|
by Rakesh Chhetri
January 22,1998
Published in Kathmandu Post (Article No 18)
Bhutanese nation did not inherit a
homogenous history. It has a diverse past of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural,
multi-linguistic and multi-religious identity. It’s three main cultural,
linguistic and religious groups comprise of the Dzongkha-speaking ruling
Drukpa or Ngalung the follower of Drukpa Kargyupa Buddhism; Tsangla-speaking
Sharchops, the follower of Nyingmpa Buddhism and Nepali-speaking
Lhotshampas Its diversity represents a mosaic and not the ‘melting pot’.
Nepali speaking southern Bhutanese citizens are officially called
Lhotshampa in Dzongkha, the national language of Bhutan A Nepali speaking
Lhotshampa therefore, is a Bhutanese with an ethnic Nepali and a
non-Buddhist/Hindu cultural identity. Drukpa tradition has its roots in
feudal Buddhism. which with its central theocratic doctrine of Drukpa
revivalism, is imbued with exclusive preference for Drukpa culture and
mores and prejudiced against non-Buddhist culture.
Today, Bhutanese nation-state is under
unprecedented assault as a result of state’s infliction. The primary
requirement of Bhutanese nationhood is the consolidation and defence of
nation-state system, where all ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious
groups share the common ‘space’ and live in prosperity. This should be the
guiding state policy.
Bhutanese polity is in real crisis as
the politics is essentially defined solely for the benefit of Drukpa
ethnic group, in stead of solving the vital issues confronting the nation.
It would be wrong to imagine that the Bhutanese regime’s insistence on
building the Bhutanese nation-state exclusively based on narrow Drukpa
Buddhist considerations will achieve a consolidated Bhutanese nationhood.
Bhutanese nation-state cannot be built on the contorted historical fallacy
of only one ethnic Ngalung group (widely called Drukpa) blinded and
deafened by delusions about their chauvinism, while completely ignoring
other groups’ contributions in building today’s Bhutan.
Aggressive forms of Buddhism exists in
Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, today. In Bhutanese context, the role of
feudal Buddhism must be understood in a far more complex scenario. The
shaky monarchy has meticulously intertwined the feudal institutions with
Buddhism so that the existing feudal and autocratic institutions are
imbued with a sacred and exalted place in the Bhutanese psyche.
Contrived perception
The Bhutanese are forced to accept the
state and Buddhism as synonymous. The notion that a traditional Bhutanese
Buddhist society will not revolt against the sacred religio-feudal
autocracy was developed. Buddhist philosophy has been misinterpreted by
the political machinery to perpetuate its autocratic rule and to glorify
the king, as not only the manager of political affairs of the state but
also the guardian of the Buddhist religion in the multi-cultural kingdom
as well as in the immediate region. of Sikkim and even in Nepal. The King
of Bhutan was even actively involved in the controversy of the
reincarnation of Karmapa in the Sikkimese Rumtek monastery.
This has led to the fallacious
perception that the Nepali speaking Lhotshampas’ reaction to feudal
elements, abuses of their human rights and opposition to the autocratic
government is akin to Hindu rejection of the Buddhist culture. The Royal
Government of Bhutan (RGOB) is justifying the eviction of Lhotshampas by
capitalising on this contrived perception through its propaganda
machinery. Political leadership failed to create distinction between
feudal elements and Buddhist principles. As long as Bhutan remained
isolated it remained possible to save this ‘culture’, but once it began to
be exposed to modernizing influences, the feudal aspects of Buddhist
culture became rallying point of weaknesses and criticism.
Drukpa revivalism
Bhutan is experiencing a Drukpa
revivalist movement since eighties. It is aimed to restore and revive
Drukpa social virtues at the cost of all other social, religious and
ethnic groups. Recent trends in the Drukpa revivalist movement also
demonstrates that it aims to purge the multi-ethnic, muti-cultural and
multi-religious Bhutanese society, which it thinks as unwanted cultural
element of foreign origin. ‘Ethnic cleansing’ of Lhotshampas is a part of
this movement. The Drukpa revivalism movement seeks to reawaken Drukpa
faith and revive former Drukpa customs and traditions such as Driglam
Namzha ( code of conduct/social etiquettes of Drukpa) through the slogan
of ‘One Nation, One People’ by ‘cleansing’ other cultures. The imposition
of compulsory wearing of Drukpa dress and lifting of Nepali language from
school curriculum is an inalienable part of this revivalism.
The extreme expression of Drukpa
revivalism and Buddhist fundamentalism has been manifest in the change of
the name of the places to wipe out the cultural traces of Lhotshampas from
the state memory. Thus, the Nepali names of places like Chirang, Sarbhang,
Samchi and Pinjuli in southern Bhutan were replaced with Drukpa sounding
names like ‘Tsirang’, ‘Sarpang’ ‘Samtse’ and ‘Penjoreling”. The king and
royal family, Drasthang ( Drukpa monastic bureaucracy), Dzonkha language
teachers, ministers, businessmen expecting rewards from the government and
traditionalist elements in the bureaucracy, army and police form the inner
core of Drukpa revivalists.
