They even did not empathize the pain and mental trauma that a Nepali-speaking neighbor was undergoing and unjustly uprooted by omission and commission of the census from the ancestral land. Instead, they remained busy themselves grabbing the jersey cows, other cattle, grains, pots, pans etc. So much so that the then Chukha Chief District Officer (CDO) Major Penjore collected some 13 gas cylinders besides other valuable articles. Many became richer overnight. However, they still do not face the wrath of the census officials like what was being faced by Nepali-speaking Bhutanese. At least, they should realise now that even if they, who are supposed to be indigenous are harassed, how much the Nepali-speaking Bhutanese would have faced the wrath of census officials’ harassment and humiliation when government machineries were against them. If it were Nepali-speaking Bhutanese, the census officials would have ordered either to go to Jhapa or now to America. The incessant census implement that was grossly applied in the case of Nepali-speaking Bhutanese was the principle genesis of the Bhutanese refugees. After 20 years, it is interesting to know that the frank-en-stein monster has at least started scathing others although it will not gore like the Nepali-speaking Bhutanese.

The recent Kuensel report entitled “New Register strewn with Errors” reveals that how the Bhutan civil registration system is full of errors. The registers were issued in 2002-03 which people call ‘dangerous’. Even the director of the department Dorji Norbu accepted the mistakes: There is a long list of mistakes like wrong name, incorrect date of birth, dropped from the family member, wrong name spelling, age, gender, house number etc. The block heads (gup) do not rely or refer to the government census records for any authentication. They use their own hand written record registers which are more accurate and moreover they know the people personally.
 
The director is making a lame excuse that the formats were made in hurry to carry out the census for election. One can surmise, how many mistakes were intentionally made in a hurry to evict Nepali-speaking Bhutanese in 1990, which were premeditatedly designed with ill intention to deprive the nationality and citizenship although they have been living there for generations.  Does he know that such callousness is ruining the individuals and ruined thousands of Nepali-speaking Bhutanese? If so what was the nationwide census in 2005 for? Supposedly the main purpose was to determine the voter numbers for election in 2008 and to establish scientific system of maintaining information data. How could he pre-empted the election that was held in 2008 and even the announcement was made only in 2007.

Now the cat is out of the trap that how some 80,000 Nepali-speaking Bhutanese were deprived from their voting rights during the first elections and still their census hangs in the air. During the census exercise in southern Bhutan in 1988/89, no consideration was made even for a difference of name spellings or difference of alphabetic character though they were the one and responsible to enumerate and maintain records in the office. As they are/were not familiar with pronunciation of names of the Nepali-speaking Bhutanese and many other terminologies, there were many mistakes which they denied accepting and stroked the names from the census registers and declared non-nationals and out-right ordered to leave the country.  They did not take into confidence the mandals’ (Gup) records or village elders’ testimony. They rigidly followed their own way of categorizing people at random whereby a single family was divided into seven categories like father in F1, mother in F4, one son in F1 and another son of same parent in F7 (non-Bhutanese) etc. The census was conducted not less than six times in a year in the southern six districts in the 90s harassing the Nepali-speaking Bhutanese and declaring non-Bhutanese even on silly grounds. And the king Jigme Singye Wangchuk exalted them with ranks and favors for success in evicting maximum Nepali-speaking Bhutanese.

The Samtse CDO Lhakpa Dorji, who snatched a SLR (self loading rifle) from an army officer and indiscriminately fired at the crowd gathered for peaceful meeting injuring many and killing Dil Bahadur Ghaley on the spot, was awarded red scarf (honorable rank) and promoted to secretary level and who later also went free after killing a monk in Mongar district when demonstrating for democracy and human rights. The then chief justice of high court and now the chief justice of Supreme Court Sonam Tobgye could not punish him. Even the King father Jigme Singye Wangchuk could not order punishment when Lhakpa Dorji defended himself and resisted saying that the king accolade him when killing the Nepali-speaking Bhutanese anti-nationals and how could he be punished for killing similar Sarchop anti-national. When he threatened to bring out in public the king’s policy and order to evict Nepali-speaking Bhutanese in the secret meeting of all CDOs, Royal Bhutan army chief, Police Chief, ministers and census department head held in Punakha, he was placated and just stripped of his post to eyewash the public and international community but perennially enjoying government salary and emoluments.

Of late we started seeing the feeling of the impact of the spark of the census on some northern Bhutanese especially married with the southern Bhutanese girls and lapses in the census records. Such feelings are though not dared to express in public for fear of being target of the census department and persecution but one can find abundant in the forum column of the Kuensel, the mouth piece of the government and bhutantimes.com. The victims have even accused the census officials of their attitude and arrogance in dealing with the public and warning that would one day create terrorism in provocation to their over jingoistic behavior. We have been, for last 20 years, crying foul of census and victimization with no patient listeners as Bhutan government has been aptly eluding simply alleging us with catch word of non-Bhutanese or economic migrants. Now let us see what the whole Bhutanese and the international community has to say on the same census used as instrument to victimize and evicted us when the lapses and mistakes are being spelt from the horse mouth.

Subba is the chairman of Human Rights Organization of Bhutan (HUROB)

For journalists without high altitude experience, SAFMA meet (April 26, 27) in Paro was awesome and demanding. For these journalists, acclimatizing in Paro, Bhutan’s only city with airport situated at 7000 feet above sea level, was challenging due to windy roads and related climatic factors. For easy immigration mechanisms to media persons, the Ministry of Information and Communications appointed five liaison officers and several supporting staffs in and around Thimphu. The Royal Government of Bhutan even chartered a special flight from Kolkata to carry SAFMA participants from Nepal and Srilanka.

PM Thinley interacts with SAFMA journalists in Paro

Equal Opportunity
Director of civil aviation, Phala Dorji, who is the media liaison officer, agreed that media gallery at national assembly hall where the SAARC submit takes place just contains 106 seats. Having failed to provide seats for all journalists, Bhutan finally decided to share opportunity on rotation basis. “We can’t accommodate all of them in the gallery but we’re drawing up plans so that everybody gets an opportunity,” various media reports quoted Dorji as saying, “we’ll distribute the 106 seats equally to all media so nobody is left out.”

