Bhutan Changing Political Equation - a Rajya Sabha TV programme of India.

In the programme,  there are three very individualistic but distinguished panelists selected from different social, political and intellectual spectrum of Indian think tanks. The programme seems to be specifically oriented towards Bhutan and Bhutanese people.. 

The Panelists composition represent the Indian Defence Forces in Rtd. Major General Ravi Arora who is also introduced as the Chief Editor of Indian Military Review. He seems to be also a military expert ; the professional administrative cadre and diplomatic corps of India is represented by India's former Ambassador to many nations including United Kingdom and  Nepal His Excellency Shiv Shankar Mukherjee.  He was the Indian Ambassador in Nepal when the Nepal King was deposed.  The academics and intellectuals are represented by Professor Sreeram Chaulia Phd. A very active intellectual in the Indian polity like the Ambassador.  The RStv host or anchor introduced the topic but more or less left it to the respective panelist to evoke their takes.

Several  fb friends had forwarded the tv clip and sought my views. I just did not  have time to study in detail and think over until now. Thank you for sharing the clip.It was very educative hearing such high confidence expert views and analysis  from the learned panelists.   

This is a rather heavy subject and it is not really for general fb friends whose attention span is restricted and also whose interest is short time Party politics. However, there are many well versed fb friends and others who are very familar with India-Bhutan friendship and related  politics and though their public views could differ, the private takeons could be quite similar to mine. Anyway I share with respects to all stakeholders my limitted but frank views. May we all benefit from honest exchanges.    

My Views:

Introduction:

By and large the panelists especially the two of  civilian origin presented a vastly improved and sophisticated long term approach to Indo- Bhutan relationship,  hereafter. It is much different from the Indian media tone during Doklam transgression by Indian Army into the disputed territory of Bhutan and China. I bring up this Doklam subject because all the three panelists and RStv anchor  dwelt upon it quite specifically but in true Indian prejudiced interpretation of the episode. I shall deal with this towards the conclusion.

1. Rajya Sabha is the Upper House of India and it is something like National Council of Bhutan but very much Party political oriented  and quite powerful. So comparision is only in sense of political organizational structure but incomparable in clout and composition plus leeways. I, therefore,  take this Rajya Sabha tv programme as being solely a message from the government of India to Bhutanese people, the Political Parties and the Institution of Monarchy. And it comes in stick and carrot form. There is , however, a conciliatory tone strengthened with some genuine sincerity.

2. Let me first state the stick form. The military expert  panelist shoots straight.
" We have not got the bang for the buck " he more or less aggrieved maliciously  and went on to chide Bhutanese behaviour and begger position versus India.  The threat is open and aggressive. Nothing couched in niceties and impossibly rude. He kind of puts Bhutan in the prostitude position and India as the man who paid for favour but did not get satisfied. It is at such times when listeners wished to be among the panelists and ask the Rtd. Major General if he took into account self virility deficiency in, " not getting  the bang for the buck ".  Afterall India has her own vital national reasons for both sweet and sour deals with Bhutan. And over the years,  Bhutan and her leadership and thereby the people have been reduced to sub- servient position in matters of self national determination and aspiration. 

Any way,  later the sauve anchor tried to shave off the edge of the crude phrase  " bang for the buck"  by suggesting to the Army fellow " you mean India did not get the full  returns for her investment in Bhutan ?"  The meaning was ok not the crudeness.

3. What I have deduced even before Doklam tragegy was that the Indian Army heirachy  has no regard for Bhutan Army except as its underling domino. This time the Indian Army General Bipin Rawat had unnecessarily included Bhutan when answering questions about Nepal not joining Bay of Bengal Initiatives joint Army exercise. Bhutan Army was  there.  The  General who thinks that Indian Army keeps the Bhutanese Throne intact as in " helping rulers rule " was quite conciliatory in tone towards Nepal Army conducting joint exercise with PLA of China after cancelling joint exercise in India. It seems unlike Bhutan Army, Nepal Army is funded by the Nepalese nation. General Bipin took extra pains to remind Bhutan along with Nepal of our geographical vulnerbilities if we cosied upto China and this was also  pointed out by the panelists. I think the General is yet to recover from Doklam stump. 

