Comparing the incomparable Nepal and Bhutan. The innocence of Bhutanese public and civil and elected leadership.

Recently the PDP  (  People's Democratic Party) shared an article " Looking Out "by Sujeev Shakya in Kathmandu Post on 26th September with the Party's comment " What could other leaders learn from the Bhutanese Prime Minister".

This article is about the author's perception of Bhutanese Prime Minister possessing a better " global mind-set" than Nepalese Prime Minister. He felt that Nepal is more inward looking whilst Bhutan was outward looking.

Bhutan is fortunate that we always had and have few fantastic national leaders under the benevolent guidance of  their Majesties the Kings of Bhutan.  And I was probably an earlier recogniser of these facts. In fact I wrote about it in 2013 after India intervened in the General Election. A small nation with limitted resources somehow have been compensated by presence of outstanding individuals in every era who served the Kings and the people to steer the nation to secure path. I, therefore, can comprehend why the author Sujeev Shakya is impressed by our capable Prime Minister His Excellency Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay. So were many impressed by former Prime Minister His Excellency  Jigmi Yoeser Thinley.  Therefore  I am not confused by the perception of the author. I do not think any  Nepal Prime Minister has much to learn from Bhutanese Prime Ministers as eloquent and socially gregarious as our PMs are.

What worried me was possible misunderstanding and therefore the under estimation of the  depth of Nepalese political Leaderships acumen by our ruling political party leaders  and other political parties' leaders who may direct Bhutanese destiny hereafter. We are yet to move away from the sole political orbit of India. But Nepal is on another political Plateau. Nepal's outlook is for Nepal as a nation. Bhutan's  outlook till now seems to be pleasing India no matter what.  

I want to share few real life  facts about Nepal from recent historical events.

1. Nepal became a multi- party Democracy. Some would say through popular unrest. What I heard was that the King had actually said that he would abdicate if people so wanted. The King refused to use the Army to fight off foreign manipulated or encouraged so called democratic forces.  His Majesty was only standing up against India only for the Nepalese people and Nepali sovereignty. Later the great King and his whole ruling Royal Family was massacred. The blame was put on the Crown Prince but public of Nepal was wiser. They mourned for the Royal Family including the Crown Prince.

The  King died but his political legacy remains true and strong. Today Nepal is wooed by both India and China. The King's vision to have both economic and political relationships with China and India has strengthened Nepal and improved the  hereafter national prospects for the people and the country. The Royal Family paid the ultimate sacrifice in Royal Blood but saved a nation and her people from foreign subjugation. 

2. At one time, Bhutanese Ministers used to gloat over how Bhutan got India to invest in hydropower projects in  Bhutan whilst Nepalese Leaders " foolishly " rejected Indian offer. Now one wonders who were the wise guys?  

3. During the last big earthquake that Nepal suffered, so many nations and agencies came forward to assist. However,  when few nations and Agencies demonstrated ulterior motives that posed security and political dangers, the Nepali Government and  Army High Command ordered all to get out of Nepal. Even India and America had to get out. The courage and will of the people and  Nepali leadership in preserving their sovereignty and national policies is beyond self survival of a King or a Prime Minister. Historical events stand testimony to such personal sacrifices.

4. Nepal have had so many change of elected Governments. Such frequency in change of Governments is damaging to socia- economic development and sense of peace and stability. And yet none of these Government changes caused a political crisis similar to 2013 of Bhutan. Bhutan had in democratic governance sense and description a proper formal change of government. A political party completed its term of 5 years and election was held which elected another political party to resume the reign of Governance.  And yet the wounds of political grievances are still festering. Far worse than that of Nepal. Signs of utmost political immaturity in Bhutan I would say.

5. The Government and people of Nepal went through the excruciating economic pains for several months due to blockade imposed by India and unrest in the southern belt of the nation.  Neither the major earth quake nor the economic blockade defeated the indomitable national spirit of Nepal. Whilst a gas cylinder cost hike by India had Bhutanese Political leaders in total disharmony. Thus in reality, Bhutan has a long way to catch up in political maturity and sense of national entity. Let alone looking down upon the Nepal scene.    

I think the trails of political processes show that Nepalese political parties have used foreign resources to achieve recognition and  gain power in Nepal. However, apart from Prime Minister Koirala ( I could never comprehend Koirela's closeness to India almost like that of Kazi Lhendup of Sikkim ),  all Prime Ministers of Nepal ultimately stood for Nepal. They know to whom they originally owe their status. Their source of power and legitimacy is Nepal and Nepalese,  not  foreign agencies or Governments.

For these reasons , I would never belittle Nepal and the Nepalese.  I fully respect the political Leaderships of Nepal for their wisdom and dedication to Nepal and Nepali sovereignty that goes beyond self political survival.

May the two Himalayan nations remain friends and support each other at crucial times. So far the records of affection and trust between Bhutan and Nepal is very admirable.

 

President Trump at the United Nations.

The address of President Trump to the world body was loud and boisterous. Unfortunately nothing that dignified United States or Trump himself.

