Day 22: Bhutan

[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.

[Simfan34]

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.

[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?

[Simfan34]

Consider our discussion of border contrasts regarding Belgium, I would like to submit this photo of the Indo-Bhutanese border as further evidence. India is on the right:

[Simfan34]

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.

And it'd be an oversight to not point out that the Queen is rather easy on the eyes herself:



(It remains to be seen if he'll be a polygamist like dad, however)