Lyonpo Dawa Tsering
Dawa Tsering is the longest-serving foreign minister in the world. While he denied Himal entry into Bhutan, Lyonpo (minister) Tsering agreed to respond to questions by fax. (Readers should note that as a result there was no opportunity for follow-up questions.)
Was the presence of Nepali-speakers in Bhutan such that by the mid-1980s the Government was fearful of the loss of the age-old Drukpa cultural identity?
When you refer to the presence of Nepali-speakers in Bhutan in the mid-1980s, it should be understood that there are two types of Nepali-speakers in Bhutan, those who are Bhutanese citizens and those who are non-nationals. The presence of Nepalis in Bhutan began in the early 1900s after the government authorised the recruitment of Nepalis as contractual labourers to extract timber from the dense tropical forests in Samtse, the westernmost part of Bhutan's southern foothills. Initially brought as "tangyas" or forest labourers, they were allowed to stay as tenant farmers where the forests were cleared in Samtse, Tsirang, Sarpang and Geylegphug in the southern foothills. These Nepalis who had settled down as tenant farmers were granted Bhutanese citizenship by the National Assembly in 1958, and it is they and their children who constitute the bonafide Bhutanese citizens among the ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan.
Following the commencement of development activities with the launching of our First Five-Year Plan in 1961, many other Nepalis came to Bhutan. These were either labourers imported to work on the development projects and road construction, or illegal immigrants attracted by the better economic prospects in Bhutan. The presence of large numbers of illegal immigrants was revealed by the 1988 census. As would be the case in any other country, the presence and continued influx of illegal immigrants was certainly a cause for concern to us in Bhutan.
The policy to promote a national language and dress, and Driglam Namzha (traditional etiquette) to strengthen our unique national identity was supported by the Lhotshampa (Southern Bhutanese who are of Nepali origin) through the District Development Committees and during large public meetings with His Majesty the King which were attended by a member from every household in the south. This policy was deliberately distorted by a nexus of illegal immigrants and a group of Lhotshampa with vested interests and political ambitions to malign the Royal Government of Bhutan.
Contrary to the propaganda emanating from Nepal and elsewhere, the Royal Government of Bhutan has never sought to suppress the culture of any minority group in the kingdom, including that of the Lhotshampa. In my view the media and human rights groups in Nepal have been manipulated by Bhutanese dissidents living there. Contrary to the allegations made by them, the Nepali language is not suppressed in Bhutan. It is used in the National Assembly, the courts and in government offices. The national newspaper, Kuensel, prints copies in Nepali and the Bhutan Broadcasting Service also broadcasts radio programmes in Nepali. The national dress is required to be worn only in the dzongs, monasteries, government offices, schools and for official functions.
Did the Government perceive a plan or conspiracy by the Nepali-speaking population of the South to overthrow the Royal Government and existing regime? If not, did it fear that such a situation could come about in the near future?
The Royal Government was caught totally unawares when the violent demonstrations broke out in the five districts of southern Bhutan in September 1990. Fully preoccupied with the implementation of development programmes, even the presence of a large number of illegal immigrants came to the government's notice only when the census in 1988 was completed. Moreover, with every effort being made by the government to bring the Lhotshampa into the national mainstream by allotting more development facilities and budgets to the south than to northern districts, and with the Lhotshampa enjoying better social facilities and a higher income than their compatriots, in the north from cash crops like oranges, cardamom, ginger and betel nut, there was no reason for them to turn against the government or His Majesty the King who has always loved and treated all his subjects equally. Even before the violent demonstrations in September 1990, the general pulic of southern Bhutan declared total loyalty and support to the King and country and all government policies during the public meetings held by His Majesty the King with them in 1989 and early 1990.
How much of a parallel can be drawn between Sikkim and Bhutan, in that the process which led to the former's merger with India could be seen by some to apply to the latter as well? Do you see the Nepali-speaking population or its present leadership in exile capable of taking the country in a direction similar to that of Sikkim's?
In the case of Sikkim, the influx of Nepali settlers who migrated to Sikkim soon overwhelmed the local population by sheer force of numbers and took over political power. The same process is being repeated in Bhutan and unless the influx of Nepali-speaking economic migrants are curbed, there is every possibility that the native Bhutanese will become a minority in their own country. The root cause of the problem lies in Nepal where there is a population explosion. Until such time as Nepal can provide employment to its growing population, our problem will continue. As for Sikkim's merger with India, it was the people themselves who decided that Sikkim should become the 22nd state of India.