According to this seat plan, SAFMA journalists will get 20 seats, while journalists covering the summit of their own will get 25 seats. Majority, but not all, of those journalists accompanying the member-country official delegation will get seat in the media gallery. More than 75 journalists confirmed their entry into Bhutan with various SAARC delegations. Similarly, some 60 media-persons including photographers and cameramen from the observer countries will reach Thimphu. A few of them will get the seat while others will be allowed to enter the hall only when their leaders address the summit.

The Ministry of Information and Communications has arranged an information center in Thimphu. This center will distribute video footage and photographs to those journalists who do not get opportunity to enter the summit hall. The state-owned television will make live telecast with proper access to newsfeed at information center from where the signal can be uplinked to any channel free of cost. Even the national radio station will transmit the signals from the information center. Possibly, no privately run FM stations or newspapers will be allowed to enter the media gallery due to lack of seats, and such a deal is usually a common media censorship in Bhutan.

Beyond SAARC
Bhutan is much afraid that such a large mass of journalists, almost tripling their number in Bhutan, would report other things besides SAARC events. Prior to SAARC summit, even reputed media like BBC and CNN have had little access to depth reporting from inside Bhutan. Mostly, Reuter’s reporters from India are seen first to have some access to government officials in Thimphu for reporting.

Bhutan contemplates that such a large influx of journalists during this SAARC is due to wide-spread speculations of India-Pakistan talk between Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani. It has been a common speculation on this issue during each SAARC summit since its formation. Away from this long-standing bilateral dispute, journalists would definitely explore hidden secrets on gross national happiness, regime-trumpeted democratic elections 2008 and crux of prolonged refugee crisis in the region.

Journalists, who have reached to Bhutan to cover-up SAARC, must be informed that dozens of refugee organizations and their leaders have written to SAARC member states asking to raise their concerns during the SAARC, be it formally or informally. Expelling over 100,000 citizens away from their homes, Bhutan is holding such a mega event without any hesitation for making these citizens stateless. Even those inside Bhutan are strictly warned not to speak to foreign journalists or accept international calls during SAARC session, and accordingly Phuentsholing border has presumably come to Nepal-India border for security check to filter entry of refugees into Bhutan. Therefore, these hatred refugee souls will definitely cry if journalists covering SAARC do not incorporate this issue in their reporting.

Right after restoration of democracy in Nepal in 1952, I traveled to Bhutan on bus through jungle and reached Kokrajha, a Bhutan’s border with India, where exiled Bhutanese were living. I was there with a feeling that there should also be democracy in Bhutan. Some Bhutanese friends in exile came to take me from Nepal; they said they had arranged everything for the travel. I stayed there for some months. There were protests. The misfortune was that several people were killed. The next misfortune was Bhutanese government expelled me from Bhutan when India alerted Bhutan that Girija Prasad Koirala was advocating for Greater Nepal’s concept inside Bhutan. There is a long history on this which I don’t want to elaborate. The only thing that I want to repeat is that I have sentimental and emotional attachment with Bhutan. 

Koirala releases Rizal's book - From Palace to Prison

And, everywhere, like for Aung San Suu ki in Burma, I am raising my voice against human rights violations. Regarding support from government, there are two contexts which everybody must understand. Government carries its deals one way, while the party does other. Rizal might have thought that my government didn’t do anything. The party has done everything for him. For any government issues of diplomacy and bilateral relations are important. Bhutanese refugee issue is not just a problem between Nepal and Bhutan, but is a tripartite issue between Nepal, Bhutan and India, and must be resolved accordingly. I stressed on this since refugees first crossed India and reached Nepal, where we accepted them on humanitarian ground. I made such proposals many times, but nothing could be achieved.

Many times in the past, I met the soft-spoken King of Bhutan, who was extra cautious while talking. I asked him to resolve the issue of Bhutanese refugee, which would even harm Bhutan in long run. He agreed to find a solution many times. But, finally he abdicated the throne to his son. When Bhutan was making its new constitution and taking about general election, I met Bhutanese Prime Minister during the SAARC summit in Srilanka. For materializing voluntary abdication of throne, he was told to give voting franchise to all Bhutanese citizens including refugees. That time also he assured, but nothing happened.

Koirala talks with Tek Nath Rizal

Regarding the third country resettlement of Bhutanese refugees, I have been telling with foreigners that Bhutan has not given citizenship status to refugees who have been living in Nepal. They have no country. But, they have come from Bhutan. There are Nepali citizens living in America. When they grow old they like to come to Nepal and die in Nepali soil. Similarly, Bhutanese refugees also have these sorts of sentiments. I asked people of international community why they don’t try to repatriate these refugees. I put pressure on those visiting officials of international communities.

I have seen Bhutanese refugees closely and am rendering all sorts of supports. And, I’ll continue supporting their mission, be possible or impossible. I have been raising voices against suppression on democracy and human rights.  I have been to Bhutan and seen those scenes; when Bhutanese army chased me several locals stopped me on the way saying not to return from Bhutan. My support and solidarity is there for you until your mission succeeds.  I feel that there is a global scenario which may lead to a solution one day; it’s my personal perception. If people like Tek Nath Rizal have contributed and sacrificed for human rights and democracy, I feel that such contributions never go unrewarded. So, there will be a solution of Bhutanese issue one day.

Jai Nepal!

(These unedited texts have been transcribed from an audio of Late Koirala recorded during a book release program, From Palace to Prison by Tek Nath Rizal on April 16, 2009 in Kathmandu, and photographs by Vidhyapati Mishra)

The attempts to end the isolation were long shattered by the leaders of Drukpa Buddhism in the past. Though efforts are still on hold, they are gradually becoming fragile, futile and reckless likely to plunge the nation into chaos due to differences in religious beliefs.

