Facts about Court verdicts for those interested in knowing facts.

1.Verdicts are judgements passed by a Court of Law.

2. It is the responsibility of the  Court of Law to enforce  verdict upon the litigants if the same is not complied with. The litigants cannot enforce judgement contrary to what some journalists wrote. 

3. The plaintiffs and the defendants must either comply with the verdict or make appeal to higher Court ( in Bhutan the appeal must be done within 10 working days from the date of verdict). The highest Court in Bhutan under the Constitution is the Supreme Court. So Supreme Court Judgement cannot be appealed.

As a subject of His Majesty the King, a Bhutanese litigant could make appeal to His Majesty the King after Supreme Court decision.   But not for another judgement. For Kidu only. And if one be so fortunate to receive the grace of Kidu then show gratitude and respect by accepting the outcome of Kidu appeal. It is out of bounds of  decency for a law abiding subject to mount direct or indirect ugly attacks on national institutions when the outcome is not upto individual expectation after seeking Royal intervention. Such behaviours reflects badly upon the Kingdom's code of social conduct and equal service.

4. The plaintiffs and defendants must note that if they do not go for appeal then they have to comply with the verdict. And compliance has to be done within the time frame set in the verdict.

5. In the event due to some unforseen problems,  the  plaintiffs or defendants are not able to comply with the provisions of the verdict, then they must approach that particular Court for time extension with valid reasons before the legal time bound expires. Do not expect the Court of Law to seek the courtesy of the litigants for enforcement of the verdict if not already complied within the time provided.

6. It is not alright to express intent to comply with the provisions of the verdict after the legal time frame expires. The Court is required by Law to enforce it's verdict upon the litigants if the litigants do not comply within the time frame provided. 

7. All Bhutanese and Bhutanese Institutions must respect and comply with the judgement passed down by the Supreme Court of Bhutan. However, it  looks like that some feel different and mount ugly attacks upon the  Supreme Court or individual Justices of the Supreme Court. Perhaps they have their own designs and motives. Only time can tell. Freedom of expression or depression of sovereignty under foreign influence?   Not much to feel overly disturbed, I think.The Kingdom has survived outer or inner disruptive forces in the past. The present undesirable trends are sugar coated in the name of freedom of expression and so must be handled in like manner.  

It is necessary to keep in mind that His Majesty the King has never expressed displeasure with Supreme Court Landmark judgements let alone other lesser verdicts. Both the two democratic Governments of Bhutan and the Election Commission of Bhutan and the 1st and 2nd Parliament have  respectfully accepted the judgements of the Supreme Court and abided by the verdicts issued.

Against this background,  many silent spectators in Bhutan who never had reasons to question national Institutions, would be intently watching how judiciary now defends itself and Justice  against vicious attacks by some forces. Does different standard apply to different sections of Bhutanese society? Does quality of Justice depend on who can shout the loudest and attract outside attention or is it an inbuilt culture within the system?  Can journalists with personal agendas hold justice to ransom in the name of freedom of speech that is music to international media?

Making the rich richer.

Royal Monetary Authority (RMA)  has overall authority over Banks and account holders. When RMA feels a heightend sense for responsibility for the money of account holders, it issues order to the effect that Banks cannot withhold depositors' money. And when it wants to  display magnanimity to Banks, it issues orders to freeze certain amount of money from depositors accounts.

This time RMA has issued notification to the effect that account holders with cheque faciliy must maintain a minimum account balance of Nu:1000:00. This means the Banks can use that much amount from each account with the bank without having to account for it physically.

There has to be thousands of account holders because most salaries are paid into Bank accounts. Out of many thousands, probably a bank would have minimum 10000 account holders with cheque facility. And under  RMA new order, a Bank would have access to free fund of one crore/ ten million ngultrums  to do as it prefers. A good bonus to fellow Financial Institutions from their Supreme Regulator.

