What's new

New Delhi sees Bhutan as little more than potential protectorate

Do not manipulate Bhutan’s democracy

It is only with sadness that one can read Sandeep Dikshit’s report in HIndu newspaper, here, as to how ham-handed India has been toward Bhutan, crudely interfering in its internal affairs. Not only is the Indian establishment advertising itself to be intellectually bankrupt but the Indian leadership has flagged that the more things seem to change in our country’s neighbourhood policies, the more they remain the same.

The upshot of what happened can be summed up as follows. In the first round of parliamentary election in Bhutan in May, the results showed that the ruling Druk Phuensum Tshogpa had a strong winning card to get re-elected, something which made Delhi uncomfortable, given the “independent foreign policy” pursued by the DPT government. So, the pendulum needed to be swung in favor of the opposition People’s Democratic Party. From all appearance, Delhi did a masterly job of ensuring the PDP won.

Three cheers for Bhutanese democracy! On a long-term basis, we are creating a permanent “anti-India” lobby in Bhutan. This sordid manipulation of the Bhutanese political system underscores why India is such a hated country in its region. Who likes a bully?

In fact, one negative fallout of the Bhutan story is going to be that Colombo will be more than ever determined now to do away with the 13th Amendment. The Sri Lankan nationalists fear that Delhi may at some point manipulate any provincial government with delegated powers in the Tamil-dominated regions of northern and eastern Sri Lanka as the tool to advance its geopolitical interests.

Can we fault them from harbouring atavistic fears about Indian hegemony? Do not forget for a moment that Indira Gandhi’s blatant interference in Sri Lankan internal affairs was also provoked by the then President J. R. Jayewardene’s independent foreign policy.

Again, make no mistake, if (or when) she gets re-lected as Bangladesh prime minister, Khaleda Zia is bound to revert to a policy of calibrated antagonism toward India. As for Pakistan, why do we blame its Afghan policy, which is hell-bent on exorcising the Indian influence in Kabul? William Dalrymple’s celebrated essay recently, which is featured by the Brookings (and widely reprinted abroad) — explains how the Indian and Pakistani security agencies are locked in a death dance in the Hindu Kush.

One would have thought that the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi prompted India to repent. Apparently, it isn’t so. Nepal — and now Bhutan. Is it the Maldives next?

Why do we need a “string of pearls” to choke our neck? All China needs to do is to leave us to the shenanigans of our intellectually-bankrupt bureaucrats and their political masters. The perceived Indian “hegemony” will only drive our South Asian neighbours toward deeper engagement with China.

Hardly 72 hours passed since the National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon visited Colombo for the Sri Lankan cabinet to announce the award of yet another big project to Chinese companies — ironically, the first $1.5 billion phase of the Northern Highway.


And the Chinese companies are going to handle on B.O.T. basis for a quarter century this vital project that aims at integrating the Tamil regions with the Sinhalese-dominated south.

Do not manipulate Bhutan’s democracy - Indian Punchline

As much as you like to portray your country as a Mel Gibson from The Patriot against the 'hegemony', you clearly don't understand the agreement we have with Bhutan.

The subsidies are restored.

This was mutually agreed upon.

But yes, the anti-India nexus is most welcome to try. :lol:
 
Learn the difference between language and genetics. Tibetans have haplogroup D while Han don't. Same language family does not mean same genes, in fact while I hate to say this some Koreans are even more closely related to Han people than Tibetans.

Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups and their implicatio... [Hum Genet. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

I used the term in a particular periodical context, genius!

Say for example, there we have the Indo European (IE) linguistic group, today, as English is international language due to colonialism, Africans speaking English may now be termed as IE language speaking people but they are different genetically from the original IE speaking people. Now when I say original IE language speaking people, I certainly indicate the IE people of the past, and not present.

I suggest you to go through the article published by Li Jin*, Edison T. Liu*, Mark Seielstad*, Shuhua Xu*; 93 authors from 10 countries in Science 11 December 2009: Vol. 326 no. 5959 pp. 1541-1545, DOI: 10.1126/science.1177074

Their results showed that genetic ancestry is strongly correlated with linguistic affiliations as well as geography. Most populations show relatedness within ethnic/linguistic groups, despite prevalent gene flow among populations.
 

Back
Top Bottom