Socratic Dialogue – Written in Retrospect

Background

My country, Bhutan, is a tiny dot on the world map and is landlocked in the Himalayas. Traditions and culture of Bhutan bear little similarity to her neighbors, India and China and her uniqueness seems antique. Yet, the government is very young; the present monarch is the fifth generation . Ancient history of Bhutan is vague and the history that we truly know begins only from the 17th century.

The kingdom has three major ethnic groups – the Ngalongs in the West, the Sharchhops in the East and the Lhotsampas in the South. The North is bare mountains and few traces are inhabited by nomads. The rulers are Ngalongs and therefore the history we know and learn is the history of the West. Although the Sharchhops are recognized as the indigenous people, we (I am a Sharchhop) have no written language. As a result, most people are illiterate and that drags us behind in the race to development of any kind. The Lhotsampas populate the southern belt of Bhutan, and they therefore, culturally resemble the neighboring Indians and Nepalese. The tropical climate in the south favors them with rich harvest of crops and fruits and they are most rapidly progressing group. The diversity thrived under the king and Bhutan began to blossom in the serenity that was nurtured in the kinship of people including the royals.

It was only in the late 1980’s when the government came up with the unification plan of “One Nation, One People” that left the kingdom divided. Under the plan, the government required everyone to wear the traditional dress, learn the Ngalong language and practice the same religion, the Kargyupa Sect of Buddhism. The Lhotsampas are Hindus and the Sharchhops follow the Nyingmapa Sect of Buddhism. This enforcement led to protests in schools and colleges and unrest in most villages. Anyone who spoke, wrote or even read anything that was against the King and the government was labeled an “anti-national” and is subjected to life imprisonment.

The year is 1989 and I had been brought to the Supreme Court of Bhutan. I had been accused for supporting and sympathizing the “anti-nationals” in the college where I was a first year student.

Dialogue Begins:

Yeshey: Since I was eight years old, I studied in a boarding school in Khaling. I have had friends from the South, East and West. I am closer to them than my own siblings. Even my teachers were from all over the country and many were foreigners. The Principal of the school was a Catholic Jesuit from Canada and the person who looked after us was a Christian nun from India. Yet, I did not grow up into a person with no identity. I am student, a good student and I am well loved by my families and friends. I love my country and I know my values well. I did not wither when I grew up in the diverse surrounding, but I stand here, firm in my beliefs and even determined to convince you that enforcing people to be “One People” is utterly a disastrous plan. I do not fear for what I am accused because I know what I believe is right. I am here today, to convince you that I am not an “anti-national” but a true citizen who is worried for the nation that is taking a wrong step.

Court: Your statement proves that you not only dare to disagree with the government but also speak against it. Is that the value that you learnt from your school, which you shower with praises?  We know where your resolution comes from. That is the main reason why we are implementing the policy. If all the people are one, such differences in thoughts will not arise.

Yeshey:  I am glad that you agree with where my courage comes from. We are both right; it comes because I have a different opinion than yours. It is the difference that makes the difference. If people are compelled to act like one, imagine the losses. The wisdom and the intellectual resources of the entire population will be restrained. People cannot always live in constant fear for being or acting different. The plan to make everybody one is impossible unless there is such thing as hypnotizing to make them act like one. Or would you prefer to have a population living in illusion?

Court: As long as there is national integration, illusion will become reality and fear will become a habit.

Yeshey: So, integration is so powerful that it can change illusions into reality?

Court: Yes, I told you that.

Yeshey: Then, why is that my parents have so many laments?  They became one a long time back.  Why do they not have their dream house? Why do they stay awake all night when my youngest sister has a fear? If fear can become a habit, it would have been by now. She is their seventh child and they still tremble when she moans deliriously. Or maybe it is just my parents.

You look old enough to have a family of your own. You would know, better than I, if becoming one is powerful to change illusions into reality.

Court: I am talking at a national level, here.

Yeshey: You said it, Sir. When union of two people often fails, will binding a nation as one people come easy?

Court: You won’t see it because you have lost your national values.

Yeshey:  All I am saying is that different people make a nation. When I say that I want a King to rule the country, a Chief Justice to oversee the justice, it becomes a crime? Similarly, when I say that I want to see people in the south and people in the north, doing what they done, being what they have been for centuries, I become an “anti-national”? But what are you saying? If it were to be “One Nation, One People”, where would you be? Where would the King be? Do you say that you want the King and you to be the same? Or I would be the same as you?

