Disguising Bhutanese Happiness
The relation of happiness with democracy is one of the most confronting questions today. As happiness is inherently subjected to the state of natural rights and exercise of freedom, it is clear that democracy without happiness is almost dysfunctional. After the end of Hitler and Stalin rule, the world acknowledged the cohesive need of happiness to enhance the growth of democracy. Despite the fact that democracy without happiness is unsustainable, there are growing evidences that support the need of tyranny, absolutism, brutalism and despotism to gain the state of happiness. Whether it is Bhutan with the concept of happiness or it is Afghanistan with the theories of peace and security, the ideas are blurred. I am not trying to dramatize the diabolical posture of Bhutanese democracy, but I am intending to laugh at the decisions of those nations who believed in the euphemistic language of Bhutanese monarchy to define the state of happiness in Bhutan.
Despite knowing the fact that the Bhutanese chaotic democracy lacks materialistic prosperity, political integration, religious tolerance and cultural harmony, the Bhutanese government focuses on happiness, which is like subtle and immoral. Though not adequately explained to turn it like a philosophy, rood of happiness in Bhutan is clear and dynamic. In the context of Bhutan, it is an act of diplomatic immunity aiming to opposite the acts of the deposited Bhutanese king and government to maintain the national sovereignty and democratic identity envisioned to avoid international criticism.
The elitist Bhutanese, who are living in Bhutan, are aware of the fact that the substantial development of Bhutan is only possible if the power of the king is substantially decreased. If not, the King and so called democratic government should abolish the theory of “one nation, one people” in practice. Firstly, the king’s parliament is politically influenced by India, so that it is always successful to atomize the political interest of the citizen. As India directs and co-ordinates the interest of the Bhutanese government, it is always advantageous to gain the profit in both explicit and implicit form. The involvement of Indian diplomacy is an essence for both nations because it helps for atomization rather than political integration. Nevertheless, the theory of atomization fails if and only if foreign imperialistic nature does not exist and the government fails to stop the growing concept of egalitarianism. Obviously, Indian government keeps strict scrutiny to prevent political activism that affects Indian diplomacy and also the Bhutanese government is consistent to imply the theories of ethnocentrism. For instance, Gyanendra Shah, who was overthrown in Nepal failed to atomize and segregate the political interest of the individuals, Nepalese citizens were able to discuss, debate, comment, and interact regarding the issues of politics. They were able to identify their political goals and their unalienable rights. If Gyanendra and his families were able to atomize the people’s political interest, then the equation would be different, but the scenario is entirely different in Bhutan. So, the so called happiest Bhutanese government exists and will exist because people are atomized due to which the citizens have less political goals and are unable to identify the interest in their favor. Government should be delegated and if not, the conflict in interests would definitely favor the side of those who are powerful and authoritarian.
Secondly, the elitist, literate and illiterate Bhutanese are vigorously conceptualized by the democratic authority of undemocratic king about the consequences of being reactionary. The highly qualified, well trained and opportunist were self policed and are deeply rooted in the theories of loyalty and humility to the fiat of the ruler. Jigmey Y. Thinley, the first democratically elected prime minister, is only dispensed by the monarchy to articulate the viral concept of democracy to discard the criticism. It should be our common mistake to disdain the Prime Minister’s role regarding the concept of happiness and his statement that refers our identity as terrorist, but the basic thing that we have to understand is the Bhutanese King is constitutionally or unconstitutionally legitimate to get the Prime Minster and the parliament to do anything that they could otherwise not do. The fundamentalist king is successful because his panoptical theory does not collide with the rational interest of the citizens. To quote
Thomas Jefferson, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent”. Undoubtedly, the above saying conjugates the unpopular existence of Bhutanese government. Many empiricists might not believe that fact, but the reality is clear and dynamic. King Jigmey Singey Wangchuk was a diehard; he was deeply rooted in the theories of segregation and religious fundamentalism. Despite his theoretical act of religious tolerance, he made the fellow Bhutanese to anticipate his governance as the divine of rule. His tenure as a king dramatizes the very brutish way.
The hypercritical Bhutanese government suppresses the role of Bhutanese media that is capable of elevating the present situation of Bhutan. Journalists are scared to write any opinions against the King and his government that might take them to jail, human rights advocators are warned, parliamentarians are totally made loyal to royals. These parliamentarians understand the dignified repatriation of Bhutanese refugees as the only solution for prosperous Bhutan, but their concern might even add them to the list of Bhutanese refugees.
If Bhutan has the state of happiness, then there are no reasons of my father’s pain, grandfather’s misery and relative’s discomfort. There are many such critical questions like murder of Mashur Chhetri and other Bhutanese in 1990s and 1997, keeping Santi Ram Acharya in jail before Bhutan actually advocates GNH.
Until and unless these questions are answered, the concept of Bhutanese happiness will ignore the feelings of many southern Bhutanese, who are in Bhutan, refugee camps, and are resettled in many democratic countries. If we teach and implement the concept of Bhutanese happiness, then our little children will define Hitler as the leader with democratic visions.