Obviously, in Tbilisi counted on a blitz-krig which would confront the world community with a fait accompli. The most brutal way has been chosen to achieve objective – to attach South Ossetia by destruction of the whole people. It was not the first attempt. In 1991 the president of Georgia Gamsahurdia with an appeal: “Georgia for the Georgian”, – only ponder upon these words! – has ordered to storm Suhumi and Zhinval. Thousand victims, ten thousand refugees. The ruined villages – here to what then it has resulted. Russia during that moment has stopped destruction of the Abkhazian and Osset people.

Our country became the intermediary and the peacemaker, achieving political settlement. Thus we invariably started with a recognition of territorial integrity of Georgia. The Georgian management has chosen other way. Negotiating process failure, ignoring of the reached arrangements, political and military provocations, an attack on peacemakers – all it roughly broke a mode in conflict zones. A mode established at support of the United Nations and OSCE. Russia showed endurance and patience.

We repeatedly urged to return to the negotiating table and have not departed from the position even after unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo. But our persevering offers to the Georgian party to conclude with Abkhazia and South Ossetia arrangements on force non-use remained without the answer. Unfortunately, them have ignored and in NATO, and even in the United Nations.

Now clearly – the peace resolution of conflict in plans of Tbilisi did not enter. The Georgian management methodically prepared for war. And political and material support of external patrons only strengthened sensation of own impunity. On the night of August, 8th, 2008 in Tbilisi have made a choice. Saakashvili has selected a genocide for the decision of the political problems. It it has with own hand crossed out all hopes of peace existence the Ossetin, абхазов and the Georgian in one state.

The people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia repeatedly expressed on referenda in support of independence of the republics. We understand, after that has occurred in Tskhinvali and was planned in Abkhazia, they have the right to solve the destiny.

Presidents of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, being based on results of referenda and decisions of republican parliaments, have addressed to Russia with the request for a recognition of the state sovereignty of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Federation Council and the State Duma have voted in support of these references. Proceeding from the developed situation, it is necessary to make the decision.

Considering free will of the Osset and Abkhazian people, being guided by positions of the Charter of the United Nations, the declaration of 1970 “About principles of the international law, concerning friendship between the states”, Helsinki final certificate OSCE of 1975, other basic international documents, I have signed decrees about a recognition the Russian Federation independence of South Ossetia and independence of Abkhazia. Russia urges other states to follow to its example. It is a hard choice! But it is unique possibility to save a life of people!

The ideological motive of overthrow Mishikо is obvious: bloody adventure of this person has given up as a bad job the Georgian statehood and has turned back a national shame for the Georgian people. Besides, because of aggression against South Ossetia, in the country the economic situation has sharply worsened, нищает the people and the prices grow.

The national discontent with a pro-American puppet already so strongly, that does not suffice the ripened revolution only leaders. For lack of those among the politicians, намерены to head indignant crowd representatives of armed forces. To shoot it this time it is not necessary: to protect a mode zvezdno-striped loser in modern Georgia interested persons is not present.

However, besides the become empty purse and the restrained national pride, at Georgian «groupings of changes» are and more one, deeply personal motive. The matter is that skeleton of organizers of revolution on 80 % consists of peacemakers whom aggressions after the beginning have been urgently returned in the country from Iraq.

Let’s remind, that it is a question of the most efficient division of the Georgian army, not a couple that in a panic threw the American technics on bases in Burn and ran away, having caught noise of engines of the Russian tanks.

According to written Saakashvili to the settlement plan («Medvedev’s to plan – Sarkozy »), all armed parts of Russia and Georgia should be returned on disposition places in which they were prior to the beginning of war. Thus “Iraqis” as name in the Georgian army of the peacemakers who have come back from Iraq, too should go back – to one of the hottest points of a planet.

The problem consists that for spent in the homeland children have too distinctly realised couple of weeks, how much «Hvanchkara» and suluguni it is lovelier than bullets and mines of the Iraq insurgents. Shoot there at Americans, and get frequently in the Georgian. In general, back to Iraq peacemakers to come back for what do not want, even by the American military-transport plane.

Saakashvili’s overthrow cancels the contracts signed by it, and peacemakers remain in the homeland. Private benefit and interests of the nation in this case coincide on 100 %. And it means, that the Georgian Fuhrer is doomed.
People do not trust the false channel CNN, look truthful Russian news
http://russianonline.tv/index.php?newsid=15

I don’t know what it takes to be an ‘elite’ but thank you very much for referring to me as an ‘elite’. I would have rather preferred ‘a majority group’. Like elsewhere not everybody is elite in Bhutan.