Banks levy a fee on every cheque book they issue. Further Banks like BOB and Druk PNB levy annual maintenence fee on every account. And now these banks can keep 1000 of customer cash. It is one kind of a formula of rich made richer by absolute authorities..

A matter of legitimate process?

Just went through two headline news of Kuensel and both covering the same defamation case. I can understand the mood of perplexity of some of us non legal people. But why legal professionals are  questioning, that too anonymously,  the appropriateness of withdrawl of cases after they themselves quote the law that permit the same. Perhaps some interested parties feel cheated out of their spectacle of gladiator fights. Court cases are experiences that most would want to do without. Only those with money and power might enjoy the process. I am glad for the three individuals that their case has concluded.

Regarding the hype associated to the withdrawl of the cases, actually in life you are quite free until you make a commitment. Like there is no legal  penalty in falling in love until you tie the knot and then later attempt to untie it. You can discuss a deal and work towards a deal and be free of liability if you backed out in the last minute before signing the deal. Likewise, in regards to  Court cases until the verdict is out, there are rooms for litigants and even judges to determine the course of the case.  Once the verdict is declared then not much can be done even by the judge of that particular Court.  That is why there is an appeal Court.

Even in cases where a party withdraws the case filed, I think the other party can appeal to the next higher Court if dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court.  If that is not at all possible then one can initiate a new case against that person/ party. The deemed harassed party should not have to be satisfied with the compensation awarded by a Court.

In case  of the two defamation cases in Thimphu Dzongkhag Courts that were ultimately  withdrawn by the initiators, both the initiators were not let go free. They were subjected to consequences of their actions. Now if those defendants were  still not happy and feel justice has not been served to their satisfaction,  they should seek rooms to appeal. 

But it is not upto to the spectators to make decisions for such defendants. Spectators can speculate.But why would legal professionals and main stream media hype the issue? Did they discover something behind the sudden development? Was the initiator bribed or threatened to withdraw his case. Were the two defendants cajoled to succumb to the Court verdict?

So far none of the defendants in the two defamation cases have publicly expressed their desire to appeal against the final Dzongkhag Court verdicts. Perhaps the closure of the second defamation case brought relief to all three involved individuals. They did not sound particularly aggrieved by the conclusion.  That's more than what can be said about DPT in the first defamation case. For DPT the case is over and yet it is just blowing up. A restrained stance from media and anonymous few legal professionals could prevent another hype.  
 

World Politics and Denials but actual Truth even for a small nation.

President Donald Trump of America says to quote," America is First". His detractors in America say that to quote , "Isolationism is not good". Unquote.

Actually in modern times, I cannot find an instance where major countries of the world did not put their interest before that of any other country. Look at the ongoing world situations. Self national interests is not Isolationism. World power politics is never such simplicity.

America is still fighting an oil war in the Middle East for herself.  Britain is withdrawing from European Union in her own interest.  China is protecting her interest in the South China Sea.  India puts herself first in SAARC region. Russia is protecting her interest in the Mediterranean region. All these are putting self nation first. But only Donald Trump comes out in public and declares he is pursuing a policy of "America first".

Other smaller nations would like to put their interest first, too. But they lack the political and economic muscle. Even our Kings have always  put Bhutan first but because of our lack of political and economic clout, it takes time to achieve national goals in world Politics.  What China and India can achieve in a year, it takes Bhutan more than a generation. From the very beginning of his reign, His Majesty King Jigme Singye Wangchuck realised that 1949 Indo- Bhutan Treaty needed to be amended. What happened to Sikkim and her Chogyal shook Bhutan and the Bhutanese Monarchy Institution to the core of existence. Only towards the end of his 34 years reign, the King succeeded in getting the Indo- Bhutan 1949 Treaty amended to reflect the political reality that Bhutan must conduct her foreign Policy as a sovereign nation and not under the guidance of India. A monumental achievement that took monumental time and such tenacity that only a great Triple Gem King can demonstrate.   

