http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/25/bhutan.refugees/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
I was going through some research on trying to find out about the resettlement of the Bhutanese refugees to the third countries and I came across this news programme of CNN of the day the country had staged its first democratic election. It is indeed a matter of joy how the outside world sees Bhutanese nature as an exemplary to the rest of the world.
In a period of time when the world has witnessed one of the largest collective reprisal against tyranny and repressive leaders and governments in what has been widely called the 'Arab Spring' its almost imaginable that the King of Bhutan could have clearly foreseen what was to come. Perhaps it was clearly predictable that everyone will fight for freedom one day. What is interesting is that a transition was passed inside a nation unasked and unsought, while, in fact, people were still strongly attached to monarchy.
What struck the most to me in the above video was the stress the presenter puts in the word 'idyllic' while describing what has happened in Bhutan. It was a gesture of the most peaceful and exemplary way of giving people what they actually need. Much before the Arab Spring started, we could have perhaps never imagined that a tiny country located in remote Himalayas will set an example of a peaceful transition. Imagine if all the countries in which we have seen these 'awakening', had done just what Bhutan did, we would had none of those accounts of bloodshed and atrocities in the daily headlines.
It is still surprising for the presenter here, and the rest of the world, how an ideological system of Gross National Happiness can be even measured? What is the yardstick? Perhaps what matters is the fact that people are happy.
I couldn't help take deeper notice of the mention of the 'ONLY WRINKLE' that Bhutan suffers from in the otherwise 'idyllic' impression of the outside world. One hundred thousand Nepali-Bhutanese, in early 1990's were somehow made to leave the country in the ever growing tension of the cultural and religious friction between the Aboriginal Bhutanse and these ethnic minorities who share roots to Nepal. Why did this happen????
Its indeed dead and gone. Those refugees are now resettled in a western country amid never-before-known comforts. But lets face it, this incident alone is going to be a serious dent on the image of this otherwise 'idyllic' exemplary and beautiful country. What was the need for this fight? Why couldn't the aboriginal Bhutanese and the Nepali-ethnic minority compromise and in fact celebrate the difference they had? Why did the Government of Bhutan fail to understand that this difference is what makes them a society defined by diversity and unity?
It was always a pressing need for Bhutan that the development should be seen in terms of the 'happiness' of the citizens. These Hundred Thousand people, at least at that time, were citizens too. Was 'conserving' the cultural heritage so important, that Bhutan could not compromise with a slight digression? Why did these people have to flee from the country they quite 'happily' called their own?
Its interesting to note that perhaps 'happiness' has its own way of coming round. I have spoken to few people among the first 100 Bhutanse refugees resettled here in the UK. And you know what??? They say they are HAPPY! In other words, every one even slightly associated to the citizenship of this nation is happy. This is what the country is all about!
I was going through some research on trying to find out about the resettlement of the Bhutanese refugees to the third countries and I came across this news programme of CNN of the day the country had staged its first democratic election. It is indeed a matter of joy how the outside world sees Bhutanese nature as an exemplary to the rest of the world.
In a period of time when the world has witnessed one of the largest collective reprisal against tyranny and repressive leaders and governments in what has been widely called the 'Arab Spring' its almost imaginable that the King of Bhutan could have clearly foreseen what was to come. Perhaps it was clearly predictable that everyone will fight for freedom one day. What is interesting is that a transition was passed inside a nation unasked and unsought, while, in fact, people were still strongly attached to monarchy.
What struck the most to me in the above video was the stress the presenter puts in the word 'idyllic' while describing what has happened in Bhutan. It was a gesture of the most peaceful and exemplary way of giving people what they actually need. Much before the Arab Spring started, we could have perhaps never imagined that a tiny country located in remote Himalayas will set an example of a peaceful transition. Imagine if all the countries in which we have seen these 'awakening', had done just what Bhutan did, we would had none of those accounts of bloodshed and atrocities in the daily headlines.
It is still surprising for the presenter here, and the rest of the world, how an ideological system of Gross National Happiness can be even measured? What is the yardstick? Perhaps what matters is the fact that people are happy.
I couldn't help take deeper notice of the mention of the 'ONLY WRINKLE' that Bhutan suffers from in the otherwise 'idyllic' impression of the outside world. One hundred thousand Nepali-Bhutanese, in early 1990's were somehow made to leave the country in the ever growing tension of the cultural and religious friction between the Aboriginal Bhutanse and these ethnic minorities who share roots to Nepal. Why did this happen????
Its indeed dead and gone. Those refugees are now resettled in a western country amid never-before-known comforts. But lets face it, this incident alone is going to be a serious dent on the image of this otherwise 'idyllic' exemplary and beautiful country. What was the need for this fight? Why couldn't the aboriginal Bhutanese and the Nepali-ethnic minority compromise and in fact celebrate the difference they had? Why did the Government of Bhutan fail to understand that this difference is what makes them a society defined by diversity and unity?
It was always a pressing need for Bhutan that the development should be seen in terms of the 'happiness' of the citizens. These Hundred Thousand people, at least at that time, were citizens too. Was 'conserving' the cultural heritage so important, that Bhutan could not compromise with a slight digression? Why did these people have to flee from the country they quite 'happily' called their own?
Its interesting to note that perhaps 'happiness' has its own way of coming round. I have spoken to few people among the first 100 Bhutanse refugees resettled here in the UK. And you know what??? They say they are HAPPY! In other words, every one even slightly associated to the citizenship of this nation is happy. This is what the country is all about!