You still maintain your claim that there were no Lhotshampas representatives while drafting Bhutan’s first written Constitution. I don’t know from where you got the information but according to the official sources (http://www.constitution.bt/html/members/members.htm) there were one elected member from each district. There were three from the Lhotshampa community and they were; Dasho Meghraj Gurung, the former Managing Director of Bhutan Post, Chandra Bahadur Galey, representing the people of Samtse Dzongkhag, and Thakur Prasad Homagai, representative of the Sarpang Dzongkhag.

You say that restriction of the number of ministerial posts from one region is a tactics used by the government. Well, I interpret in a different way. This has been made to enable fair representation in the cabinet and avoid regionalism. I believe it is good. Till now Ngalongpas were dominant everywhere and Sharchops to some extent. Now people from Kheng and Lhotsham are given opportunity, which otherwise wouldn’t have been possible if this law was not put in place.

Anyway, I appreciate for your reaction. Thank you. By the way I have opened my eyes toward objectivity and true journalism when I first joined my organization seven years ago, the same organization that you once worked.

And to Dr. Dhakal. Thank you. I urge you to read my blog once again. I have never mentioned Lhotshampas as immigrants anywhere and I never will. Honestly, I grew up with Lhotshampa friends around me and I am dead against using the word ‘jaga’ to Lhotshampa. I have quarreled with my other friends over this.

I wasn’t interpreting what was written by Mr. Gautam if you may understand it clearly. I was just trying to clarify SOME of the facts. That I believe is journalism.

I came to read an article by Mr. Jigme Thinley. I felt pressurised to compare, contrast and analyse few facts. First of all the Bhutanese citizens, in-the-country and displaced, need to be congratulated for a possible end of “absolute monarchy” in the near future. Bhutan deserves this as this is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, with the most hospitable people. It is the single fact that led to flourish the propaganda of “Gross National Happiness”.

The world should hope for a prosperous Bhutan but should not forget that this country was ruled by a dictator, who married four women, and had a family size of 13, the day he got married. His family enjoys luxurious living on donation and tax paid by hard-handed citizens. This would partly explain the concept of Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness. Furthermore, the party very much wished and admired by the king secured 2 parliamentary seats in the recent parliament. What was the ground reality of Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness needs interpretation in this line as well.

Let me now react to Mr. Thinley. First, congratulations that you are a fellow of Mundus. This defines that you are a first class Bhutanese citizen (rest of the readers should acknowledge that there are 7 categories of citizenships in Bhutan, all categories don’t enjoy similar privileges). Secondly, you are in the Netherlands studying journalism and hope you go back home with basic values to report, leaving the task of interpretation on the readers. This, I presume is the basic ethics a journalist need to posses.

You say Lhotsampas are immigrants. This is correct. My question to you is, what is the origin of Bhutan’s king and when did his grandparents migrate to Bhutan, if you agree to this concept?

It is possible to make educated guess on the content of a constitution that is written on influence of Indian bearcats in 21st century. Freedom of religion is enshrined in Bhutan’s constitution. This is correct. My question to you is, is this a theory or a reality? If you say it is both, here are my advance reactions. A newspaper writes “Two Christian families were physically attacked and kicked out of their homes after they chose to follow Christianity in Bhutan” (Apfanews, 2008). This incident happened a week before. It is Bhutanese way of expression that this is conducted by rebels, government is seriously investigating. But it is not one-time even. Let me refer you to few other organisations, what they have to say regarding religious freedom in Bhutan.

U.S. Department of state (2007) in its International Religious Freedom Report writes “a majority of whom were Hindu, were forcibly expelled or voluntarily left as a result of discrimination”.
Wikipedia writes “the Government limited this right in practice by barring non-Buddhist missionaries from entering the country, limiting construction of non-Buddhist religious buildings, and restricting the celebration of some non-Buddhist religious festivals”
Human Rights Watch (September, 2007) writes “denial of the right of ethnic or linguistic minorities to enjoy their own culture and use their own language (art. 30)”
Christian Solidarity Worldwide (2002) says “Those who refused to renounce Christianity were imprisoned and brutally beaten for several days. Others were forced to carry sandbags as a punishment. Some who suffered broken ribs and arms as a result of the torture were refused hospital treatment for their injuries. Those who gave in to the torture were forced to brew liquor and perform rituals to prove they had recanted. Many Christians among the Nepali population were asked by the district authorities to either leave Christianity or leave the country.
Do refer to other enormous body of literature of UN, EU, Amnesty International. I hope that Mr. Thinley won’t argue on the credibility of this news and appeals.