He called upon nations to put their interest and sovereignty before all else. That was to justify his call for  " America first." But then he lambasted North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela for the very national acts " putting their national interest and sovereignty first".

He tried to justify his attacks upon these nations by alleging that those in power did not have the popular support of the masses of their nations. But that cuts no ice because President Trump himself had lost the popular support by 3 million votes. So he is in the same shoes as those leaders he alleges as ruling without popular support.

He declared that United States will eliminate North Korea if need be. However, he did not elaborate the cost upon South Korea and Japan. Nor the real possibility of WW III as China and Russia would have to counter any such unilateral act of war by United States.

There was one good news for United Nations Secretariat. President Trump did not seem ready yet to reduce American contribution to UN. That would surely reduce American influence at the world body.  He complained about the disproportionate American contribution of 22% of UN budget when United States was just one member out of 199 UN members. Very conveniently the President skipped the obvious fact that United States held sway over almost all of  United Nations'  decisions and that many other International Organizations including Human Rights Commission and International Court of Justice were staged managed by America.  

All in all, it seems President Trump was more concerned about diverting the attention of the American people away from the election investigation of Russian connection. The address was, therefore, more for American domestic consumption than for international audience. The American public always favoured  a war- like superior race white President and thats the image ( the superiority of the white race over the orientals of North Korea, the Persians of Iran and Latinos of Cuba and Venezuela ) that  President Trump depicted at the General Assembly of United Nations. It's always Hitler's superior race against all others though the Western world stage manage a facade of ' swastika hate' public attitude. 

The President's address did not pave any new path in galvanising the world body and her members to a more peaceful and prosperous  world. But it demonstrated that America is the only Super Power and the world is still her stage.

Can there be " written understanding " for IMTRAT presence in Bhutan

Dear Dr. Brian C Shaw,

       Subject: Your suspicion of an " written     understanding " during 1959, 60 and 61.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on   my blog " Indo-Bhutan relation after Doklam"  wherein I had shared with fb friends the email correspondence with Dr.Rudra Chaudhuri. I did it to widen Bhutanese comprehension of Indo- Bhutan complexities.

Your comment raised very valid  pertinent points. I decided to respond publicly in this fashion because I am aware that you have conducted much research into Bhutanese history and national affairs. And your observation may have invited attentions from both Indian and Bhutanese Leaders, Bureaucrats, Politician and ofcourse ever boisterous Indian media. Also there are many good caring citizens here who are not aware of many things about Bhutan Government ways in particular with our friendly powerful neighbour.  

I specifically want to address your suspicion about a possible " written understanding " between India and Bhutan on IMTRAT presence in Bhutan.

For your information and to be clear from the onset I wish to clarify that  my phrase " evil secret dealings " in my email, was a teaser to Dr. Rudra Chaudhuri who was boasting about 40 pages notes of Nehru. I do not think any such secret dealing  was there let alone "evil" .  I wanted Dr. Rudra Chaudhuri  to know that those Nehru notes that he flouted so confidently  had to be substantiated by official documents signed by Bhutan. Otherwise such notes value is limitted to only reference for researchers to comprehend larger goals and cannot be considered valid  historical understandings between two nations. I hope he got my point.

It takes two hands to clap. Slapping your own thigh ( the Indian tendency )  is no proof of coupling with a partner. Hope I make myself clear to all Indian researchers and writers on Indo-Bhutan relationship the past 60 years.  

I quote below your comment for updating all readers to the context of my response here.

Quote

" Brian C. Shaw September 11, 2017 at 5:27 PM

Thank you. I don't know about "evil secret doings" but there must surely have been a written undertaking between Indian and Bhutan government in 1959-60-61 (perhaps in the autumn 1960 Tshogdu, proceedings never publicly minuted) concerning the stationing of Indian troops in Haa's dzong and environs. The third king was too alert not to have covered Bhutan's interests. Where is this document, and what are its content? Good reason no doubt *initially* for preserving secrecy in view of the events in Tibet, but that was half a century ago. Have rats eaten it? Does the Indian Archive have a copy? Indian Army's continued presence seems disproportionate to any need except that of a colonial power anxious to keep its flag flying, and the occupation of prime real estate in e.g. central Thimphu, invites a comprehensive review. It would be good for all if the review could also be transparent. Such review could be a sound basis for reassessing the whole gamut of Indo-Bhutan relations. South Block may however have to replace/rewrite some guiding documents: so might academics. (Of course, just my opinion..)"   Unquote

My response to your comments are placed hereunder:

a) In regards to your comment about possibility of " written understanding " on presence of IMTRAT in Bhutan.

I am quite sure that there is no written understanding of any kind between Bhutan and India.  IMTRAT presence like DANTAK and Geoglogical Survey of India  ( GSI ) and other Agencies from  India was of temporary nature to meet immediate need of the hour to train Bhutanese Army. That's why late Bhutanese Prime Minister had provided his own administrative and residential quarters in Haa to meet the temporary requirement of IMTRAT. 