The differences within the two sub-sects of Mahayana Buddism followed in the country — Kagyupa and Nyingmapa — have been in place since the murder of Shabdrung incarnate. The easterners feel that their religion Nyingmapa has not only been ignored but also was pushed under crusade. Many Nyingmapa monks still today are serving jail sentences for raising voices against suppression of easterner’s religion.

Taking advantage of the declining pressure from east, the state devised strategies to demoralize the faith in south. The decades of eighties and nineties were precisely focused on eliminating Hinduism which culminated into expulsion of over one-fifth of the total population from six Hindu-dominated districts. Hinduism was regarded, through several former National Assembly resolutions, as one of the national cults along with Buddhism but was pushed aside when the country got its first written constitution.

Bhutan still remains adamant on discouraging Christianity, which in fact was formally banned till 2008, an irony to the fact that Christian guru Father Mackey received the royal honor of Son of Bhutan and lived in Thimphu for several years only to be expelled after death.

With politics becoming liberal, Christians in Bhutan are coming out in public. Thimphu and Gelephu have become their hubs with rapid expansion in other parts of the country. The government has been powerless to act against them like in past but still is discouraging its expansion. The efforts seem fruitless.

To tune with the trend, most Hindus in south have changed their faith for many reasons. For years, they remain suppressed and prosecuted for being Hindus. Christianity has become safer heaven for them after political liberalization. The Hindustan, though it boosts to be the protector of Hinduism, failed to hear the cries from Bhutanese Hindus for decades. The Hindu-India attached its interests only in extracting the gems in Bhutanese hills.

During a recent meet, India’s opposition leader Sushma Swaraj warned Bhutanese king for continued ignorance of Hindus in Bhutan. However it was already very late. Failing to get support from Hindu community and India, the Hindus from southern districts see no alternatives but to put their faith on Christianity for which they can receive a good bunch of support if they are ever misbehaved. A big world in west is ready to speak for Christians in Bhutan and is ready to support financially in their poverty.

Feeling aggrieved by the unprecedented expansion of Christianity network in Bhutan, India’s Hindu party BJP called on Bhutanese rulers for safer position for Hindus in Bhutan. The mission was on to open a chapter of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council) in Bhutan to revive Hinduism. Though the King bowed before the Swaraj’s warning, he tactically rejected presence of VHP in the country. Instead a Hindu Dharma Samudaya of Bhutan (HDSB) was announced.

With HDSB as an instrument, Bhutan is on foot to bridge the fragmented relation between Hindus and Buddhists. The objective was to stop Hindus being converted into Christians and put an obstruction on expansion of the Christian network. It seems most southerners and some from north and east have finally realized they can exist in this tiny kingdom only when they adopt Christianity — an indication of failure of their faith on India and other Hindu organizations worldwide. The new device of the government is certain to in vain.

The southerners who were prosecuted while being Hindus are still facing same consequences when they turn to pray Christ but hopes are high for they have larger world at the back, which has already started speaking in their favor.

It would be late for Bhutan if it fails to understand by now that religion and culture are preserved only under liberal and open policies rather not in isolation and restriction. There is hardly any hope for revival of Hindu-Buddhism nexus in Bhutan and heal the scars of prosecution for more than two decades. Christianity is in no mood to get bounced back from this land. Time is tickling for Bhutanese rulers to prove that Hinduism as a threat to survival of the Kagyupa and the Drukpa culture.

India perceives Bhutan’s democratic movement as one that has a strong ethnic character. In the adjacent area, the Gorkhas of Darjeeling hills have long been struggling to carve out a separate state for themselves. Neighboring Nepal is not easy on matters of national interests, like Bhutan. A resurgent Nepali speaking population in neighboring Bhutan could further catalyze that movement in Darjeeling and other parts of India. In its view, if properly unchecked, this population can transform the entire Himalayan politics to India’s disadvantage. No doubt, the government of the West Bengal state of India has been fighting hard to deny the Gorkhas of Darjeeling, their demand for a separate land.

When human rights and democracy itself are at stake, any government should step up into action in favor of these universal values. India, obviously has been missing that lesson. So, India cannot be a conduit for the resolution of the problem in the true interest of the Bhutanese people. Even though, India played the instrumental role in brokering peace and chasing out King Gyanendra from Narayanhiti, its approach in Bhutan’s case has remained just the opposite. India heavily favors the Bhutanese regime in place of the democratic forces, which has been a cause of apprehension for the Bhutanese democratic forces. India stands as a big stumbling block to their efforts to return to Bhutan. The Bhutanese dissidents feel that they have been betrayed both by their own country and by India.  In fact, they suspect, any mediation navigated by India could be counter productive to their inherent interests in Bhutan and for their movement. Therefore, neither the government of Nepal nor the Bhutanese political leaders in exile should desire India’s involvement in the process of resolving the Bhutanese imbroglio.

Some Bhutanese dissidents charge that the Bhutanese were first repressed by their own country Bhutan and secondly by India. The Indian police forces have arrested, jailed, tortured and shot the Bhutanese democratic activists in the Indian soil, while trying to cross to Bhutan. Surprisingly, they were ‘unnoticed’ when they crossed into Nepal in hordes but when they attempt to return to Bhutan, the Indian government intercepts even a single individual and either locks them up or deports them back to the refugee camps.

The ordeal of the Bhutanese refugees from the oppression from their own government has been matched only by a few autocratic countries. This writer is a witness to both.

Here is an example. On the morning of June 2nd 1999, I led a group of about 101 refugees from the various refugee camps in Nepal to Bhutan. By 8.00 am we were inside Phuntsholing town. Our plan was to put up a protest demonstration. We took out our party banners and started rallying. Before we could walk about 300 yards, the Royal Bhutan Police arrested all of us and walked us back to the building used for booking bus tickets. There, we were confined within the iron chains of building for a couple of hours. A few hours later, we were moved to a different building in the other side of the town, where we were again confined until 12.00 midnight within its iron chains. While inside the chained building we were manipulated, coerced and insulted.  At 12.00 midnight, two Indian state buses arrived and we were led into the buses forcefully. I was seated in the front seat, close to the driver with four alert, Bhutanese policemen guarding me with automatic guns. The bus swiftly moved. When it arrived at Jaigaon, the adjoining Indian town, local Indian authorities greeted and welcomed the Bhutanese team. The Indians took charge and we were driven towards Nepal during the night. Each bus was secured by convoy vehicles of the Indian police force.

