Day 22: Bhutan
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:19:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Day 22: Bhutan
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Day 22: Bhutan  (Read 1025 times)
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 22, 2015, 06:34:39 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan



One of the world's only two Tibetan Buddhist majority states - and the only one that hasn't had the go through the experience of Communist dictatorship. It is often portrayed as something of a Shangri-La in the west and the King is known for promoting 'Gross National Happiness' rather than Gross National Product and has many other aspects which, according to stereotypes, appeal to the sort of people who only buy their food from the organic section in farmers' markets. Archery is the national sport and television was only introduced here in 1999. Yet it is also oppressive especially towards the Hindu Nepali minority, many of whom have left the country and in the early 2000s shared military operations with India over Bodoland separatists. It is very worried about being absorbed into India (consider the size difference between the two countries). Its government thus has sought wide international recognition and friendship going as far as to lie to the United Nations about the size of the population in order to gain admission (given that Nauru is there, they needn't have bothered). It remains internally, however, very secretive and only allows very few tourists in each year. Therefore the state remains somewhat shrouded in mystery.

Below is a map of the Tibetan Empire at the height of its powers in the 8th Century. Although it is not shown on the map Bhutan is supposedly independent at this point (although nobody really knows, Bhutanese history being a mystery at this point). Needless to say though, Tibet has had a big influence on the development of Buddhism in Bhutan.

Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2015, 06:41:20 PM »

One of those countries where you can understand why the government is doing what it's doing but it still really shouldn't be doing it.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2015, 06:43:34 PM »

If Lithuania is an apartheid state, than Bhutan definitely is.
Logged
BaconBacon96
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2015, 06:45:10 PM »

I've always wanted to go to Bhutan. Looks beautiful.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2015, 07:09:25 PM »

Oh obligatory post in this thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdDD9ViRZz4

This used to be the audio on the relevant wiki entry. Then they got rid of it. The killjoys Sad
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2015, 07:56:39 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2015, 07:59:16 PM by Simfan34 »

One of those countries where you can understand why the government is doing what it's doing but it still really shouldn't be doing it.

This, more or less.

Why does the Bhutanese government seek to keep Nepalis out of the country? Because they've already seen exactly what would happen if they don't-- they'll end up like Sikkim. The native Sikkimese and Bhutanese share common ancestry in Tibet, migrated to their present location at around the same time, speak mutually intelligible languages, both follow Tibetan Buddhism, and were essentially as similar as two nations can possibly be-- with the exception of their fate. Sikkim was unable to prevent large-scale Nepali migration to the point where the became the majority. Bhutan, until now, has been.

Sikkim no longer exists as an independent state. It would be hard for the Bhutanese to conceive of any other response to Nepali immigration when their probable fate played out right before their eyes.  It's one thing to condemn their policy on its face, in ignorance of their motivations-- and it would make sense to condemn them from such a perspective-- but it becomes quite hard to be as critical when you realise that theý've essentially been visited by the Ghost of History Yet to Come.

This fear is also what's motivated them to revise the treaty governing their relationship with India (sticking in lots of clauses about sovereignty and independence), and initiate diplomatic relations with countries other than India; but for some reason, not the US-- making them an unusual member of the shrinking club of otherwise unsavory nations that we do not have diplomatic relations with, which I suppose is sort of notable in its own right.

Oh, and for some reason Bhutan is completely covered by Google Street View. Which is especially remarkable when you consider that 15 years ago, television was illegal.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2015, 08:04:22 PM »

If Lithuania is an apartheid state, then Bhutan definitely is.

No one in their right mind would call Lithuania an apartheid state.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2015, 08:05:10 PM »

Truly fascinating place.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2015, 08:46:36 PM »

As has been said, it sounds like a very fascinating (though also critically flawed) country. The OP and Simfan's post have been interesting reads, I'd definitely like to learn more about it.

However, in response to Simfan, I've got to ask, what would be so terrible about being absorbed into India? I mean, I perfectly understand why the ruling class would be against that (having power over a territory is obviously quite pleasant, after all), but why should it be such a tragedy for the population itself? Are the Sikkimese right now oppressed or discriminated? I'm genuinely asking.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2015, 08:51:07 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2015, 08:55:06 PM by politicus »

As has been said, it sounds like a very fascinating (though also critically flawed) country. The OP and Simfan's post have been interesting reads, I'd definitely like to learn more about it.