IMTRAT and DANTAK are not to make any establishment structures of permanent nature in Bhutan. And all areas occupied by IMTRAT are registered in the name of Royal Bhutan Army. Thus in my view such  temporary measures did not call for written understandings. The broad unwritten understanding between India and Bhutan was that all Agencies of India requested by Bhutan Government  for service in Bhutan were to return back to India once Bhutan decided the needs were fulfilled or the Bhutanese national Agencies acquired the necessary capacities. That was the way with various Indian Advisors and Institutions who left Bhutan.

The latest  one which departed among Indian Institutions was Geoglogical Survey of India which was replaced with Survey of Bhutan and the last Indian Advisor to leave of all Indian Advisors was the Indian Police Advisor. His departure did cause some friction whereby India temporarily denied admission of Bhutanese Police Officer Cadets into their  welknown Training Instututions. But now India has kindly  relented. I cite this particular incident for the benefit of Bhutanese democratic leaders. There are incidental costs but all of temporary nature if  Bhutanese  leadership can take the strain and possess the will and wisdom.

India needs the good will of Bhutanese  Government and the people in more ways than average Bhutanese or even averagely abled elected democratic Bhutanese  leaders can fathom. A lot of our ill informed citizens were crying out their fear when I opposed Doklam Transgression by India.  Few among among them are ofcourse Indian side cakes. But together it was possible to review a reality political picture of present Bhutan even with Bhutan Governm ent officially maintaining near public silence. I learnt a lot from Doklam transgression. 

The address of His Majesty King Jigme Dorji Wangchuck to the public of Haa in 1970/71 ( any way it was during the inauguration of Haa motor road )  and His Majesty's refusal to grant a Bhutanese nomenclature to DANTAK are all confirmation of temporary roles of these Indian institutions in Bhutan. So both in practice as outlined above, in words and intention the Indian Agencies were to return back to India once their services were deemed fulfilled by Bhutan. 

His Majesty the Third King  had declined the PM Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's request that the King give a Bhutanese name to DANTAK with a kind royal reasoning that Bhutanese citizens must recognise the contributions of DANTAK as an Indian Agency and appreciate Indian assistance. Personally, His Majesty had no desire to convert any foreign agency a permanent feature of Bhutan by granting a Bhutanese nomenclature. 

And in the  Public Address in Haa, His Majesty kindly Commanded that Haa Dzong complex belonged to Haaps and that it was not leased or given to IMTRAT. The late Prime Minister had only made a temporary arrangement to meet the need of those years. I am sure that Commandants of DANTAK, IMTRAT and Ambassador of India in Bhutan were present at hearing distance that day at the Haa Dzong Complex when that address was made.   

I myself had humbly raised twice the issue of Indian military assistance and of IMTRAT. Once during an audience granted to students of Ugyen Wangchuck Academy in mid 1970 in the Dinning Hall of the Academy and at another time in the Winter of 1970 with with specific reference to Haa Dzong Complex in a  private audience at Thimphu Motithang Hotel during a semi- official  Party. There was not an iota of doubt about the temporary nature of assignments in Bhutan of all Indian Institutions like Advisors, GSI , DANTAK and IMTRAT. 

Just like the departure of Geological Survey of India and many Indian Advisors including the Indian Police Advisor, I feel when time comes the departure of DANTAK and IMTRAT will be managed by Bhutan with the least grievances exercised by India. As usual some reluctance and unhappiness will get displayed in words and deed but these must be managed with grace and patience from Bhutan side. 

The prolonged presence of both DANTAK and IMTRAT was due to national misfortunes of Bhutan and nothing to do with any Agreement. Bhutan suffered deep national shocks of  losing both Prime Minister Jigme Palden Dorji and His Majesty King Jigme Dorji Wangchuck in rather short period of time in their prime lives in 1964 and 1972 respectively.   Providence had not favoured Bhutan then. We still do not know how or who really are responsible for our national misfortunes. But theories are in abundance. I believe in letting the past go no matter how reluctantly and most dearly. And concentrating on the  present and the future responsibilities of a sovereign Kingdom with both China and India. I hope our Deities guide the thoughts and actions of our King and the Prime Minister towards vital elements of  sovereign goals of the Kingdom.   

b)  I appreciate  your frank summary that IMTRAT role has been reduced over the years. Therefore,  accordingly it's presence should be reduced. And that South Block in Delhi should redraw new guidelines in India's overall dealing with Bhutan.

I fully agree. I feel both DANTAK and IMTRAT should now be more of a liaison agencies rather than pivotal agencies. Their personnel and establishment size need to be reduced. The Bhutanese Agencies like Royal Bhutan Army and Road Department  have developed necessary capacity to bear all responsibilities that were once entrusted to DANTAK and IMTRAT. 

And as you pointed out, Bhutan and India need to relook at their national, regional and international status and accordingly redesign the ways of cooperation and basis of good friends relations to reflect genuine equal respect for sovereignty right and position of each nation. That way Bhutan- India can have lasting trust worthy relationship.

Once again thank you for your sincerity  and affection for Bhutan. It has been quite sometime hearing your voice. Glad that you are in good health and very sharp as always. 

Sincerely

Wangcha Sangey

Sharing with fb friends a frank exchange with an Indian writer on Indo- Bhutan relation after Doklam.