4. What we as Bhutanese must  know is that in India the Commander of Defence Forces is the President of India and the President does what the Prime Minister of India ask him to do. So what General Bipin Rawat  says or the insufferable attitudes that Indian Army officers like Rtd. Major General Arora  bears towards small dependent neighbours like Bhutan and Nepal, does not necessarily weigh all in terms of actual Indian policies. Unlike in Bhutan where His Majesty the King  has absolute  gracious  command over defence forces,  the Indian defence forces are subject to the authority of the elected Government. Therefore, I feel quite buoyed up by the softer and more comprehensive attitude and views of the two civilian panelists who would be in better position to gauge the prevailing  thinking and official mood of the Indian Government. They certainly would not be expounding such views over Rajya Sabha tv without some nod from certain government quarters. In any case they are heavy weights unto themselves..  

5. Ambassador Shiv Shankar Mukherjee directly disapproved of the tone of approach adopted by the Rtd. Major General Ravi Arora. He said such transactional approach was inadvisable because this makes Bhutan feel vulnerable and therefore susceptible to Chinese overtures and deep pockets. I think as a very seasoned career  diplomat,  he was perhaps offended or embarrassed by the term " bang for the buck ".  And moreover, as a very shrewed diplomat he knows that in an era where China is giving away billions of dollars with no string attached, it would be grievious mistake for India to tell the Bhutanese Prime Minister and worse the King that Bhutan is just too dependent on Indian largessee of billions of rupees.

One can get the picture between billions of dollar grant given by China to many small nations and billions of rupees smaller portion of which is in grant form and much larger portion in hydro  loans at out of standard 10% interest by India to Bhutan. No other nation charges such exorbitant interests. Worse than commercial banking.   In fact I remember reading an article by a Bhutanese about India getting  loans from Countries like Japan and world financial institutions like IMF and Word Bank at 1% to 2% interest  with repayment schedule stretched over 50 years period. So literally India is reaping huge profit in financing hydroprojects in Bhutan. India has monopoly over Bhutanese rivers and makes Bhutan subsidize her monopoly over Bhutan's only premier natural resource the rivers of Bhutan. Thats generally termed as having the cake and eating it too.

6. It would be naive on part of Bhutanese people to think that the Rtd. Major General and the other two panelists were only speaking their own minds. They are individualistic in approach but have common allegiance. One does not get called to Rajya Sabha tv programme to voice out only personal views especially at a time when PDP Party the deemed pro India Party in Bhutan was unexpectedly defeated in the first round of the two tier national elections. So what Rtd. Major General said about India " not getting the bang for the buck " is a warning.  And it seems similar tone in the past had got Bhutanese leadership to crawl under. The Indian Army commanders know what size of  bullets are to be fired at Bhutanese establishment. Moreover, retired maybe as professional soldier but he is very actively engaged with the Indian Army and he is a worthy expert on Indian defence strategies and the mood of warring group in India. Sometimes Bhutanese leaders must learn to flick off such warnings so that these are not repeated again by India. Easy to scare is easy to manipulate.   

7. The Ambassador seems well versed in the Bhutanese affair. And so is the the ex- Army General.  The professor does not seem to have an indepth nitty gritty knowledge of Bhutanese in particular. But he is well versed in the geo- politics of the region and he is incredibly deeply insighted and foresighted. That made me look him up in the internet. Infact I would suggest readers to look up all three panelists. 

I shall quote them, hereunder, so that readers can get the wholesome picture from the horses' mouths as the saying goes. 

A) Ambassador Shiv Shankar Mukherjee stated:

i) No need to point out dependency of Bhutan on India. The Bhutanese people are well aware of the situation and they are comfortable with this.

ii) The elephant in the room is China. Whatever India wants to achieve, it has to be done with the willing co-operation on the Bhutanese side. India has to be sensitive and generous to counter Chinese influence. 

iii) India should  not look at Bhutan as a very dependant Country which cannot do without India. India should counter Chinese influence upon Bhutan and should stave off China breathing down on Indian neck.  

iv) India should not make Bhutan seem vulnerable by the transactional approach. That would make Bhutan open up to Chinese overtures and their deep pocket.  Inadvisable to deploy the transactional approach upon Bhutanese or other small neighbours. These small countries have high sesitivity feelings  for self sovereignty. 