During Bhutan's General Election of 2013 and thereafter,  Prime Minister Jigmi  Yoeser Thinley was attacked for meeting the Chinese Premier. I never waivered in my stand that Bhutan must have friendlier relationships with China. It was never and can never be about China replacing India. For Bhutan, Indo- Bhutan friendship relationship cannot be replaced. However, no nation small or large can ignore China of today. And especially for Bhutan and the way our national geography  is positioned, it would be suicidal for any Bhutanese leaderships  to do away with raprochment policy with China. Today I am glad that contact between China and Bhutan have increased. Our Prime Minister His Excellency Tshering Tobgay even shook hands with the President of China. And our SAARC neighbours especially India seem understand the positive outcome for regional peace  and stability in recognising the enevitable modern reality of Chinese position. 

Every nation has its national interest first in the ultimate game of sovereignty.  It is important that each adult citizen rise above narrow political prejudice and be with the Government in reign to follow this path. As responsible citizens of a small and landlocked Kingdom, we have to exercise more patience and deeper faith in the ways of our national leaderships.

Bhutanese film and their success.

Kushuthara movie piece by Kuensel today is a breath of fresh air. The movie is directed  by a Bhutanese lady. Most probably she is also the producer. The article does not mention the producer. The lead actor is a foreigner.

In the recent debate about Hema Hema, a host of ardent supporters have been trashing the endeavours and products of many worthy Bhutanese film profucers, directors and actors. I do not know why the national producers, directors and actors were subjected to such animosity?  Was it necessary to trash other movies to enhance the image or worthiness of Hema Hema? The fight was supposed to be between BICMA and the producer, the director and supporters of Hema Hema. In the process, why did so many people victimise the products of Bhutanese film industry in general?

I am glad that Kushuthara succeeded in penetrating the foreign concept of good film. I think quite a few other Bhutanese films would have equally received similar foreign admirations, if the initial exposure was possible. Kushuthara's lead actor origin may have helped to get that door opened which many other Bhutanese films were unable to. What Kushuthara has demonstrated is that other Bhutanese apart from Dzongsar Khentse are capable of producing films of good standard and such quality will be recognised if only initial international exposure was achieved. 

I do not question the capability of Dzongsar Khentse in film industry. However, the venerable Trulku has far more network of connection in the outside world and therefore, his film or any other endeavour has better chance of getting exposure than that of other Bhutanese  film directors. It is viciously unhealthy and narrow prejudice of his supporters to trash other Bhutanese films for the purpose of glorifying Hema Hema. And I humbly beg to state that I found it rather unholy of the venerable Khentse to maintain silence whilst the endeavours and products of other Bhutanese producers, directors and actors were trashed in the name of Hema Hema. 

Talking of Hema Hema, it's supporters and innocent victims, I am looking attentively towards the decision of film tribunal to which BBS managing director is supposed to have put up his appeal. He is a capable and seasoned person. I never doubted his ability to reach executive position in any field he chose to pursue. However, here I see a clear breach of BICMA Act by BBS.  May not have been intentional. If the rule says a film cannot be broadcast unless approved by BICMA, it means that. A new film is never broadcast in entirety unless rights are bought by a TV station. And publicising via way of few seconds of showing parts of the film seen in some 40 countries ( was told that BBS reaches that many countries)  is a breach.  I also am against a Government Agency in this case BICMA Director General  demanding homage along with explanation from Managing Director of BBS.

In the overall national administration , if a political  appointee executive of a national body  keeps challenging the authority of another national Agency, we have a broken system.  This cannot go on. I mean political heavy weights just have to stop backing such disruptive trends.

I do not have opinion on Hema Hema as a film and it's masks. Generally I practise free speech  and expressions. And I do not do so for vengeance or publicity or personal objectives. But I feel disgusted with supporters of Hema Hema for trashing the whole of non Dzongsar Khentse Bhutanese film industry. I am also interested as a matter of valuable information and reference as to how many Bhutanese films have been publicly screened outside Bhutan and then later got approval from BICMA for screening within Bhutan. If the concerned producer went about a wrong process, penalise for this error but not take it out on the actual product.    