I met Dr. Rudra Chaudhuri at his request.  He had come from India to Thimphu to research on Doklam incident. He was in contact with India House in Thimphu. Later he wrote an article " looking-for-godot-doklam-standoff-india-china-bhutan-neighbours/" in the Indian Express and had kindly sent me the link.
( Dr. Rudra Chaudhuri is said to be a Senior Lecturer at the Department of War Studies and the India Institute at King’s College, London.  But presently he is based in India researching for a book on Emergency Period under PM Indra Gandhi ).

Below are our exchanges of thoughts through email on the article he wrote. He had begun his article with the attempt to provide credence to Indian Transgression at Doklam.  And that I disagreed. Thus my writing to him and his response etc.

I had not thought of sharing with fb friends our correspondences but maybe Bhutanese might like to read into my inner mind. The Public of Bhutan must also get into the habit of comprehending how our authorities are guiding the nation and how India views us.

The emails are copied hereunder serial wise:

(1)  On Sep 3, 2017 11:49, "Rudra Chaudhuri" <rudy_83@hotmail.com<mailto:rudy_83@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Dear all
>
> Please forgive this indulgence: a piece by me based on a recent visit to Bhutan, and some history.
>
> The longer online version with maps:
> http://indianexpress.com/article/india/looking-for-godot-doklam-standoff-india-china-bhutan-neighbours/
>
> Warmly, Rudra
>
> The print version:
> [image1.JPG]

(2)   > On 4 Sep 2017, at 07:48, Sangey Wangcha <sangeywangcha@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Rudra Chaudhuri
>
> A quote from your piece
>
> " In matters to do with external affairs and “defence”, as Nehru did not fail to tell his gracious hosts, Bhutan was to be guided by New Delhi."  Unquote
>
> A quote from Nehru's speech at Paro Bhutan. September, 1958.
>
> “ Some may think that since India is a great and powerful country and Bhutan a small one, the former might wish to exercise pressure on Bhutan. It is therefore essential that I make it clear to you that our only wish is that you should remain an independent country, choosing your own way of life and taking the path of progress according to your will.” Unquote
>
> I guess you knew the facts and yet like most Indian writers just went ahead to put your own Government's twisted version.
>
> No matter what or how things are twisted the end cannot be shaped or controlled. Bhutan will remain a sovereign nation. Whether relationships with China or India progresses or de-progresses or whether present Bhutanese leadership can handle or not handle outside pressures, fate of Bhutan and her neighbours will not be decided by few political leaders of Bhutan, China or India. History is clear of one course. The beginner does not decide the ending. Events are not like movie where the producer and director control both ends.
>
> I am sure you saw the pulling down of the statue of Saddam Hussain several years back in Iraq and the recent pulling down of confederate statues in America. And counter attack write ups against Linclon about his own personal track records of his slaves. So you see what was started off by America in Iraq is now haunting back in America. I am sure that was not the ending American leaders planned.
>
> By the way Nehru's trek to Bhutan was not through Toorsa Park though that does not change the fact he treked to Bhutan to offer to  the King of Bhutan India's frienship to an equally sovereign nation Bhutan and in return seek Bhutan's friendship for India. The facts are very clear in his speech to the Bhutanese public.
>
> It was not spoken over radio or at some podium of another meeting. It was a face to face at a gathering of live Bhutanese audience who trekked from one to several days to hear Nehru out. Paro at that time served as the Summer Capital where the King temporarily resided. Majesty the King of Bhutan wanted Nehru to come to Paro and  directly in person tell the Bhutanese people what India's intentions were and then have the Bhutanese people themselves tell their King the forward step. That was the sole reason for making Nehru do the arduous trek instead of the much younger and physically fit King meeting Nehru in Haa   or visit Delhi. Did Nehru lie through his teeth or are you modern lips blackening your mouths?
>
> You are in prime of life and seems capable. As for education so many are in your shoes. Education is a tool of knowledge. Not the foundation of character of an  individual.   In life what really is worth is yourself. Do not tarnish it further for sake of barking with the dogs.
>
>
> Sincerely
> Wangcha Sangey.
>
>
(3)   >On Sep 4, 2017 09:53, "Rudra Chaudhuri" <rudy_83@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Wangcha

Am afraid your wrong. The speech in Paro is not the only one he made on Bhutan. Their are 40 pages of notes by him on Bhutan in the archives. And then correspondences with the King, I have access to them all. They are available for any one to access. Any proper researcher would use archives. I don't twist anything for anyone. And well aware of the responsibilities of an educator. Perhaps it's time you should start using the archives before jumping at conclusions that are false.

Rudra

Sent from my iphone

(4)   >On 4 Sep 2017, at 13:05, Sangey Wangcha <sangeywangcha@gmail.com> wrote:

I am sure there are plenty of notes and  versions that suits Indian side. But these will have to withstand the implication of the first public speech of the first Indian Prime Minister who came to Bhutan seeking friendship. I hear that Nehru was critised for that Paro public speech upon his return to  Delhi. However, a speech given in public to the people of Bhutan was one time and that essence cannot be diluted by later corrections.

