Friday, September 8, 2017

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.       


  1. Another great article by Wangcha Sangay. Compare it to Ammateur Tenzin Lamzang's. As a true Bhutanese I can feel what Wangcha Sangay feels. For us, its all about Bhutan. However, people like Tenzin Lamzang's writing's are perhaps influenced by other factors, eg lost of Tibetan independence. So he could be so anti-Chinese and Pro-Indian. He could show all his personal gratitude to India or his hatred for China through other avenues, not using the Bhutan-China-India border dispute.

    1. Just to be factual, as far as Chinese is concerned Tibet has been a part of China longer than the United States is a country. And this applies to all Chinese regardless of the place of birth. I was born in Hong Kong and lived there for nineteen years and while I was there I can tell you not once did I even realized that there is a 'China annexed Tibet' allegation. Even today if you go to Hong Kong and tell the locals that Tibet was annexed by China, people there will give you a blank stare because they would not know what you are talking about. As far as the Hong Kong people goes Tibet is part of China as much as Mancester is part of Britain. I am sure the same applies to the people of Taiwan. The first time I realized that there is a narrative of China annexing Tibet was during the run up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics when there were a lot of exiled Tibetans in Western countries protesting of China's occupation of Tibet. This is certainly historic revisionism. Being a person with an open mind I dig into this subject to make sure I know what I am talking about. And the fact of the matter is that there is not a single country at any time recognizes Tibet as an independent sovereign country. In particular Britain and the US recognition of Tibet as part of China goes back at least a hundred years before even the present day PRC (Peoples Republic of China) exist. And just to drive home the point the ROC (Republic of China, aka Taiwan) also regards Tibet as part of China. In fact even though the present jurisdiction of the Republic of China does not extend beyond the island of Taiwan and some small islands in the South China Sea ever since the KMT (Nationalist Party) loses the civil war to the Communist and retreated to Taiwan in 1949, the official map of the Republic of China still encompass Tibet, including South Tibet, which was invaded and annexed by India in 1951 (make a state and renamed to the so called Arunachal Pradesh in 1987).

    2. About 18 years ago I had a brief email argument about Japanese Imperialism with a history professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and I was stun by the bias some western "historians" had, (and still have), against China. Often distortions to historical facts were subconsciously justified in the name of countering communism. This has done a great disservice to the western people as entire generations grew up with a distorted view of world history, if they had any knowledge of world history at all, and unexplainable hatred towards China. Time and again this has led to strategic miscalculations when involved with China. And the normal reflections they have after realizing the miscalculations, are blaming the Chinese further. Having lived in both China and the western world for more than 25 years each, I often frustratingly admit that people in the western world have generally lost their ability to critically self reflect. By saying that, I don't mean everybody. There are still clear and sober heads in the western world, but their voices are so inundated and buried that they do not make any impact at all. By and large India is a small copycat of this phenomenon. As to the particular situation with Tibet, everybody knows Tibet has been a part of China for many centuries already and much longer than the United States or India as independent countries, but the false notion of China annexing Tibet still finds a very good consumer base. Nowadays it is probably a non failing test you can use: if anybody uses this notion to justify anything, he/she probably is ignorant and does not know anything about what he/she is talking about, or he/she is intentionally trying to stir up something. And that something is most likely evil in intention.

    3. I would say China opens her door to the world might be too late so that the world couldn't hear common chinese voice and trace the history even they hold the truth. Not every historian just like Maxwell in 1970 book india's china war has courage and independently critical thinking to correct their premature analysis. Most just follow the media opinions which are manipulated by interest group or organizations. So I am not surprised someone will be fooled and say Tibet is not part of China. Plus not every nation of the world would like to see China's rising.

      I would also thank Mr. Wangcha for opening a window to learn more of Bhutan and Bhutanese.

    4. Take a look of the documentary film made by US during WWII "Why We Fight The Battle of China": Starting from 3:34, you can with your own eyes both Tibet and Xinjiang (SinKiang) as well as Mongolia were on the map of China (Republic of China), long before People's Republic of China came into existence. After WWII, the Western changed its tone about Tibet saying it was annexed by PRC to promote their counter-comminst propaganda.

      As mentioned above by Mantou, any Chinese, be it from Hong Kong, Taiwan or overseas, all hold the same belief that Tibet has been part of China long before the existing of USA, as admitted by the documentary.

      China demands the return of South Tibet, yet NEVER ever there is any claims or talks about Bhutan, be it publicly or privately! In fact, I don't quite understand where this fear that China wants to take control of Bhutan come from. Could it be the propaganda and misinformation generated from India & US to push Bhutan into the arm of India? Hope more wise people like Wangcha Sangey will wake up those Bhutanese who are misled and misinformed so they can see things clearly and understand what is best for their beloved Bhutan.