However, in response to Simfan, I've got to ask, what would be so terrible about being absorbed into India? I mean, I perfectly understand why the ruling class would be against that (having power over a territory is obviously quite pleasant, after all), but why should it be such a tragedy for the population itself? Are the Sikkimese right now oppressed or discriminated? I'm genuinely asking.

They lost control over their country and the right to preserve their Buddhist and Tibetan derived culture as the national culture. Sikkim is majority Hindu now.

Only 14% belong to the two native Sikkimese people. 63% are Nepalis and Nepali the lingua franca.

In short: They got swamped.

Losing control of your home land is a tragedy and a form of cultural genocide.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2015, 09:00:59 PM »

There is one clear difference between Bhutan and Sikkim and that is that Sikkim became an Indian protectorate in 1950 - only a few years after independence - giving India a formal basis for intervening. Everybody accepted that Nehru pressured Sikkim into this at that time. if India tried something similar with Bhutan it would be more problematic today - with more international critique, incl. from the UN.

Sikkim was more or less seen as a colonial relict like Goa and Pondicherry, which the Indians were also just allowed to take without much reaction.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2015, 09:03:43 PM »

As has been said, it sounds like a very fascinating (though also critically flawed) country. The OP and Simfan's post have been interesting reads, I'd definitely like to learn more about it.

However, in response to Simfan, I've got to ask, what would be so terrible about being absorbed into India? I mean, I perfectly understand why the ruling class would be against that (having power over a territory is obviously quite pleasant, after all), but why should it be such a tragedy for the population itself? Are the Sikkimese right now oppressed or discriminated? I'm genuinely asking.

They lost control over their country and the right to preserve their Buddhist and Tibetan derived culture as the national culture. Sikkim is majority Hindu now.

Only 14% belong to the two native Sikkimese people. 63% are Nepalis and Nepali the lingua franca.

In short: They got swamped.

Losing control of your home land is a tragedy and a form of cultural genocide.

No. As long as there is no institutional or social pressure forcing them to abandon their culture, the Sikkimese haven't "lost" anything. Living peacefully alongside people who have a different culture doesn't harm your culture in any way. And as I've already told you, a group of people has no right to deny other people the right to live where they want to live.

And frankly, using terms such as genocide in such conditions is an insult to the victims of actual genocides.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2015, 09:24:32 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2015, 09:32:58 PM by politicus »

As has been said, it sounds like a very fascinating (though also critically flawed) country. The OP and Simfan's post have been interesting reads, I'd definitely like to learn more about it.

However, in response to Simfan, I've got to ask, what would be so terrible about being absorbed into India? I mean, I perfectly understand why the ruling class would be against that (having power over a territory is obviously quite pleasant, after all), but why should it be such a tragedy for the population itself? Are the Sikkimese right now oppressed or discriminated? I'm genuinely asking.

They lost control over their country and the right to preserve their Buddhist and Tibetan derived culture as the national culture. Sikkim is majority Hindu now.

Only 14% belong to the two native Sikkimese people. 63% are Nepalis and Nepali the lingua franca.

In short: They got swamped.

Losing control of your home land is a tragedy and a form of cultural genocide.

No. As long as there is no institutional or social pressure forcing them to abandon their culture, the Sikkimese haven't "lost" anything. Living peacefully alongside people who have a different culture doesn't harm your culture in any way. And as I've already told you, a group of people has no right to deny other people the right to live where they want to live.

And frankly, using terms such as genocide in such conditions is an insult to the victims of actual genocides.

Of course it does. There is always a pressure to adapt to the dominant culture - think of native Hawaiians compared to Polynesian peoples that kept control of the land and remained a majority like Tongans or Samoans. I was in Tonga this spring/summer and have been to Hawaii and there is a world of difference.

There is a big difference between living in a public room where your language, norms, customs etc. are the natural and self evident and one there they are marginalized and forced to adapt to other more powerful and prestigious cultures.