I am aware that  India did all the opposites but in his visit that was the commitment. So to contend that Nehru did or said differently during that visit from what he publicly told Bhutanese public is beyond any reasonable comprehension. Nehru may not be appreciated by BJP but he cannot be such a double faced guy.

What changes took place or were imposed upon Bhutan after 1962 still cannot refute Nehru's speech in 1958.

I hope you read the note wherein Nehru told his companions that the King of Bhutan was very reluctant to accept offers of assistance by Nehru.  The King of Bhutan was not at all ready to barter away the sovereignty of his nation to India in 1958 and to China in 1962. And he passed that message again to India in 1971whist pushing for UN membership. Since you have access to all records,  maybe you check the record of meeting between Bhutanese Delegation and India in Delhi. Read the outburst and table banging by the Bhutanese Delegation Leader that made India endorse Bhutan's membership to UN.

I do not jump to conclusion. Are you saying  that the  Paro speech is questionable. It was the one and only major speech given by an Indian Prime Minister stating his nation's political position towards Bhutan. The other very similar was given by Rajiv Gandhi to the National Assembly of Bhutan wherein he declared that  India was not a big brother to Bhutan.

India has manipulated and taken much advantage of Bhutan's trust in Nehru's commitment and Bhutan's transit dependence on India.  And even recently India tried to sell a very different version of 2007 Treaty. Only this time it did not work. And henceforth this latest transgression and lopsided aggressive interpretation of 2007  Bhutan and India Treaty will overhang like a dark cloud. 

For sure India has forced Bhutan to take the more difficult path. Changing almost 60 years of way of life is not easy. But for sovereignty sake, I guess Bhutanese leadership will have to take the unenviable route or perish. 

Good day Mr. Educator.
   

(5)   On Sep 4, 2017 14:14, "Rudra Chaudhuri" <rudy_83@hotmail.com> wrote:
Maybe you should get notes from your archives, till then your points in history are more theoretical I am afraid. Also, you have, as expected, misunderstood the entire point of the article.

Hope to stay in touch.

Sent from my iphone

(6)  On 5 Sep 2017, at 08:27, Sangey Wangcha <sangeywangcha@gmail.com> wrote:

I understood you telling your Country to be more neighbourly responsible. But that whole gesture or point of the article was wasted with you indirectly validating that Indian stand " Protectorate state" by saying Nehru had preserved Indian say in foreign and " defence" of Bhutan. You had even put the word defence in inverted comas.

(7)  On Sep 5, 2017 11:02, "Rudra Chaudhuri" <rudy_83@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir

That was certainly not the idea, and those were Nehru's words, hence commas. I don't think the article was wasted, if I may say, lots of students, officials and others from Bhutan has reached out. Also, we do hope to move government here to look more closely at hydro, roads and areas where change in Indian advance is necessary.

All best

Sent from my iphone

(8)   On 6 Sep 2017, at 13:38, Sangey Wangcha <sangeywangcha@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Rudra Chaudhuri,

As much as you and many in Bhutan hope, the road to equal friendship with India seems to have been blocked. This Doklam transgression followed with application of " Protectorate status " upon Bhutan must have shaken the very foundation of Bhutanese heirachy. I am just a commoner.

I think common people everywhere and under any authority will mostly remain common and in much the same subordinate role. Therefore, the conflict mostly are inbetween elites. For example if President Xi and Prime Minister Modi agrees on somethings, the majority of Chinese and Indian public maybe OK with the decisions. Likewise if the King of Bhutan gives in to China or India without considering the dignity of Bhutan, the public of Bhutan may never be in position to do anything about the events. The likes and dislikes of common people take time to mature to reality.

Thus disagreements come from leaders most of the time not from the man on the street.

As far as I can see, Bhutan could not have asked Indian Army to step into Doklam. And as far as I can read the implication of the revised 2007 Treaty, it in no way allows India to walk in and claim Bhutan as a " Protectorate ". Now if somehow ( impossible in my view) there was a secret understsnding unknown to Bhutanese public or Parliament, then things could be as it was yesteryears between Bhutan and India. But if there was no such evil secret dealings then for sure things cannot remain as in the past. One will soon come to know the facts through what decisions Bhutan King and Prime Minister take.

As I have written,  basing the transgression at Doklam and this nonsense of " Protectorate state " upon the 2007 revised Treaty is the darkest insult that India could have come up with to the Father and Son Kings of Bhutan. I hope their Majesties have analysed accurately the shock wave caused by " Protectorate state " status. Bhutanese people whose roots go back centuries do not expect their leaders selling them short. And likewise the Wangchuck Dynasty too would take exceptions to be treated so lightly if India's contentions happens to be an ugly surprise to them as these were shock to fellow Bhutanese like myself. 

Anyway, I am a strong believer in the ways of our national Deities. Whatever outcome that follows, hereafter, one must make the best out of it. Regardless of who our friend is, Bhutan is small and weak. So we will be taken advantage of sooner or later. Till now, our strength has been to put a limit to getting bullied.

