Bhutan's new king raises Asian eyebrows
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - In South Asia - a vast geographic region and the world's most
populous - it has been the area's two smallest nations which have attracted the
majority of recent media attention. Over the past week, the isolated Himalayan
kingdom of Bhutan and the tiny island nation of the Maldives both experienced
political events of historic significance.
In the Maldives, a country with just 300,000 citizens spread over an
1,200-island archipelago, Mohamed Nasheed, a former political prisoner, was
named the country's first democratically elected president. Nasheed, 41,
unseated Asia's longest-serving leader, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who had led the
nation for 30 years
before permitting democratic reform and losing an October 28 run-off vote.
In one of his first statements, president-elect Nasheed said the nation would
use some of its tourist dollars to buy dry land - possibly in India or Sri
Lanka, according to the BBC - should global warming raise sea levels to
envelop the low-lying atolls which make up the Maldives.
And across the region, in the Bhutanese capital of Thimphu, outgoing King Jigme
Singye Wangchuck, 52, coronated his 28-year-old son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel
Wangchuck, who now becomes the world's youngest reigning monarch. The revered
former king abdicated two years ago as part of his plan to peacefully
transition Bhutan from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.
Needless to say, there were some extremely interested onlookers among the eight
members of the Kathmandu-based South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
(SAARC). With general elections ahead for India in 2009, and a similar transfer
of power from monarchy to democracy now underway in Nepal, the two small
countries provide an interesting test case.
For the people of Nepal, the three-day festival in neighboring Bhutan has been
an interesting development - and geographical proximity is not the only reason.
The Nepalis witnessed the end of their monarchy in May - and it has not been a
simple transition.
The ceremony in Thimphu was also watched intently by the 100,000-strong
Bhutanese refugee community living in United Nations camps in eastern Nepal.
The refugees expect the new, Oxford-educated king to call for their return to
Bhutan from where they were evicted in the early 1990s.
The extended pageantry of royal handover in Thimphu was also watched by a
select group of invitees that included Indian President Pratibha Patil and
Congress party head Sonia Gandhi, India's Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee and
diplomats representing other countries.
The entire show was brought to the world by international media, most of whom
had dashed to Bhutan on the eve of coronation. If their comments and reactions
printed in the official Kuensel newspaper are anything to go by, most of the
journalists seemed so overwhelmed by the scene's Buddhist spirituality they did
not look beneath the illuminated surface. One paper quoted one of the visiting
journalists as saying that the monarchy in Bhutan was not only surviving, but
was actually "thriving". One BBC reporter, however, told his audience about the
thorny issue of refugees.
And few newshounds managed to mention the publicly recorded fact when the
previous Bhutanese king's marriage was announced in late 1988, through its
embassy in New Delhi, the supposedly "bachelor" king already had four wives and
eight children. The country's Buddhist clergy at the time purportedly agreed to
give legitimacy to the matter only after prolonged hesitation.
In any case, how could the Bhutanese monarchy be "thriving" when its larger -
and older - counterpart in neighboring Nepal was confined to the dustbin of
history just six months ago in the wake of an armed Maoist insurgency? If such
pro-monarchist media players took a closer look, they might find that the
institution of monarchy is rapidly becoming an endangered species across the
globe.
Still, political pundits in the region continue to believe that monarchs who
are prepared to synchronize their traditional leadership with changing popular
aspirations have a chance to extend the lifespan of their office. If the
subject of refugees is kept from the international public's eye, the Bhutanese
monarchy stands a good chance.
Analysts contend that the father of Bhutan's new king, Jigme Singye Wangchuk,
avoided the mistakes made by the kings of Nepal, whom he once addressed as
"brother". For example, he took measures to appear as a king willing to lead
his small country on the path of democracy.
Elections were held in March, giving Bhutan its first elected government. A
constitution was issued in August and now the king will no longer rule the
nation through edicts and orders. In early 2005, when Nepal's King Gyanendra
staged a coup with the support of royal army, the monarch in Bhutan was busy
circulating the draft of a statute which was to lay the foundation for a
democratic order. (See
Bhutan a step ahead of Nepal, Asia Times Online, April 22, 2005.)
Subsequently, Gyanendra lost the 240-year-old monarchy while Jigme created a
democratic facade which appears to have given a fresh lease on life to the last
Himalayan monarchy. Jigme looks wiser; he found it expedient to pass the crown
to his son, whereas Nepal's Gyanendra did not listen to suggestions to vacate
the throne in favor of his grandson. He could have salvaged the monarchy, a
section of Nepal's intelligentsia still contend, for the sake of country's
unity and integrity.
