विगतका वर्षझैँ यसपालि पनि व्ल्याकटाउन सिटी काउन्सिलले २५ मईका दिन व्ल्याकटाउन महोत्सवको आयोजना गरेको थियो । करिब चार वर्षदेखि यस क्षेत्रमा बसोबास गर्दै आएका भूटानी समूहको पनि उक्त महोत्सवमा उल्लेखनीय उपस्थिति रहेको देखिन्छ । “यसपालि परेडमा भाग लियौँ र प्रदर्शनीमा हाम्रा सांस्कृतिक तथा जातीय सामग्री प्रदर्शन गर्यौं, आउने वर्षहरुमा अझ व्यवस्थित तरिकाले महोत्सवमा हाम्रो सहभागिता रहने छ” एसोसिएशन अफ् भूटानिज ईन अष्ट्रेलिया (एबीए) सिडनी का अध्यक्ष डा. ओम ढुङ्गेलले बताउनु भयो ।
व्ल्याकटाउन महोत्सवमा भूटानी
व्ल्याकटाउन र वरिपरिका क्षेत्रमा बसोबास गर्ने करिब ५२ समूहले कार्यक्रममा भाग लिएका थिए । विविध भाषिक, सांस्कृतिक तथा धार्मिक पृष्ठभूमि बोकेका समूहको सहभागिता रहेको उक्त महोत्सवमा परेड कार्यक्रम गरी नगरका केही भागमा परिक्रमा गरिएको थियो । परेडका क्रममा सम्बन्धित समूहको परिचय समेत सिटी काउन्सिलले मञ्चबाट गराइरहेको देखिन्थ्यो ।
अष्ट्रेलियाभित्र भिन्न सांस्कृतिक पृष्टभूमि बोकेका समूहलाई हातेमालो गर्दै र एक-अर्काबीचको संस्कृतिलाई सम्मान र जगेर्ना गर्दै लैजानुपर्ने सन्देश दिन नै वर्षेनी महोत्सवको आयोजना हुने गरेको सिटी काउन्सिलले उक्त सन्दर्भमा बताएको छ । कार्यक्रममा सांस्कृतिक भेषभूषा, खानाका परिकार तथा अन्य दैनिक उपभोग्य वस्तुको प्रदर्शनी र बेचबिखनको व्यवस्था समेत गरिएको थियो ।
यसैबीच आगामी जुलाई ३-देखि एडिलेटमा शुरु हुनलागेको दोस्रो भूटानी अन्तर्राज्य फुटबल प्रतियोगिताका निम्ति सिड्नीको ‘ड्रूक एफसी’ टीमबाट खेलाडी छनोट भइसकेको टिमका कम्तान श्री डम्बर ढुङ्गेलले जानकारी गराएका छन् । उक्त फुटबल प्रतियोगिताका निम्ति सिड्नीबाट १४ जना भूटानी खेलाडी, एकजना टीम म्यानेजर र उनीहरुका साथ एक सुडानी कोच पनि जाने तयारीमा रहेका जानकारी गराइएको छ । एबीए सिडनी-को फुटबल टीम ड्रूक एफसी-को स्थापना सन् २००९ मा सिड्नीमा भएको हो ।
अष्ट्रेलियाका विविध प्रान्तमा भूटानी समुदायका फुटबल टीम स्थापना भई गतवर्षदेखि अन्तरराज्य फुटबल प्रतियोगिता शुरु भएको हो । गत वर्ष प्रथम भूटानी अन्तरराज्य फुटबल प्रतियोगिता ब्रिसबेनमा सम्पन्न भएको थियो भने यसपाली एडिलेडमा सम्पन्न हुनलागेको यो दोस्रो अन्तरराज्य प्रतियोगिता हो ।
ड्रूक एफसी-ले प्रत्येक शनिबारका दिन वारिङटन मैदानमा फुटबलको अभ्यास गर्ने गरेको र टीमलाई दरिलो बनाउनका निम्ति Nepean Migrant Access-ले दुई जना अफ्रिकन कोच दिएको टिमका कप्तानले नै जानकारी गराए । “हाम्रो फुटबल टिमलाई समय समयमा Sydwest Blacktown, Paramatta CMRC तथा अन्य केही संस्थाले खेलका निम्ति विविध प्रकारको सहयोग प्रदान गर्ने गरेका छन्”, भूटानका भूतपूर्व राष्ट्रिय खेलाडी तथा ड्रूक एफसी- का सल्लाहकार श्री टहलमान खड्काले बताए ।
सिड्नीमा रहेका सुडानी क्लब, टिबेटन क्लब, नेपाली क्लब तथा अन्य क्लबहरुसँग प्रतियोगितात्मक तथा मैत्रीपूर्ण खेल ड्रूक एफसी-ले खेल्दै आएको छ । यस्तै क्रममा २६ मईका दिन तमु समाज सिड्नीले आयोजना गरेको मैत्रीपूर्ण खेलमा सहभागिता जानाई खेलका माध्यमबाट सामूहिक बुद्ध जयन्ती मनाउने कार्य सम्पन्न भएको थियो ।
The Association of Bhutanese in America (ABA) has said it has scheduled its sixth annual convention for July 4-6 in Syracuse, New York.
“The Association of Bhutanese in America and the Bhutanese Community of Syracuse (BCS), with support from the Bhutanese communities of Albany, Rochester, Buffalo and Eerie, will organize the sixth annual convention in Syracuse from July 4-6,” said a press statement issued by its Executive Director, Aaron Acharya, Thursday.
The statement further said the convention would provide workshop sessions for attendees on organizational management, project development methods, important and interesting facets of life in the US and other activities that would engage the attendees of all ages.