People do not seek Chinese goodwill because they think China will be gracious. Its just that bullying  by India is becoming unbearable. Maybe China would be less of a bully. It's like second marriage. The first being unbearable the second happens out of compulsion rather than choice of love. 

Well ending here, let me wish you well.

Sincerely

Wangcha Sangey.

I am sure that in the near future there would be communication between us but on this subject there is no further exchange.

Indian Government and most Indian writers will always promote their side of the stand on deciding for Bhutan in affairs of external relations and national defence.  It is upto both the common citizens and leaders of Bhutan to make diligent efforts to preserve our sovereign rights.

The window dressing for Doklam transgression by Indian troops.

Leopards cannot change their spots is the English proverb. The Bhutanese proverb is the stripes of tiger is exterior whilst that of man interior.

The Bhutanese editor has once again made China the belligerent when it was Indian troops that marched into Bhutanese and Chinese territories at Doklam. 

Indian  Army Camp on Sikkim side is just 150 meters from Chinese road extension spot at Doklam. And Bhutanese Patrol camp is away several Kms. And yet  Tenzing Lamsang claims it was Bhutan Patrol that first tried to stop the Chinese road extension activity.

He further alleges that China expressed her respect for Bhutanese sovereignty in Talks but on ground level had kept encroaching into Bhutanese territories. How unfortunate and deluded an allegation at a time when it was India which marched her armed troops into Bhutan and claimed that Bhutan is her " Protectorate state ".

The Bhutanese Newspaper is accused of being an unofficial mouth piece of the PDP Party and this present Government of Bhutan.  I found it more an Indian propaganda outlet during the occupation of Doklam by Indian Troops.

He writes that the Bhutanese Government refused to confirm whether it had invited Indian troops or not to Doklam. That was to keep China off balance he thinks.  And at the same time,  he confirms the fact that Bhutanese Army  did not join the Indian Army at Doklam.

I do not know what communications he has with the higher ups in the  Bhutanese and Indian administrative heirachies. But what he has alluded in his article " Bhutan triumphs at Doklam"  is that Bhutan invited Indian troops but cleverly put forth a different face to China by not  having Royal Bhutan Army joining the Indian Army at Doklam. A hide and seek sort of dubious political game?

I have no access to confidential government records or behind the scene political maneuvers or communications with high authorities of Bhutan or India.  I go by past precedents and my down to earth honest respects for their Majesties the Kings and deep confidence in that no King of Bhutan would ever surrender his responsibility of defending Bhutan to another foreign force and that never will a Bhutanese King ever succumb to having his people and Kingdom a slave and protectorate to  another foreign nation even if that nation is India the economic benefactor of past 11 five years development activities of Bhutan.

All I can say to such a gross misformation spread by Tenzing Lamsang under the cover of being  the editor of Newspaper " The Bhutanese " is that Bhutanese people should know better. We have a responsibility to be informed citizens. We should know that Their Majesties the Kings of Bhutan had never shied away from defending the Kingdom of Bhutan. And that the Institution of Monarchy is  respected by the citizens of all ages because Kings of Bhutan never engaged in dubious double political games.  And in matters of national sovereignty, Bhutan never played hide and seek games with China and India. And what Tenzing Lamsang described is all about a hide and seek incident.

Indian troops could never haven been invited by Bhutan. Kings do not have hereditary nature of offering their crown authority bestowed upon them by the nation to another foreign entity. Bhutan has committed for almost  60 years on building Indo- Bhutan Relation. Bhutan just cannot publicly embarrass India for so many reasons. Thus Bhutan was not able to out rightly expose India's blatant aggression for what it was at Doklam.  However,  Bhutanese Government refused to publicly go along with Indian narrative. And the most tale telling  sign was that Royal  Bhutan Army totally  ignored the transgressing Indian troops at Doklam. If Bhutan had asked Indian help, Royal Bhutan Army troops would have been there along with the Indian Army troops at Doklam. 

The Doklam transgression was completey an Indian Army show of aggression against Bhutan. And Bhutan being  militarily weak and economically dependent upon  India was humiliatingly handicapped at Doklam to resist physically at Doklam or verbally in public the shocking Indian transgression.

China was ofcourse defending her interest. There is no doubt about this. But in defending her territorial integrity, China made Indian troops withdraw back to their own Sikkim border. The Sikkim border wherein Indian Army is usually based is   only about 150 meters from Chinese road point at Doklam. So Indian troop retreat requires retracing steps back by 150  meters only. I do not hate China for making such a necessary stand and by default removing transgressing Indian troops from Bhutanese soil too.

Now regarding Chinese encroachments into Bhutanese territories in the past. Incidents have happened and there are roads built in what we call disputed areas. Unlike some recent youngsters who learned to write but are novice to China - Bhutan Border issues,  Haa Valley my birth place was physically exposed to the first incident of " border encroachment" with Tibetan yak herders driving their yaks into what was traditionally Bhutanese grazing land in 1960s. I, too, like most people of Haa felt the wound of aggression at our door steps. At that time, I wondered why His Majesty the Third King did not react more forcefully. Maybe ask Indian help I thought. Yet Bhutan never approached India for military help against deemed Chinese border encroachment acts.   Instead Bhutan informed  India what was happening at the Bhutan - China Border. India had been very insistent on handling the Bhutanese border issues with China. So the Kings of Bhutan having little option, had not out rightly opposed Indian pressure on this score. But that does not mean Bhutan had amicably surrendered to India her sovereign right to discuss her own border issues with China. However, under the circumstances dictated by geopolitical compulsions, a different way of approach had to be found to reject Indian overlordship attitude.