"Since the changes effected thus far are irreversible, it is fair to assume
that Bhutan is firmly on the road to modernization " said Gyan Chandra Acharya,
the top government official at Nepal's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Acharya was
by the side of Prime Minister Prachanda during his first meeting with the
Bhutanese counterpart, Jigmi Thinley, on the sidelines of the United Nations
General Assembly meeting in New York in September. Among the issues discussed
at the time was the situation of refugees.
These political changes in Bhutan would not have been possible if New Delhi had
not "actively" cooperated with the Bhutanese king and his advisors. Formally,
such cooperation was the service of constitutional lawyer, K K Venugopal, who
helped finalize the draft of the constitution put in place last August.
The other important initiative taken by India was to upgrade, in February 2007,
the 1949 treaty of friendship, taking out words that made it obligatory for
Bhutan to be guided by India in the conduct of its foreign affairs. Nobody in
the officialdom saw this as a mere formality, but subsequent events don't
indicate any break with tradition. The striking proof of this can be seen in
voting patterns at the United Nations, where the ambassador of Bhutan always
casts his vote for all resolutions supported by India.
Another striking example has been Bhutan's perceived "inability" to host the
SAARC summit even once since it was formed in 1985. With the exception of
Afghanistan, a new member, all other member states have hosted the event at
least twice.
There have been one or two occasions where Bhutan took a different stand, but
the king chose to "correct" his position afterwards. One such occasion arose at
the Non-Aligned Movement summit held in Havana, Cuba, in 1979. The issue was
external intervention in Cambodia (then Kampuchea) where Jigme's statement
included the following sentence: "We, as a small country, cannot endorse
invasion. It is a dangerous precedent."
Apparently, New Delhi became touchy over the issue. It continued to bother the
Bhutanese king for years, as was evident in an on-record conversation he had
with Indian journalist M J Akbar in September 1988. The king, however, said he
did not consider the merger of Sikkim with India in 1975 as the consequence of
any invasion.
Walter Laqueur's book, A Dictionary of Politics, listed Sikkim, in 1973,
as a Protectorate of India, Bhutan as a semi-independent state with an absolute
monarchy and Nepal as an independent kingdom with a constitutional monarchy. If
one were to compare the political map of the Himalayan region 35 years later,
one finds changes that are too visible to be glossed over.
Sikkim is already a province of India, while Bhutan has effectively become a
protectorate and Nepal has changed into a semi-independent state. Some
pro-monarchist analysts say Sikkim lost its very existence due the king's
recalcitrant attitude towards New Delhi, Bhutan survives because its king found
it expedient to adopt a "cooperative" approach with India, while Nepal, the
largest among the three kingdoms, is swiftly losing its independence - and
facing divisive forces from the southern plains adjoining India - after
Gyanendra was overthrown for remaining an assertive head of the state.
When made to face a discontent crowd in 1990, Gyanendra's elder brother,
then-king Birendra, chose to meet the people's demand for democracy rather than
compromise with New Delhi on issues such as security and water resources and
jeopardize Nepal's sovereign, independent identity.
The pervasive influence of India in the region is often too obvious to skip the
attention of even Indian analysts and commentators - such as Salman Haider, who
once served as India's foreign secretary. In an article published in The
Statesman newspaper under the headline "Himalayan refugees", Haider questioned
New Delhi's wisdom as early as December 2000 of remaining unconcerned about
happenings in India's backyard.
He alluded to a United States plan, floated by a senior State Department
official for the rehabilitation of refugees from Bhutan, the majority of whom
are Nepali-speakers. In the official's opinion, India should have taken the
responsibility of bringing the two neighbors "closer in the task of
implementing their agreement on the return of the refugees".
This, he said, would have discouraged the big power from carving out a role for
itself in the sensitive Himalayan region which lies along the Chinese frontier.
Meanwhile, the American initiative on the refugees has become operational with
about 5,000 refugees finding shelters in the US and other Western countries.
However, the majority are still living in the camps in Nepal and eager to
return to their own homeland.
Bhutan still looks unwilling to take a sizeable population back into its fold.
Perhaps because statistics show a steep rise in per capita income after the
mass exodus of the 1990s. The scenario would be different should New Delhi
decide to change its policy and start persuading Bhutan to accept its citizens
who were forced to leave the country when it was under a different king.
"India stands to gain in several ways if such a deal could be worked out," said
exiled Bhutanese leader Tek Nath Rizal, who has been compared with South
Africa's Nelson Mandela.
After all, Bhutan reported a population of 1.2 million at the time of joining
the United Nations in 1971. It is now at 635,000.
Dhruba Adhikary, a former head of Nepal Press Institute, is a
Kathmandu-based journalist.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