Claiming that "a group of people has no right to deny other people the right to live where they want to live" is an extremist approach. It means that small nations have no right to preserve their culture as the dominant one anywhere - that they are instead doomed to become the dominated. You either have power in this world, or you don't. It is strange that you can overlook that in a case as obvious as the Sikkimese.

If a culture dies due to assimilation to a dominant culture it is death - which amounts to a form oh genocide = the elimination of a people as a people with a distinct culture, traditions and language. That is the way the Sikkimese are headed as other small people and that process accelerating to the point it is today is a result of losing control of their own state. There is a point of no return where the settler population becomes too numerous and the takeover irreversible. Sumatra, Borneo and Iriyan Jaya have also been though this process with the Javanese influx (most of the people there didn't have states, but their own ways of organizing society). There are countless other examples.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2015, 10:06:12 PM »

Given that there are several distinct separatist movements amongst in Northeast India-- populated mainly by Tibeto-Burman speaking peoples (of which the Sikkimese and Bhutanese are two)-- I would think that suggests a less than entirely happy future for the Bhutanese in India. I don't know much about the present situation in Sikkim, and while I don't think there's ever been full blown communal violence, unlike so much of India, the indigenous Sikkimese have certainly been marginalised in their homeland. It would be very difficult to seriously claim that no harm or loss has been inflicted upon them.

This line of reasoning I've heard from some is rather curious, because, with little modification, it could be given as a rationalisation of colonialism, or at least some kind of colonial rule. Certainly, the act of foreigners moving to a country, depriving the indigenous people of their political power, and assuming for themselves the right to determine that country's future, even if opposed by the indigenous people, can hardly be deemed congruent with any strain of modern liberalism.

I would also add, responding to Politicus' point of Sikkim's status as a protectorate, that, until 2007 when, as I mentioned, they significantly revised the terms, India had a similar agreement with Bhutan, where it would manage its foreign relations-- cession of foreign relations to another state being the defining characteristic of a protectorate. You are right to point out their post-1947 status was not wholly identical--Sikkim never joined the United Nations whereas Bhutan did, if only just before Sikkim was taken over-- but the most salient distinction was probably that the Bhutan's ruler is styled His Majesty whereas the ruler of Sikkim was styled His Highness-- a relic of the Raj, implying something less than full sovereignty.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2015, 10:37:13 PM »

My point is that to answer the question of whether the annexation of Sikkim was an objectively bad outcome requires actually looking at the fact of the ground, not just starting from the assumption that the native Sikkimese have more of a right to decide of their country's future than more recent immigrants. Yes, it wouldn't surprise me to find at least some mild pressure on the natives to conform to the new dominant culture - and that's an undeniably bad thing. But I don't think being annexed by a larger country makes this inevitable. Besides, if there is one country which should follow a very decentralized and federal organization, it's definitely India. Sikkim deserves autonomy, as does Kerala and West Bengal.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2015, 10:53:51 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2015, 10:56:05 PM by Simfan34 »

Well of course-- they've inherently been marginalised.

Seriously, let's boil it down to its simplest form-- assume you own some land.  Then some people move on to your land and demand that they be allowed to determine what will be done to, and are entitled to the benefits derived from what had, until then, been your land. You "vote" on these matters, but they outnumber you and thus in effect tell you what to do.

Is this an acceptable outcome for the original owner? Is it fair? If not, then it certainly isn't on a larger scale. Or does might make right?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2015, 11:21:12 PM »
« Edited: September 23, 2015, 01:09:02 AM by Californian Tony Returns »

I mean, basic property rights should generally be respected, unless there is a compelling public need for a collective use of such property - and obviously in no instance should the government take away someone's land based on their ethnicity.

Is that actually what happened in Sikkim?
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2015, 11:41:51 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2015, 11:49:48 PM by Clarko95 »

Sikkim's leader was oppressive towards his people in terms of political rights (antagonism towards Nepalis was common IIRC), and the referendum that overwhelmingly favored abolishing the monarchy and becoming a state of India reflects that.