B) Professor Sreeram Chaulia stated:

i) Democracy was intriduced in Bhutan by the King but he has not given up all the levers. The King is the fulcrum. ( a similar  view was also expressed at another Indian TV channel. It was said that the King is the pivotal force ).

ii) India must provide room to Bhutan to achieve her aspiration. India cannot prevent any neighbour including Bhutan from joining for example BRI. Both Bangladesh and Sri Lanka with whom India enjoys close ties have already joined BRI. India should not conduct relations with Bhutan based on Political Party preference.  He also pointed out aspects favouring India such as China having  territorial claims on Bhutan whilst India does not.

iii) When the Major General alleged that Bhutanese youths do not like Indians the Professor countered  by stating that if youths of Bhutan seem anti- Indian then India must move to change such feeling through providing scholarships and other grass root involvement to win over the youths and people in general. He also pointed out that Bhutan has Lamaism religion akin to Tibet.  And the fact that Tibetan exile government and Dalai Lama are housed in India. He said that there are ways to foster closer ties and trust through Tibetan institutions in India and what happened to Tibet the nation next to Bhutan. (In other words pepper Bhutanese society with Tibetan culture and phobia for China. In saying so he seems to be aware of few  Bhutanese of Tibetan origin siding with India against China to the detriment of Bhutanese national interests during Doklam transgression). In a nutshell the professor believes  Bhutan has such a small population and it should not be difficult to mould them the Indian way. ( The learned Dr. Chaulia maybe underestimating  the Bhutanese psycology but  who can say for sure. We do have those who thrive on freebees.)       

iv) India must take a multi- facet approach towards Bhutan and accommodate Bhutanese aspirations. India must not look at Bhutan under the shadow of Chinese prism.

He confirmed  that Indian Government was already in contact with all relevant political Party leaders and authorities in Bhutan after the Primary Election result. India was ready to work with any Political Party in Bhutan.  

C) Rtd. Major General Ravi Arora made the following dubious statements. Therefore, I have put my  clarifications in bracket against each of his statement.   

i) That India had prevented Bhutan from giving away territitory to China.

( The fact is that India prevented Bhutan from signing  the Border Agreement with China as far back as 1992- 1994 because of her strategic interest in Doklam. There was even a much larger land swap proposal  in central Bhutan-China border with smaller land portion at North-West Bhutan-China border in Bhutan's favour.

The Doklam tri-junction lies in South - West of Bhutan- China border at the southern most tip of Chumbi valley of Tibet. And Doklam was never part of the land swap proposal. In fact, Bhutan wanted to leave out the issues of the tri-junctions both at South-West of Bhutan and North- East of Bhutan bordering both India and China. These tri- junctions issues would only delay forever a Sino- Bhutan border deal covering  north Bhutan international border with China.. Nepal too had wisely left out the tri-junctions.  But India has been persistant and to borrow the phrase of the  panelists " breathing down Bhutan neck " ).
   
ii) That during Doklam crisis,  Bhutan informed India of Chinese entry into Doklam and then ownwards, the two countries worked in tandem successfully.

( How could Bhutan inform India about the entry of Chinese troops at tri-junction spot in Doklam? Indian Troops are stationed on the Sikkim side of Doklam only 150 metres away from the Chinese seasonal camp whilst Bhutanese border guard camp is 2 or so Kms away from both Chinese and Indian Camps at Doklam. Infact Indian troops had moved into Doklam by 5th June according to some Indian media  much before all the public  noise began after 15th June, 2017.  Maybe unsuspecting Chinese Army had not sent border patrols regularly because all was usually tranquil at the desolate tri- junction. So perhaps Indian troops were able to move in quietly unopposed. No one was there at site  to oppose or witness. 

It may have appeared to the outside world that Bhutan was working in tandem with India during so called Doklam stand off between India and China. Actually it was a standoff between 3 nations. We know that  Bhutan issued a demarche to the Chinese Embassy in Delhi, I think,  on 20th June, 2017 requesting China  to " maintain the status quo ".  There was also a press meet by Bhutanese Ambassador in New Delhi reiterating the same status quo call. Many would have assumed that Bhutan was asking China not to extend the motor road as alleged by India. I also thought so in the beginning. But then Bhutan maintained absolute public silence after that. In between the Bhutanese Ambassador in India attended a Chinese Embassy function in Delhi marking an occassion to do with PLA.