I do not perceive any future threat from our present population in the south because by remaining in the kingdom they have thrown in their lot with their compatriots in the north. In fact, the one silver lining in the present dark cloud is that thousands of Lhotshampa have moved to urban areas in the northern districts, and thousands of Lhotshampa children have been admitted to local schools in the north. This is good for national integration.
As far as the dissidents based in Nepal are concerned, I cannot fathom their real intentions as the present path they have chosen is clearly negative and destructive. By maliciously distorting facts, fabricating allegations and attacking all institutions dear to the Bhutanese heart, they are foreclosing their own future options.
Do you feel that Bhutan's position vis-a-vis India has been strengthened or weakened in the last five years, in relation to its independent foreign policy, multilateral contacts, development projects funding and implementation, and security matters?
As in the past, Indo-Bhutan relations have flourished and grown over the last five years. Our two countries have always enjoyed warm and close relations and these ties have been consolidated over the years through close cooperation in numerous fields. This relationship is based on a convergence of national interests. We consider India as a genuine and close friend and this sentiment is fully reciprocated.by the government and people of India. Our policy has been one of opening up cautiously to the outside world, both in terms of bilateral relations and aid. This policy continues on an even keel. In regional and multilateral fora, we have always been fairly active in spite of our resource constraints. In recent years, we have been elected to important international bodies like the Economic and Social Council and the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva.
How has Bhutan managed with the loss of skilled-manpower which departed with so many Nepali-speakers? Are these being filled by temporary workers from India, or through Bhutanese manpower?
From 1990 till date 461 Lhotshampa civil servants have left Bhutan. Within that period, apart from Lhotshampa who joined the public and joint sector corporations, 890 Lhotshampa have been inducted into the civil service. As always, our friends, the Indians have come forward to help us meet any skilled manpower shortage we faced. So the departure of the 461 Lhotshampa civil servants in itself did not cause any real problems although some of them inflicted great loss on the government by misappropriating large amounts of government money and property before absconding. One interesting fact worth mentioning is that many relatives of dissidents leaders living in Nepal are still in government service in Bhutan. What is really causing a serious problem for the Royal Government and the people is the continued terrorist activities in the south, many of them committed by people registered in the refugee camps in eastern Nepal.
What is the Royal Government's attitude vis-a-vis UNHCR's role in the present crisis? Does it view the High Commissioner as a neutral party on this matter, and could it be seen as a mediator or independent third-party between Nepal and Bhutan?
We have the highest respect and admiration for the UNHCR and we deeply appreciate the outstanding humanitarian work this great organisation is doing all over the world. However, while I have the greatest personal respect for Ms. Ogata and her senior aides, I cannot say the same for some of the UNHCR representatives in the field in Nepal. They have often taken blatantly partisan positions on the basis of one-sided reports. Perhaps a high profile is good for their careers or they may have personal axes to grind.
It may be noted that although 234 persons claiming to be Bhutanese refugees came to Nepal's Jhapa District in January 1991, no one else making such claims came for the next six months. However, following an invitation in August 1991 by the Nepalese Government to the UNHCR to provide humanitarian assistance and the starting of a scheme by the UNHCR to provide food and shelter to 304 persons for the next four months, the number of people in Nepal claiming to be Bhutanese refugees rapidly grew to 6000 by the end of 1991. Since then eight refugee camps have been established in eastern Nepal by the UNHCR, and all the people claiming to be Bhutanese refugees were admitted to these camps without proper screening by the UNHCR field representatives in Nepal. Even after a screening process at Kakarvitta was started in July 1993, by which time the problem had already grown to its present proportions, the UNHCR field representatives admitted people into the camps who by no stretch of the imagination can be described as refugees. I personally feel that it would be very difficult for the UNHCR to be an independent party regarding the problem of the people in the refugee camps in Nepal.
Under what circumstances would Bhutan be willing to consider a neutral and independent third-party involvement in resolving the problems that have arisen with regard to repatriation of the residents of the camps?