By morning we were brought to Panitanki, a small town near the Nepal India border. Then the Indian policemen lined us up and escorted us for about half a kilometer through the tea gardens and finally we reached a steep slope from where we could see the Mechi river. Then, we were ordered to climb down the slope, cross the river and walk into Nepal, while the Indian police men stood on the top pointing guns at us. They did not want us to walk over the Mechi bridge which connects Nepal and India.

Such incidences and even more serious ones repeated every time the Bhutanese democratic forces attempted to return home. The arrest and incarceration of Rongthong Kuenley Dorji in New Delhi is a clear example of how Indian government uses each and every opportunity to punish Bhutanese leaders who oppose the Thimphu regime.

During my stay in lock up inside Bhutan, I have found out that Bhutan is looking for answers in easy places. My impression was that Bhutan government basically views this problem as an administrative issue. It does not in way see the need to solve the problem politically. And there lies the crux. As long as Bhutan does not feel this problem is a political one, needing a political solution, it will not be resolved. Thimphu sends its beaurocrats as emissaries to talk to dissident leaders when they protest inside Bhutan. The outcome of the bilateral talks would have been different if it was approached with a purest political sense.

Indian double standard has also been seen during Bhutan’s transition to ‘democracy’. Instead of lending its support to the struggling democratic forces, the Indian government sided with the  autocratic regime. Bhutan’s Constitutional development did not happen in the villages of Bhutan. Bhutan inherited its first Constitution as a gift from India. Only a few handpicked courtiers of the King were involved in drafting the Constitution. Unfortunately, the central government of India, which is a coalition government of several political parties did not foresee that the Constitution they gifted could kill pluralism in Bhutan.

Apparently, Bhutan’s much touted transition to democracy piloted by the king is a sham. The abdication of the throne and the election was a political gimmick. Monarchy is still the most powerful institution in Bhutan. Elections do not ensure the emergence of democracy, they do happen even in countries governed by authoritarian rulers. Bhutan’s ‘democracy’ did not provide any political space to the dissident groups functioning in exile. A third political party formed and operating inside the country was declined registration by the Royal Election Commission and therefore, could not participate in the polls. Neither, did it lift the ban on political parties struggling for the establishment of democracy and human rights in Bhutan.

The elected government has not imbibed a culture of political tolerance and respect for political pluralism. It feels revolted if anyone tries to genuinely criticize its malevolent actions and policies. The government still tortures political prisoners to extract information and to weaken the dissent. It still considers the refugees as ‘illegal immigrants.’  ‘Change’ has not really come to Bhutan in its true meaning.

One finds hard to reconcile how a Constitution devoid of a real Bhutanese flavor can represent the aspiration of the people. The constitution does not envisage a truly inclusive democracy for all the political minorities in the body politics of Bhutan. Approximately 30,000 southern Bhutanese who are related to the refugees but living inside Bhutan and 100,000 Bhutanese refugees in exile were disenfranchised in the general elections of 2008. Bhutan has not learned lessons from recent political developments Nepal.

Conclusion:
Despite India’s cynicism, it is clear that Bhutan’s democratic movement will continue to grow. There is a large section of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal and India who would favor repatriation to Bhutan in the first place. Those refugees who have accepted resettlement may not fight anymore to return to Bhutan, but they will still continue to love Bhutan. They will continue to speak out in favor of democracy and human rights. For many of them, the desire to sustain and stay the course of the struggle for democracy in Bhutan is a core mission of life. The resettlement program has reshaped the general landscape of the Bhutanese movement. In fact, it has triggered an ambitious international campaign on the part of the refugees to lobby favorable parties and governments in favor of the Bhutanese movement for democracy and human rights.

If India continues to nurse its own agenda of coaxing the King, she may lose her own credibility in the international arena. The Bhutanese haven taken stories of Indian paranoia to every country of settlement. India should clearly stay away from an active involvement in cooking a solution to the Bhutanese problem. But it would be a big help if they could educate the Bhutanese government on the long term benefits of instituting an inclusive democracy, rule of law and allowing the dignified return of willing citizens from exile to Bhutan.

One of the reasons of eviction Nepali-speakers in early 1990 was our endeavour to widen the scope of Nepali language, Nepali culture in that tiny Himalayan kingdom. Since culture forms the basic ingredient for literary creations which in turn bring waves of renaissance, it was obvious on part of the Druk regime to carve out strategies to limit expansion of Nepali literature.

The early years of settlement as refugees in Nepal, under misery forming sky as the roof, cramped literary talents of the suppressed and oppressed Bhutanese community in exile. The formation of Nepali Bhasa Parishad, Bhuta, (later renamed as Nepali Sahitya Parishad) and its followers injected emotions, enthusiasm, love and above all greater attachment to Nepali literature among Bhutanese exiles.

Technical backwardness and financial constraints were major causes behind lack of accelerated progress in Nepali literature in the exile Bhutanese community. Very few publications born but fade out to vain and others lost battle of survival in the span of nearly two decades in exile. The empty bellies, naked bodies and absence of a good platform ruled the society and thus squeezed the creative talents within huts to shut up their imaginations.

The resettlement and subsequent exposure to technology has opened up doors for the show. The older generation might face it tough to adjust but a array of youngsters is on the battlefield to revive the fading image of Bhutanese literature. An example to this front is the bhutaneseliterature.com, operated from Norway. Few years back, writers preferred publishing books and were reluctant to the call for online publications. I personally experienced ignorance or ‘no response’ from many new talents or leading littérateurs of the community when I called them to contribute their creations to start a literary site. It was certainly a lack of exposure and knowledge of the impact that internet superhighway has in modern society.