As the silence continued and Indian high level diplomatic and security  teams frequented China to negotiate withdrawl, it dawned upon me that perhaps the demarche indirectly told  China to maintain the status quo of having no third country force at the Bhutan- China disputed Doklam. I am just guessing !  Bhutan herself was and still is  in no position to tell Indian Army off. She could have been easily choked off by India.  No wonder China started  threatening India in no uncertain terms since the demarche! What really happened is anybody's guess. Maybe Bhutanese aothority  co-operated with both China and India in Bhutan's interest.  

Well politics may be every politician game but the Wangchuck Kings of Bhutan have been at such survival games for over a century be it the institution of Monarchy or the status of the Kingdom. Nothing maybe beyond the royal political realms when it comes to self and national survival strategy.)

iii) That the Treaty of 2007 says both countries shall not work against each other's national interests.

( The wordings of the 2007 Indo - Bhutan renegotiated Treaty of 1949,  is not at all as quoted by the Rtd. Major General. If it were so then India should not be working against Bhutan's national  interest of establishing diplomatic ties with China when India herself has both diplomatic and trade ties with China.

The actual wording says that both India and Bhutan shall not habour forces on their soil working against national interest of the other signatory nation. During Doklam crisis,  it was Indian Army which was transgressing into China- Bhutan disputed land.)    
 
iv) Chinese border with Bhutan is not demarcated. Indio - Bhutan Border is already demarcated.

( China and Bhutan has international boundary disputes and so have held till date  24 rounds of Boundary Talks. The fact is China as a huge, powerful nation could have just demarcated their border as desired and as India did with Bhutan. But China has chosen the negotiation and reasoning path. Bhutan and India held no border talks. At least not to public knowledge. Bhutan simply accepted whatever the Survey of India demarcated. It was quiet and quick as the case usually is when one powerful Party  makes the unilaterial decision for both stakeholders.)  

In conclusion my summary is as follows.

1. India will not be blantantly interfering into this ongoing 2018 General Election even though PDP Party has been eliminated. Infact in another Indian TV, it was even pointed out that withdrawl of fuel subsidy in 2013 was a regretful mistake. A bad coincidence. Never intended or planned. I believe not in the coincidence part but I think it was not planned at Indian Government highest level. The Indian Ambassador in Bhutan during the withdrawl of fuel subsidy in 2013 upon returning to India became an advisor to Chief Minister Nitish Kumar of Bihar State. He did not continue his career in Indian Diplomatic Service. Maybe he had reached retirement age.  Also when PM Modi visited Bhutan in 2014, there was a rumour that  he sent his regards to former PM JYT. No idea how reliable the rumour was.) But if DPT comes into power, such gesture bears good value. 

2. One fact stands out. India seems to be confident that His Majesty the King of Bhutan will preserve the age old India domineering Indo-Bhutan relationship. The King was referred to as the " fulcrum ". And they genuinely believe that the King  has the " leverage " to do so. Maybe the panelists were telling the King just that. 

Looks like India feels that the King of Bhutan will stand by India and His Majesty would use his position as Supreme Commander of Defence Forces of 16,000 soldiers ( number quoted by the major general possibly including the police force and Desuung trainees because I do not think RBA and RBG make up this number) and other royal prerogative powers to protect and enhance Indian interest in Bhutan.

In this, India could be overly misplacing her confidence. If the push comes to shove as in Doklam, the King of Bhutan would  be at the call of the Drukpa Deities Palden Lhamo and Yeshey Gyenpo and ofcourse the people of Bhutan. In such a scenario even an Indian atomic type clout may not sufficiently persuade the King to take over responsibilities of an Indian Ambassador to Bhutan.    

Actually, in my view,  His Majesty the King has the necessary trust and reverence of the People of Bhutan and all Political Parties to open up to China and yet maintain present relationship with  India. This is what I would look upto the reverred King to accomplishing. Bhutan has been unjustly cocooned long enough by India.          

3. India  seems to be sensitive to the position of the King of Bhutan and the increasing frustration that is building up in regards to India taking a confrontational position towards Bhutan developing an internationally  respectable relationship with China. The panelist trio offered everything " across all boards"  to the King and the next Prime Minister to keep China at bay. Such freebees can be selfishly tempting for Political Parties who over pledge. Thats why I believe Wangchuck Dynasty is crucial for Bhutan's national long term interests.  

