Pema Ten
dzin, Vice-President, said, "Though
Article 3, safeguards, in particular, the Kargyupa tradition,
including making the institution eligible to receive funds
and other facilities from the State, there is no reference
to the Nyingmapa tradition, even though the First Schedule
of the Draft does mention that 'the orange half of the
National Flag personifies religious practice: the spiritual
power of the Buddhist doctrines manifest in the Kargyupa
and Nyingmapa sects.' Though there is a clear mention,
as per the Kargyupa tradition, of the hierarchy and the
system of appointment of the Je Khenpo and the four Lopons
of the Dratsang, it is not defined for Nyingmapa sects."
Further, the significance of "Ka-Nying Zungdel", the practice
of the Kargyupa and Nyingmapa traditions as one, is historical
and continues to be the basic fabric of Bhutanese faith.
Therefore, he appeals His Majesty to amend Article
3 and consider Ka-Nying Zungdel as the spiritual heritage
of Bhutan.
Self-initiative
for Self-verification: R.K Dorji
Panitanki, Siliguri 17th Dec, 2005: Vide a message sent
through an emissary, Mr. Rongthong Kunley Dorji, President of Druk National
Congress, called upon the refugees gathered at Mechi Bridge (Indo-Nepal
Border) to take self-initiative for self-verification. He said that the
Royal Government of Bhutan's priority for many years has revolved around
the issue of nationals and non-nationals. Therefore, the responsibility
of identifying nationals from non-nationals, doesn't rest in the arbitrary
authority of Royal Government of Bhutan solely. Instead, genuine Bhutanese
nationals have the right to take the self-initiative for self-verification.
Mr. Dorji said he believes that such an initiative will
uproot the malicious intention of few non-nationals and would create a
conducive environment in finding lasting solution to the protracted refugee
issue.
He added, "If some refugee wishes not to repatriate,
then nationals should get higher priority for benefits (or compensation)
at the time of local integration or third country resettlement. Even those
non-Bhutanese who were living in Bhutan prior to refugee problems in early
1990 should have second best priority"
He further appealed to Lhosampas leaders to develop a peaceful,
pragmatic and rational mechanism to solve the refugee issue amicably,
and at the earliest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Gimmicks.
During the discussions on the draft Constitution at Thimphu, one speaker
commented on Article 3, that the spiritual heritage of Bhutan should be
specified as Drukpa Kargyu and Nyingma schools, instead of generalizing
it as Buddhism. The Chief Justice, Sonam Tobgye, reacting to this, informed
the gathering that it would not be advisable to mention the different
sects of Buddhism because there are also other religious sects in Bhutan.
The Chief Justice's answer shows that the Royal Government of Bhutan is
still not in a position to accept and recognize the Nyingmapa tradition
as a part of the spiritual heritage of Bhutan. It is required from RGOB
to protect and preserve Kargyupa and Nyingmapa or Ka Nying Zungdel tradition,
a rich spiritual heritage, handed down by forefather. Moreover, a fundamental
right [Article 7 (3)] guarantees the right to freedom of religion to every
citizen and thus enabling every Bhutanese to practice any other religion
including other sects of Buddhism.
At Pema Gatshal, when one woman from Dungmin said that the appointment
of the Je Khenpo, under Article 3, did not specify when and how the Je
Khenpo would retire. The Chief Justice, Lyonpo Sonam Tobgye, said "with
the example shown by His Majesty the King himself, the cardinal principle
enshrined in the Constitution was 65 years. His Majesty had conveyed the
message to all leaders that lust for power and money and self-preservation
was a disservice to the nation." This remark was unnecessary as the
Constitution clearly states the separation of State from the Clergy. The
post of the Je Khenpo doesn't warrant any age limit because the clergy
already has their own established system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor Feedback?
After observing the public deliberations on the draft Constitution in ten
districts, the Druk National Congress expressed disappointment. Despite
the fact that there is no freedom of speech and expression in Bhutan,
the party said it had at least expected that there would have been some
substantive discussions on an issue of such historical importance. "We
had anticipated that more profound issues would be raised because the
Constitution will soon change our lives so dramatically" the party
spokesperson said.