“The focus of this convention will be less on both the organizing teams, ABA and BCS, and more on activities that will enhance the capacities of the attendees as they address issues facing their own communities.”
ABA has also claimed that it would pilot some technical assistance trainings designed for local Bhutanese community organizations at this convention.
One such training was piloted for the board members and staff of the Bhutanese Community of New Hampshire (BCNH) earlier in March 2013, added Acharya.
The ABA Executive Director further said, “The convention is open to everyone from the Bhutanese community across the United States and Canada. Participants with a desire to attend all of the training sessions should arrive latest by the early morning of July 4.
The association also requested the interested Bhutanese to contact Hari Adhikari Bangaley (315.447.5128) and Aaron Acharya (646.469.3618), or visit www.aba-usa.org for further details regarding the sixth annual convention.
“When honestly narrated, memories can become a source of identity. It offers an understanding of the landscape and the people – and they are never meaningless. People remember the landscape names, important events, location of houses, trees, roads, trails, etc.”
For the last almost two decades, Southern Bhutan has remained a bitterly contested landscape of conflict, disputes and struggle. As such intersecting landscapes of different meanings and significant interests have emerged within the same geographical space. In the following paragraphs we shall draw some understanding of southern Bhutan as a characteristic landscape where such meanings and interests intersect; and examine what it meant to be a southern Bhutanese in the years preceding 1990 and immediately after. Much of the construction draws substance from memories, experiences and knowledge anchored around true events. In a society where not much written works are in existence – memories alone – however much absurd they may be – are the only materials available in store for documenting or archiving history; and giving it a new living existence. This article challenges the readers to engage in some deeper analysis of the landscape of southern Bhutan as a site of economic, political, cultural and historical contestation.
A landscape is not just a geographical topography – it is an animate place inhabited by people, who are seen as integrated and interacting with the land in such a way that the people and the landscape become nearly inseparable. These people have their own way of life and realities – geographic location, climatic conditions, farmlands, vegetation, religion, community life, literature, culture, tradition, dress, dances, food, drinks, kinship relations, rituals, rootedness, commerce, citizenship, properties, exchange systems, history, politics and government etc, which are the sources of their identity. This is a culturalist view. In the culturalist view, the landscape is understood as a ‘lived environment’ in which the relationship between the cultural and physical environment is deemed to be mutually constitutive.
When honestly narrated, memories can become a source of identity. It offers an understanding of the landscape and the people – and they are never meaningless. People remember the landscape names, important events, location of houses, trees, roads, trails etc. Conversely, they can easily tell – how many people live in the village – which year was the police station established – who is the Post Master – what is the name of the school Head Master – where is the dispensary located – who worships in the temple – whose daughter is married to whose son – which year did the great earth quake hit the village – when was it that a famine had hit the village last time etc.
Nepali-speaking citizens working in their farm
The landscape, I am going to discuss here is the landscape of Southern Bhutan. It consists of five districts; namely Samchi, Sarbhang, Samdrupjongkhar, Chirang, Chukha and Dagana. Since the majority of the population in Samdrupjongkhar district is a contiguous extension of Nepali speaking people of other districts, I consider the district of Samdrupjongkhar as a part of Southern Bhutan; although officially it is considered to be a part of eastern Bhutan. From Sibsoo in the south west to Samrang in the south east, the landscape of southern Bhutan is a contiguous belt made of fertile plains, green valleys, terraced farms, orange gardens and cardamom fields. Agricultural farms, large villages, cash crop plantation and thatched houses dominate the cultural landscape. Southern Bhutan is Bhutan’s most densely populated region. It is also an agricultural hub and an important trade corridor.
Here, in this spectacular landscape lies some of Bhutan’s most picturesque and prosperous villages; and living in these villages are one of Bhutan’s most hardworking and peace loving people – the ‘Nepali–speaking southern Bhutanese’. The southern Bhutanese are a mosaic of different caste and ethnic groups fused together by a common language, culture, religion, traditions, rituals, life style, dress, language, food, dances, social taboos and belief systems. Most southern Bhutanese are members of an extended family, inter–related, inter–dependent and closely woven by webs of relationships of different kinds and levels; merging and diverging at several points. They worship several guardian deities, which live in the forests, lakes and mountains. Prominently, a peasant society – its folk cosmology understands that nothing is more important than appeasing these deities and securing their protection to ensure fertility, security and productivity.
Land is central to the southern Bhutanese. They live in harmony with the surroundings; the farms and the fields, the rivers and the lakes. They maintain an intimate relationship and attachment to the land in which their social, cultural and historical roots have sprouted; and where their ancestors have toiled hard and given their best. The etymology of place names, villages, valleys, rivers and districts in southern Bhutan suggest that their presence here can be anything but long. That they would one day be disentangled from this relationship – had never occurred in their minds – not even in their wildest dreams.
Until the 1960s, no roads led up from the south to the north; so the southerners had little interaction with the highland Drukpas. They spoke Nepali and did not know Dzongkha, the language of the Drukpas. Until the 1970s, they never wore ‘gho’ and ‘kira’ – clothes worn by the Drukpa men and women. When a royal decree was issued in the 1980s, making the wearing of ‘gho’ and ‘kira’ mandatory for all – the southerners quickly protested. Until 1990, life was pretty much normal and no big problems seemed to disturb the placid environment of the south; or at least it appeared so.