The Royal Government is convinced that given the political will, it will be possible to resolve the problem through the ongoing bilateral process. The Joint Ministerial Committee talks are making steady progress and in less than a year have already reached a very crucial stage. As such, it would be better to resolve the problem through mutual understanding and dialogue.
It seems that those camp residents who fall under the category of "voluntary departures" among the four identified by the Committee are liable to be defined as non-nationals under present Bhutanese law. As this is likely to be the sticking point in verifying the status of the camp residents, is there a possibility that Bhutan would be willing to consider international legal norms, principles and practices as they apply to the case?
When you say "voluntary departures" I think you are referring to the agreed category "Bhutanese who emigrated". As bilateral talks are in progress, I do not wish to answer a question which falls within the purview of the Joint Ministerial Committee.
You have been reported as saying that most of those in the camps of Southeast Nepal are Nepali-speakers from the Indian Northeast. Is this a correct interpretation of what you have said?
I am afraid one of the major hazards of my job is to be misquoted by media people. Some do it unintentionally, while others do it deliberately. I do not think I would be foolish enough to make a sweeping comment of this nature without reliable data. I think we are all aware that there are people in the camps who cannot be categorised as refugees.
What would be the Royal Government's stand if Nepal asked officially that India be involved as an interlocutor in resolving the problems that have come up between Bhutan and Nepal?
I do not wish to answer this question as it falls within the purview of the Joint Ministerial Committee.
There are only two Himalayan kingdoms, and it would seem that it is in their mutual interest to remain on the best of terms. What are your feelings, as foreign minister, to see that Bhutan's relations with its neighbour are at their worst in history?
It is certainly in our mutual interest to remain on the best of terms. Our friendship spans many centuries. There are shared values and aspirations. We have common interests because we are landlocked, least-developed countries. The important thing for us is to resolve the present problem as soon as possible so that we can restore our traditionally close and friendly relationship.
In what directions do you see relations between Nepal and Bhutan developing once this crisis is over? What advances do you see, for example, in the areas of trade, cooperation, cultural interaction, and so on, given the rapid changes that are coming about in South Asian geopolitics, communications, and inter-regional travel?
I think the scope of interaction between our two countries is rather small because of the similarity of our economies and the difficulties of transport and communications. The potential for trade is limited by there may be scope for joint ventures in business and industries in the future. Our entrepreneurs are enterprising enough to develop such avenues of cooperation. Presently, thousands of Bhutanese go to Nepal on pilgrimage. This is important because it will promote people-to-people contact. I am confident that once the present problem is resolved, our traditionally close and friendly relations with Nepal will be further strengthened.
Among the refugee leaders as well as in sections of the Nepali press, there is talk of bringing human rights and democracy to Bhutan. How does the Royal Government view these demands?
Which matters more, human rights and democracy in form or in substance? Bhutan has a monarchial system of government that is in practice very democratic and is a highly popular and effective system unique to our country. In fact, the system was established only 87 years ago when the Bhutanese people elected Gongsar Ugyen Wangchuck as our first hereditary monarch. Since then the institution has brought peace and stability to our country, with each successive monarch introducing reforms and changes, devolving more power to the people and involving them increasingly in the decision making process.
In my view, the real essence of democracy calls for the participation of the people in the decision making process and a system of government that is dynamic, efficient, enjoys the support of the people and is capable of fulfilling their aspirations. We have this in Bhutan. The Bhutanese people, through the Block Development Committees at the village level, the District Development Committees at the district level, and the National Assembly at the national level, participate actively in all decisions affecting them and have a say on all issues of national concern and interest. I believe that our system of government is in practice far more democratic than the systems in many so-called democratic countries. Moreover, His Majesty the King has repeatedly made it clear in the National Assembly and public meetings that the future political system of Bhutan lies in the hands of the Bhutanese people.
Actually, the best way to judge a system of government is from the results it has produced. Within a span of just three decades, Bhutan has been able to take a quantum leap from the middle ages to the modern world. Our people enjoy freedom from hunger, have adequate clothing and shelter, and are provided with free health care, education and other highly subsidised social service facilities. We have a merit-based, corruption-free and result-oriented government and administrative system. Everyone is equal before the law and every citizen has free and direct access to the King for redress of any grievance they may have.