Buddhist fundamentalism
The feudal Drukpa Buddhist
fundamentalism has imposed and prescribed strict adherence to the set of
Buddhist dogmas and beliefs among the Bhutanese population. As an
aggressive Drukpa conservative movement, it excludes and expels those who
do not share its conservative faith or dogmas. Drukpa fundamentalist
attitude and traditions reflect the distrusts of reason. Drukpa traditions
such as Driglam Namzha is a part of fundamentalism that seeks to restore a
Drukpa mythical status quo of Bhutanese society dominated by the Buddhist
clerics and old customs. Theocratic ideology of clerics and traditional
elements are profound in the administration and pose a challenge to Bhutan
as a modern secular nation-state. The role of Buddhism in Bhutan has
direct implication for Lhotshampas and other non-Buddhist minorities in
the multi-religious Bhutan.
Three refuge of Buddhism, Buddha
(omniscient), Dharma (the spiritual law ) and Sangha (the order) have been
politically misinterpreted to mean Tsa-Wa- Sum or three elements of King,
Country and People in Bhutan to suit ruler’s interest. The king now is
elevated at par with the Buddha. New publicity materials depict the king
in heaven shrouded with clouds. Any criticism of these three elements is
considered treason and is subjected to death sentence. Tek Nath Rizal, the
father of Bhutan’s human rights movement was sentenced for his opposition
to government. The most important thing about Buddhism in Bhutan is not
what Buddha preached, but how it is being interpreted by the state
leadership through the clergy to perpetuate the despotic rule. It bears
crucial implication for the collective psyche of the Bhutanese nation.
Contrary to Bhutan, Tibetan Buddhism
is the most pacifist religion of our time. We have great admiration and
respect for Tibetan leadership for taking their religion to this height.
Monarchy and Buddhism
The monarchy’s compulsion to maintain
its religious legitimacy was designed to maintain internal political
control. Advantage for the monarchy through an alliance with Buddhism did
exist particularly since the monarchy was never held in awe by the
Bhutanese people as in the case of Nepalese monarchy or even the Dalai
Lama. The monarchy used Buddhism to legitimise the main theme of its
political programmes of perpetuating its rule, immobilising political
opposition, suppressing the democratic movement and carrying out the
ethnic cleansing of Lhotshampas. Monarchy had to achieve a position of
supreme dominance in its religious discourse and political hegemony.
Hence, the King and his government rely heavily on Buddhist divine laws
and traditional agencies not prone to change, to perpetuate his autocratic
rule.
It was against this background that
the need to revitalise the Buddhist fundamentalism arose. High ranking
lamas deliver sermons exhorting people to the Drukpa belief and value
system. This did not only influence the religious thoughts of a majority
of Drukpas but also led to an increasing tendency towards the
communalisation of politics. Since eighties, Drukpa elite view themselves
as the only defenders of the country against heathen encroachments
implying Hindu Lhotshampas and Sharchops. Thus, the Lhotshampas were
suddenly found to be illegal immigrants and the Sharchops of Nyingmapa
sect as threat to Drukpa Kargyupa Buddhism and Drukpa values. The defence
of Drukpa values and Buddhism became powerful form of chauvinist
nationalist expression for the regime to immobilise the political
dissidence. Super patriotism is just a Drukpa eccentricity.
Nationalism is a process of historical
development and not a sudden emergence. The historical experience of its
diverse population shape the emergence of a distinctive and ‘shared’
nation and a distinct Bhutanese national identity. The recent events
suggest that Bhutan is already on the path of constructing a dangerous
‘alternative nationalism’ based on exclusive identity. The bland racial
announcement emanating from the government and this new found alternative
nationalism has great potential for fragmentation of Bhutanese nation.
Reaction to modernization
The dream of a new Drukpa Buddhist
state responds to a reaction against modernisation - a threat to the
monarchy. Drukpa Buddhism as the preserve of the monarch has been used
actively by the state to immobilise the political opposition,
marginalisation of young educated people and as a means of consolidating
its political control. Political modernisation has been under severe check
since late seventies. The Drukpa elite are awakening to a new political
awareness to build political programmes emphasising the traditional,
cultural and religious pattern associated with Buddhism. The whole of
Bhutanese society is planned to be transformed into a feudal Drukpa
Buddhist society with complete individual loyalty to the throne.
Modernize Bhutan
Bhutanese society could modernize
itself without destroying traditional family values and without being
westernized. Japanese society successfully adopted the modern
institutions, transformed their ancient feudal hierarchical society
without giving up their traditional family values. Bhutan must build a
secular society, as one cannot construct public policy on religious
grounds. The King must initiate preservation of traditional values in
modern setting rather than plunge the whole country into medieval
revivalism. The regime’s bogey of preservation of traditions and culture
are nothing but a shield for protecting the feudal and despotic rule.
The King must understand that one
cannot live one’s own spirituality while rejecting other people who do not
share the same convictions. In a civilised society, the state does not
infringe on the individual’s rights to culture and religion. Religion is a
medium of communication between an individual and God, a basic spiritual
necessity inherited from the birth of an individual until his death.
Bhutanese administration has no business to interfere in the religious
affairs of its individual citizen. Bhutanese citizens must not be
subjected to the parochial mindset of the regime depriving them from
enjoying their human rights, freedoms and democratic aspirations, while
the whole world enjoys them. It is surely disappointing revelation for
Buddhist followers world over that the Buddhist principles are being
misinterpreted to serve the political ends of the Bhutanese ruler and that
this their great religion is being defamed.
( The author is a Bhutanese political
analyst.)
Return to Table of Contents
|