Then a strange blight hit the region, suddenly transforming the entire southern landscape into an epicenter of cultural, political and social conflict. The Drukpa political regime presented the ‘Drukpa man’ as the model of Bhutanese culture, identity and nationalism. In the view of the Drukpa man, the southern Bhutanese was an outsider, an anti–national, an illegal immigrant, probably an agent of the pan–Nepali cause or the Greater Nepal movement; whose continued presence would jeopardize Bhutan’s existence as a Drukpa State. The southerners saw him as a brute nihilist – an enemy of his language, culture, patriotism, citizenship and identity. Group psychology on each camp relied on hegemonic assumptions and narratives that underscored feelings of suspicion, insecurity and threat from the other. An environment full of polarization, contradictions, suspicion and misinterpretations prevailed – until the political waters thawed and a turbulent State violence took over.
The actions of the regime in the years preceding 1990 and afterwards led to the emergence of two different landscapes in southern Bhutan – the landscape of the government, which I would call the ‘Sarkari Landscape’ and the ‘Landscape of Inhabitants’. The pro–democratic movement of 1990 which engulfed most parts of southern Bhutan was basically a peoples’ reaction against this ‘Sarkari Landscape’. The ‘Sarkari Landscape’ is the institutional landscape and it exercised excessive power and influence. The Royal government of Bhutan, the police, army and even the courts of Bhutan were the founders and active players in this landscape.
‘Sarkari Landscape’ in this article denotes all excesses of the government including authoritarianism, censure, ethnic profiling, exclusion, discrimination, suppression, lack of accountability, impunity, intolerance and rejection. It also indicates powerlessness, lack of equality, opportunity, helplessness and hopelessness which are the features of the ‘Landscape of Inhabitants’. In short, the ‘Sarkari Landscape’ was and still is the landscape of fear and persecution; discrimination and resistance; suppression and subordination, domination and exclusion; destruction and displacement; silence and denial, rootedness and exile, crime and despair; dispossession and dislocation, pain and abhorrence; disparity and vulnerability; and violence and vengeance. It is also a retrospective, resurgent and revivalist landscape.
The ‘One Nation, One People policy’, ‘Driglam Namza’, ‘No Objection Certificate’ ‘National Security Act’ are some of the principle components of the ‘Sarkari Landscape. Its main elements are the ‘gho’, ‘kira’, Tsa–Wa–Sum, the Dzongkha language and the State prescribed ‘code of conduct’ to be followed in public. Theobjective of the ‘Sarkari Landscape’– it seems – was todestroy Bhutan’s ethnic pluralism and diversity and turn Bhutan into an ethnic enclave of the Drukpas. Such a notion was contrived on the premise of a flawed puritanical notion – that Bhutanese national ‘identity’ is exclusively embodied in Drukpa preferences and representation, Buddhism and the King. The fourth king of Bhutan, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk himself argued that “pluralism is practical only for a larger country where a diversity of customs, traditions and culture enriches that nation. A small country like Bhutan cannot afford the luxury of such diversity which may impede the growth of social harmony and unity among its people”.
A view of roadway connecting Trashigang
The ‘Sarkari Landscape’ created a huge population of Bhutanese refugees consisting of about 20% of Bhutan’s total population. After almost twenty years of political stalemate, most of these refugees have been resettled in various countries in the west, which is a more recent phenomenon. They have escaped the ‘Sarkari Landscape’ only to find themselves juggling in a different landscape – the ‘Landscape of the Bhutanese Diaspora’. This new landscape is seen as a landscape of freedom, security and promises but it is also largely an unknown landscape yet.
Exile and eviction has created large tracks of abandoned lands in the ‘Landscape of Inhabitants’. Thegovernment of Bhutan is distributing these lands to new settlers, mainly from the north. As such, both the Drukpas and the southerners are co–existing in the same geographical space in southern Bhutan. However, they hold very different ideas of the landscape. The southern Bhutanese perceives the landscape as a defining symbol of attachment and ownership. He views the land as trails, houses, irrigation canals, plantations, experience, rootedness, economic activities, human diligence, loyalty, service, hard work, identity, citizenship, attrition, misery and a painful eviction of relatives and neighbors. He knows that the land not only feeds him; it also gives him an identity, a point of reference; while the new occupant from the north – a representative of the ‘Sarkari Landscape’ – looks at the land just as a ‘readymade’ resource waiting to be exploited. What has been more antagonizing – the ‘Sarkari Landscape’ has been replacing the original names of places in the ‘Landscape of Inhabitants’ with Dzongkha names. Villages do not exist anymore by the same former names – they have new village names and newer inhabitants. A stranger – a new owner now lives on this land. As things roll on, it is unlikely that the ‘Landscape of Inhabitants’ will ever be restored to its past.
While in the ‘Landscape of the Bhutanese Diaspora’ new realities have given rise to newer perceptions, which often come in conflict with traditional ideas on identity. In the traditional view – as we can see among many Bhutanese refugees who have already taken citizenship in the host countries – notion of identity is very much linked to ‘rootedness’ and the homeland as a fixed territorial entity. A sense of entitlement to the homeland is perhaps explained when many older folks say ….. ‘to die and be buried in the homeland – Bhutan, is the last wish in their life’. People still have not made terms with the fact that identity is rather fluid and evolving and that it can be shaped by historical events and mobility.
We know; landscapes do not travel but memories do. People carry memories of the landscape for a very long time as internalized experiences. Some may know little about their roots, others may have encyclopedic knowledge; but territorial ‘rootedness’, sense of belonging, common experiences and history keeps them all in the same psychological loop. The ‘Landscape of Inhabitants’ transforms from a physical thing into a mental representation. It becomes a relic, a resource or even an ‘unintentional monument’. Thoughts about the village, houses, plough, farms, rivers, irrigation canals, properties, places of worship and even trees and rocks is very appealing and most of the time they fill up the ‘memory room’. No conversation begins or is concluded without making a mention of foods, music, drinks, shamanic or Vedic rituals and adjustment to camp life etc. Cultural programs, literary writings, poems, dance and songs often invoke stories of attachment to the landscape or the trauma of eviction and exile. People visit, revisit, review and revise these ‘memory rooms’ as much as possible and very often assertive narratives pour out. The past becomes a commentary of the present and it continues to provide a foundation for the construction of an imaginary landscape of heritage, history and identity.