If a culture dies due to assimilation to a dominant culture it is death - which amounts to a form oh genocide = the elimination of a people as a people with a distinct culture, traditions and language. That is the way the Sikkimese are headed as other small people and that process accelerating to the point it is today is a result of losing control of their own state. There is a point of no return where the settler population becomes too numerous and the takeover irreversible. Sumatra, Borneo and Iriyan Jaya have also been though this process with the Javanese influx (most of the people there didn't have states, but their own ways of organizing society). There are countless other examples.

There is a huge difference between organized genocide and various people simply moving in over time (in Sikkim's case, centuries) and eventually becoming the majority. What happened to Sikkim was not cultural genocide; that is a stupid and ignorant thing to claim.



Anywho, OP - it is unique, I suppose, but doesn't stir my interest. Seems pretty backward in a lot of respects, most of which have already been covered in this thread.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2015, 11:42:55 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2015, 11:55:30 PM by eric82oslo »

I've always wanted to go to Bhutan. Looks beautiful.

They also have one of the most beautiful national animals, the takin. And they don't have any zoo, after the king ordered their only "zoo" to close down due to confinement of animals being in conflict with buddhism.



Also, Bhutan's capital, Thimpu, must be one of the least populated capitals in the world, comprising only a tenth of the entire population.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2015, 11:56:44 PM »

All I knew about Bhutan before this thread was the Gross National Happiness thing and the fact that the king looks exactly like an Asian Elvis, so all of this discussion is really interesting.

Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2015, 12:34:03 AM »

I mean, basic property rights should generally be respected, unless there is a compelling public need for such a collective use of such property - and obviously in no instance should the government take away someone's land based on their ethnicity.

Is that actually what happened in Sikkim?

No, that is not what happened in Sikkim. There is no proof of that and I don't think Simfan or Politicus would disagree with me.

 I can understand their point of view as well. It really depends on whether you think being connected with the outside world is a good thing or not. Is it a good thing that Bhutanese students will never have a chance to attend an IIT and get a well paying job connected with the outside world, or even get to visit/work outside of the subcontinent? Of course being connected with the rest of India also has its disadvantages. There are a lot of pros and cons to weigh.

Also, it should be noted that many of the states in the northeast of India have a lot of autonomy and that is a good thing. And the party in power right now in India is a strong proponent of federalism, including in the northeast (look at the alliance past and present of the BJP). For example, in Meghalaya, even in the capital of Shillong, one cannot buy property without proving that both their grandparents are from Meghalaya. That is the opposite of the local people not having control over their land. Rather, they are allowed to exclude people from their lands, and it is allowed by the Indian government.

Also, many of the separatist movements still left in India are located in the hilly area of Assam. That is because the plains of Assam are populated by the Assamese people and they overwhelmingly dominate the culture and politics of the state as opposed to the tribal people of the hills who are more similar to the Nagas, Khasis, Garos etc. The separatist movements in the other states have mostly died down with greater autonomy. As far as I know the people there are pretty ok with the current situation where they can control their own states. And in any case they are much better off than the people in Bhutan or Tibet.......
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2015, 06:29:19 AM »

All I knew about Bhutan before this thread was the Gross National Happiness thing and the fact that the king looks exactly like an Asian Elvis, so all of this discussion is really interesting.



He's 35 years old, yet he looks more like 22. Tongue
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2015, 06:51:06 AM »

I just want to say that "The Land of the Dragon King" is an amazing name
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2015, 07:09:49 AM »

Reading this I've learnt a bit but one question: Why did so many Nepalis decide to migrate to Sikkim and Bhutan in the first place? Is this some pan-Indian trend?
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2015, 08:39:18 AM »

Reading this I've learnt a bit but one question: Why did so many Nepalis decide to migrate to Sikkim and Bhutan in the first place? Is this some pan-Indian trend?

While I can't tell you the specific reason for Nepalise the 19th century is full of these kinds of migration, it's usual because of the spread of new agricultural developments and crops spread to large degree by Europeans and which some people get first (like Nepalise lowlanders) resulting in a population boom among them, and existence of European dominance over native state allow a greater movement of the local population between the difference states. Colonial areas are full of these stories, even in Europe we see things like this, like with the Swedish-Finnish colonisation of Sami areas, the settlement of Germans in Russia etc.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 12 queries.