The dissidents have been raising the slogans for democracy and human rights merely to malign the Royal Government of Bhutan and to gain international sympathy and support. I believe that those people in Nepal echoing the same slogans raised by the dissidents are doing so due to a feeling of ethnic affinity with them.
Do you see dangers to the viability of the Bhutanese nation state as a result of the present crisis? If you see dangers, from which direction do they emanate?
If by the present crisis you refer to the problem of the people in the refugee camps in Nepal, it does pose a serious threat to the Bhutanese nation because the "refugee problem" was deliberately created by the dissidents to circumvent Bhutan's citizenship laws. Our citizenship laws are the only safeguards against an ever-threatening tide of illegal immigration into Bhutan. The objective of the dissidents has always been to congregate a hundred thousand or so "refugees" in Nepal in order to generate international pressure and force Bhutan to accept people in the camps not entitled to Bhutanese citizenship as "Bhutanese refugees". Once the citizenship laws are circumvented it would only be a matter of time before this safeguard against the waiting tide of illegal immigrants would be rendered useless and the fate of the Bhutanese nation would be sealed.
What do you have to say to those politicians, academicians and (Nepali and foreign) diplomats in Kathmandu who insist that "the key to resolving the Bhutan-Nepal crisis lies with New Delhi"? Is this belief in New Delhi's power to influence the Royal Government appropriate or misplaced?
Indian leaders have publicly gone on record to say that the present problem between Nepal and Bhutan should be resolved through bilateral talks. We all know that India is a genuine friend and well-wisher of both Nepal and Bhutan. As such we should heed this advice and make every effort to resolve our problem bilaterally, instead of making innuendos against India as has been frequently done by certain sections of the Nepalese media and politicians. If Nepal and Bhutan who are the two parties involved cannot resolve the problem bilaterally, how can a third party, however well-intentioned, resolve the matter?
Is there polarisation between the Ngalong/Sarchop and Lhotshampa community within Bhutan? How does the Royal Government plan to bring about a rapproachment, given that this would seem to be essential for the long-term stability of the country?
The general public in northern Bhutan have been by and large very upset that a section of the Lhotshampa turned against their King and country and created a situation which threatened the security of our country. This has been voiced by them both in public meetings and in the National Assembly. However, there is no polarisation or communal disharmony between the northerners and southerners inside Bhutan. Bhutanese society has always been remarkably open and tolerant. Also, Buddhism and Hinduism have great affinity and are compatible religions. One evidence of communal harmony is the large number of Lhotshampa who have moved north after the outbreak of terrorist activities in the south and settled down In Thimphu and other towns of northern Bhutan. Many of them have become businessmen and contractors while others have sought government and private employment. Once the southern problem is resolved, strengthening the traditional goodwill between the northern and southern Bhutanese people will be a natural process. Our goal is "one nation, one people" by which we mean that every Bhutanese should have a feeling of oneness with his fellow countrymen and have pride in being a Bhutanese citizen.
From what one reads in United Nations reports and media accounts, Bhutan is the lone country in South Asia that is capable of delivering a high-standard human development to all of its population. This might be possible in economic terms, but how does Bhutan plan to attain and maintain high living standards if it is to be an island of prosperity within a generally destitute South Asia?
Yes, the future economic prospects for Bhutan are indeed bright. With over 60 percent of our land still under forest cover, we have clean fast-flowing rivers which have a huge potential for generating hydropower. There is a vast market in India for hydropower and we can also value-add our production of electricity by setting up power-intensive industries. We have implemented our development programmes very well over the past 30 years, and have been able to provide 90 percent health coverage to our people and raise school enrolment to 67 percent. Our per capita income has also increased from US$ 140 in 1971 to US$ 425 in1991. But more than mere economic statistics, the Royal Government attaches great importance to giving our people a good quality of life.
Regarding our region, I do not share your view that Bhutan may be an island of prosperity within a generally destitute South Asia. I believe that with good governance and bold initiatives, our neighbours in South Asia can achieve a good measure of economic progress and prosperity. For instance, the economic liberalisation policy introduced in India is already giving a boost to the Indian economy and I have no doubt that it will lead to India becoming a major economic power.