Ramesh Gautam, one of the founders of the forum

However, it is good beginning that Bhutanese Literature is doing at this hour. Under the loose network, the founders of the forum – Dona Acharya, Ramesh Gautam, Rup Narayan Pokhrel, Sanchaman Khaling and Yati raj Ajnabee – see the rays of hope at the end of the tunnel. The early responses are overwhelming and encouraging.

“BL aims at being a global platform for literature from Bhutan, for writers, readers and the lovers of literature,” says Ramesh Gautam.

The forum has the challenges as well. With similar sentiments and same stories the resettled Bhutanese are obvious to join this movement. The tough would be – how will it bridge gap created among Nepali speakers of Bhutan and those living in exile, during the last two decades. The founders say, they hope things will change with time.

In my conversation with many Nepali speakers in Thimphu, Phuentsholing, Samdrup Jongkhar, Paro, Gelephu and other southern districts, I learnt that status of Nepali language is far below than we can imagine in Bhutan. A whole set of new generation perfectly does not know how to read Nepali. Nepali as a language in Bhutan has just turned like a dialect – people speak but it has no script. The yarn for learning Nepali language may take some years as love for English has ever grown to apex, being the only communicable language in this multi-lingual country.

Bhutan Literature will face tough time to get connected with Bhutanese Nepalis in Bhutanese – and getting literary creations from them would be a tedious travel. The sustainability of BL as pure Bhutanese literature site will be determined by the response it gets from within Bhutan.

“Bhutanese Literature now hopes to transform itself into a FOUNDATION which will eventually function well for the promotion of literature. We hope to work for the preservation of language and culture too. We need to remember that the children growing in abroad may soon forget the language; the children who are born there will be learning no Nepali if we don’t take initiative to take care of it. In a long run BL too will try to reach it,” they say.

In essence, BL anticipate contributing in other language – English and Dzongkha, the other two prominent languages spoken in the country. Tshangla without any script obvious will be left out of the forum.

“We have been publishing the articles on the two languages and we hope to start it in Dzongkha once we have someone to work for,” Gautam said.

“English articles should be good options to be accepted from inside Bhutan but we expect that we should work for Nepali language there too. Road map is not ready.”

Literature has germinated beyond borders and is well fed in primary phase. But it is the need of the hour that it takes extraordinary efforts to inject love for literature inside Bhutan and keep itself as a pure Bhutanese literature promotion forum.

I worked for weeks in advance to obtain clearance from the relevant authorities to photograph the colorful Opening Ceremony presided over by the Druk Gyalpo. I had never before photographed the Opening Session of the National Assembly and so this was a big moment for me. From what I have seen in the BBS TV, the grandeur, the setting and the regality of the event is unmatched. I met and sought advice from the Hon’ble Speaker and the Secretary of the National Assembly on how best to photograph the event; which gates to enter through and ran through the entire gamut of the DOs and DONTs of photographing in the great Hall.

Both the Hon’ble Speaker and the Secretary of the National Assembly (with whom I had separate meetings) explicitly told me that I could photograph the Opening Session. However, they categorically stated that I am not allowed to photograph His Majesty the King. That was a blow – for me personally as a photographer as well as an adoring subject, it would be such a life time opportunity to be able to photograph His Majesty the King presiding over the Opening Ceremony of the National Assembly.

Among the birding community of the world, there is a term known as “life bird”. What it means is that the birder has never seen a certain bird ever before in his life and so on a given birding trip, his entire focus is on sighting his “life bird”. Everything else is secondary. Similarly, as a photographer, I would have hit my proverbial high Note the day I get to photograph his Majesty the King. But obviously, 20th November, 2009 was not that day for me. Well, no matter, perhaps one day I too will be lucky enough to get my “life bird” but for now, I will just concentrate on the Opening Ceremony.

The rules of the game were clearly understood. I obtained my “MEDIA” Card from the Chief Security Officer of the RBP. I resolutely adhered to my resolve of the night before not to drink my customary one flask of black tea that morning so that I don’t have to keep running to the loo instead of shooting the Opening Ceremony. I checked to see that all my camera bodies and lenses were packed in the bag, I checked every lens to see that the UV filters were all dismounted (attention photographers: when you have to shoot in dim light, remove the UV filter to allow in more light – it helps). I checked to see that I had extra battery for each of my 3 camera bodies that I was carrying; I checked to see that I had enough memory cards to last me through the Ceremony. It was all systems GO!

And now the anti-climax! – when the moment finally arrived, I was not only prohibited from photographing the proceedings of the Opening Ceremony, but I was also barred from sitting in the Hall, even after I repeatedly gave my assurance that I will not engage my camera. I was unceremoniously ushered out of the Assembly Hall with one officious looking roundish girl offering to give me a photograph of His Majesty, if that were my wish. I am not sure if she was mocking me or sympathizing with me for my misfortune, but for sure she did not know the unwritten rule among professional photographers: no professional photographer worth his salt will want to use other photographers’ images. In fact, it is considered an insult to suggest such a thing! She had the audacity to further announce to me that even Kuensel photographers were not allowed. WOW!! That is certainly news! I know that in the past, other photographers have been barred but never, ever before in the history of the National Assembly was a Kuensel photographer ever disallowed from photographing the proceedings. In fact, it was mandatory that they are there without fail. So then what unknown upheavals had taken place in this country without my knowing about it? Has apartheid actually arrived in Bhutan? I remember that almost three decades ago, a chilip journalist had fumed and commented that Bhutan practiced “apartheid in reverse”.

I am truly baffled! I have time and again been told that the Speaker of the National Assembly had sole authority to grant or disallow permission to photograph the proceedings of the National Assembly. I was given to believe that in matters concerning the Parliament and its conduct and proceedings, his authority and power exceeded even those of the government. That is the reason why I explicitly sought and obtained his permission to photograph the Session. Had I known that some other agency had the legitimate authority and power to override him, I would have attempted to seek that organization’s permission as well.