  2. The analytical articles written by Wangcha Sangey on Doklam Standoff are truely inspiringly and informative. We cannot expect our government to do everything for us. As a citizen we have to play our part. Sir, you have inspired so many Bhutanese and we salute your contribution as a patriotic citizen.

  3. I feel the bhutanese and the editor is inducted by Indian RAW to look after the pro-China activities carried out in bhutan or not.

  4. India's intention to gobble up BHutan was all too obvious.
    In 1963 Delhi even issued a series of postal stamps depicting Bhutan and Nepal as part of the Indian Union. !

    Bhutan made a smart move in applying UN membership, thus narrowly averting the fate of 'Sikkimisation'

  5. Sad to read the article of " Bhutan triumphs at Doklam"

    Diplomacy at Doklam Was an Afterthought When It Should Have Been the First Step
    By Atul Bhardwaj on 08/09/2017

    The effectiveness of India’s strategy will be measured not by the length of road China may build at the tri-junction but by the diplomatic bonds it establishes with Bhutan.

    The external affairs ministry’s statement announcing the disengagement at Doklam reiterates the primacy of diplomacy in solving border issues. However, one must ask why diplomacy was abandoned in favour of the use of force. The ministry’s statement says that the “Indian policy is guided by the belief that peace and tranquillity in the border area is an essential pre-requisite for further development of our bilateral relationship. Differences should not be allowed to become disputes”. If India believes in these principles, why then did it not prioritise its relationship with China, especially in the light of Bhutan’s reticence on the issue. Has India endeared itself to Bhutan or pushed it towards China? Going forward, the efficacy of the Indian strategy shall be measured not by the length of the road that China may build on Doklam but by the strength of the diplomatic bonds China establishes with Bhutan.

  6. The article of "Diplomacy at Doklam Was an Afterthought When It Should Have Been the First Step" tells the truth!

    The sake of Indian design is to burning any hope of the diplomatic bonds China establishes with Bhutan.

    Indian got what she wants by taking Bhutan for granted.

  7. Lhasa to Kathmandu Train in Future

    It will be one: Lhasa-Xigazê - Yadong railway.

    Lhasa-Xigazê Opened on 6 August 2014
    Xigazê - Yadong is under way.

    Yadong-Thimphu ?????

    1. That would be good for the Bhutan and its people to have another choice of transportation and travel, but I am afraid that India will DEFINITELY deny Bhutanese this.

  8. Bhutan and China should establish a formal diplomatic relationship as soon as possible. Then all the three of us can stand on equal footing. Doklam has shown the world that the geographical size of a country doesn't matter at all. It indeed is the people and their "thought and attitude" that makes the difference. Thanks for yet another helpful and insightful article, Wangcha sir.

  9. Tenzing Lamsang, please respond to Wangcha Sangeys article. If you did not notice, during the three month Doklam standoff, not even once did our good friend India refer to Bhutan as a sovereign state, while on the hand, China who you seem to be painting as the villain repeatedly stated that Bhutan was an independent country. Given that you are very pro India which your articles confirm, care to tell us why India just refuses to do so.

  10. Nelson Mandela has said that "Elders are the voice of those who do not have a voice" much the same here Mr. Wangcha Sangay, as a senior Citizen of Bhutan, has voiced his genuine concern on behalf of all the citizens who could not express their concern due to various reasons. I personally salute you and look forward to your continued efforts for the well being of our Tsawa Sum.

  11. Mr Tenzin Lamsang, please think hundred times before you write any article in your newspaper. As long as Mr wangcha exist on this earth you cannot decept the Bhutanese people with your bias and false news.Why can't you cultivate the rightful thought and report the truth.

  12. Hats of to you for taking time and energy to inform our young Bhutanese people about national interest. I also feel that we should secure our sovereignty by opening diplomatic relations with China and other permanent security members. It is also important that we have our southern east-west high way so that we can travel to any part of our country without having to fear the Indian strikes and bullying on the highway.
    However, being located in the south facing Himalayas, no other country can replace India. Therefore it is extremely important that we take utmost precautions and sensitivity to India's security concerns.

  13. i really don't understand indian security concern over chicken neck corridor and Doklam at the age of missiles, drones, stealth jet fighters etc. Looks like they are still thinking to fight with bow-arrow and swords!!!! If war breaks out, it won't focus on doklam alone, it will be in multiple fronts-ladak, sikkim, arrunachal etc. it will be through air, land, sea and ultimately nuclear and destroy both. No winner at the end! So, India should get out of cocoon and forget these very traditional mentality abt so called strategic importance. Rather, resolve all border issues bilaterally and get into trade and commerce. Both India and china including bhutan will benefit form it. competition, trying to dominate each other will help will only destroy each other. Why can't stand on equal footing and prosper each other through trade and business.