Wrap Up On the question of identity, any claim we make should necessarily be based on our experiences, knowledge and history as survived by our memories. But in a current context where history is still being written; identity to a very large extent can also be determined by how we ‘self narrate’ ourselves and how the ‘significant others’ are narrating us. Insofar as the task of ‘self narration’ as a way of building identity is concerned; the southern Bhutanese whether living in the ‘Landscape of Inhabitants’ or in the ‘Landscape of the Bhutanese Diaspora’ have proven themselves to be highly infertile or frugal at best. Among the ‘significant others’ – there are those who try to give a professional narration based on impartial observation; and there are those – whose tendency is to smear our identity or to demonize us. Unfortunately, even in this landscape, the later seems to dominate. Looking back – in our case – we can say that the government of Bhutan aptly fits this description of ‘significant others’ – and that – current literature and narration about the southern Bhutanese have been largely polluted by the regime. It puts us in the receiving end – which is bad – but what is worse is that our own inability to ‘self narrate’ ourselves is hurting us. We have bundle of cases, not just a few – that too extremely strong ones – 20% of population evicted, ethnic profiling, suppression of conscience, democracy, human rights, disenfranchisement, inhuman and degrading treatment – and still we are sitting with folded hands. That is our weakness rather than the government’s strength. Corrections if any, is possible only if we can reverse the direction. And for that – let me mention – it is already late – but not too late – as the saying goes – there is no appropriate time to start anything that has a worthy price.
References:
Profiles in Ethnology, 3rd Edition; Elman R. Service, 1978.
Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place; Edited by Barbara Bender and Margot Winer, 2001.
(Author Subba is a long time writer and often writes articles for news columns. He has written dozens of articles so far – published in the mainstream media in Nepal and through BNS. He is one of the Contributing Editors of Bhutan News Service and currently lives in Charlottesville, VA with his family. He can be reached at [email protected])
There is only one tree in Kamal Dahal’s front yard. It is an orange tree. Hidden amongst its thick, waxy leaves, small green orbs are slowly growing.
Kamal his wife Tukula, and their children Rohan and Rewaz in their house in Salisbury Plan (Picture courtesy: Nat Rogers/Indaily)
Kamal is a refugee from Bhutan, and this is his house. He bought it last year. When I visit it and sit on the soft brown couch in the front room, it is full of the smell of cooking spices.
His story, which he recounted to me at length sitting on the soft brown couch in the front room, is one of great sadness and great hope. He is one of more than 1000 Bhutanese refugees who have quietly settled in Adelaide’s northern suburbs over the last decade. About 60 Bhutanese refugee families have just purchased homes in the area. Kamal is the face of one of Adelaide’s fastest growing communities, and one of the real success stories of the northern suburbs.
Bhutan, a landlocked microstate on the eastern flank of the Himalayas, is mostly known in the West for placing eighth on Business Week’s index of the happiest countries in the world in 2008. Substantially less well-known is the country’s history of ethnic cleansing.
During the 1980s and 1990s, Bhutan’s ruling majority came to fear a rapidly growing Bhutan-born ethnic Nepalese minority. The government conducted a prolonged campaign of legal harassment to force the ethnic Nepalese – known as Lhotshampas – over the border. In the early part of this century, according to Human Rights Watch, about 108,000 Bhutanese were living in seven refugee camps in Nepal.
Kamal’s journey started when he received a letter from Bhutan’s government.
“They sent us a letter ‘you have to go away from Bhutan, you have to leave the country, you have to flee, this week’,” he told Indaily.
“Everyone says it’s a peaceful country. But more than 100,000 people have been evicted from the country from 1990 to 1993. So it’s very hard to explain how it looks, how it is, whether it’s full of happiness or… some other thing.”
The small family – Kamal, his younger sister and his mother – fled, hitching a truck ride through India to Nepal, and to a UN refugee camp where the young Kamal would spend the next 20 years.
He remembers little of home.
“I was a very little boy. I don’t know how my mum cared about it. I have no idea what a person can feel when he or she has to leave the country.
“But when I think now, we had huge lands, like 10, 12 acres. House, cattle, cardamom, orange garden. So when someone has to leave behind, how does a person feel that?”
The Bhutanese refugees are effectively stateless. Their citizenships have been revoked by Bhutan. And despite Nepalese ancestry they are not Nepalese citizens, leaving them in a legal limbo.
In the early part of this century governments from Nepal and Bhutan cautiously entered into talks to attempt to find a resettlement solution for the Bhutanese refugees.
By this time, Kamal had put himself through school and gained qualifications as a teacher, all the while living in a bamboo hut in the camp.
He thought he was going home.
“In the beginning I thought that I could go back to Bhutan, and I could stay in my own land, my own country. But after 15, 16 months of negotiation between the Bhutan and Nepalese government, nothing came, it was all in vain.
“So I opted for third-country resettlement.”
Since 2007 a resettlement process led by the United States has found new homes for more than 60,000 refugee Bhutanese. Kamal, and his wife Tukula, ended up in Adelaide.
Someone has put a small silver pot on a battered gas hob. I ask Kamal if that’s where the spice smell is coming from. “Dinner,” he replies.