It does not seem correct that the government has not yet put in place a central authority to oversea such matters instead of making it possible for every one to issue and impose rules and restrictions at will – as and when they please. Lot of confusion and hardship to the citizens of this country can be avoided if all those who think they have a need to impose their rules and restrictions channel their impositions through a nominated central authority that has been appropriately mandated with a proper legal basis to do so. This way, new rules and regulations can be disseminated with effectiveness through one single source so that unsuspecting people like me are not caught unawares. It will also prevent incidences of someone actually challenging the legitimacy of the authority that is imposing an out-of-turn restriction at the last minute.

On the stairway leading to his office, I ran into His Excellency the Opposition Leader who asked me if I was getting good photos. I told him I have been thrown out of the Hall. He looked startled and pained and muttered something kind which did little to suppress the anger that was welling up within my chest. I needed to get out of the complex fast before I did something stupid and get myself into a situation about which I would live to regret later.

As I was driving out of the parking lot, a friend stopped me to enquire if the Opening Session was over. It hadn’t even begun, but I told him yes it was over. He was puzzled that it should be over so fast. I informed him that the Opening Session of the 4th Session of the National Assembly qualifies as the shortest and the fastest in the history of Bhutan’s National Assembly. With that I drove off; I was in no mood for small talk.

I am angry and I feel cheated and deprived and my right as an equal citizen abused but there is nothing I can do about it or anyone to whom I can complain about it without risking serious repercussions. I simply cannot risk distortion of truth. I am old enough and wise enough to know that it is best for me to take it in my stride. But somehow, I need to vent my frustrations so that it helps me to put this detestable episode behind me and to move on. So here I am, within the confines of my own private weblog, pouring out my frustrations in the hope that, at the end of it, my anger and frustration is smothered to an extent that it is no longer a pulsating, throbbing pain in my temple.

Very few people know of the hard work and the pain and planning that goes behind creating beautiful and appealing images. But as a passionate and committed photographer, it is commonplace for me that each of my pursuits does not yield a great photograph. I have grown to consider every defeat as a challenge to strive even harder, to capture that one perfect shot in the way I visualize it. I am never disappointed at my failed attempts at photographing a rare or flighty bird or a beautiful peak exposed in all its majesty. I will try again and again and keep trying, until I get it! After all, if it were that easy to get great shots, any Tom, Dick and Harry would qualify to be called a photographer.

In the life of a photographer, daily challenges thrown up by the uncompromising nature of the natural world is nothing new. I live it and triumph over it from frame to frame. In fact, I find that more difficult the pursuit, greater is the reward and satisfaction of achievement. But at times there are situations and occasions engineered by fellow humans that no amount of commitment or good intention or hard work can yield results. It is at these times and in such situations that I have to concede defeat – times such as the 20th of November, 2009 when prohibition was imposed on me from recording the historical moment of the Opening of the 4th Session of Bhutan’s National Assembly; times when I am even barred from sitting in the Assembly Hall – let alone photograph the event.

Photography is not an exact science – it is a creative process. Only in automated factory assembly lines it happens that the outcome of each and every process is exactly the same in all respects. By contrast, every photographer’s work will differ from one to the other. Each will compose and frame and apply totally different perspectives to the same subject or scene. It is an expression of individual creativity and thus, no two individuals will produce an identical work. Therefore, it is my belief that allowing only one or two photographers to record the country’s historical events, each of which are unique in themselves, would be to limit and stifle the scope and scale of things. I do not mean to challenge the competence of the photographers but that there are others who could provide differing and more interesting perspectives to the same events. Participation by other photographers should not be misconstrued as competition but as something that will add variety.

The historical moments of which they are a part, belong to the people of Bhutan and must be recorded and archived for the benefit of posterity. Towards that endeavor, it is my belief that no single individual photographer can claim to be able to do the job so well and so perfectly that others are not required to render interpretation of the same event from a different perspective.

I am not a gawk-eyed tourist bearing an idiot camera and pointing it at His Majesty to take a mug shot. I am a professional photographer with the world’s very best professional gear attempting to record a piece of history that is in the making. If anything, people should be happy that I am contributing to the collective enrichment of our history, instead of chasing me away from a place to which I have gained lawful entry to conduct an authorized activity from an authority empowered to grant such permissions.

From all the reports and images in the media, His Majesty goes to great lengths to endear Himself to His subjects. All those beautiful and heart-warming images of Him hugging and embracing His subjects, holding small children in His arms, laughing and smiling away with His people all indicate that His Majesty truly and genuinely wishes to identify Himself with His people with whom I am told He is most at home. Therefore, I think it is wrong on the part of the government to put up barriers and deny licensed professionals like me the occasional opportunity to proliferate the mystique and the enigma that is the Druk Gyalpo.

It is a pity and a great injustice that even while being in the thick and thin of it, I as a professional photographer, with the very best of equipment and the necessary credentials do not have a single credible image of the country’s greatest and most illustrious Icon, to prove that I am a worthy photographer. It is not that I didn’t try – I tried every occasion that presented me an opportunity but every time I was shooed away like I was a leper. It is as if these people think that I am not responsible enough to know how to acquire the images of His Majesty or what to do thereafter.

No matter, for the moment, I have no choice but to eat humble pie and give up my aspirations of photographing the National Assembly. I will not do so hence forth. However, I hope that times will change and those people who currently deny me my life opportunity to photograph my King will move on and be replaced by ones who can introduce a system of separating the wheat from the chaff – instead of erecting an impregnable barrier around a photographic subject of such unparalleled appeal and allure.

Until then, I will bid my time – if ever it will come.

(Reproduced from his blog – Bhutan: Land of the Thunder Dragon, posted on November 23, 2009)

A Bhutanese student in St Joseph College, Darjeeling reject the call for wearing local dress

The ministry was concerned about the students after the Gorkha Janamukti Morcha (GJM), the agitating political party for a separate state in the hills, imposed compulsory use of ethnic dress for all students there.