Bhutan a giant notch down in community harmony.

Nobody seems to have valued the harmony we have in our rural community. The crimes ( mostly petty though ) of urban Bhutan is like happenings in another world when you come to think of the peace and comfort prevailing in rural Bhutan. It is unbelievable.  But till date there is no policeman posted among Bhutanese rural communities/ villages. And soldiers are at their barracks or on the international borders.  Bhutan is actually a GNH nation in real essence  and practice.

This scene of authentic harmony is now going to be encroached. What a sad decision by the Government. Today Kuensel quotes " Smuggling has to be curbed," Colonel Chimi Dorji said.  " People think we are not letting them live but we cannot allow illegal activities to thrive anywhere." Unquote. The Chief of Royal Bhutan Police want to police the rural villages because the people are not cooperating and snitching upon their fellow community members. Why does not the Royal Government of Bhutan recruit all Bhutanese communities into the police force?  That is the surest way of holding onto power for considerable period of time.

For centuries the Bhutanese rural communities existed as near self sufficient and self reliant group of people. From marriage to birth to death or illness to farm works ; from daily meals to festivals to community works, there exist time honoured working systems  that ensured healthy community growth and co- existence. This naturally  harmonious and self supporting system could never have been so successfully cherished had residents had the social culture of deep enimity, envy and snitching habits.

Smuggling occurs cross interational borders. Within Bhutan there 20 Dzongkhags but all are subjected to same rules. For example tobacco is banned in all Dzongkhags. So there is no such thing as smuggling one banned item into a Dzongkhag from another liberalised Dzongkhag.

Regarding sandal wood smuggling, better law enforcement must be developed at Indo- Bhutan border. Not disruption of rural community life within Bhutan. Smughling is a lame excuse to police people in their homes.

It is a good national character if neighbours do not snitch upon each other. Loyalty and disloyalty is built at the grassroot. Do not expect nor encourage good people to spy on each other. And worse do not convert rural community into a police network. I can assure the authority that there will be no social or political benefit in policing the daily occurrence of a community life. Do not create open prison. It is not necessary.

What we have today is incredibly beautiful and represents the core value of GNH. For a long, long time, I have been telling the nation that the Fourth King did not create the philosophy of GNH from thin air. His Majesty perceived it at rural communities in Bhutan and packaged it at national and international level. Happiness and coexistence are achievable with minimum luxuries and without police supervision.

The only real hidden reason of placing policemen among rural communities is to scare people into submission. That goal will be achieved but then that can last only  until some other force loosens that  authoritive grip. 

Tsamdro the grazing land. It means more than grass to me.

The Government has moved towards doing away with traditional rights to pasture land. The traditional rights has been interpreted as only grazing rights in the recent years. Likewise the sokshing rights has been interpreted as right to collect dry leaves or pine needles. In the absence of a strong independent  judiciary system, the civil authority of the day reserves the right to interpretation. 

This was not the traditional understanding and practice. Grazing rights came together with protecting water catchment area. This meant some others just cannot start felling trees in the pasture land. Water source is the fundamental requirement of pastureland. Today many water sources are drying up precisely because traditional check and balance has be removed and indiscriminate destruction of water catchment area has devastated catchment vegetation leading to water sources drying up.

In case of sokshing, it is the same situation. Traditionally,  the thram holders looked after the sokshing and ensured healthy growth of trees. There cannot be indiscriminate felling of trees. Even the sokshing thram holder required permission to fell trees for self house  constructions or repairs. If sokshing right is removed then surely the natural forest will gradually get destroyed.

My family has a traditional grazing land. It's a beautiful highland on the ridges of hills that separate the Valleys of Haa and Paro. We are under pressure from powerful forces who wants to turn it into tourist camps.

My beloved mother died there in the cowshed herding the cows. The land means more than just grass to my family. 