Speakers only focused on broad compliments and on His Majesty's own phenomenal
achievements more than the issues in the draft Constitution itself - all
too predictable. All ten districts were unanimous in asking for the removal
of the clause requiring the Druk Gyalpo to step down at the age of 65.
The Druk National Congress's own view is that there should be no preset
retirement age for Kings or those in political life and should continue
in office as long as they have a mandate of the people and the ability
to discharge their duties holistically and satisfactorily.
Maybe the main issues in the Constitution were beyond the comprehension
of the average citizen and it would have been unfair to expect serious
academic or political vision from the general public, but one could have
at least expected some voicing of practical concerns and views. But the
resounding message was clear - without the guarantee of freedom of speech
and expression, there is never going to be any healthy discussion. It
is rather disgraceful that this should be the conclusion after the promise
of such radical political change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
KHENPO THINLEY OZER RELEASED
Thimphu October 27: Khenpo Thinley Ozer, the former Chief Abbot of Dramatsid
Shedra, and President of Shri Lho Mon Ngagyur Nyingma (Buddhist Welfare
Association) was finally released on 26th October, 2005 after serving
the prison sentence of eight years. He was declared as a prisoner of conscience
by Amnesty International in 1998.
His disciples staged the peaceful demonstration against Royal Government
of Bhutan (RGOB) demanding the inalienable rights to profess and practice
one's religion as prevalent in international norm on 23rd October, 1997.
He was arrested along with three hundred supporters on fabricated allegation
and subjected to brutal torture and incarceration.
Mr. Pema Tendzin, Vice- President, Shri Lho Mon Ngagyur Nyingma (Buddhist
Welfare Association) who is based in Kathmandu, Nepal said, "We are
acquainted that he has to report nearby police station once in a month
like a parolee, despite serving full prison sentences. It clearly shows
the RGOB's continued resentment and disrespect to fundamental human rights".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IBFS Welcomes the King's
Decision
18th Dec 2005. Siliguri: An emergency meeting of the members of Executive
Committee and that of members of the Indo-Bhutan Friendship Society held
at the branch office of the society at Pradhan Nagar welcomed the announcement
made by Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the King of Bhutan on the National Day
of Bhutan (17th December) that he will step down when the country holds
its first National Democratic Elections in 2008.
"The King's announcement had added that the first national election
to elect a government under a system of parliamentary democracy would
take place in 2008 and will be hailed by all those who preach and practice
democracy" added Shri Malaviya.
Shri Malaviya further expressed full confidence that the King would stick
to his words and his commitment to parliamentary democracy would become
a reality. He further appeals the democrats of world and particularly
Asian democrats to help Bhutan with materials and intellectual input for
the smooth transition from absolute Monarchy to Parliamentary democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference averted
Druk National Congress along with Indo-Bhutan Friendship Society (IBFS)
had prepared to hold a conference on Bhutan scheduled for the inauguration
of 6th foundation day of IBFS on 17th December to be followed by a conference
on 18th December, 2005 at Siliguri, West Bengal to release the tension
created in Bhutan and India borders after the aftermath of Bhutan's military
operations against ULFA, NDFB and KLO in December 2003 and also to seek
durable solution to refugee solution.
It is de rigueur on the part of society to seek the opinion of Bhutanese
Refugees leaders to bring about the amicable solution to 15 years refugees
imbroglio that is threatening to blow out of proportion in the region.
Therefore, IBFS was prepared to help and restore the peace and harmony
relations existing between two countries, and especially the border region,
by holding discussions with the local leaders and people. The other reason
was that frustrated refugees are likely to vent their frustration in insurgency
and would create disturbances and effect the equilibrium of peace and
harmony between Indians and Bhutanese.
Unfortunately, the Indian administration barred the refugee leaders to
participate in the conference and thus the programme was shifted to Mechi
bridge, Indo-Nepal border. It never crossed our mind that a conference
to find resolutions to conflict could be averted. Nevertheless, IBFS leaders
addressed the press conference attended by about 40 journalists at Siliguri
and it served as a substitute. Needless to say, the painstaking energy,
time and money invested in organizing the conference were all wasted and
it thoroughly disappointed the expectations that the society had harboured
before leaving for Siliguri. The primary reason was that the authorities
mishandled the situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indo-Bhutan Treaty: review time
DALIP MEHTA
Dec 22, 2005: As King Jigme Singhye Wangchuk promotes the democratization
of Bhutan and prepares to abdicate, a reconsideration of the basic framework
of India's relations with that country has acquired some urgency.