The GJM had prescribed the dress code early this year for general residents. With the announcement, most hill residents began revising their traditional dresses – gunyu-cholo for females and daura-suruwal-topi for males. Bhutanese students boycotted it.

In early October, the party announced that all students must adhere by the prescribed dress code. Bhutanese students studying in various colleges here again rejected the call saying it was not their cultural or ethnic dress. In several occasions, the Bhutanese students, who prefer pant-short over gho and kira in Darjeeling and Kalimpong, submitted letters to the local leaders of GJM and their alliance urging them not to impose the dress code for Bhutanese.

Seeing that all those residents, especially from Bhutan, did not adhere by the order, the GJM cadres have been mobilized in most schools and colleges to monitor to ensure that the students come with the Nepali (rather Gorkhali) dress to study. All those not abiding by the rule were returned from school and college gates.

The panic penetrated throughout the Bhutanese students and it invited emotional fright to their parents. Compulsion to wear a dress that is not traditionally their, is beyond assumption and tolerance. The pains in heart rule so much for the Bhutanese students that it certainly cannot be translated into words, cannot be expressed in voices.

Meghraj Gurung (right), a council member of Center for Bhutan Studes (CBS) obeys order for wearing local dress

Not aware of the political freedom, right to protests and right to wear any dress as enshrined by the universal principal of human rights, Bhutanese students in Darjeeling and Kalimpong have gone through mental stress and psychological torture. The only option for them is to appeal the agitators.

In fact, primary reasons lie elsewhere. Wearing gunyu-cholo and daura-suruwal is not unfitting for Bhutanese students. It is rather a hatred that Bhutanese society inculcated in them as they grow up. The hatred to this Nepali-dress had reached a peak when Nepali-speaking population opposed the government decision in Bhutan in late 1980s to make gho-and kira as compulsory dress, even in field for the Nepali-speaking population who live in tropical south.

The Bhutanese authorities have already started lobbying the parents to transfer their children to other schools in India if GJM continues to impose the dress code. The Bhutanese authorities have instructed them, indirectly, not to adhere by the dress code as it is not their cultural wear. The hatred continues…

The panic and psychological torture that Nepali-speaking population undergone since 1980s in Bhutan must have been reflected in the hearts of the Bhutanese rulers for now. For decades, Bhutanese rulers did not show any concern on panic that Nepali-speaking southern Bhutan citizens tolerated due to imposition of dress of other ethnic group. The driglam namzha code is still in effect in Bhutan.

The Darjeeling-Kalimpong incident is a minor case. The GJM has not compelled the Bhutanese to follow Hindu rituals and culture. The extent of panic that Bhutanese rulers might feel this time is beyond imagination if the GJM made it compulsory for a certain specific rituals and cultures to be followed by the resident in Gorkhaland hills copying the ideas unveiled by Bhutan some two decades ago.

In fact, the ‘one nation one people’ policy is stricter than this minor imposition of gunyu-cholo-daura-suruwal in Gorkhaland. The Gorkha move is not only for protecting ethnic identity in democratic India but also to teach the tyrants in Bhutan that such imposition has limits to tolerate.

Attachment to culture in which one born cannot be explained in words. Bhutanese leaders must understand this. Learning lessons from the panic they endured by GJM imposition, the government in Bhutan has good opportunity to revise its policy on dress code.

The show continues

The fools were selected from through out the country through an extravagant pooling by the people. A university diploma, a document to verify a fool not a fool was the only criteria needed for them to be eligible for the contest. The best of the clowns, selected through audience vote are called to the august fool’s assembly twice a year. For the two shows they are paid and fed through out the year. The first character in the fools that impressed their voters was their costumes: it must be colorful, heavy and very attractive to see. Their first elegant appearance on the show sent the voters satisfied to their choice that they voted in the best fool of their locality.  They were well costumed. If the wisdom were expressed by their clothes, they were the wisest people in the world. And if popularity were measured through costumes, they were the most looked after celebrities.

But the toughest part was that they had to entertain through talking. They would sit adjacent to each other and talk in turn facing to moderators in the front. It was not funny. So to make the show appealing, they were made to speak in an ape’s accent and sound, which lacked vocabulary. It was much fun to see the fools talking and expressing their commotions in their ancestor’s language.

When one fool speaks other fool does not understand. To make the things easier, the motions are distributed in their common language. They can prepare their monologues, ask for and speak in a turn. The moderator in the front gives the turn and the fools speak the monologues. They don’t understand each other by meaning but has to guess from accents. To the amusement thirsty audience it is like hearing the conversation between two deaf fighters. They showed a fine show in the beginning. But the problem was that the fools began to shirk from the assembly. It was difficult to bring them to the show. Then, they were promised a sitting fee. Besides their salary and allowances, they were promised an attractive sitting fee just for being present in the assembly. It worked in a fantastic way. The fools would arrive early in the morning even before the watchmen could open the door and bang to register their entry, and would not leave the hall till late night. Although the plan to bring the fools to the show was successful, it was too expensive for the show. Alternatives were needed. The cheaper way to make them accustomed to the hall was internet. The sitting fee was repealed and internet was joined. Another problem, instead of entertaining the audience through their speech, the fools was engaged in making personal blogs, on line chats and visiting pornographic The internet connection had to be removed.

Then they were focused on live telecast. The show would be broadcasted live in national television. It was effective, but the protest from the print media was tough. If the TV showed the show, the printed papers will have no readers. So the job of disseminating the words of fools was given to the print media. They write which fools said what and how. The fools are yet to get comfortable with the new vocabulary and yet to accustom learn the best way to entertain.

