AND NOW, A MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY.

The dissident groups or the people in the refugee camps in Nepal have not issued documents relating to false propaganda against Bhutan. The propaganda on human rights and democracy is no doubt correct as the world of today is governed by these two realities and the people of Bhutan also belong to this part of the world reality. The international communities are made to represent only the cause of the Bhutanese refugees by the government publication and media propaganda. The Bhutanese dissidents have never tried to win over the sympathy of the global family for vested interest but efforts to draw the international attention to Bhutan has been flagged off for its poor human rights records and misuse of power by the absolute bureaucratic system. The international community with its own problems at home and abroad is not the sole agent of the Bhutanese to guarantee the rights of these people from Bhutan. The community is there simply to assess the reality of the issue and its implications. The concerned government can be pressurised to weigh the pros and cons of the problem but not compelled to act as desired. Besides, the world problems of magnitudinal dimension in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Darfurr in Sudan, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Palestine, Haiti, Sri-Lanka, Iraq etc. does not allow the international community to focus their entire concern for Bhutan. Therefore, to win the international support for the Royal Government of Bhutan is easy but not to the Lhotsampa refugees whose call for liberty, equality and social justice remains in their dossier but not in speech.

The movement in Bhutan was not a movement against racism and apartheid as the Royal Government made it out to be nor was it a move to attract international condemnation against Bhutan. The movement in Bhutan was not inspired by the Blacks Movement for racial equation in South Africa. By drawing an unfair parallel, the Royal Government has done injustice to its own citizens as the issue of apartheid in South Africa and the issue of human rights in Bhutan does not match at any cost. A peaceful movement and rallies for the restoration of peoples' rights for so short a duration cannot be termed something unrealistic. The apartheid movement in South Africa spanning over decades was a movement against the minority whites' rule to the majority Black population under universal support and Mandela's able leadership from within the prison cell whereas the movement in Bhutan for ones' own fundamental freedom without the know-how of the international body and without the likes of Nelson Mandela in leadership qualities cannot be termed apartheid. Moreover, Bhutan is not subjected to a rule by whites and the term racism and apartheid does not substantiate the government's stand. The diverse ethnic population of Bhutan are the coloured races and the question of apartheid does not arise at all.

The forceful imposition of ones' culture and codes of ethics to another section of population by harassment, intimidation and torture for national integration paints a sad picture of the peoples' plight in Bhutan. By banning and subjugating the culture, ethics, codes and religion of one group, the Royal Government drew partial support for national integration from its own quarter of Ngalong tribes but the overall picture of Bhutan tarnished from the world image. The Southern Bhutanese populace, according to the government's estimates are richer and prosperous than the rest of the Bhutanese population. However, the government's claim of bending over backwards to encourage them to join the national mainstream is a flaw, as the Lhotsampas of Southern Bhutan have contributed maximum in the government treasury.

The fall of communism in the erstwhile Soviet Union and the political changes for democratic reforms that swept Eastern Europe and elsewhere was something that the Royal Government should have noted with utmost concern. Although, the Royal Government found a pretext to co-relate the development in Bhutan as an inspiration from the success of democratic reforms in the world, yet, there was no visual proof for the democratic reforms in Bhutan. The Bhutanese people, in fact, opine that for Bhutan, monarchy system is the best provided the misuse of power and corruption is checked at the highest level. For the enactment of democracy, an atmosphere has to be built up, mass support is to be generated and an international awareness is to be created with mass media and publicity campaign for which the Thimphu regime failed to assimilate the principle requirement for a popular government and out of sheer desperation equated the Bhutanese movement with that of Europe. The people of Bhutan, out of frustration at the denial of their cultural pluralism petitioned the government to act for the interest and well-being of its subjects without letting the outside world know about it but the Bhutanese Government made it a big issue comparable to Europe's. The world body became aware of the Shangri-La’s deeds only, when trucks of innocent peasants from the Bhutan started camping on the banks of Kankai River in Eastern Nepal without any political cause. The royal regime in Thimphu perhaps thought it better to divert the Southern Bhutan problem as inspired by the changes in Europe and went all out to blame the citizens as traitors or anti-nationals when the actual reality remained within Tashichhodzong-the fortress of corruption and manipulation of events.

It is unfair to blame the Bhutanese government as far as health care, primary education and security to life and property is concerned. The provision of these basic paraphernalia is perhaps the best in Asia and can be compared with that of developed countries. Regarding the merit based selection system for higher education after the school leaving certificate examination; the ethnic minorities of Bhutan have availed very less success due to Dzongkha language placed at par with English language in the schools. The ruling class are fairly better in Dzongkha as it is their lingua-franca and thus they are placed in a better position to secure government scholarship. The Sarchops, Khengs, Kurtepas, Brokpas and the Lhotsampas or the rest of the ethnic groups are adversely affected due to this partiality. The late trend is that most of the offspring of ruling elite land abroad to pursue their education even if they do not fall in the merit based selection criteria.