It  is precious not just for grazing but for the sacrifice the ancestors made to keep it. Even in modern times during the early 1940s, whilst many families from my village Wangcha sold their grazing rights to the family of  Prime Minister Jigme Dorji, my grandfather kept his. The then Haa Drung remarked, " Ap Fuchu, I am told you have no yaks so why not sell ". My grandpa Fuchu humbly  submitted, " I have children Dasho ". The great far sighted personality who later became the Prime Minister of Bhutan immediately understood what need not have been said in words. My family was going nowhere and we will always have descendants and no present generation can do away with the source of future family sustainence. 

Today,  I am faced with the same dilemma. The Dzongkhag Administration in Haa has called upon my family along with others to accept Government compensation of the grazing lands and if we want to use it, then lease the same. I want to thank the Royal Government for granting my family the priority in leasing what was ours for so many centuries. I fully respect the demands of changing Times and Laws of the Land. I am humbly and dutifully prepared to be a lessor from the position of thram holder.

I have asked my family in Haa not to accept the compensation but to take on lease the grazing land and pay for it. It would be an unforgivable sin to sell even to the Government  what my ancestors so preciously held on. I am unable to accept a price for my mother's spirit and the sacrifice of my ancestors. Something tears up  within me when I think of parting with the land that I have walked over so many times and know it like the palm of my hand  But if it is taken away by a Government degree,  I am sure my law abiding ancestors, too, would  understand my position. Its like death taking away your heart beloved. One must come to terms with reality of life and living. I suppose that  there cannot be shame or breach of ancestral trust in  surrendering  what I cannot keep by law. And I am willingly to take on lease the very same grazing land if granted the choice.

The younger generations of my family may never fully comprehend my ways and my beliefs. At times even my ancestors did not understand me when I was a growing up youngster. I have gone through so many weathers of life and living.  And I survived because I never ever compromised my faith and love for my family and my nation. I do not expect others to be swayed by my thoughts but let me remain true to Bhutan and my family in my own ways. 

I will always be a true Bhutanese national through and through but as a responsible citizen and subject of the Wangchuck Dynasty, I will voice out my trepidations in the hope that we become a better nation and better Bhutanese. 

 

Tsethar advocates attacking way of life in reckless manner.

Farming in Bhutan is mainly mixed farming. That is crop cultivation  and livestock rearing. Both crops and livestock have traditionally sustained rural life. And majority of Bhutanese are said to be farmers who live off the land either cultivating crops or rearing livestock and selling farm products.  

Today this traditional livelihood is under attack directly from so called Tsethars and indirectly by the Dratsang. Yak herders love their yaks and it pains every Yak herder family to sell a Yak or two for slaughter. As simple and pure heart Buddhists, they are more aware than so many purported holier than though campaigners of animal life, about the sins of taking life. However, to sustain their livelihood and also to enable them to look after the larger number of their herds, few are sacrificed every year so that rest find sustainability. The Yak herder family does not sell their Yak for the pleasure of creating pain and they do not sell it for making profit. The herder family is not into commercial venture like some of you nor do they have steady monthly salary. 

Do not humiliate farmers who rear livestock whether yaks, cows, pigs or hen. Sometimes look inward and tell us from where or how did you make the money to enable you to practise that grandiose tsethar deed so publicly advertised. Was it donation, profit from business, sweated out like farmers on fields and in harsh weathers of wilderness?

The Department of Animal husbandry is invited to make a study of what happened to those animals other than fish that those so called Tsethars have saved. How were such animals cared for, thereafter? 

Protesting against commercial butchery is one whole world away from persecuting ordinary farmers and herders with your high profile hugely publicised tsethar interferences into the livelihood ways of farmers in Bhutan. If some of you cannot bear to tolerate the traditional livelihood of rural Bhutan, I invite you to provide an alternative means of livelihood. And if you are not in position to provide a decent alternate livelihood, please stay in peace and stop interfering and obstructing traditional livelihood. 