I also would like to suggest the readers to read the article by Brummelman “Lhotshampa hopen meer rechten” published in NRC just before Bhutan’s election and have a taste of freedom in Bhutan. Bhutan’s constitution focuses on Chhoe-sid-nyi – a dual system of religion and politics (temporal and secular). There are two heads. One is the head of government and other is the head of religion. Jekhempo, the head of followers of the Kagyu Drukpa sub-sect of the Kagyu sect of Mahayana Buddhism is recognised by the constitution as the spiritual head. Unfortunately, Jekhempo occupies no place in spiritual and cultural belief system of other sects or religious groups. Now, how can you justify that Bhutan’s constitution that gives religious liberty safeguards it, when one of the heads of a dual system is a Buddhist priest?

Lakshmi Prasad Dhakal

Amsterdam

As a journalist and a writer of the article for Exponto, I am fully responsible of its content and have the evidence to prove that Mr. Thinlay’s claims as refutable.

Mr. Thinlay absurdly claimed that there were Lhotshampa representatives in the committee of Bhutan’s first written constitution. There was not a single Lhotshampa to represent the minority ethnic group in that committee. Alarmingly enough, the draft constitution do not contain a single word namely ‘Hindu’ nor other religious groups, although it mentions that Bhutanese citizens shall have such rights. Hindus forms about 45% of Bhutanese total population who are called Lhotshampas. You can download the constitution from http://www.freewebs.com/bhutaan and see for yourself and I bet you will not find any words that refers to the rights and freedoms of the Hindu minority there. Now the Lhotshampas are the most vulnerable ethnic group in Bhutan, destined to gradual extinction in the similar way Hindus were put to disappear in Afghanisthan during the reign of Taleban. Besides, a half of the Lhotshampas are forcibly exiled by the government who drafted the constitution as a consequence to their demand for democracy. In contrast those Lhotshampas forcibly exiled by the regime are now compelled to resettle in America, Canada and a few in Holland at the very time the rulers of Bhutan are proclaiming of having democracy there. The reports of Amnesty International, UNHCR and HRW substantiates the truth mentioned in my article.

Mr. Thinley deserve appreciation for letting the western world know that there are two ministers and a deputy belonging to the ethnic Lhotshampa minority. This fact truly acknowledge the existence of Lhotshampa Hindus in Bhutan. Please believe that Lhosthampas are not immigrants there. An illegal immigrant cannot become minister, at least not in Bhutan. No body can enter into Bhutan and be part of its main stream unless the government allows, which was the case in the past that Lhotshampas are brought in officially just like the Dutch government brought in many Turks and Morrokans. But in Bhutan’s case those Lhotshampas who are hated and discriminated and forced out of the country were brought in from officially by the rulers of the past, Shabdung and Debraja prior to the establishment of the hereditary monarchy. Look, there are chinese and Indians spread all over the world, but accept in Bhutan. There aren’t any Chinese and Indians settled in Bhutan although both these countries surrounds the border of Bhutan. This is a stark evidence that Bhutan is tightly closed and strict against foreign elements, and due to this, unless the Lhotshampas are Bhutanese that the country inherited by historical records that goes back to more than a hundred years there settlement cannot be possible until the government of that time brought in officially. Now, with this in sight, can’t the new constitution accommodate the rights and freedoms imbedded in their culture and religion?

Mr. Thinlay is true that there are three Lhotshampas in the government of today. There weren’t any Lhotshampas in the government of the recent past. The new government was formed after the election of march 24 2008, after my article was published. There could have been more Lhotsampas elected but this was tactically restricted by the government, firstly by stating there should not be more ministers coming from single region, and, by forcibly exiling and discriminating against the Lhotshampas. The government gave lands of the forcibly exiled Lhotshamps to its elite Drukpas in the Southern districts, who then contested with the support of the government in the election. You can find the explanation to this effect in the reports of Habitat International.

I appreciate that Mr Thinlay is trying to open his eyes in the direction of objectivity and true journalism. I don’t think there is so called refugee journalism distinctly. The existence of refugees critically stipulate the government’s guilt and human rights violations of the concerned refugee’s country of origin, they bear and carry truth of the stark realty and untold voice, and therefore won’t estrange the truth. Journalism is all about informing the people the Truth, however bitter it may be, which I pursue too. I hope Mr. Thinley, when he goes back to Bhutan will divulge the truth on how his government would allow all sections of the people enjoy the rights and freedoms given by the new constitution and effect that shall have against the limitation of rights and freedoms of the ethnic minorities.

With warm regards.
Gautam

Danielle

Thanks for your insightful comment about your experiences. I recognize your comment about the questionaire, I noticed it too.
I would like to add to your story that I was very annoyed by the packing-the-bags-in-class and did not know how to communicate it to the class. I did not want to be the one with the annoying pointing finger. My comment saying: “Maybe it’s cultural diversity, but…” was ment sarcastically, considering everyone being tired of those political correct terms. There is not one single cell in my brains which thinks that people in any other culture, nor my own, would necessarily all pack their bags before the class ends.

Yours,

Neeltje