 |
Kathmandu Thursday January 03, 2002 Paush 19, 2058.
|
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.
Other Stories
|
