Bhutan : Written constitution pitfalls ahead

By Dr S Chandrasekharan

Yet in another political gimmick, the Kingdom of Bhutan has commissioned a Drafting Committee to write a constitution in an absolute monarchy ruled by King Jigme Singye Wangchuck. This event was marked by a traditional inauguration ceremony attended by important officials of High Court, the Monk Body and the Cabinet Council. Bhutan’s Chief Justice, Lyonpo Sonam Tobegey, said, ‘As we play our humble role in Bhutan’s journey through time, His Majesty’s extraordinary vision will be our guiding light. Let us begin our journey, inspired by the vision of our Druk Gyalpo, towards Gross National Happiness for the people of Bhutan, today and for succeeding generations’. It appears that the constitution will be written as in Alice’s Wonderland that is, its provisions mean ‘what the King wants them to mean.’

Nevertheless, it is a step towards change, Bhutan did not have any semblance of modern governance until the end of the British Raj in India. It suited the interest of the feudal regime in Bhutan, and the British cared little so long as Bhutan remained away from the influence of imperial China. The first and second kings remained busy at consolidating the hereditary monarchy founded in 1907. The third king began innovative measures to streamline the administration. He established the National Assembly in 1952. In his reign, Bhutan granted Citizenship rights to the people of Nepali ethnicity who were deprived of this right for generations, established the Royal Advisory Council in 1965, allocating two seats to Nepali Bhutanese; and constituted a cabinet council in 1968, making the ministers seek a vote of confidence in the National Assembly once every five years. He also proposed a vote of confidence of the Assembly on the ruling monarch after every three years. His democratic ideals were appreciated in India, and the later responded positively to his proposal for Bhutan’s membership in the United Nations in 1971.

Under the present dispensation, centralization is realized through decentralization. After accession to the throne in 1974, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck created the Dzongkhag Yargey Thockcchung (DYT), basically a district committee, hoping to increase people’s participation in the development process. Unfortunately, the government has made National Assembly members seek its approval of all issues before placing them in the Assembly. In fact, the DYT has served as a control mechanism, making the National Assembly a rubber stamp institution, with its members a parroting brigade of the present dispensation. We have seen the show of the Assembly brigade whether it was in the discussions for explusion of Tibetan refugees from Bhutan in 1978, opening of boundary talks with China in 1984, communal rhetoric against the Nepali Bhutanese in the 1990s, or more recently the issue of ULFA and Bodo militants in south Bhutan. Now with the creation of the Geog Yargey Thockcchung (GYT), a block development committee operating below the DYT, control is being deepened over the decision-making process, right from the cabinet council to the grass roots. So long as subsistence farmers are confined to discussions who gets how many bags of concrete, who obtains how many subsidized trees for timbers, and some rural loans for purchase of pigs, cows or mules, the ruling elites believe that the status quo can be maintained for sometime. The rural lot has little idea who holds the key to the country’s bounties, and for what they need discussion and debate, including equity and maximisation of benefits.

The Constitution Drafting Committee must be viewed particularly in the context of earlier communal rhetoric against people of Nepali ethnicity, and the present refugee problem in Nepal. In view of the international criticism, the Royal Government has agreed to set up the Drafting Committee. The Committee, chaired by the Chief Justice, consists of 39 members, who include all the Royal Advisory Councillors, the speaker of the National Assembly, two lawyers from the High Court, five government officials and one representative each from DYT of 20 districts. First, the so-called district representatives, who make over 50% of the total members, are there to neutralize any attempt to influence the drafting process by educated individuals, among whom are some councillors and government officials. Earlier Tek Nath Rizal and Bidhyapati Bhandari, public representative in the Royal Advisory Council, were made to bear the wrath of the Cabinet Council when they appealed to the King on behalf of those whom they represented over the difficulties faced during the census enumeration exercise and implementation of the so-called Bhutanization programme, which had denied ethnic rights to practice language, culture and tradition.

Second, the elected representatives are incapable of providing substantive inputs in the drafting process, which requires specialized training and visionary perspective to address the needs of multi-ethnic Bhutanese society, in which Nepali Bhutanese constitute over 40%. At present there is no single Nepali Bhutanese Royal Advisory Councillor, District Administration Officer or Cabinet Minister. It is logical not to expect any Nepali Bhutanese representing DYTs from south Bhutan as there is an option now to choose an Ngalong or a Sarchop, particularly after the resettlement of northern or eastern Bhutanese in lands owned by the refugees. An irony is that a constitution is being drafted to address the needs of the nation, ignoring completely a large section of Bhutanese society who constitute a majority among the minorities and are at the forefront of the process leading to this change.