Tukula, meanwhile, is trying to shush an intermittently-crying toddler Rewaz, who burst into tears the moment I arrived. She’s two and a half-years old and looks terrified, huge eyes poking out at me from behind a wet brown fringe. Her old brother Rohan, 11, is just back from soccer training at the local club.
The Dahals came to Australia in 2008. Kamal – ever industrious, always keen to “earn the bread” – is working as an assistant nurse at a local hospital. Rohan was born in Nepal; younger Rewaz was born here.
“We are four now,” Kamal tells me. “She’s my wife. And I’ve got two boys, and myself, so four.”
After six months in emergency accommodation, the Dahals moved into the private rental market. Kamal reckons he travelled through five different properties in four years.
Last year they took out a loan from state government agency HomeStart Finance and purchased the small brick house, financed by Kamal’s work at the hospital. HomeStart provides affordable loans to people on low incomes who can’t afford large deposits; despite that, it’s still quite an achievement to go from refugee to new arrival to home owner in such a short time.
He’s not alone. I’m told almost 60 Bhutanese families have recently bought homes in the area, many taking advantage of the HomeStart loans. The Bhutanese community in the area is large and thriving, well-connected, up to 1000-strong by Kamal’s estimate. “We help each other. It’s a sense of belongingness,” he says.
Despite being Hindus, Kamal and Tukula have decorated the front room with both Buddist and Hindu tapestries – so that the home is welcoming for everyone, Kamal tells me quietly.
Out the front, Indaily’s photographer is arranging the Dahals for a family snap in front of their new house. Rohan, feeling all of his 11 years, is trying to play it cool for the camera. Kamal reaches over, squeezes him by the cheeks. “Smile”. Rohan smiles. The flash goes off.
I’m standing next to the orange tree. I call over to Kamal, “what does owning this place mean to you?”
He’s looking at the camera lens, and doesn’t turn his head when he answers.
“I feel like I am having something, something here.”
I think about his mother’s cardamom plants and her orange garden in Bhutan, and I look again at the little oranges growing on the tree. New life.
The Bhutanese in the United Kingdom celebrated the 2557th Buddha Jayanti amidst special celebrations in Manchester on May 25.
Resettled Bhutanese from all faith and living in different parts of the United Kingdom participated in the celebration, informed Prem Giri.
The ceremony started with the offering of prayers to lord Buddha and lighting of 108 candles, according to Giri.
The program also saw a series of cultural performances by the Bhutanese artists. The organizer also served traditional food and drinks to the participants.
The organizer, Bhutanese Welfare Association in the UK (BWA), also welcomed newly arrived fellow refugees by offering khada.
Meanwhile, Dr Prakash Subedi and Dr Suresh Chouhan conducted general health check-ups of the community members during the program chaired by pandit TN Niroula.
The Bhutanese Ethnic School in collaboration with seniors from the community celebrated the 2557th Buddha Jayanti amidst various programs in Adelaide of South Australia, Saturday.
Buddha Jayanti celebration in South Australia
The organizers said the celebrations started with a Buddha mantra chanting and ritual performance, lightening of 108 candles by lama, Bhutanese seniors and guests followed by different cultural dances.
Dozens of Bhutanese artists entertained audience with dances, songs, drama, and poem recitation, among others, informed Kamal Dahal from Adelaide.
Narad Dahal, Puja Gurung and volunteers of the Ethnic School coordinated all cultural items staged during the three-hour-long program
Meanwhile, Bikash Dhamala presented a brief introduction of Lord Buddha, his teachings and, inspired everybody in the hall through well researched inspirational quotes.
Speaking at the program Ms Mary Ceravolo, a local government representative, thanked the organiser for conducting such a grand program and encouraged the Bhutanese to preserve and promote their cultural practices in future.
The Bhutanese Glowing Youth Club(BGYC) served audience with momo as a part of fund raising program of the school.
Prakash Dhamala, who heads the Ethnic School, has moderated the program attended by over 300 resettled Bhutanese.
Founded in April 17, 2012, the Bhutanese Ethnic School has been running Nepali classes on every Saturday. There are over 70 students below 18 years of age registered in the school as of now. The school is registered at Ethnic School Board of South Australia.
The Bhutan News Service (BNS), the country’s first news agency under operation from exile since 2006, said it will begin periodic video segment ‘Bhutanka Kura’ from July 1.
According to its Manager, Vidhyapati Mishra, the ‘Bhutanka Kura’ would be presented on weekly basis in a thematic artistic play.
“Young Bhutanese artists from Pennsylvania, Bharat Tamang and Nanda Lagun, have been assigned to produce periodic videos for the Bhutanka Kura,” Manager Mishra said.
Nanda Lagun (left) and Bharat Tamang
The ‘Bhutanka Kura’ has aimed to highlight almost every aspect of the Bhutanese refugee issue, and post resettlement scenario in dramatic video segments, according to Mishra.
Some of the post resettlement issues like frequent reports of suicide, education in the country of resettlement, and nostalgia the elderly citizens have would be highlighted in a thematic approach by involving the artists, added Mishra.
BNS has also released the official promo of the ‘Bhutanka Kura’ on Saturday.
“We expect to reach out to almost every resettled citizen. This is why the video segments will be produced in Nepali language.”
Meanwhile, both the artists have expressed their pleasure to be a part of the dynamic media team.
“We’ll leave no stones unturned in materializing this project, though it is very challenging,” said one of the artists, Bharat Tamang.
Tamang and Lagun are also learnt to have been preparing to run regular television program on the Bhutanese refugee issue from the New York based White Himal Television.
The newly appointed UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) Representative in Nepal, Steven Craig Sanders, presented his Letter of Credentials to Minister for Foreign Affairs, Madhav Prasad Ghimire, Wednesday.
