 |
Kathmandu Monday January 14, 2002 Magh 01, 2058.
|
Dragon’s diplomacy,
democracy without dissent
By GOPAL K SIWAKOTI
The leaders of the South Asian Association
for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) saw a new face in Kathmandu from the Himalayan kingdom of
Bhutan during the 11th SAARC Summit. King Jigme Singhe Wangchuk, one of the founding
members of SAARC chose not to come to Kathmandu and abandoned the historic opportunity to
project his self-styled liberal posture at the Summit of heads of state or government.
Though temporarily he lent power to Lyonpo Khandu Wanchuck. Lyonpo Wangchuk, so
called head of the cabinet is widely believed to be a dummy driver for the king and shadow
chief executive, Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB). For many, the absence of King Wanchuck
from the past two SAARC Summits is no more than Thimpu’s well-conceived crafty
diplomacy to refrain from entering into dialogue on the pressing, contentious issue of
refugee influx.
In a series of dramatic moves, the king has
‘charted’ a course aimed at preparing his fabled land of myth and magic for the
tedious realities of self-rule. He has recently proclaimed that ‘the time has come to
promote even greater peoples’ participation’. He has even fired his top
advisors, surrendered day-to-day control to cabinet ministers appointed by himself and
ratified by the National Assembly. The king has, most importantly, taken a liberal move to
give a group of longtime ‘yesmen’ in the cabinet the right to pull him off his
throne. When the king proposed his ‘democratic’ reforms three years back, the
authorities projected the scenario that many Bhutanese expressed shock at the introduction
of Western-style politics into their secluded country. It is also systematically
propagated that Bhutanese fear that trickles from the outside-of music, movies,
freedom-will likely turn into a flood and that their proud country will loose its distinct
identity.
But the ground realities are entirely
different. The so called touchstone reforms are proven gimmicks and in no way grant
Bhutanese a real role in governing themselves although the king’s top aids claim that
they are part of a larger plan to modernize the isolated kingdom while preserving its
‘unique’ culture. There are no political parties or constitution in Bhutan.
Many dissenters are in prison. Bhutanese who
shun the mandatory national dress have to pay fines! For all the eyewash attempt at
reform, Bhutan still seems like a country from another epoch. The dual exercise game of
preserve and transform no longer works as the gamble to throw about one fifth of the total
population out of the country is a sword of Damocles hanging over the king.
State sponsored apartheid like laws and
policies have remained a major stumbling block in the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees.
The restoration of the right to nationality of the various ethnic, linguistic and
religious groups who were forcefully evicted in the early nineties is the critical issue
of concern. Rakesh Chhetri, a prominent Bhutanese scholar, rightly points out that the
Drukpa led Royal regime harbours racial hatred against Lhotshampas for organizing protests
against the racial policies of the RGOB. According to him, the Lhotshampas were forced to
leave their country not because of civil war or foreign intervention but because of the
racist and ethnocentric policies of those in power. Bhutanese refugees are not the root
cause of their plight, they are a symptom of the deep-rooted crisis of an intolerant
Bhutanese polity, which stresses the need for a distinct ‘national identity’ but
does not envision forging this identity from the diversity of the nation’s cultures.
The ruling elite wants to colonize the minority cultures through hegemony, domination,
repression and eviction.
The refugee phenomenon is not something new
to the world. In the past two decades, millions of Afghans have fled as a result of
political Islam, criminal Taliban and other reactionary Islamic gangs, lack of rights,
sexual apartheid, poverty, drought and war. Today, we are witnessing a new phase in
the mass flight and deprivation of Afghans as a result of the US-led bombing of
Afghanistan. In this catastrophic situation, while thousands are fleeing and
attempting to reach safety, the borders of Iran, Pakistan and Central Asian countries
remain mostly closed. The governments of Iran and Pakistan, for example, have amassed
troops, dug trenches and used bullets to stop refugees from entering safer areas.
Recently, the Iranian government shot dead a
refugee at the border; the Pakistani government killed a 23-year-old youth and injured a
13-year-old child. The notorious Taliban prevented people from fleeing. Tens of thousands
amassed at various borders during the bombing pleading to get in.
They were put in camps in dangerous border
areas within Afghanistan and given inadequate food, shelter, security, etc. Just recently
over 350 Afghan, Iraqi Kurd and other refugees drowned in the waters between Indonesia and
Australia. Men, women and children attempting to seek refuge died trying to reach a
safer place. The Australian Minister of Immigration blamed the refugees for taking
unsafe routes when it is the global policy of denying access to asylum seekers that is to
blame. This is one example of the international dimensions of the same catastrophic and
undue closing of borders, whether in Iran, Pakistan, Australia or the West.
Nonetheless, the scenario has changed in some
countries. The new Afghan regime has opened its border for the return of the refugees.
Things have gradually changed in Kosovo and Macedonia. Sri Lanka is gearing up the peace
process with Norwegian third party mediation. A considerable number of Chakmas have found
a better atmosphere to go back to their homeland in the Chitagong Hill Tracks of
Bangladesh. Even one of the most despicable and reactionary regimes of the world, the
Burmese military junta, is forced to take back Burmese refugees from Bangladesh. Australia
is under pressure to set aside a chunk of money for feeding starving refugees, though in a
far off dungeon island.
Unlike many regimes, the RGOB is found to be
terribly stubborn over breaking the ice and accepting the refugees. World public opinion
is expected to proclaim strongly that evicting innocent people from Bhutan is a crime and
will not be tolerated. This is a struggle that the refugees must win, especially since the
lives of innumerable human beings are at risk. As a country of first asylum, the Indian
government, of course, has legal obligations and must play a critical role in this
scenario.
The donor community must consolidate pressure
on the RGOB to act in compliance with the resolution of the European parliament and other
pledges so that the regime does not obstruct the possibility of return of its own people.
Western governments must also evince their strongest wrath and resentment. Time has come
for the refugees themselves to escalate their protests in order to save their own lives,
the future of their children and the generation to come. The UNHCR must immediately
intervene in the safe repatriation of the refugees. The evacuation of the occupied land
and homes of refugees must be the priority agenda for a dignified resettlement policy.
King Jigme Singye Wangchuk has no place to
hide a face that clearly reflects the systematic and gross cultural cleansing under the
guise of the Bhutanese edition of apartheid. Safe and unhindered return to their homeland
is an undeniable right of the people of Bhutan. The closing of borders under such
circumstances by the country of origin and the country en route and the bartering of
refugee assimilation by the host country for dry dollars may prove costly diplomacy that
can turn into bitter human catastrophe.
(The author is Executive Director at INHURED
International) |
