 |
|
| Kathmandu Thursday April 04, 2002 Chaitra 22, 2058. |
|
Will Bhutan King rise to
occasion?
By PROF P D KAUSHIK
Monarchies normally resist change, but in Bhutan
the initiative for political modernization has always come from the Kings, and third King
Jigme Dorji Wangchuck is considered as the chief architect of modern Bhutan.
Bhutan began political modernization in the
1950s. The third King started the National Assembly in 1953; abolished serfdom in 1956;
enacted Citizenship Act in 1958, granting Bhutanese citizenship to the people of Nepali
origin; constituted the Royal Advisory Council in 1965 and the Cabinet Council in 968. He
made the National Assembly a full-fledged legislative body, to which the representations
were 70 percent of the people, 22 percent government, and 8 percent of the clergy. Secret
ballot was the basis for elections; elections were conducted after every three years; and
the Assembly was made responsible to (a) enact laws, (b) approve senior appointments and
(c) to guide the King on all matters of national importance, based on the will of the
Assembly with two-thirds majority. On the King’s request, the Assembly approved an
Act in 1969, in which the ruling monarch was required to abdicate the throne in favour of
next royal successor from the Wangchuck Dynasty if no confidence vote is passed by the
two-thirds majority. This had made the National Assembly a parliamentary institution,
leaving some discrepancies for corrections, for example, in the proportionate
representation of
ethnic groups, which was fixed at four votes of Nepali minority equal one vote of the
Drukpa majority.
King Jigme Singye Wangchuck reversed the process
of political modernization and democratization once he assumed power in 1972. He dropped
the system of vote of confidence in the King in 1973, the requirement of Assembly’s
approval for appointment of high-ranking officers in 1978, and substituted the secret
ballot election system with the traditional way of selection from 1980 onward, giving
quiet burial to the reforms introduced by his visionary father. This ‘U’ turn in
political modernization process was partly because of political development in the region
and partly because of his compulsion to please the Drukpa coterie.
The Wangchuck Dynasty has had patronized the
Drukpa Khagyu Sect of Mahayana Buddhism, whose religious constituents are Ngalong
community. Other ethnic groups: namely Sarchops, Khengpas and Lhotsampas together
constitute more than 80 percent of the total population, but they had only peripheral role
in the government. To consolidate the Drukpa constituencies in the aftermath of 1990’s
demonstration, Bhutan activated political machination of ethnic Nepali population, who are
the largest ethnic group, constituting over 40 percent of the total population. The result
was that the Nepali population, whose history of settlement in Bhutan dates back to 7th
century AD, is made to struggle against the propaganda war of illegal economic immigrants,
and because of which is the unresolved refugee problem.
Up to the early 1950s, Bhutan had no objection
to immigration of Nepali population in South Bhutan. The Ha Dungpa, representative of
Bhutan King, residing then in Kalimpong, was responsible towards the administration of
Nepali population. The monarchy viewed the Nepali population as source of tax base and as
counterweight to the Drukpa traditionalists who have had expressed loyalty towards the
institution of Shabdrung, which was founded in 1616 by Lama Nawang Namgyal of Ralung
Monastery and Chief Abbot of Drukpa Khagyu Sect of Mahayana Buddhism. Political power in
Bhutan had always been with the followers of Drukpa Khagyu Sect. Until 1907, the
reincarnate monks of Shadrung Nawang Namgyal had ruled Bhutan. Therefore, the monarchy had
always viewed the threat of reincarnate monks as real and the present reincarnate monk,
Jigme Nawang Namgyal, resides in Himachal Pradesh, India since the late 1950s. The earlier
Kings had gauged the benefit of a sizable Hindu population in Bhutan, who are
traditionally loyal to the institution of monarchy.
Bhutan in fact never feared the Nepali
population until it embarked upon its five-year development plans in 1961, which required
import of a large number of construction workers, who happened to be overwhelmingly ethnic
Nepali population because it had the adoptability and experience to work in a harsh
situation, like the one prevailing in Bhutan. Therefore, the presence of ethnic Nepali
population in Bhutan rose considerably, though they were there in time bound work permits.
Early development projects were concentrated in South Bhutan because of easy accessibility
and because of which many of the earlier professional class civil servants happened were
from the Nepali Bhutanese community. Thus, the increasing strength of Nepali Bhutanese in
civil service, their growing economic strength in the villages, their cultural ties with
people in the Hills of North Bengal, and the reverberations of Gorkhaland agitation…
all contributed towards formulating policy responses designed for forcible cultural
assimilation of Nepali Bhutanese.
In it, the Bhutanese government enacted 1985
Citizenship Act, which denied citizenship rights to about 17,000 Nepali Bhutanese,
particularly non-Bhutanese spouses, their children, and those who entered Bhutan after
1958. It also adopted ‘One Nation One People’ policy with codified public dress,
social etiquette, and banning the practice of Nepali language and culture. The Nepali
Bhutanese when participated in the mass demonstrations of 1990 protesting against these
policies, the hawkish traditionalists activated the ethnic whip and threw out about 90,000
Nepali Bhutanese, most of them are languishing today in UNHCR-run camps in Nepal.
Having no choice the refugee community made a
call for multi-party democracy, compelling King Jigme Singye Wangchuck to reinstate the
reforms instituted by his father in 1998, after a break of 40 years. His father was a true
democrat, whose tenet of political modernization was multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and
multi-religious Bhutan, and not ethnic chauvinism.
Albeit the reforms of 1998, King Jigme Singhe
Wangchuck holds unquestionable political authority. The reforms demonstrate that the King
is opened to political innovation. But what Samuel Huntington said in general also applies
to Bhutan: The monarchial system is always in complex situation created by pro-status
traditional elites and pro-change modernizing elite, which lack western European
political-cultural background.
They were the pro status quo traditionalist
elite who blew out of proportion the fear of Nepali cultural invasion in Bhutan and
persuaded the King to impose ‘One Nation One People’ policy, destroying the
fabric of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious Bhutan. This was an outright
violation of fundamental rights and human rights of Nepali Bhutanese. If the reforms of
1998 were due to the influence of pro-change modernizing elite, then national
reconciliation is a possibility, opening up avenues for all ethnic groups to live in
harmony under the insignia of monarchy. If the King continues to be indifferent towards
the plight of non-Drukpa Bhutanese, then Bhutan is in danger of immersing itself under
ethnic inferno, and the on-going state sponsored resettlement programme inside Bhutan
connotes that direction. Let us hope that the King realizes soon that it is inherent in
the process of modernization and globalization that ethnic Nepalis be given the same
status as the Drukpa majority and the problem of refugees is resolved in the spirit of
fairness and justice.
Other Stories
|