Steven Craig Sanders (Picture courtesy: UNHCR)
Sanders has replaced the outgoing UNHCR Representative in Nepal, Stephane Jacquemet.
Sanders, an American national, has worked with the UN Refugee Agency since 1992 in a number of countries including Bangladesh, Sudan, Indonesia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Malawi and at UNHCR Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, stated the UNHCR, Kathmandu.
Before coming to Nepal, he served as the UNHCR Representative in Bangladesh, Dhaka. Mr. Sanders had also previously served as the UNHCR Deputy Representative in Khartoum, Sudan, from 2006 to 2010, according to the UNHCR.
Upon assuming office, Sanders said, “I am delighted to be in Nepal a country rich in culture and natural beauty and look forward to maintaining an effective working relationship with the Government of Nepal, members of the diplomatic community, UN Agencies, non-governmental organisations and all other major stakeholders and interlocutors in the refugee programme in Nepal.”
Since late 2007, UNHCR has helped nearly 80,000 refugees from Bhutan start new lives in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The agency also carries out a range of other protection and assistance programmes for some 38,000 refugees from Bhutan in the Beldangi and Sanischare camps in eastern Nepal.
UNHCR’s work in Nepal also includes providing protection and assistance to around 350 urban refugees and asylum seekers, helping find solutions for people without access to citizenship certificates, and facilitating the safe transit of Tibetan new arrivals to a third country.
Sanders arrived in Nepal on 20 May 2013. He will be joined by his wife and two daughters, according to the UNHCR.
“If you don’t know history, then you don’t know anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of a tree,” Michael Crichton
The excerpt given below is a translation of an agreement (attached) signed by the representative of Kipotiya Bhotey[i] of Bachhap Tapgaun region and Kholmay Mandal[ii] of Papgaun representing Nepali speaking community of Dagapela at the mediation of government of Bhutan assigned representative Zigup Phugey, Babu Mukh Das and Sibsoo Baidar [iii] on March 30, 1925 in Tapgaun Bhutan.
“As there arose a boundary confusion between Kholmay Mandal and Jimidari Bhotey[iv]of Tapgaun on the land determined to settle Pahaday Rait[v], Zigup Phugey, Babu Mukh Das and Sibsoo Baidar came to Papgaun under Tapgaun region, gathered Pahaday Rait, Kipotiya Bhotey and Bachhap region Jimidari Bhotey, Pahaday Rait agreed to pay Re. 1.00 per household per year fee, Jimidari Bhotey accepted the offer and drew the boundary. If Pahaday Rait built Goth or Ghar [vi] crossing the boundary they should pay Rs. 100.00 penalty to Bhotey, if Bhotey go to Nepali Rait area and create disturbance etc. Bhotey should pay Rs. 100.00 penalty to Pahaday Rait. Kipotey Bhotey and Nepali Rait both accepted the agreement. A copy of this agreement is sent to The King in Thimphu and another one to Deb Zimpon Kalimpong. Within the boundary Pahaday Rait should not harvest Bhir Mauri[vii] and shouldn’t cut Bansh and Beth [viii] more than needed. Area from Jakeselung river source through Sukhding Mountain to Am Chimula Mountain, from side of the Daga River to Durbin, Homa and Sunkosh confluence and on the north to Paro King’s boundary. Kipotiya Bhotey agreed to set the boundary within this area allowing Kholmay Mandal to settle Rait.”
Kasho/Patta/Authorization
Agreement signed and sealed date 30/03/1925 Tapgaun Bhutan
The formal settlement of Nepali speaking people in Dagapela began in 1905 AD (1962 B.S) after Kazi Ugen Dorji (Kaleybugey Raja), advisor to then Tongsa Penlop “Tongsab Gongsar Ugyen Wangchuk” and the person in-charge of settling Nepali speaking people in southern Bhutan issued Muktiharship Patta to Krishna Bir Gurung resident of Lamidara, Chirang to settle people in Dagapela that included area from Jakeselung river source through Sukhding Mountain to Am Chimula Mountain, from this side of Daga River to Durbin, Homa and Sunkosh confluence and on the north to Paro King’s boundary. The Patta also permitted settlers to use measuring scales like Manu, pathi and ser [ix], Nepali coins for transactions, traditional costumes, Nepali language and its sub dialects for communication and allowed to observe religious and cultural practices. The fifteenth Daga Penlop Tsewang Dorji [x] was assigned to resolve issues if any arose between new settlers and resident drukpas.
Muktihar Krishna Bir Gurung moved to Dagapela and settled in the parcel of land east of former Tashidin private school. Even though Yongen family owns that parcel today, it is still known in the community as Muktihar Khayal.
Archives in pulses I “My father, Laxmi Kanta Dabadi was the family astrologer of Muktihar Krishna Bir Gurung. I remember visiting Muktihars house with my father eversince I was a child. Muktihar Gurung was a religious person, had profound reverence in Hinduism and astrology. Muktihar encouraged my parents to educate me in Karma Kanda [xi] and send me to Nepal & India to get higher education.
After Muktihar passed away Muktiharni continued administering Tashidin block with assistance from her sons Ratna Bahadur Gurung and Nar Bahadur Gurung. Ganga Gurung grandson of Muktihar Krishna Bir Gurung served Mandal of Tashidin block until 1990. Three generations of Muktihar family administered Tashidin block and two generations of my family had the privilege to offer religious and astrological discourse to Muktihar family.