This, however, may change soon. The rhetoric of pristine environment and Gross National Happiness (GNH) misled the international community for decades, enabling Bhutan to nurture the image of a Buddhist landscape, ignoring the presence of Nepali Bhutanese, which in fact is the cause of the sufferings of 1000s of them.

Fortunately, the western donors have begun to question the sanctity of Bhutan’s Buddhist identity, and this perhaps is the reason behind the decision for introducing a written constitution in Bhutan. Professor Jack D Ives, well-known scholar of mountain development, at the United Nations University and University of Carleton, Canada, has questioned Bhutan’s claims of Gross National Happiness after having seen for himself the refugee situation in Nepal. In his keynote address Attitude toward Mountains: 1950 to 2002 and Beyond to the representatives of 41 countries at Interlaken, Switzerland, Professor Ives said that ‘the treatment meted out to approximately 100,000 refugees dragging out their lives for the last ten years in camps in Jhapa, Nepal by the government that we all had to believe was concerned with GNH rather than GNP, is unforgivable.’ This is a welcome step, a realistic assessment of Bhutan, perhaps, for the first time from a well-known scholar.

Our concern is that Nepali Bhutanese, who are victims at the hands of the Drukpa Regime, should not be ignored in the whole process of writing the country’s constitution. We insist that the refugee problem be solved first, representatives of the Nepali Bhutanese community be involved in the drafting process; and the King’s role as the guardian of all ethnic groups and constitutional head of the state be guarded. India should have a proactive role in Bhutan’s political change and in the resolution of the refugee problem. Also, India can provide the required expertise in drafting Bhutan’s constitution.

SAARC or Park Summit ?

By AYUSHMA PANDEY

Suddenly the capital looks like a different place altogether. The facelift the city is getting these days, on the eve of the 11th SAARC summit, bespeak of the insensitivity of the capital’s great minds. Just look at how mercilessly they brought down the buildings at Maitighar and Tinkune. And what’s all this for? To build a new park in the middle of a street! I think the present SAARC summit should be renamed as PARK summit.

It might make sense to the people who envisioned this plan but it absolutely doesn’t make sense to me. How can it make sense when homes have been demolished to make room for a recreational site? How can it further make sense when the sentiments of people have been trampled down at the sight of their homes, been brought down to dust? So what that they are providing huge amounts for compensation? Moreover, does it make any sense at a time when so much amount of money is being drained out of the developmental budget for security purpose? Our rulers here are busy doing good on their whims? I do not mind the efforts put in by the officials for making the city clean. But I am against the demolition campaigns which are replacing necessity for luxury. It all seems absolutely ludicrous to me.

You know I don’t understand how can people still go on to realize their whims at the face of so many deprivations in the country. Once upon a time, Nepal used to export food. But now the situation has reversed. It is now faced with food deficit and almost 55 of its districts are affected. Not only this, many children in rural areas are yet to go to schools. And even the few schools that are there are without basic infrastructure. Moreover the so-called promise of the government to provide free education to the primary level children of public schools is merely rhetoric. The Nepal Cost Sharing Research Report says that parents still continue to pay Rs 650 yearly for their primary level ward despite the promise made by the government to provide free education at least at the primary level to children at public schools after the restoration of democracy in 1990.

Who are going to be responsive to these and similar other problems? I wonder at the sheer absurdity with which the government can go about in plans like these. How can people ever think about building up luxuries and keeping so much of the fundamental needs of the people at stake? The question is not of good or bad but of whether these parks are really needed now. Yes, the city does need a facelift, but not in this way.

