![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldReuters' Simon Denyer recently had an interesting article published examining the close links between Tibet and the adjacent independent Himalayan state of Bhutan, "In Bhutan, Tibetan refugees yearn to join protests".
The particular complex of beliefs and rituals which make up Tibetan Buddhism has never been confined to Tibet proper. Tibetan Buddhism has, of course, been practiced in ethnic Tibetan communities outside of Tibet proper; it has been practiced among ethnic Mongols from Russia's Kalmykia to Chinese Inner Mongolia; and, it has been practiced in a collection of nearly independent polities on the southern slopes of the Himalayas, including the now fully independent state of Bhutan.
Bhutan is actually the only one of these southern Himalayan Tibetan Buddhist polities that has survived in recognizable form to the present day. Tibet, as pointed out at Global Voices Online, is a territory that has been caught between the competing interests of India and China, but much the same can be said for its wider cultural sphere. After its mid-19th century conquest, Ladakh has remained part of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir to this day. Neighbouring Sikkim, once like Bhutan an autonomous kingdom under the protection of first Britain then India, was was annexed to India in 1975 because of its mostly Hindu and ethnic Nepali population and a weak monarchy. Tibet to the north provides, as the article notes, another very unambiguous demonstration of the problems that ambiguous sovereignty can provide in hard times.
This long list of examples doubtless explains why the Bhutanese monarchy has been so motivated to gain Bhutan international recognition as a functional independent state. It explains why the Bhutanese government is unwilling to risk provoking China over Tibet, and why Bhutan has been trying to cultivate positive attention in the West through its stage-managed introduction of "democracy." It also explains Bhutan's nasty mistreatment of Bhutan's own population of Hindu ethnic Nepalis. The individuals who pushed Bhutan to its current position have to be credited for their determination and their competency if for nothing else.
In a remote corner of the Himalayas, a small Tibetan refugee community felt helpless as it watched protests erupt all over the world against Chinese rule in their homeland. For in the tiny Buddhist kingdom of Bhutan, ethnically, culturally and linguistically close to its giant northern neighbour Tibet, demonstrations are not allowed. Young Tibetans were even reluctant to give their names for fear of trouble.
"We want to demonstrate but we don't have the right to, and that is very bad for us," said a 24-year-old who gave her name as Tenzing. "If we could, people would know that Tibet belongs to Tibetans."
Sixty years ago, Tibet and Bhutan were both reclusive feudal societies virtually shut to the outside world, under absolute rulers viewed as close to Buddha in most people's eyes.
But after Tibet was swallowed up by China, Bhutan befriended India and embarked on a gradual path of modernisation and opening up that culminated in last week's parliamentary elections, ending a century of royal rule and ushering in democracy.
Despite the advances, Bhutan remains a tightly controlled society where criticism of the elite, let alone protests, is almost unheard of.
Tibetan refugees were welcomed into Bhutan in the 1950s and given land by the king. In the small village of Hongtsho in central Bhutan, Tibetan families grow potatoes and have planted apple orchards, selling their produce by the roadside.
[. . .]
Despite their cultural links, Bhutan's people hardly seem to care about the problems of their Tibetan neighbours, a function of their long isolation in the Himalayas.
But Tibetans say they do mix with Bhutanese people and at least are free to practice their religion inside the country.
"As a refugee life goes, this is not too bad," said one young man.
Yet parents usually send their children off from a relatively young age to be educated in Indian towns like Darjeeling and Dharamsala, where Tibetan schools teach them their language and culture and give them the chance for higher education.
Bhutan has a population of less than 700,000 people and after an influx of Tibetans in 1959 it closed its northern borders for fear of being swamped. New refugees are no longer welcome.
The particular complex of beliefs and rituals which make up Tibetan Buddhism has never been confined to Tibet proper. Tibetan Buddhism has, of course, been practiced in ethnic Tibetan communities outside of Tibet proper; it has been practiced among ethnic Mongols from Russia's Kalmykia to Chinese Inner Mongolia; and, it has been practiced in a collection of nearly independent polities on the southern slopes of the Himalayas, including the now fully independent state of Bhutan.
Bhutan is actually the only one of these southern Himalayan Tibetan Buddhist polities that has survived in recognizable form to the present day. Tibet, as pointed out at Global Voices Online, is a territory that has been caught between the competing interests of India and China, but much the same can be said for its wider cultural sphere. After its mid-19th century conquest, Ladakh has remained part of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir to this day. Neighbouring Sikkim, once like Bhutan an autonomous kingdom under the protection of first Britain then India, was was annexed to India in 1975 because of its mostly Hindu and ethnic Nepali population and a weak monarchy. Tibet to the north provides, as the article notes, another very unambiguous demonstration of the problems that ambiguous sovereignty can provide in hard times.
This long list of examples doubtless explains why the Bhutanese monarchy has been so motivated to gain Bhutan international recognition as a functional independent state. It explains why the Bhutanese government is unwilling to risk provoking China over Tibet, and why Bhutan has been trying to cultivate positive attention in the West through its stage-managed introduction of "democracy." It also explains Bhutan's nasty mistreatment of Bhutan's own population of Hindu ethnic Nepalis. The individuals who pushed Bhutan to its current position have to be credited for their determination and their competency if for nothing else.