The Bhutan army tortured and threatened of life imprisonment if I didn’t leave the country, so I left Bhutan leaving everything behind. I wish to go back and spend remaining days of my life in the same place where my parents have taken heavenly journey”. Guru Devi Bhakta Dabadi, 81, Everett, Washington USA
When Krishna Bir Gurung moved to Dagapela, there were scattered settlements of about das darjan[xii] Nepali speaking families spread throughout Dagapela; Gyembo Singh Moktan stationed at Tashidin village was the Mandal in-charge of Dagapela. Moktan had been Mandal for adakori[xiii] years. Though the ownership changed many times over the last century, that parcel of land which Gyembo Singh Moktan once lived is still known in the community as Moktan Khayal [xiv].
Families of Gyembo Sing Moktan, Ghimirey Chaprasi, Laxmi Kanta Dabadi, Balu Adhikari, parents of Brihaspati Timsina, Blon family and Waiba family were some of the prominent families of pre-muktihar era of Tashidin. Balu Adhikari was the rich man who credited money to Muktihar that eventually earned Balu Adhikari a higher status in the community that people started to address him as Balu Mahajan [xv].
The chief motive of formalizing settlement process by appointing Nepali Speaking Muktihar was to increase tax collection. The rumor was that tax would double after Muktihar, the representative of Kaleybugey Raja, took over. Therefore, the people resisted in the beginning to accept Krishna Bir Gurung as Muktihar and expressed willingness to remain under Daga Raja/Sethu Raja [xvi] who customarily charged less tax.
The Muktihar appointed Dharanidhar Ghimirey as his Chaprasixvii and Nar Bahadur Gurung (Sadhu Gurung) as karbar[xvii] and carried on the settlement program. As administrative measures for easing the settlement, Krishna Bir Gurung divided Dagapela into fourteen blocks and appointed thirteen Mandals while he kept the Patta of Tashidin Mandal for himself [xix]. As the workload increased Muktihar appointed Phauda Singh Rai as his Baidar[xx] and Kashi Nath Dahal as added Karbari in 1915 AD.
The architects of Dagapela Muktihar issued Mandali Pattas [xxi]to selected individuals that allowed them to settle people in different villages and collect taxes. The following individuals had obtained mandali patta and settled people in different villages of Dagapela: Harka Bahadur Gurung settled people in Namchela, Gopini and Ranga village; Gyembo Singh Moktan and Dhan Bahadur Jimba settled in Shamdaley, Kaukhagaon, Hattikharka and Lodumba village; Laxmi Kanta Khatiwada and Bishnu Kanta Khatiwada settled in Sallery and Paseybung village; Tek Bahadur Khatiwada settled in Suntoley and Panakhola village; Nandu Gurung took the settlement in Goshi and Majua village.
Likewise, Dawa Sherpa and Lakpa Sherpa settled in Deorali and Gadmala village; Birdhoj Subba, Uttarey Subba and Phauda Raj Limbu settled in Bhaleygoan village; Sing Bir Gurung and Khadga Singh Poudel settled in Khagochin village; Janga Lal Gurung settled in Emerey and Tanju village; Kholmay Mandal settled in Papgaun village; Bal Bahadur Gurung and Duryo Dhan Poudel in Nimtola village and Purna Sing Tamang, Jagat Bahadur Khadka and Mr. Thapa settled in Dorona, Lalidhapper, Mamethang and Chukam villages [xxii].
“Chardam”: the land acquisition process The terminology used to describe the process of obtaining land by new Nepali speaking settlers then was called Chardam. Under Chardam, the settler had to submit application to the presiding Mandal with description of boundary and area of the parcel interested to settle in with a required fee of panch paisa [xxiii] and Ek mana [xxiv] rice. The Mandal would then screen the applicants by taking a verbal interview. If everything was satisfactory, the Mandal would assign his aides-de-camp (Chaprasi/Baidar/Karbari) to mark the boundary and recommend for the registration process.
After acquiring Chardam [xxv] the settlers’ felled trees, cleared bushes, built terraces, dug irrigation channels, tilled land, grew crops, reared animals and began their life in the new land. Fighting inhospitable mountain terrain, excessive monsoon rains, landslides, swollen streams, marauding wild animals and life threatening diseases were part of daily struggle. Besides, three levels of tax payment existed: one to Thimmu Raja called Panch Sarkar , other to Kaleybugey Raja called Tin Sarkar and the third type was to a separate group who often visited villages demanding large gifts of butter and rice from cattle owners in the name of Daga Raja. The people also had to bear the brunt of frequent intrusion by Drukpa aggressors from neighboring villages demanding chicken, calf, piglet, butter, rice and salt, and getting assaulted and looted in the event not being able to fulfill their demands.
The agreement signed between representative of Kipotiya Bhotey of Bachhap Tapgaun region and Kholmay Mandal of Papgaun on behalf of the Nepali community of Dagapela at the mediation of government representative Zigup Phugey, Babu Mukh Das and Sibsoo Baidar on March 30, 1925 in Tapgaun Bhutan reinforced the boundary of Dagapela as listed in Muktiharship Patta [xxvi] (issued to Krishna Bir Gurung) and addressed the issue of mutual interference by Nepali speaking subjects and the Drukpa subjects in one another’s territory, involving untoward activities like assaulting, looting and kidnapping children.
In 1923 the settlement of raiyat was in full swing, population was increasing rapidly and sub-divisional administration was not established then, while the whole settlement program was operated from the Muktihar’s residence. The handful of assistants that Muktihar had was too overburdened to meet the growing administrative need. So it is quite interesting to note that he appointed thirteen year old Bala Bhadra Dahal as another Chaprasi and Data Ram Kafley as new Karbari. Since Bala Bhadra Dahal became chaprasi at a tender age he was popular among the Dagapelians as Sanu Chaprasi.