Thus there was repeated back and forth encroachment incidents at the northern border.  When Bhutan protested, Tibetans went back and again re- entered after a lull.  And as usual Bhutan kept pressuring  India who had insisted on taking up the border talks with China for Bhutan to do something tangible.  China kept up the pressure at the border and Bhutan kept up the pressure upon India. But on the other hand, China refused to engage India on matters of Sino- Bhutan Border. China told India that she will only talk to sovereign Bhutan. 

And finally India was taught a hard lesson in international politics. She cannot decide about the border of Bhutan and China even if India in many aspects had tiny Bhutan under her thumbs. India had duped Bhutan into equal nation friendship in 1958 then thereafter, had forced Bhutan into various submissions.

Bhutan surrendered to Indian leads in many peripheral fields ( Non- Aligned, SAARC etc.) but on core national sovereign affairs,  the Kings of Bhutan gently steered away Indian hegemony trend  ( UN membership, recognition of Bangladesh, the Border Treaty with China, the expulsion of Indian militant groups from Bhutan and the team of  National Council and Opposition DPT Party firmly opposing ratification of BBIN Agreement signed by the Bhutanese Government and the recent silent stand against Indian troops transgression at Doklam). 

As highlighted above,  in real crucial national sovereign affairs,  Bhutan somehow over time managed to outwit India. So it was with Bhutan- China Border Talks. After numerous incidents of Border encroachments by China into northern Bhutan, India was compelled to allow Bhutan to represent herself in the Bhutan- China Border Talks. That was how politics of Border encroachment played out. It was not so straight acts of aggression as was narrated by novice Tenzing Lamsang. He should have made some effort to analyse the information from Indian sources ( but then one must recognise the fact that all  mouth piece have shortcomings that invite manipulation by generous powerful Agencies).  But here suffice to say that few border encroachment incidents may have been politics of cajoling India down to her own sovereign affairs and not keep dictating upon Bhutanese sovereign affairs on Border issues with China. 

Now Kulagangri mountain that was once reflected as being part of Bhutan by Geoglogical Survey of India (GSI).  Bhutan did not then have a Survey Agency of its own with the required technical expertise. Thank you GSI but you should have physically set foot there and carried out the ground survey instead of making a guess work on Kulagangri in the comfort of your mapping room.

Unfortunately,  for Bhutan the ground physical reality turned out to be different when Survey of Bhutan finally had the capability to map the national domain physical landscape.  Most Bhutanese even laymen know the story of Tibetan great Saint Milarepa and his nine storey stupa type building somewhere in Tibet.   Well folks, that place and stupa and other Tibetan settlements happens to lie in-between the mountain ranges of North Central Bhutan and Mount Kulagangri which rises on the other side across the Tibetan Plains. 

In conclusion,  I would like for all Bhutanese people to shoulder the responsibilities of being informed citizens. We are not haters of China or India at birth forget being so in the wombs of our mothers. But there are people who hate China from their time in the womb. I am not being racists.  Just realistic about the valid reasons for most Tibetans to hate anything and everything about China. I would too if I am in any way connected to Tibet. I respect the feeling of Tibetans but refuse to adopt it for Bhutanese dealings with China.

Truly concerned Bhutanese citizens must beware that there are people amongst us who knowingly or unknowingly are sacrificing Bhutanese national sovereignty on the alter of personal birth hate for China. At Doklam, it was Indian troops not Chinese troops that occupied Bhutanese territory. So know upon whom to tag the belligerent term at Doklam.

Bhutanese of Drukpa or Lhotsampa forefathers do not have an alternate home. So as His Majesty the Third King once addressed the families of Bhutanese soldiers ( let me roughly provide the gist in english) let us value Bhutan as our only homeland. 

His Majesty addressed thus:

I thank you for the sacrifice of your fathers, sons, husbands and brothers who are camped at Dadhue- Margaa  in Thimphu in preparation to defend our nation. We Bhutanese have no option but to protect our land  We are all farmers nourished by the very soil of our land.  We have no other wealth that we can carry with us and find home elsewhere. So with your blessings and sacrifice, I intent to lead our brave solders to defend our Kingdom.

That address was given at Paro Palace ground where people of Haa joined others to hear the King.  Bhutan thought China may cross into Bhutan from Arunachal in 1962.  Thankfully China never ever aggressively attempted to disturb the status quo of sovereign Bhutan to this day.