Do not preach what you cannot help to practice. Livelihood of farmers are not hobbies that you publicise as your good deeds. Farming whether in crop cultivation or rearing  livestock  is for sustainability in rural Bhutan. Not at all comparable to extracurricular public show of those better placed urban few. 

You want to seek forgiveness for your private sins, do something else other than victimising herders and other farmers . Sponsor a Moenlam Chhenmo or Kanju Reading every week if you want to please your Tsawi Lams or visit banks and settle loan accounts of those in true desperate situation or sponsor few rural students for college studies if you are sincere in social goodness. 

You may despise me for writing this. But do not be too sure that the reasons behind your public tsethar activity are all that laudable. 

BBS and BICMA in public battle.

According to Kuensel headline News today, the BBS Managing Director is refusing to comply with BICMA decisions and seeking media tribunal intervention. Can BBS Managing Director get Media Tribunal to change Section 111 (1) of the Act in reference? If not BBS has to pay up the penalty.

There is one demand that BICMA need not have insisted upon. That is requiring the Managing Director of BBS himself having to present explanation in person. What difference does it make whether the explanation is presented by the CEO or the General Manager who is  directly in charge of News  production or a Manager from BBS. A case of ego clash? The fact that no explanation was submitted is altogether a different ball game.

Both Posts of CEO at BBS and Kuensel are political posts in the sense that these two are filled by the Government in reign. Thus the CEOs would have political capital stock. However, is it in national interest for these two main stream media to blatantly disregard rules in place and make a mockery of the Agencies that are responsible to uphold Acts passed by the Parliament ?

This is the second public incident of BBS Managing Director directly challenging the mandate of Government Agencies. The 1st was an order issued by Ministry of Labour relating to recruitment procedure lapses following a complaint by a BBS employee.

The issues here are not just whether the dabblers in social media or main stream media journalists and editors want to run the nation but whether a political appointee would ever feel the responsibility to respect the responsibilities and mandate of national Agencies. A lot depends on the Government or the  Cabinet that makes such political appointees.

People do not have to like the laws and can make efforts to change or amend but everyone especially in responsible positions must comply with existing laws or face the consequences of paying penalties in cash or prison. And anyone willing to go to prison for his and her belief has a chance of becoming a hero but anyone going to prison for misdeeds is a criminal. 

Hema Hema or Hgi-ngen Hgi- ngen.

A movie Hema Hema meaning Long long ago. Initially I thought it meant Bamboo Bamboo  ( Hima Hima). The social media and print media carries the story of its banning in Bhutan. So there may be some element of Hgi-ngen Hgi-ngen meaning Insolence Insolence theme that is unpalatable to the Bhutanese official sense of culture and religion.

The Director is venerable Dzongsar Khentse Rimpoche who is well known , intelligent and articulate.The Rimpoche is also a vocal  political and social commentator. The Producer seems to be also an able man. And  BICMA has its  mandate and professionalism.
So the two Parties involved are at par in their abilities and hopefully sense of national and commercial  responsibilities.   And each side would know the context and nature of the film which I have not seen but is said to be a critic delight.

For sure the interest of average movie goer would be different from spiritual followers or faithfuls of Dzongsar Khentse. And the yardstick that  BICMA officials apply to review a movie would be different from that of general movie critics.

In the end what matters is what motivated  the producer and the director to make the movie and what prompted BICMA to bar it in Bhutan. Only the two Parties involved would really be privy to their inner motives and honest reasons. As a third party, I do not take sides based on being or not being a spiritual follower of the venerable Rimpoche. Nor as  a sympathiser or antagonist of BICMA. I favour freedom of expression exercised with reasonable responsibility. What I feel comfortable is that both the movie Director and Producer have the ability to articulate their own thoughts and motives and  BICMA it's own  reasons for the  decision arrived at.

It is not for me to attack BICMA simply because I read many  disagreeing with the decision. Nor do I cast doubt on the intent of the movie makers because BICMA has banned it. Things happen without anyone planning such a consequence. Sometimes one has to move forward and put unpleasant incidents behind.