Questions of Identity Among Resettled Bhutanese
Editorial
Identity is often the subject of discussion and debate among the Bhutanese across the globe. Part of this debate and controversy is rooted in their contemplation of identity as a monolithic entity to which they try to assign themselves as Bhutanese (Bhutani) or Nepalese (Nepali). Even those who accept the polyvalence of identity make incorrect assertions on the historical and political contexts that have defined and shaped their identity dynamics.
Culture, religion, ethnicity, language, country of origin, and nationality are dominant factors in determining a person’s identity. Historically, those who have immigrated from Nepal to Bhutan, India, Burma have identified themselves as Nepali. ‘Gorkha’ is a similar term used in India, Burma, Britain, Hong Kong, and Bahrain, often connected to military servicemen and their families. The word ‘Gorkha’ came from a place in Nepal from where Shah dynastic king started the unification of modern Nepal. Gorkha’s soldiers were then called ‘Gorkhalis.’ After the first and second world wars, ‘Gorkha’ became a symbolic name of courage and bravery because of their heroic fighting in the war.
When people of India, Bhutan, and Burma identified themselves as Nepali, they were often viewed as outsiders (or people from Nepal) by the rulers by politicizing and sensitizing the term as a means to victimize them. Realizing this fact, people of Nepalese origin in many parts of India identified themselves as Gorkhali (a more gallantry term). For decades they have been fighting for separate ‘Gorkha Land’ comprising Darjeeling and Doors area. However, after decades of struggle and advocacy, the Nepali language (interestingly, not Gorkhali) has been incorporated in the Indian constitution.
For the first time, living in extreme suppression of feudalism, Southern Bhutanese people revolted in the name of ‘Jai Gorkha’ in 1945. In 1958, the Bhutanese National Assembly adopted a resolution to define southern dwellers (people of Nepali origin) as ‘Lhosthompas’ politically distinctive identity than people of Nepal and India. Besides the use of ‘Jai Gorkha,’ the term ‘Gorkha’ has not been used on any other occasions by the people inside Bhutan to identify themselves. However, a political party in the name of ‘Gorkha’ was established in exile after the 1990s political turmoil in Bhutan.
Nepal does not recognize ‘Nepali’ as an ethnicity; instead, it defines it as Nepal’s citizens. However, there is a common notion in Nepal that pahade (people of hills or Himalayan origin) are Nepali. The term ‘pahade’ and ‘madeshi (people of the terai region of Nepal or of Indian origin) have become more political rhetoric in the recent times.
Even though Bhutan officially adopted ‘Lhothsompa’ as identifying terminology, people of southern Bhutan couldn’t embrace it in isolation of historical context or what they have identified themselves over the centuries. They viewed themselves as Bhutanese national with Nepali ethnicity. On the other hand, the government continued its efforts to change and enforced its monolithic Drukpa culture (or ruling Ngalung culture) on these people. Adoption of the national language and dress, removal of the Nepali curriculum from the schools, renaming of places, census exercise targeted at southerners- all were directed to attack their cultural identity.
After the expulsion from Bhutan, the exiles always referred to themselves as ‘Bhutanese’ in Nepalese soil, ironically not as Nepali. And Nepalis referred to them as ‘Bhotange’ (which many Bhutanese perceive as a derogatory term). However, Bhotange (meaning Bhutanese) has a historical connection, and it is a much easier term to articulate in Nepali than Bhutani (Bhutanese). So the use of the term Bhotange is not necessarily derogatory as understood by Bhutanese counterparts.
Resettlement further brought complexity to identity issues among Bhutanese resettled in the western world and Oceania. Noteworthily, in all the resettlement countries, they have organizations that go with the term Bhutanese and identified themselves as ‘Bhutanese.’ The controversy they face now is: how should they identify themselves after becoming the citizens of the resettlement country?
The idea to address this is to understand and embrace the multiplicity of identity. In this era of enormous mobility and transnational migration, identity can’t remain intact to one and only one determining factor. So, identity is the contextual – political, cultural, ethnic, regional, or national origin.