More than half a century has elapsed since Bhutan and India signed the
Treaty of Perpetual Peace and Friendship in 1949. It is time to review
its relevance. The Bhutanese have long regarded certain articles of the
Treaty as offensive and incompatible with their status as a sovereign
country. For example, Article II states that the Government of India "undertakes
to exercise no interference in the internal administration of Bhutan.
On its part the Government of Bhutan agrees to be guided by the advice
of the Government of India in regard to its external relations".
This article is taken verbatim from the Treaty of Punakha of 1910, signed
between the British India government and a Bhutan that had been defeated
in war. No such restriction was placed on Nepal in its 1950 Treaty with
India.
Understandably, today the Bhutanese increasingly regard the '49 Treaty
as one signed between unequal partners. Being discriminatory in nature,
they see it as anachronistic, humiliating and an unacceptable aspersion
on their sovereign status. The Treaty fails entirely to reflect present
day realities, unlike the 1998 agreement of Peace and Tranquility between
China and Bhutan, in which the Chinese unequivocally acknowledge Bhutan's
sovereign and independent status. Today in Bhutan there is a vocal, educated
and informed middle class, proud of its country's past and confident of
its future, and will not accept a subservient role. An assertive bureaucracy
and vocal parliament is unlikely to tolerate much longer a treaty it regards
as an affront to national dignity. With the king abdicating in '08, a
moderating influence in our relations will no longer be there and India
will have to deal with a far more complex and diverse political regime
in Thimphu.
On several occasions the Bhutanese have deliberately ignored Article
II of the Treaty in a conscious attempt to obtain international recognition
of its separate status and to act independently of India in its foreign
policy. The first instance of this was in '79, when Bhutan voted differently
from India on Kampuchea at the Havana Non-Aligned Summit. There have been
others since. In all of these cases, India has chosen to react by not
reacting.
It is not as if the Treaty has never been amended. Article VIII, dealing
with extradition, was amended in '96 by a fresh agreement, which took
into account present day realities. A treaty should not be regarded as
an end in itself but a means to ensure perceived national interests. For
India, as far as Bhutan is concerned, its interests are defense and security.
In other words, a treaty relationship between the two countries should
flow from a mutuality of interests.
Flowing from this, it is suggested that a more pragmatic arrangement
would be to modify, better still, enter into a fresh treaty that is workable,
entered into willingly for mutual benefit and with realistic obligations
and responsibilities. As both India and Bhutan share common security perceptions,
Article II of the existing Treaty should be amended to stating that India
and Bhutan will consult closely on foreign policy and security matters
that affect their common interests.
Bhutan's future relations with China is a case in point. At present Bhutan
and China do not have diplomatic relations. Sooner or later they will,
not only because China is Bhutan's only other neighbour, but now that
China has been given 'observer' status at SAARC, a relationship becomes
inevitable. Both India and Bhutan would need to consult each other closely
and craft a relationship with China that does not adversely impact on
their own, and there is no reason that it should, given the improving
relations between the two Asian giants. A relationship should develop
between the three countries, which are sensitive to each other's concerns.
India should take advantage of Article X of the Treaty which states that
it "shall continue in force in perpetuity unless terminated or modified
by mutual consent."
This gives India the ideal opportunity to show its sensitivity towards
Bhutan's national aspirations, for after all it is India that has all
along recognized Bhutan's independent status, and was instrumental in
assisting it becoming a member of the UN and some other international
organizations. It would, in the circumstances, be a gracious gesture on
India's part to take the initiative in recasting the Treaty and removing
contentious aspects. This would earn India immense goodwill and gratitude
in the long run.
It would also reflect the dynamics of changed times and better succeed
in preserving the close relations between Bhutan and India.
The writer is a former Indian ambassador to Bhutan
Courtesy: Indian express
----------------------------------------------------------------------