Archives in pulses II “I was born in Goshi village, I first went to Goshi bazar with my mother when I was 5 years old. I saw a beautiful wooden house in a terrace below the bazar. I asked my mother whose house was that, she replied that was Adda Ghar[xxvii] big Babu[xxviii] worked there. After some years I got married to a groom from Lamidara and left Dagapela. When I went to visit my mother many years later I found my mother had moved to Gadmalla village. There were big houses built on our land in Goshi, I asked my mother who built those houses, she said those houses were school raja asked mandal to build them”. Hema Devi Khanal (89 years) Tukwila, Washington USA
Hema Devi Khanal was born in 1925 in the red mud house that was in Goshi school compound until it was demolished in 1978 to build additional block to house primary sections. Goshi Bazar was first started in early nineteen twenties in the terrace of land where residence of Dungpa was situated until 1990. In the expression quoted above Grandma is talking about Goshi bazar in that old location. The beautiful wooden house below the market that grandma talked about was the Sub-Divisional Office built in 1928. It was the same site where Dungpa Office was located in 1990. The big houses built in grandmas ancestral land was Goshi Junior High School which is serving as Royal Bhutan Army barrack since the inception of ethnic cleansing in November 1990.
As old Goshi bazar was located on the upper terrace, higher above the sub-divisional administration office, the surface run-off with the bazar waste made office environment unhygienic. At the order of then SDO Jetha Babu, Goshi bazar was shifted to present site in early nineteen thirties. The large fig tree (Bar Ko Rukh [xxix]) that stands in the middle of Goshi Bazar today was planted and nurtured by Dharmanda Kafley. There used to be the conventional pair of Bar (Ficus benghalensis) and Pipal, but the Pipal[xxx] (Ficus religiosa) died some years after Bazar was shifted. Gopi Chauhan, Lalikharkey Newar, Kundaley Lama, Chiyawal Newar, Bakasey Newar were some of the shop owners of the old Goshi bazar. During the second quarter of twentieth century Dagapela community tried to establish bazar in other locations like Bhaleygaun, Namchela and one west of Deurali but the effort ruined.
“Study the past if you would define the future.” Confucius
Author’s note: This write up was prepared with inputs from Guru Devi Bhakta Dabadi, Hema Devi Khanal,Tulasi Maya Rai, Budhi Man Rai, Karna Bahadur Rai,Tek Bahadur Subba, Hira Lal Subedi, Pashupati Ghimirey, Indra Acharya, Gopal Gurung, Chudamuni Dahal, Pashupati Regmi, Ram Chandra Pokhrel, Dhanapati Rizal, Kaushila Dahal, Nar Maya Bhandari, and daughter of Sadhu Karbari. I am indebted to these seniors by their willingness to share treasure-trove of information and giving me opportunity to bring out to the readers.
Editor’s note: The writer, who graduated from Goshi Junior High School in 1987, served as Camp Secretary of Goldhap, and Primary Curriculum Planner cum Teacher Trainer at the Bhutanese Refugee Education Program (BREP) run by the Caritas Nepal. His regularly blogs at Padamrizal.com, and can be reached at [email protected]
Editor’s Note: Padam Rizal is one of the contributing authors at Bhutan News Service (BNS). This piece and/or his opinion doesn’t reflect the official view of BNS
Bhutanese media carried news in series about the Mushroom poisoning and death of four in Thimphu referral hospital. The death of a man in 30s and two children on May 16 in Thimphu hospital became newsy. Kuensel, on its May 17 issue, reported the story that developed in Samtse and ended up in fatality in Thimphu.
The wife of the deceased man, who was undergoing treatment in ICU, died the following night. They were first admitted to Samtse hospital after they got the symptoms of poisoning like nausea, diarrhea and vomiting. The family consumed the wild mushroom for their dinner on May 11, according to the Kuensel.
Given the road accessibility, Samtse hospital is not far away from Chengmari, where the mushroom poisoning actually began. According to the media, the victims were admitted to Samtse hospital the next day that is May 12.
Doctors in Samtse hospital did not see the patients critically ill, although they referred the four patients to Thimphu on May 14, while another was discharged. He, however, was brought back to the hospital on May 16.
The media failed to report on the nature of habitat from where it is collected, the growth stage and even the physical characteristics of the mushroom that was consumed. Such information would help the experts to identify the varieties of mushroom that can be lethal, at least for the public safety. The fact that mushrooms appearing in various shapes and color after the pre-monsoon rain in Bhutan and consumed just on the basis of traditional knowledge is accountable to this loss of human life, sometime taken as mere accident.
The Kuensel published only one side of the story, very much inclined to justify the death of four people as ‘unpreventable’. There is nothing about what people in the village has to say about the incident, how and when the victims transported to hospital, why were not they referred to Thimphu when the doctors knew about the seriousness of poisoning effect after 24or 48 hours or so.
BBS news of May 22 indicated of late referral by Samtse hospital to Thimphu, which meant some advanced anti-toxin treatment could have been initiated early. Going by the news of BBS, the neighbor who was discharged the other day soon returned to hospital; got referred to Thimphu and he could be saved. This sufficiently give reason to guess and question the treatment plan of Samtse hospital, keeping the patients as young as 10 years just under saline, when it was not well-equipped to do all the tests and detoxify the poison. It also reads, ‘the neighbor was referred only when the four people died’. If that is true, the doctors did not take care of the condition in which the patients arrived at the hospital and how fair would it be for them to keep under simple treatment if sufficient time has elapsed. Is this careless handling of patients who are under risk of losing their life by the district hospitals a reason to say: because it is for free?