There are some who think that my stand for my country arises from some hidden dislike for India or preference for China. Sorry that you suffer from limitations of vision. I can never say what China may turn out to be if China happened to enjoy the same economic, transit and thus the  political clouts over Bhutan as India does now. I have never called for disengagement with India. I have never called for IMTRAT and DANTAK to leave Bhutan. What I have always sought is that India respect the crucial elements of sovereignty of Bhutan.

I have been very honest and substantive in my views. I do not dis- respect Indian or my own Bhutanese authorities. My objective is to express what I truly feel in the hope that the leaders of Bhutan and India make corrective measures to establish a genuine respectable cooperation between our two nations that recognises equality in national sovereign aspirations.

I am not a disruptor and not a happy go lucky individual. I care for national unity and regional peace. I want friendly neighbours not overpowering friends. I respect my Kings and do want to contribute to the preservation of the political relevance and national dignity of the institution of Bhutanese Monarchy. That is why I value essence of being truthful even if some deem it to be against the reverred authority.

I was the first Bhutanese long before Lyonpo Om Pradhan wrote his book " the roar of the Dragon " to talk honestly of Southern Bhutan Uprising. I wanted the nation to heal and our Lhotsampa brothers and sisters to comprehend the national validity of the ways of the Fourth King. I was the first to defend the meeting of Prime Minister Jigme Yoeser Thinley with the Chinese Premier. Not for JYT sake but for Bhutan in the long run. I may be again the first Bhutanese commoner to publicly  seek conclusion to Bhutan- China Border Talks and establishment of diplomatic relationship with China. My feelings have nothing to do with India or China per se. I personally believe that opening up to China consolidates Bhutanese sovereignty status among world commity of nations and expands   opportunities to achieve our development goals.  I am fully aware and also am satisfied that India will remain Bhutan's closest friend and generous benefactor. But unlike few of my countrymen, I do not accept this prevailing " master- mistress relationship " that India politically terms as " Protectorate ".

From 1970s ( when I pushed for opening  up extrene northern Bhutan to tourists from the western world against Indian Embassy reservations and direct hard currency payment against order issued by Reserve Bank of India to Travel Agencies in India who co- ordinated foreign tourists tours to Bhutan) some people have warned me of RAW action of elimination for those that oppose Indian hegemony.  I never took it seriously. If I had placed my own  personal safety and interest before that of my Country's national interests, I would never have been able to state the truth. People fear not just Indian but our own authority so they claim to choose silence. But that way, our leadership hierachy will never know the truth that lie within  the hearts of the common citizens.

P.S. ( I managed to establish direct links with travel agencies in foreign countries and also secured direct dollar payments for tours to Bhutan before I left Bhutan Tourism. The Chomolhari trek through northern Bhutan is still a popular sought after trek. What I achieved was only in the course of performing my entrusted official duties during those 1970s period.  Today I hope I have succeeded in sensitising fellow Bhutanese to the necessity of having good relationships with both India and China.

And lastly I do not consider any Bhutanese or Indian my adversary. Those who express resentment or throw insults my way are not in my age or experience bracket nor are they free of fear or prejudice. I answer them only to prevent further public deception by their falsehood but I do not consider them to be worthy friend or foe. They are neither below me or above me in terms of race or blood. The difference is where we feel the pain. Bhutanese sovereignty is core existence for many of us and for few a means to barter for personal convenience  or easy livelihood. The difference is not in race, blood or culture it is in thought and attitude). Peace be to all.       
  

Shri Arun Jaitley loses Defence Ministry Portfolio in the Doklam aftermath.

A rethinking and repositioning of power at PM Modi's Delhi has happened.

An aimless Note Ban by Finance Ministry and a reckless adventurism at Doklam by Defence Ministry cost Shri Arun Jaitley his 2nd in Command Position in the Indian  Government heirachy and his Defence Portfolio.

Shri Rajnath Singh was almost at par with
Shri Arun Jaitley in influence but too many racial and  social disturbances plus continuous security incidents bogged his image down. And now Shri Arun Jaitley too is pushed back but not out. 

Now it is Shri Amit Shah who once again has gained his rightful position. He brought Modi the General Election as well as the following successes in state elections plus political upsets in Goa, Manipur, Bihar and possibly soon in Tamil Naidu. So during this Cabinet reshuffle, Prime Minister Modi had him selecting new Ministers and rejecting old ones.

Shri Amit Shah is a political genius. Whether he has national leadership in him or not depends, hereafter,  on how India goes about in her dealings with SAARC Countries and the ability to deal with American demands and Chinese reality. His influence should now matter in PM Modi governance of India and India's attitude to the concerns of the neighbours and the region. 

As a Bhutanese, I am most disappointed with Shri Arun Jaitley for sitting on the rupee note exchange regarding old rupee stock with Bhutan as Finance Minister of India. And most upset with him as Defence Minister of India for Doklam transgression. I wanted him to be replaced as Defence Minister. He was either weak or simply a war mongering fellow.

The Punjab election defeat for him seemed to have affected his intellectual bearing. He was quite a promising leader of BJP during the last UPA tenure. Now just an economic jumble bumble and political liability in regional sphere. How could such a brilliant mind and noted politician lose his bearing when he is almost at the summit. Maybe political altitude sickness if ever there is such an illness.