4. In my view, India should resign to the fact that sooner or later Sino- Bhutan relation will foster to diplomatic level. So India should  not place demand upon the King to stop Bhutan from developing diplomatic and economic relationships with China.  India seems prepared to do everything short of military venture like Doklam to convince Bhutanese leadership that Bhutan was better off without China.  But something that the Ambassador said seems to also suggest that diplomatic relation maybe tolerated but not actual physical Chinese embassy presence at Thimphu. A wishful thinking!  I would suggest a small  Chinese Embassy at Thimphu but no military attaches. Let military affairs of Bhutan be a preferential matter between Bhutan and India.  It is high time for Thimphu to take away the leadership of the Kingdom from New Delhi in all other matters. Just preserve the close military link to ease Indian discomfort. Indian friendship and support is important to Bhutan. The people are also very friendly and easy to communicate with. The Chinese are different in nature and there is the language and social barrier.  

5. By now it should have dawned upon New Delhi that a limitted  unobstructed relationship between Bhutan and China actually would  strengthen the buffer status of Bhutan. I sincerely feel that it is in India's national security interest if China is given the opportunity to demonstrate a healthy respect for Bhutan as a sovereign Kingdom. That way  the so called Siliguri chicken neck  and the whole  of North Eastern States of India will  never be invaded  by China through Bhutanese territory. And it has been demonstrated at Doklam that India does not have the capacity to invade Chinese Tibet from Sikkim or through Bhutan. Thus  India can relax and  still be Bhutan's number one friend and of considerable influence. 

6. Both IMTRAT and DANTAK will continue their presence in Bhutan but advisably at a lower profile as in:

(a) Indian Army Troops to refrain from occupying and destroying Bhutanese cummunities' forests and water sources in the name of war exercises and acclimatization camps. There are hundreds of similar altitude places in India itself in States of Jammu Kashmir, Sikkim and Arunachal. Do not trample over Bhutanese livelihood sustainable natural environment  and community self respect.

(b)  And Dantak refrain from putting up  road signs and Indian tri colour  markings all over Bhutanese highways and at  Border Gates as if India owns Bhutan.  

(c)  And co-operation between Indian Army and Bhutan Army is maintained at respectful and reassuring level. Bhutan ofcourse has no military interest with China. Our experience with Indian Army has saturated us adequately. However, it would be advisable to have Indian Army  withdraw its spy contigents attached to Bhutanese border guards at Sino- Bhutan and Indo-Bhutan borders. I think their existence is an open tri-national secret and is a distraction in  building trust between Indian Army and Bhutan Army. Indian Army has to trust Bhutan Army and not watch over it  24 x7.     

7. Whichever the Political Parties  DNT or DPT comes to power,  both should be serving the Tsawa Sum under overall guidance of His Majesty the King.  That is what  India is also  quite  confident about. This is the reason why the panelists and the RStv host unanimously reached the conclusion that, " India would respect and  be willing and happy to work with whichever Political Party the people of Bhutan elects in the governing seat".  I guess this has been conveyed to both DNT and DPT by the Indian Ambassador in Thimphu as suggested by one panelist. I am sure the two Political Parties also assured highest regards for India. The friendship must continue with small adjustments only for sovereign external affairs.

It is for us the Bhutanese citizens who too must be ready to accept the choice of the majority among us. The spirit of democracy must prevail under democractic system. And unity of one people,  one nation under one King must prevail over any and all political differences amongst Political Parties and supporters and the three regions of  Bhutan. A freely well contested general election topped with controversy free result in the evening  of 18th or morning of 19th October, 2018, would unite Bhutanese people and foster confidence and trust amongst the  Political Parties, the Institution of Monarchy and the populace. India too would feel reassurred and encouraged to be  more forthcoming with  reasonable substantive dialogue of true friendship in parallel Indo- Bhutan relationship.      

May all prevail well in accordance to  the wishes of the two Deities of Palden Drukpa. And may Tsawa Sum succeed in promoting and preserving national  interests and sovereign dignity. Palden Drukpa Gyelo!