Bhutan is credited for having a very efficient foreign office which is able to make optimum use of diplomacy, public relations and personal contacts to convince the world of its point of view. This is seen in stark contrast to Nepal's inability to do the same. Your comments?
I think you are giving the Bhutanese foreign service much more credit than it deserves. We have only three resident embassies, in India, Bangladesh and Kuwait, and two missions at the United Nations, in New York and Geneva. In total, we have diplomatic relations with only 18 countries. His Majesty's Government of Nepal on the other hand has 15 resident embassies abroad and diplomatic relations with over 81 countries. The Bhutanese foreign service is also much less experienced than the Nepalese foreign service. I have always been greatly impressed by the intelligence and competence of Nepalese diplomats. I think your impression about the efficiency of our foreign service and critical views against your own foreign service may be a result of manipulation of public opinion in Nepal by the dissidents.
In public pronouncements, the Bhutanese Government seems worried about the threat posed by Nepali-speakers to Drukpa culture. Is there not a larger and inevitable threat that derives from exposure to the outside world, as represented by education, travel, tourism and media? Is it possible to control the often negative forces of modernisation, and will Bhutan be able to control the inevitable acceleration of change when it happens?
It is not correct to say that the Royal Government is worried about any threat being posed to Drukpa culture by Nepali-speakers. In fact, the Hindu culture of our Lhotshampa has very close affinities with the Mahayana Buddhist culture of Bhutan. For instance, we have the same pantheon of gods in both religions. Our genuine concern about unchecked illegal immigration by ethnic Nepalis who happen to comprise all illegal immigrants coming to Bhutan should not be mistaken as misgivings on the part of the Royal Government regarding our citizens in southern Bhutan.
Nor is the Royal Government concerned about exposure to the outside world as represented by education, travel and tourism. The process of modernisation will certainly have an impact on the traditional culture of Bhutan. Of course, we have to be on guard against such negative side effects of modernisation as juvenile delinquency and drug addiction. I believe we can do this by making our people more aware of the values of our rich cultural heritage while at the same time absorbing the benefits of modernisation.
What we are concerned with is the need to preserve our unique national identity and our rich cultural heritage because they are very important for strengthening and preserving our security and sovereignty. Other countries can rely on economic power, military might or physical size to safeguard their security. For a small landlocked country like Bhutan with a very tiny population, our unique national identity and rich cultural heritage are our greatest strength in this regard. Our efforts to preserve our unique national identity and rich cultural heirtage does not in any way conflict with the process of modernisation.
Would you comment on how Bhutan's international diplomatic profile has changed over the last few years, including membership in various international bodies? Are you satisfied, as Foreign Minister?
While we have joined practically all international bodies which have relevance to us, we continue to follow a cautious policy with regard to the expansion of our bilateral relationships. We are a country with limited interests. We have no ambition of becoming a major actor on the international stage. Our priorities are to promote international peace and development so as to improve the quality of life of our people in an increasingly interdependent and smaller world.
Has there been a change in perception of the northern Bhutanese communities regarding the Nepali-speakers who remain in the country, given the crisis and exodus of Nepali-speakers?
The resentment expressed by the Northern Bhutanese against those Lhotshampa who turned against their King and country and those who left Bhutan despite the appeals made by His Majesty the King for them to stay back are not directed against the Lhotshampa who remain in the country. In fact there is close harmony between the Northern Bhutanese and the large numbers of Lhotshampa who have moved to northern towns since the outbreak of the terrorist activities in the south. The Royal Government is also more than happy with the Lhotshampa who did not leave our country at a time when it is going through a very difficult period in our history. By remaining in the country they have rejected the machinations of the dissidents and have cast their vote in favour of a united Bhutan.
Given the Royal Government's belief that most of the Nepali-speakers in the camps of Southeast Nepal are not Bhutanese citizens, what are its views on how this population will adjust itself if there is agreement with Nepal not to allow all or a majority to return?
I do not wish to answer such a speculative question, particularly as it prejudges the work of the Joint Ministerial Committee.
Would you like to address any other matter which has not been raised in the above list of questions?
I have answered 23 of your questions. May I take the liberty of asking one question?
Has there been a sincere effort by any of the politicians, members of the media, and the intelligentsia in Nepal to reflect and find out whether the establishment of the refugee camps itself could have been the real cause of the present refugee problem?