed whereby the British agreed not to interfere in Bhutanese
internal affairs and Bhutan allowed Britain to direct its foreign affairs. This
role was assumed by independent India after 1947. Two years later, a formal
Indo-Bhutanese accord returned the areas of Bhutan annexed by the British,
formalized the annual subsidies the country received, and defined India's
responsibilities in defense and foreign relations.
Dhruba Adhikary is the vice president of the Nepal Press Institute. He
has been a Dag Hammarskjold Fellow at the United Nations.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us
for information on
sales, syndication and
republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
