Mayuri Mukherjee
The Pioneer
July 25, 2013
As Bhutan seeks to increase its engagement with the world, India has no reason to resent it, especially if its relations with Thimphu remain strong. New Delhi had unilaterally amended the old treaty to allow Thimphu to follow its own foreign policy.
With India deciding to restore the subsidy on cooking gas and kerosene to Bhutan, an unseemly episode in the relations between the two countries has thankfully ended. The subsidy was revoked on June 30, less than two weeks before the tiny Himalayan nation went to poll to elect its second democratic Government, and it understandably led to accusations that New Delhi was seeking to interfere in Bhutan’s internal matters. The country’s outgoing Prime Minister Jigme Thinley’s so-called ‘adventurism’ in foreign policy, that saw him meet with the Chinese Premier on the sidelines of the Rio summit last year, without prior consultation with New Delhi, had supposedly irked the mandarins in South Block, who then withdrew the subsidies to express their displeasure and ensure that the ‘pro-China leader’ did not come back to power.
In the weeks since then, however, it has become evident that much of the reaction to the ill-timed subsidy cut was blown out of proportion. Apart from the fact that the subsidy cut has since been reversed, the argument that it caused Mr Thinley to lose the election has also been debunked. In the first round of polling that was held in March (months before the subsidy controversy erupted) and saw four parties fight it out, the Prime Minister’s party, Druk Phuensum Tshogpa, won 44.52 per cent of votes. In the second and final round, where the DPT took on the People’s Democratic Party in a face-off, its vote-share fell by just one decimal point —indicating, that India’s subsidy cut did not have an impact on Mr Thinley’s political career even though it surely added some zing to the electoral discourse. If the PDP ultimately won the election, it was because in the final round the party managed to secure all the opposition, non-DPT votes. This was possible primarily because PDP chief and now Prime Minister-elect Tshering Tobgay, a former civil servant, had proven himself to be a strong and articulate Opposition leader in the past five years.
In effect, India’s decision to cut fuel subsidy was not a political one at all —it was a bureaucratic goof-up. The fuel subsidy lapsed on June 30 when Bhutan’s 10th Plan expired. Fresh terms for financial assistance could only be negotiated after the new Government was sworn in — and Bhutan’s Chief Election Commissioner, believed to be even more evangelical in these matters than TN Seshan, made sure that the rules were followed to the T. Add to this the miscommunication between the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Petroleum in India, as a result of which the latter cancelled the subsidy without taking the former into confidence — and the situation was ripe for a diplomatic disaster.
Thankfully, both countries have now put the episode behind them but nevertheless, there are some important lessons to be learnt. Apart from the obvious one on better communication within the bureaucracy, the most important take-away from this episode, for New Delhi, is that Bhutan is a changing country and India must respond to those changes effectively.
In the past, India has done most of its business with Bhutan through the Bhutanese King in particular and that country’s elite in general. Now, with a parliamentary democracy in place in Thimphu, New Delhi will have to learn to work more carefully with a larger number of stakeholders, some of whom will have competing interests. The manner in which the PDP spun the subsidy cut decision, as the price Bhutan was paying for outgoing Prime Minister Thinley’s supposed mishandling of India-Bhutan’s relations (due to his ‘pro-China’ tendencies) speaks volumes. In fact, the whole thing was made to look so bad that Mr Thinley had to come on national television to explain himself and do damage control.
Outside of the power corridors of Thimphu, the popular reaction to subsidy cut was also telling. It reflected the changes that are currently underway in Bhutanese society especially its increasing willingness to question authority figures and demand greater accountability — which is quite possibly directly related to the installation of a parliamentary democracy and an increased engagement with the outside world. And so it is that in this general election Bhutan voted out the DPT, which ‘represented’ the monarchy and the elite and marked in the previous election a continuation of the royal tradition. Instead, the people have brought to power the PDP, which is a newer political group consisting of little known leaders. This is not to say that Bhutan has rejected its monarchy — far from it, the Bhutanese love their King — but the DPT’s loss is an important marker of societal change. In this context, the question that New Delhi must ask is this: Does Bhutan consider India to be an authority figure? To some extent, yes.
This was especially evident in how Bhutan’s new media responded to theories about Indian interference. Bloggers, many of them young and without a first-hand experience of the deep history that India and Bhutan share, wrote strongly against India trying to do ‘another Nepal’ in their country. Editorials in newspapers, almost all of which have come up in recent years, warned against external forces meddling in domestic politics. This again must not be viewed as an anti-India sentiment — again, far from it, India enjoys tremendous goodwill and genuine support among the people of Bhutan — but New Delhi should take note of this as it re-calibrates its diplomacy in Thimphu.
The Big Brother approach, not that New Delhi ever dealt with Thimphu unfairly, must not be allowed to creep into bilateral relations. While Bhutan surely needs India for its growth, development and security, India also gains significantly by having Bhutan’s wholehearted, no-holds-barred support. This, of course, is particularly crucial vis-à-vis the China factor. Towards that end, Bhutan’s contribution to India’s security framework (not just strategic but also energy; think of the hydro-electric power projects) is just as important as India’s role in securing Bhutan.
Finally, as Bhutan seeks to increase its engagement with the world, India has no reason to resent it especially as long as its own relations with Thimphu remain strong. After all, it was New Delhi that unilaterally amended the old treaty to allow Thimphu to follow its own foreign policy. Now, if the Bhutanese Prime Minister meets with his Chinese counterpart, what is so wrong with that?
