Is DANTAK an integral part of Bhutan?

The ball is in the Court of the sacred institution that guard the sovereignty of Bhutan. 

The Chief of DANTAK ( DANTAK is part of Border Road Organisation of India)  Brigadier PKG Mishra declared to Kuensel the main National Newspaper of Bhutan that:

To quote Kuensel, " DANTAK  considers itself as an integral part of this Country." Unquote.

KPG Mishra is reported to have told Kuensel that Bhutanese Media should ignore the concerns of Bhutanese people about DANTAK putting  Sign Boards welcoming visitors to the Kingdom of Bhutan.

He further went on to say that he himself  had not bothered to even respond to the letter sent to him (more than 10 months ago )  by the Secretary of the Ministry of Works and Human Settlement regarding the gate that welcomes visitors to Bhutan by DANTAK at Paro Bondey where Bhutan's only International Airport is located. In all essence, the Brigadier has declared that DANTAK has every sovereign right to do as it damn pleases in Bhutan.

Every Bhutanese citizen may want our Government to respond in kind to:

1. How did Border Road Organisation and it's branch DANTAK of India become integral part of Bhutan?

2. Why does the Royal Government of Bhutan find it alright to be ignored by Brigadier PKG Mishra of DANTAK in the matter of letter sent by the Government Secretary to DANTAK. Why did Bhutanese authority fail to take that gate down? What happened to that Patang and Kamni responsibility? Only for subjugation of powerless Bhutanese or for post decoration?

I thank Brigadier PKG Mishra for making  his declaration through the main National Newspaper Paper " Kuensel ". The Boarder Roads Organisation of India  has put the Tsawa Sum of Bhutan on Notice not just the Cabinet of Bhutan. And he has a point in saying that the Media should ignore the concerns of the Bhutanese people. Afterall we have our King and Prime Minister to address national concerns of such magnitude. The crystal ball of DANTAK is now in the Courts of our deeply respected and beloved Leaders.

PS.    Read the front page article titled  " Paro locals question Project DANTAK welcome sign " in  Kuensel issue of today the 11th of Feburary, 2017.

The 2 holy Buddhist Teachers who.must take rebirth only in Buddha Heaven.

There are so many Khenpo, Khentse and Trulku Rimpoches. I suppose all will die and many reborn again. But the two Lams of Kuensel Phodrong Buddha complex and Takila Guru complex should be reborn in Buddha Land.  Not again in this or another world.

Venerable Lam Karpo has died recently and may the Lam gain Buddhahood. Venerable Lam Tshering Wangdi is in good health still endeavouring to devote much energy to Kuensel Phodrong. And when the Lam dies, may he gain Buddha hood. 

Holy projects like Takila Guru and Kuensel Phodrong Buddha are never meant to be completed in one or two lifetimes. Progressive establishments can never ever be really completed. There is a beginning  but no end to growth of goodness.

I have only seen videos of Takila Guru complex  but visited Kuensel Phodrong complex few times. I wondered how on earth did the two venerable Lams ever imagined the Holy Projects. Did they see in dreams the shapes of the complex they ventured to build? How did they gather so much faith in Providence and what kind of rays of light energised their indomitable spirit? Such lungtenchen disciples of 1st and 2nd Buddha and so totally and originally Bhutanese in blood and spirit. The Buddhist Kingdom is very much still the Land of living Buddhas.

Can democracy function free of money power influence?

I have immense insatiable curiosity about democratic governance in nations  like the United States. Just awaiting how national polity in America is shaping up with Justice Department appealing a Federal Judge  suspending the  " Travel Ban " imposed by the American Executive Branch.

Apart from self affected communities the world over,  the main forces within United States with  substantial political clouts opposing the  "travel ban"  are the Democratic Party and the high tech companies. The Democratic Party has been wounded deeply by Trump victory and so would want to oppose the President anyhow. The super duper rich high tech corporations which thrive on highly skilled but cheaper and more docile foreign human resources are naturally unhappy.  The travel ban gravely affects the pool of labour through whose services  the Tech companies reap high profits. The opposition from high tech companies is purely based on money matters " company profit ". Nothing to to with race or religion or freedom of movement although maybe disguised as such. 

If democratic way of governance  is to work then each compartment of national governance ( legislative, judiciary and executive) must uphold strictly their sovereign responsibilities without fear or greed of encroachment. Here the so  called " travel ban "  only applies to entry into United States by several categories of foreign citizens for a short period of time. It has nothing to do with American citizens' freedom of travel which the Courts must defend and preserve. 

Therefore, the Executive Order banning entry into United States by citizens of several countries for a certain period of time to allow introduction of improved vetting procedures falls under the  domain of the Executive Branch of governance. Thus I feel that the ruling by a Federal Court temporarily suspending the " travel ban " will have to be lifted by the same judge after due considerations  or overturned by an Appeal Court. If Executive Branch is prevented from exercising power in domain that is Executive in nature and essence then democratic franchise exercised by voters fails.

I think it is futile to debate on ethics of travel ban because before any definitive conclusions can be reached the travel ban will expire on its own within few months time. However, the effect on principle of power separation is far reaching. Thus my particular interest on the outcome of the appeal.

A true national joyous celebration.

An authentic national euphoria of celebration for young Bhutanese souls on the occassion of the 1st Birth Anniversary of HRH the Crown Prince would have been:

A commitment by Education Ministry to endeavour to provide PP seats to all who have completed 5 Years of age on 1st March, 2017.

Instead Education Ministry chose to freeze the occassion in the minds of the students by mandating that Schools open early in the cold weather from 3rd February, 2017. 

The way our Crown Prince is growing, HRH would be in Class I or II certainly not  in PP by the 5th Birth Anniversary. Such visible physical growth progress of Bhutanese children in this era should convince the Education Ministry that the mandatory completion of 6th birth anniversary for admission into PP is simply not in the interest of growth of young minds. Unless ofcourse we believe in cold storaging growth by forcing schooling in wintry months. 

Taxation structures of Bhutan and India.

The Indian taxation structure is very favourable to lower income population than Bhutanese taxation structure. In India upto Personal income of Rs.3 lakhs is tax free. In Bhutan it is only Nu: 2 lakhs. That too courtesy PDP Government.

And in India the tax is only 5% for those with personal income between 3 lakhs to 5 lakhs. In Bhutan it is 15%. Living cost in Bhutan is far higher in Bhutan than in India.

Businesses in Bhutan pay 30% income tax. In India about 96% of business entities pay 25% income tax.

The PDP Government has enhanced tax exemption amount  from 1 lakh to 2 lakh ngultrums for PIT purpose. And also had done away with tax on Fixed Deposit though concerned Banks have not been notified by the Finance Ministry through RMA.

The next Bhutanese Government should be able to enhance PIT  tax exemption amount upto Nu: 3 lakhs. And also reduce to 5% the tax on personsl income of 3- 5 lakhs ngultrums.

The Government should ensure proper collection of taxes on imported taxable products at the border entry points. Also ensure better royalty collections. And identify individuals and business entities that should be paying taxes. All these three areas of tax avenues need better monitoribg and enfircement. That way even if taxes are lowered for lower income population, the revenue from tax collections will increase by collecting due taxes that must be paid. 

Bhutanese authorities have to be more tax friendly towards vast majority of lower income group of population. Presently the rich and business class enjoy tax breaks in numerous ways. And low income salaried employees are taxed comprehensively on their total personal income after allowing for minimum income  exemptions. 

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.