India-Pakistan factor in South Asian summit

By SHYAM KC 

When seven heads of state and government gathered in Dhaka in December 1985 to bring into fruition the long cherished goal of collective regional grouping in the form of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), there were skeptics aplenty who lost no time in predicting the group’s early end. It did not need a pundit to do so. The differences among the seven both in terms of size of their countries and population were vast and almost insurmountable. The economies among the seven, though all developing countries, were wholly incongruent. No one could possibly see any meeting ground among the seven. To add to the region’s woe was the persistent 50 year old dispute between the two most powerful countries of South Asia - India and Pakistan. Their rivalry has cost the region dear and has dragged down the region into one of the poorest in the world. No wonder SAARC is also known as the poor peoples club and given the way in which tension escalates between the two countries directly impacting on the economies of the region, the region can only get poorer. The irony is that this poor region is having to allocate huge funds towards arms build up including nuclear arsenals - funds that could have gone into such vital areas as health, education and shelter. The interest of the world media in SAARC summit is limited to just how Indian and Pakistani ministers and officials behave with each other - do they look at each other, do they exchange even formal greetings, is there even the remotest chance that Indian and Pakistani officials and, may be, even ministers talk to each other on matters that concern them the most. Who knows the Indian Prime Minister and the Pakistani President might - just might - initiate dialogue that could lessen the tension in the region? Watch for the body language of the Indian and Pakistani officials, it might indicate something. These, and not the SAARC summit, are matter to the international media. Here it may be safely said that media in no country in the region accords such high priority to SAARC and its affairs as in Nepal. This is because Nepal believes in the SAARC spirit of cooperation and friendship among the people of the region. But not the world media and other so called free and no so free media.

And no wonder. Business, trade and economy are said to be the pillars on which durable relations amongst countries are said to be based. The countries in the region which collectively boast of over one sixth of the world’s population hardly trade with each other or among themselves. The trade within the region is said to constitute less than four percent of the region’s total international trade. SAARC with the target of boosting intra-regional trade adopted and implemented the South Asian Preferential Trade Arrangement (SAPTA) and identified hundred of items for eligibility for reduced levies within the region. But the fact is that the identified items are those that are traded least within the region. It matters little whether you identify one or several thousand items unless such items are really in demand in the region and are traded there. Now we are venturing into the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) which ultimately aims at tariff free trade among the seven countries. As things now stand, the seven countries are to sign the draft of SAFTA agreement by the end of this year. All this is happening without convincing anyone that SAPTA was a success. Such politically motivated decisions - it tries to project to the people the magnanimity of the organisation while in reality it means nothing - have been the bane of SAARC.

Two important documents were signed when SAARC held its third summit meeting in Kathmandu way back in 1987. One is the SAARC convention on terrorism and other SAARC food security. Ordinary people of the seven SAARC countries were happy that these two important documents were signed by the seven countries. But what has been the outcome? There have been a number of food shortages in different times in different places in the region. Yet not one food grain from the regional food security stock was taken out and given to the needy. Numerous terrorist activities have taken place since the SAARC convention on terrorism was signed but the convention was never once invoked to quell terrorist activities in the region. There will be more than one apologist who will try to find excuses for the inadequacy of the two documents and difficulties in their implementation. The peoples of the region do not want the reason why the two schemes did not work but want to know what the leaders of the region were doing for the past 14 years. It seems for them terrorism did not exit in the region till 11 September and 13 December. The leaders owe it to the peoples of the region an explanation as to why they did nothing to make these two important documents operative for such a long time. There has been a total lack of political will specially among those who walk the power corridors in New Delhi and Islamabad to do anything substantial for the region. But the people of the region want results not academic and pedantic discourses and politically convenient reasons on why the conventions were not effective. Asymmetry in population, size and economy, a 50-year old mindset, the differences in political systems et al are all there in their places. True regional leadership lies in overcoming them, not in emphasizing them and making things that are so close look so far.

The India-Pakistan factor in the non-functioning of SAARC in the real sense and its not coming up to the peoples’ expectations is too glaring not to be noticed. Nepal, for instance, has had to spend twice as much for holding the XI SAARC summit than was necessary. The spending spree by Nepal began in mid-1999 in preparation for the November 1999 summit which was called off at the last moment, thanks to the India-Pakistan factor. Countries like Nepal which has very limited resources could hardly afford to waste this kind of money. The India-Pakistan factor was the reason for the postponement. Now in the second year of the 3rd millennium, the India-Pakistan factor is just as relevant as it was in the last century. The relations between the two countries are far from cordial and at times verge on open (at least verbal) hostility. India certainly has a genuine grievance against terrorist activities in the country and the suicidal attack on the Indian parliament on 13 December is something that should not be wished away. Something concrete must be done to prevent this kind of terrorist attacks. The question to be asked now by the region’s leaders is what were they doing during the past 14 years since the SAARC convention on terrorism was signed. Waiting for the 13th December terrorist attack to happen before initiating further action on the terrorist convention? It just goes to show how behind times we all are and if the present crop SAARC leaders can do nothing about rising up to the occasion and shaping the SAARC of the 21st century, we might as well write it off as a costly costly joke on the people of the region. For, to borrow from the Old Bard, "SAARC, with all thy faults, we love thee still".