    For Bhutan, we ve no option but need both neighbors.The more India try to distance us from china, closer we are getting towards north. We are grateful to indian for their assistance and we will always remain indebted to india but pls let us have bilateral relation with china too. We can't chose our norther neighbor! China will be our northern neighbor till this earth exist. So, why can't we have good relation with North.
    Considering rugged terrain in the North, we will always have more interaction with indian. so, pls don't worry indian friends, we will always remain friend with u guys and let us also make friend with china. It is something no one can stop. If not today, tomorrow we will make friend with china. So, like what mr. wangcha said, dont treat us like Mr-Mistress relation.

  14. straight drive. i know you're working for Indian RAW. let me set the record straight. yes, bhutan cannot replace the southern neighbor, but Bhutan can replace India with China for our friend if you keep showing your brahmanic attitude over Bhutan. you cannot stop us. you couldn't stop China. it's about our security. keep your chicken-neck corridor concern to yourself. nobody will take it unless you want to sell it to China or Bhutan. Bhutan is a country. Don't dictate us. if you want talk, first learn to respect others. and then come and talk to us..

  15. India is paying a hefty price for its past actions already and hope it will learn a lesson in dealing with Bhutan! Let's imagine, if India did not forcefully annex the Northeast areas, would it have to worry about its Chicken Neck at all now? If the India government is wise, it should change mentality and listen to the minority views in India, and what the Chinese have been saying. The world has changed. Annexing and controlling other countries do not make yourself stronger. Rather such behaviors cause undue burden more often than not. We do not need to look too far back in history to find examples. The most recent one was the Soviet Union. Afghanistan may be a small nation compared with the Soviet Union. But trying to control it by the latter was a deciding step for the latter's disintegration. Also if India is smart, it should know that China has no intention in choking off its Chicken Neck. The simple reality is that, if China wants to do that, it would be a full scale war against India. And if China wants a full scale war, why would it want to choke off this Chicken Neck while she has far better choices. Don't forget that New Dheli is only 600 km away from Aksai Chin and the path from there to New Dheli is basically a "highway" as compared with the mountainous terrains near India's Chicken Neck. With the current mentality in India, India is volunteering itself as a victim to the propaganda of some foreign intelligence communities and war mongers. It is not good for India, nor for its neighbors. Of course it will be a totally different story if the target was actually Bhutan when India started playing the Chicken Neck fear card against China.

  16. I do not know Tenzing Lamsang personally. I have neither seen him or met him. I just know that he is editor of the Newspaper - "The Bhutanese". Going by what he writes in his paper, particularly, in the editor column, it seems he is not living up to his professional integrity and ethics. More often than not his articles are biased, unsubstantiated and dangerous as it misinforms the public and at times his articles carry an element that has potential to create disharmony and division in the society.

    I cannot say with surety, but i am inclined to conclude that he is trying to propagate his personal vendetta. It may also be possible that he is trying to propagate the agenda of some other entity that he has inclination to.

    In this particular issue of 'Doklham standoff', his article carries a very narrow and one-sided view of the issue. His expression of fear and anxiety towards the northern neighbor could be deep rooted in his ancestral blood and upbringing. (i am not sure, but i was told that he is of Tibetan Origin). It is time he should chance his view/lens through which he view the reality of today's world.

    Thank you Wangcha Sangey once again for putting the context right in such circumstances.

  17. Its a pity that a biased fellow like Tenzin Lamzang runs a newspaper in Bhutan. Fortunately by now most educated people in Bhutan knows what type of person he is. However, the danger is foreigners who read his newspaper do not know about this person and so will be misinformed. I suggest if he has so much hatred for China and love for India, he should move to either Tibet or India from where he can write anything he wants. As someone rightly said his newspaper is creating divisions in our otherwise a harmonious society.

  18. Poor Tenzin lamsang numbed again. If you can't defend what you write, why did you choose to be the reporter and the editor of the newspaper. It needs honest,brilliant and knowledgeable person like wangcha.only because of some dishonest and dubious person like you Tibet lost its independence to china but here, as long as you support PDP party and government you are save.

  19. Tenzin lamsang,you are dumbed again (spelling correction)

  20. When other private media has closed and why theBhutanese media alive? how it sustain when other couldnot? I think it is sponsor by Indian embassy.

  21. Tenzin Lamsang has sold his soul to the devil. No wonder he has no ethics in journalism. His newspaper survives because it serves as the present government's propaganda mouthpiece. And worst of it all is he serves the interest of the Indian government even though it hurts the national interest of Bhutan. Indeed a pathetic journalist .