|
Revivalist
Drukpas and Buddhist Fundamentalism
Bhutanese
nation did not inherit a homogenous history. It has a diverse past
of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-linguistic and multi-religious
identity. It’s three main cultural, linguistic and religious groups comprise
of the Dzongkha-speaking ruling Drukpa or Ngalung the follower of
Drukpa Kargyupa Buddhism; Tsangla-speaking Sharchops, the follower
of Nyingmpa Buddhism and Nepali-speaking Lhotshampas Its diversity represents
a mosaic and not the ‘melting pot’. Nepali speaking southern Bhutanese
citizens are officially called Lhotshampa in Dzongkha, the national language
of Bhutan A Nepali speaking Lhotshampa therefore, is
a Bhutanese with an ethnic Nepali and a non-Buddhist/Hindu cultural
identity. Drukpa tradition has its roots in feudal Buddhism. which
with its central theocratic doctrine of Drukpa revivalism, is imbued with
exclusive preference for Drukpa culture and mores and prejudiced against
non-Buddhist culture.
Today,
Bhutanese nation-state is under unprecedented assault as a result of state’s
infliction. The primary requirement of Bhutanese nationhood is the consolidation
and defence of nation-state system, where all ethnic, cultural,
linguistic and religious groups share the common ‘space’ and
live in prosperity. This should be the guiding state policy.
Bhutanese
polity is in real crisis as the politics is essentially defined
solely for the benefit of Drukpa ethnic group, in stead of
solving the vital issues confronting the nation. It would be wrong
to imagine that the Bhutanese regime’s insistence on building
the Bhutanese nation-state exclusively based on narrow Drukpa Buddhist
considerations will achieve a consolidated Bhutanese nationhood.
Bhutanese nation-state cannot be built on the contorted historical fallacy
of only one ethnic Ngalung group (widely called Drukpa) blinded
and deafened by delusions about their chauvinism, while completely ignoring
other groups’ contributions in building today’s Bhutan.
Aggressive
forms of Buddhism exists in Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, today.
In Bhutanese context, the role of feudal Buddhism must be understood
in a far more complex scenario. The shaky monarchy has meticulously
intertwined the feudal institutions with Buddhism so that the
existing feudal and autocratic institutions are imbued with a sacred and
exalted place in the Bhutanese psyche.
Contrived
perception
The Bhutanese are forced
to accept the state and Buddhism as synonymous. The notion that a traditional
Bhutanese Buddhist society will not revolt against the sacred religio-feudal
autocracy was developed. Buddhist philosophy has been misinterpreted
by the political machinery to perpetuate its autocratic rule and to glorify
the king, as not only the manager of political affairs of the state
but also the guardian of the Buddhist religion in the multi-cultural
kingdom as well as in the immediate region. of Sikkim and even in Nepal.
The King of Bhutan was even actively involved in the controversy
of the reincarnation of Karmapa in the Sikkimese Rumtek monastery.
This has led to the fallacious perception that the Nepali speaking
Lhotshampas’ reaction to feudal elements, abuses of their
human rights and opposition to the autocratic government is akin to Hindu
rejection of the Buddhist culture. The Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB)
is justifying the eviction of Lhotshampas by capitalising on this
contrived perception through its propaganda machinery. Political leadership
failed to create distinction between feudal elements and Buddhist
principles. As long as Bhutan remained isolated it remained possible to
save this ‘culture’, but once it began to be exposed to modernizing
influences, the feudal aspects of Buddhist culture became rallying
point of weaknesses and criticism.
Drukpa
revivalism
Bhutan
is experiencing a Drukpa revivalist movement since eighties. It
is aimed to restore and revive Drukpa social virtues at the cost
of all other social, religious and ethnic groups. Recent trends in the
Drukpa revivalist movement also demonstrates that it aims to purge the
multi-ethnic, muti-cultural and multi-religious Bhutanese society, which
it thinks as unwanted cultural element of foreign origin. ‘Ethnic
cleansing’ of Lhotshampas is a part of this movement. The Drukpa revivalism
movement seeks to reawaken Drukpa faith and revive former Drukpa
customs and traditions such as Driglam Namzha ( code of conduct/social
etiquettes of Drukpa) through the slogan of ‘One Nation, One
People’ by ‘cleansing’ other cultures. The imposition of compulsory
wearing of Drukpa dress and lifting of Nepali language from
school curriculum is an inalienable part of this revivalism.
The
extreme expression of Drukpa revivalism and Buddhist fundamentalism
has been manifest in the change of the name of the places
to wipe out the cultural traces of Lhotshampas from the state memory.
Thus, the Nepali names of places like Chirang, Sarbhang, Samchi
and Pinjuli in southern Bhutan were replaced with Drukpa sounding names
like ‘Tsirang’, ‘Sarpang’ ‘Samtse’ and ‘Penjoreling”. The king and royal
family, Drasthang ( Drukpa monastic bureaucracy), Dzonkha language
teachers, ministers, businessmen expecting rewards from the government
and traditionalist elements in the bureaucracy, army and police form the
inner core of Drukpa revivalists.