Then they were given a show where they can act practically. In this part of the plot, they were allotted as much money as they needed. They had to use the money on the people who voted them as the most fool of their area. They could use the money in the way they liked. To watch them use the money is entertaining. One of the fools went to get the idea from a monk in the monastery. The monk advised him to do a ceremony to chase ghosts from the villages. They are preparing now. Another fool decided to buy two big flat stones so that people could grind their grains there instead of using grinding machine which is less eco friendly. One fool decided to ferry the people across the rivers, so that people who never had an experience of crossing a river could experience it. Yet another pumps the cow to sell white water to those across the border. The list goes on and the entertainment industry’s newspapers run thick during the show. If God blesses for continuation of the show, the new entrants in media industries will have adequate recipe to serve its customers.

Three assemblies were successful to entertain the people and the fourth is set to begin from November 20. The place is Tashi’s dzong in the capital. No entry fee is charged. The door closes when the seats are full.

The problem began shortly after enthronement of Wangcha Sangey as the new executive chief of the company already reeling under heavy debts. The resignation did bring some contrasting reactions from locals and global viewers. While onus to speak reality behind the incidence lies with the players, outsiders can only play with what has been said and seen physically.

In its editorial in the first issue after the mass resignation, the weekly indirectly blamed the journalists for failing to do their part on protecting democracy that is taking root very recently.

It is strange that private media was commissioned by the Fourth King to protect and promote democracy. Yet, the darker and more scarier side of democracy is also filtering in from the side of the media itself. It has been the dream of every Bhutanese to present a democracy that is as unique as its origin from the throne. A democracy that reflects and is hinged on our development aspirations of Gross National Happiness. This was stirred and shaken with the solidarity march which emanated mostly from people in the media.

The speakers who dared not to speak anything about democracy till some years back, alleging it to be a political form that destroys national harmony, now links everything with democracy. The editorial failed to mention how the management played role in protecting democracy while imposing its interest on editorial team. Media plays its role in democracy only when it is let to work independently, especially, letting the editorial team to decide what to write and what not. Management can suggest, not impose.

The ethnic discrimination continues to pass through Bhutanese mind despite reshuffle in the political system and adopting democracy. According to disgruntled journalists, the CEO warned the editor to realize this ‘social standing’, indirectly hinting this Nepali-origin editor to be a citizen of lesser status. In many occasion, the ruling community people term people of Nepali-origin to be migrant or from Nepal. The sore reached its peak in 1990 and is still not healed.

This group, who worked as voice of the people, became voiceless when they stepped out of the paper. None of the newspapers supported their cause of working for editorial independence. The first daily, in fact the only daily, Bhutan Today even challenged these journalists of trying to kill Bhutan Times and take up job in a new newspaper. Business Bhutan, the weekly magazine also supported the management of Bhutan Times. The way papers presented themselves has clearly paved a highway for the management to impose their interests in other media outlets as well in future. This is darker side of the free media in new democracy.

The new management of the paper showed its cruelty at the first show. From the day Sangey entered the company as CEO, he supposedly cut down tea budget for the reporters. According to him, it was necessary step to cut unnecessary expenses to bring down the losses company has been incurring. On the other side he, as chief of the board of directors of the company, increased his salary. While former CEO was given Nu 60,000 a month, this new CEO will take Nu 110,000 per month as salary. Will cost cutting measures like slashing tea budget cover this expense for CEO? The attempt of the new CEO to protect his step is questionable when it comes to relieving the company from debts. And possibly, the new CEO might have already chosen other reporters who can work in lesser budget under his command.

Right after the resignation, the Bhutan InfoComm and Media Authority (BICMA) wrote the CEO to submit the list of new journalists working with the paper with their credentials. It was a regular duty for BICMA as prescribed by law. The new CEO hired team from K4 Media, another private media company planning for a new monthly magazine shortly, to bring out the new issue of the weekly paper. The outgoing of the seven reporters and entry of K4 Media people within a few minutes time seems to be a drama already planned in advance. In other sense, Sangey had already contacted the K4 Media group to take up the job when reporters are likely to go out under force.

The reply CEO wrote to BICMA also reflects his personality as a media owner. This man has, proved worst in work history while in Royal Insurance Company of Bhutan, claimed himself to be a ‘senior citizen of 57 years with a track record of proven capabilities and established credentials’ and added the letter from the BICMA insulted his personality.

He writes,
BICMA shares the ruthless strategy of the BT News Room renegades to close down the publication of the news paper. And that you feel it is the right time to strike down Bhutan Times Newspaper which is the only news corporation independent of government or individual proprietorship influence in the the Kingdom of Bhutan. BICMA’s another stand is that the state must approve the editorial team which means the state controls the news. BICMA could do a great media sensitization service for the general public if you broadcast your vaunted “Provision of the Act” that dictates “Editorial Team” of “Free Media” must be approved by the state authority and this is legislated by a democratic parliament. I can see one silver lining for the near bankrupt Bhutan Times. Would the state pay the salaries of the state approved editorial team?

His response published in his paper instead of sending it to BICMA offices, also ironically blamed former Kuensel chief and secretary of the ministry of communication, Kinley Dorij, who rather has no links in the dispute. Sangey wrote,
Let me also state herein what you already know as a matter of historical Bhutanese media hierarchy. That the present secretary of the Ministry of Communication and Information, who is your boss, was for a long time both the CEO and the Editor-in-Chief of Kuensel Corporation. That Tenzin Rigden, the former CEO of Bhutan Times, was also executing the role of the Editor-in-Chief after Tashi P. Wangdi left Bhutan Times. In fact, the editor, Gopilal Acharya, was transferred as a regional reporter. I brought him back to do the job of the editor. Therefore, the objection of BICMA is directed against me as an individual and has nothing to do with editorial interference.

In sum, this is a bad precedence set in the budding media industry and a great instrument for management in other media outlets to impose their interest in new room, softly killing free media, in future. Management in Bhutan media comes from the bureaucracy and business circles that fostered under the absolute regime talking for years against democracy, rights, freedom of expression and trade unions. Under new face, the same people have groomed the liberal society to take advantage of their privileges otherwise provided them by closed and uneducated Bhutanese society.