Denounce inhuman rule in Bhutan
Bhutan, long plagued by the absolute regimes of King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, and his son now, has reached the point of critical crisis. The kings have decided to hold a general election, in 2008, to choose a 'democratic' government in Bhutan. Interestingly, the regime has formed two political parties recently with similar names as those of the banned political parties of the exiled Bhutanese people in India and Nepal.
It may be recalled that the regime did the same thing to two of the exiled newspapers, run by Bhutanese citizens. It appears that "systematic disinformation" is the new name of the game. Even a humble illiterate can understand what the regime is doing to counter the popularity of exiled groups and wipe them out of the international community's minds'.
The original Druk National Congress of Rongthong Kinley had challenged this tactic as they wished to contest in the elections. The Royal government, in the past, arrested and imprisoned several leaders from Bhutan Peoples' Party thus making it impossible for them to contest elections. Thousands of people, who have languished in camps in Nepal for over one-and-half decade (comprising no less than 20 percent of the population), were forced to flee from their homes in southern Bhutan. It should be noted the process of ethnic cleansing involved widespread rape as a weapon. Hundreds of Sharchops from eastern Bhutan are still imprisoned for having participated in peaceful demonstration in 1997 against the Bhutanese government's atrocities. Unrest continues unabated as have violent crackdown and gross breach of human rights.
The kings, both father and son – stubborn and unrepentant as ever – have vowed to not accept Lhotshampas taking refuge in Nepal. They have also dismissed international criticism against the Royal regime as unfortunate and misleading and accused their critics as being Ngolops (anti-nationals). They maintain such criticism fails to acknowledge the great strides that Bhutan is making towards Gross National Happiness (GNH). Although anti-government feelings are prompted by the regime's lack of respect for human and political rights for Lhotshampas, its leaders' inability to be united is also to be blamed for the plight of the Lhotshampas.
The crisis in Bhutan raises familiar questions about the lack of due responsibility by the international community. Particularly that of India, which seeks UN Security Council seat and champions freedom and democracy. Some would argue that the United States, Canada and the European Union should have jointly and severally pressurized India to make Bhutan repatriate all its citizens from Nepal and India, instead of offering resettlement in their countries. Others say that Bhutan would come to negotiating table only if Maoist like-force comes into existence in Bhutan. Some are beginning to compare the Lhotshampa's case as being similar to that of Madhises in Nepal while it is a fact that they were exiled whereas Madheses are not yet in the situation. With the exception of Rongthong Kinley and Thinley Penjore, and few others, who are already in exile, there are hardly any other non-Lhotsampas inside Bhutan who dare to speak against the Wangchuck's rule so far. They don't speak not because they don't want but because they fear for their lives.
Some argue that the world has no business interfering with or even commenting on the internal affairs of a sovereign state. This principle is exceptionally convenient for dictators and/or people who don't wish to be bothered about the well being of others. It is a dangerous principle that actually, in its adherence, paved the way for the likes of Hilter, Stalin and Idi Amin. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck was busy evicting Lhotshampas from southern Bhutan.
It is not suggested that the world should intervene to impose political change in Bhutan. It is suggested that global and regional organizations and individual governments should make known their support for human rights and democratic practices, in Bhutan as elsewhere, in a transparent manner; without diplomatic double talk. The exiled Bhutanese have suffered enough. They should get a chance to be repatriated with dignity and honor back to Bhutan. The election in Bhutan, without the participation of all Bhutanese citizens, will remain incomplete and its legitimacy suspect— and challenged thus leading to prolonged conflict and political instability.
The political parties in exile should be asked to participate in the election to parliament in 2008, if the Bhutanese regime is for true democracy with participation by all. Should electoral democracy be denied to no less than 20 percent of the citizens of Bhutan, the process deserves the world's widest condemnation.
Given King Father Jigme Singye Wangchuck's consistent unwillingness to respect the legitimate complaints of his people, and the sufferings of exiled Bhutanese for over 17 years, this is not the time for 'quiet diplomacy' for Nepal. This is the time for all nations to speak out for the larger interest of regional and sub-regional peace and security. Most notably, India cannot remain tight lipped any longer. The exiled Bhutanese want to go to the land of their birth. This is their priority. Resettlement is the last option for them.
A just and lasting solution to economic, political and social quagmires, including the exiled Bhutanese issue, is to open dialogue with Bhutanese leaders who have been struggling for human and political rights for the last one decade and half. One could break the ice and start dialogue beginning with the petition submitted by the Royal Advisory Counselors from south Bhutan in 1989, which later became the human rights charter for the exiled Bhutanese. This has been the common ground on which all leaders rallied to lead the historic socio-political movement in Bhutan that actually caused the Royal regime to relent and move away from a party-less absolute monarchy to a new regime of constitutional monarchy and multi-party parliamentary democracy.
As it did in the case of the Maoist and seven political parties in Nepal, India could very easily facilitate talks between the relevant Bhutanese political parties in exile and the rulers in Thimphu, which could lead to an understanding based on support for democracy, respect for the legitimate rights of all and a strong, independent Bhutan. Simultaneously, the Bhutanese regime should cease its abusive practices, repeal draconian laws and bring the electoral code into line with regional and international standards.
Parliamentary elections should be transparent, free and fair and should be duly monitored by international observers. Should the Royal family members run for Prime Ministership, they should make sure that there is no intimidation and fear amidst the electorate (running against them), to demonstrate equality for all, before the law of the land. Members of the opposition, including exiled Bhutanese and banned political parties, should unite and speak with a single, strong voice. In this way they can demonstrate to the citizens of Bhutan, and to the world, that there is a viable and patriotic alternative to the repressive and misguided leadership under which the county has suffered for so long. Leaders need to sacrifice their egos and reconcile their personal differences for the common good of a united Bhutanese kingdom that is free from the threats of civil war and terrorism.
(The author is a former Bhutanese diplomat and human rights activist. He can be reached at: [email protected])