Buddhist
fundamentalism
The feudal Drukpa Buddhist fundamentalism has imposed and prescribed strict
adherence to the set of Buddhist dogmas and beliefs among the Bhutanese
population. As an aggressive Drukpa conservative movement, it
excludes and expels those who do not share its conservative faith
or dogmas. Drukpa fundamentalist attitude and traditions reflect the distrusts
of reason. Drukpa traditions such as Driglam Namzha is a
part of fundamentalism that seeks to restore a Drukpa mythical
status quo of Bhutanese society dominated by the Buddhist clerics
and old customs. Theocratic ideology of clerics and traditional elements
are profound in the administration and pose a challenge to Bhutan as a
modern secular nation-state. The role of Buddhism in Bhutan has direct
implication for Lhotshampas and other non-Buddhist minorities in the multi-religious
Bhutan.
Three refuge of Buddhism, Buddha (omniscient), Dharma (the spiritual
law ) and Sangha (the order) have been politically misinterpreted to mean
Tsa-Wa- Sum or three elements of King, Country and People in Bhutan to
suit ruler’s interest. The king now is elevated at par with the
Buddha. New publicity materials depict the king in heaven shrouded with
clouds. Any criticism of these three elements is considered treason
and is subjected to death sentence. Tek Nath Rizal, the father of Bhutan’s
human rights movement was sentenced for his opposition to government.
The most important thing about Buddhism in Bhutan is not what Buddha preached,
but how it is being interpreted by the state leadership through the clergy
to perpetuate the despotic rule. It bears crucial implication for
the collective psyche of the Bhutanese nation.
Contrary
to Bhutan, Tibetan Buddhism is the most pacifist religion of our time.
We have great admiration and respect for Tibetan leadership for
taking their religion to this height.
Monarchy
and Buddhism
The
monarchy’s compulsion to maintain its religious legitimacy was designed
to maintain internal political control. Advantage for the monarchy through
an alliance with Buddhism did exist particularly since the monarchy was
never held in awe by the Bhutanese people as in the case of Nepalese
monarchy or even the Dalai Lama. The monarchy used Buddhism to legitimise
the main theme of its political programmes of perpetuating its rule,
immobilising political opposition, suppressing the democratic movement
and carrying out the ethnic cleansing of Lhotshampas. Monarchy had to
achieve a position of supreme dominance in its religious discourse and
political hegemony. Hence, the King and his government rely heavily
on Buddhist divine laws and traditional agencies not prone to change,
to perpetuate his autocratic rule.
It
was against this background that the need to revitalise the Buddhist
fundamentalism arose. High ranking lamas deliver sermons exhorting people
to the Drukpa belief and value system. This did not only influence
the religious thoughts of a majority of Drukpas but also led to an increasing
tendency towards the communalisation of politics. Since eighties, Drukpa
elite view themselves as the only defenders of the country against heathen
encroachments implying Hindu Lhotshampas and Sharchops. Thus,
the Lhotshampas were suddenly found to be illegal immigrants and
the Sharchops of Nyingmapa sect as threat to Drukpa Kargyupa Buddhism
and Drukpa values. The defence of Drukpa values and Buddhism became powerful
form of chauvinist nationalist expression for the regime to immobilise
the political dissidence. Super patriotism is just a Drukpa eccentricity.
Nationalism is a process of historical development and not a sudden emergence.
The historical experience of its diverse population shape the emergence
of a distinctive and ‘shared’ nation and a distinct Bhutanese
national identity. The recent events suggest that Bhutan is already
on the path of constructing a dangerous ‘alternative nationalism’ based
on exclusive identity. The bland racial announcement emanating from the
government and this new found alternative nationalism has great
potential for fragmentation of Bhutanese nation.
Reaction
to modernisation
The dream of a new Drukpa
Buddhist state responds to a reaction against modernisation - a threat
to the monarchy. Drukpa Buddhism as the preserve of the monarch has been
used actively by the state to immobilise the political opposition, marginalisation
of young educated people and as a means of consolidating its political
control. Political modernisation has been under severe check since late
seventies. The Drukpa elite are awakening to a new political
awareness to build political programmes emphasising the traditional,
cultural and religious pattern associated with Buddhism. The whole of
Bhutanese society is planned to be transformed into
a feudal Drukpa Buddhist society with complete individual loyalty to the
throne.
Modernise
Bhutan
Bhutanese
society could modernize itself without destroying traditional family
values and without being westernized. Japanese society successfully adopted
the modern institutions, transformed their ancient feudal
hierarchical society without giving up their traditional family values.
Bhutan must build a secular society, as one cannot construct public
policy on religious grounds. The King must initiate preservation
of traditional values in modern setting rather than plunge the whole
country into medieval revivalism. The regime’s bogey of
preservation of traditions and culture are nothing but a shield for protecting
the feudal and despotic rule.
The
King must understand that one cannot live one’s own spirituality while
rejecting other people who do not share the same convictions. In
a civilised society, the state does not infringe on the individual’s rights
to culture and religion. Religion is a medium of communication
between an individual and God, a basic spiritual necessity inherited from
the birth of an individual until his death. Bhutanese administration
has no business to interfere in the religious affairs of its individual
citizen. Bhutanese citizens must not be subjected to the parochial mindset
of the regime depriving them from enjoying their human rights,
freedoms and democratic aspirations, while the whole world enjoys them.
It is surely disappointing revelation for Buddhist followers world
over that the Buddhist principles are being misinterpreted to serve
the political ends of the Bhutanese ruler and that this their great religion
is being defamed. ( the author is a Bhutanese political analyst)
This article was published by Rakesh Chhetri, a Bhutanese Political Analyst
in the Kathmandu Post, Nepal on January
22, 1998
|