The state of dissatisfaction amongst the government civil services and in the defence sectors is also made pitiable due to the involvement of life long appointed bureaucrats thereby hampering the selection procedure. In the process free and fair trail to the deserved lots are denied. Most of the highly qualified minorities are marginalised. Prominent amongst them is D. K. Chhetri the Bhutanese ambassador to Bangladesh. In early August 1992, Hari Chhetri, second secretary in the Embassy in Kuwait and the penultimate Lhotsampa in the foreign service, defected straight to exile in Kathmandu rather than return and await marginalisation. During the census-cum-identification process, Lhotsampas who had been trained abroad by the Thimphu regime, who were professionally trained from world ‘defence academies’ and had worked for decades in the army or police, who have been Bhutanese teachers for all their working lives, who had 'non-national spouses' all were made illegal immigrants at the stroke of a pen. Citizenship cards issued in 1985-88 with the seal and signature of the Government were made valueless. Says Kanak Mani Dixit, "........ It is a lifestyle on a dreamland and which, goaded by Western and Indian plaudit is increasingly divorced from South Asia. Thimphu's ruling class rarely visit the South, except to reach the Indian border. There is little empathy in Thimphu circles for the Lhotsampa peasantry which populates the south, and whose best and brightest actually work amongst them".

No doubt, Buddhism is the state religion of Bhutan and the government has solely concentrated for its continuation and domination over other religions. There is virtually no Hindu temple, Churches, Mosque and Gurudwars in Bhutan. Except for the practice of Hinduism by the Lhotsampa, the freedom to practice other religions is banned. Even Christmas celebrations by the people are banned. In 1989 in Gaylegphug town Mr, Eddie Gadabhor, Mr, Patric, J.W. Carnie of SMEC Australia, and many others UN Volunteers along with Deputy Director (M.E.) Capt. N.B. Giri of Central Workshop, Gaylegphug were threatened by police when they wanted to make Christmas Tree and celebrate. They were allowed to do so only inside their own room when Mr. Giri who was an army officer requested the police officer. The Bhutanese government was pressurised by human rights concern groups to weigh the reality of human rights violation in Bhutan as the constant flow of the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal soared.

In order to remain in clear conscience of the international community, the Bhutanese Government invited the Amnesty International in January 1992 after a thorough preparation to cover up its wrong deeds. The three member Amnesty team led by Secretary General Ian Martin were allowed to visit only samchi District, although evictions were then highest in Chirang and Gaylegphug districts. Martin in Kuensel quoted that "It seemed that Chirang was not available to us at this time".

Prior to the Amnesty trip, on 17 December, 1992, the king had granted amnesty to a number of political prisoners - a move designed primarily to fool the visiting members. Amnesty released a Press Notice on 10 February, 1993, welcoming the latest releases of about 313 prisoners on 04 February 1993, but expressing concern about the reports of human rights violations, prolonged detention without trail, torture, death in custody, and the practice of keeping prisoners in shackles. "It is clear that the government had gone about organising the Amnesty trip to its satisfaction". The government also invited the International Committee of the Red Cross to assess the human rights situations, only after a thorough restructuring of the prison conditions and after a slight improvement of the prisoners' diet and living standards. However, ICRC was not given accesses to all the prisons in Bhutan. So far ICRC has made many visits to Bhutan and things might have changed but none of the victims have received justice for which they were victimized jailed and tortured. However, many victims expressed the view that, had ICRC not visited Bhutan, they had no chance to live and see their families again. ICRC visited at least one prison, Chemgang in Thimphu where the delegates met the detainees. Government of Bhutan allowed communications with families through ICRC representatives and visits by relatives only after ICRC made the first visit. Till then, all the detainees had been kept incommunicado and in shackles. This practice still continues in other prisons all over the country where there are no visits by ICRC.

As already stated, the movement for democracy was not launched in Bhutan by the people during the peaceful rallies in 1990; it was a movement for evaluation of human rights in Bhutan and to let everyone exist as equals. The movement for "bringing democracy to Bhutan" by Southern Bhutanese is a government term and not tuned at all by the citizens. The term "democracy" became synonymous with the dissident groups only in exile although the vague term was well conceived by the Bhutanese people of all ethnic groups in Bhutan. The movement for establishing democracy in Bhutan does not only comprise ethnic Nepalis. There are many Ngalong and Sharchop refugees in the camps who also opine that democracy must find root in Bhutan for the social well being and happiness of her people.