Court: I am not talking of all the people coming to the same social position. This new policy will unite all ethnic groups to one and a national consciousness will be developed.

Yeshey: Sir, I am sure you have travelled abroad. How do you introduce yourself when you are in a foreign land?

Court: As a Bhutanese.

Yeshey: So, you do not tell them that you are a Ngalong?

Court: They will not understand what Ngalong is.

Yeshey: You are right. Foreigners will not understand what a Ngalong, a Sharchhop or a Lhotsampa is. Like you, all Bhutanese say that they are Bhutanese. Irrespective of what group they belong, the national consciousness exists in every one of us. Therefore, reinforcing is not necessary. When you are born in Bhutan, no matter which part, the consciousness of being a Bhutanese comes along naturally. Is that not enough national consciousness?

Court: Yes, being born in Bhutan makes one a Bhutanese, but the national consciousness has to be nurtured. It is the responsibility of the government to make sure that this consciousness is kept alive. That is why we stress on being “One People” to show the consciousness of being a Bhutanese.

Yeshey: So one has to show that one is Bhutanese?

Court: Yes.

Yeshey: You and I are both followers of Buddha. Did Buddha ever wear a tag that he is the Enlightened One?

Court: No.

Yeshey: But people still recognized him. To these days, his teachings inspire millions although he did not leave a single written word. Why is that?

Court: Because his thoughts were profound. His deeds were great. People from far and wide cherished his teachings and as time went by, his teachings were written in many languages by different scholars.

Yeshey: So, Buddha did not go from door to door showing that he was enlightened and nobody forced the people to recognize Buddha as the Enlightened One.

Court: No.

Yeshey: That means one does not have to show off for who you are.

Court: No.

Yeshey: Then if you believe that one does have to show who you are and the others will accept for who you are, why do Sharchhops and Lhotsampas adopt new customs and religion to show that they are Bhutanese? Buddha, whether he appears in red attire or in white, whether he is presented on a throne or with a begging bowl, we know him as the Enlightened One. Similarly, a Bhutanese, whether he speaks the language of the north or the south, whether he wears jeans or “gho” (the national dress), is still a Bhutanese. I do not think that when you did not wear your “gho” when you went abroad, you became less Bhutanese, did you?

Court: Of course, not.

Yeshey: Which country did you visit recently, Sir?

Court: The United States of America.

Yeshey: So, they have an American language.

Court: Do not waste my time. Of course, you know that there is no American language. They speak English.

Yeshey: Exactly. The Americans speak English, but they are not English. Who does not know the United States? The United States is thousand times bigger than Bhutan, and is one of the most powerful countries in the world. The Americans do not need a common language to bind themselves. They do not need their own distinctive language to prove that they are Americans.

Court: That is why the Americans feel more and more alienated amongst themselves.  Individualism has overpowered the Americans. They just care for themselves.

Yeshey: So, all the Americans you met spoke of only themselves? At the same time, is it not true that the United States is one of the most important donor countries of Bhutan?

Court: Yes, it is.

Yeshey: How is it that the Americans who only care for themselves donate so much to the poor countries? It is because the individuals of the country work so hard and therefore the country has enough money. One person in America does the work of at least five people in Bhutan. Because they have less or no personal time, it does not mean that they do not feel the need of community. When the need for a community arises, I have read that the people are very quick in raising their voice in unity.

Court: The rich has to share with the poor.

Yeshey: You said it right, Sir, but you are still not seeing how they have become rich. What is seen on the surface does not tell everything. Likewise, it is not the superficial attributes that make a person. Similarly if you study me carefully, I have not said a word against the government. Thus, I deny the charges against me.  I protested, but I protested the policies of the government and not against the country or the government. I am still against the unfair and unreasonable policy of “One Nation, One People”. Not agreeing with this policy cannot make me an “anti-national” because I say it for the national interest. I oppose the idea because I believe that this unification plan will divide the nation, our homeland. The country has been peaceful and has not seen even a minute strife amongst groups, but already feelings of differences have been sowed with the introduction of this plan. If my concern for the country is a crime, then all the people who are initiating this feeling of racism and ethnocentrism should be first indicted.

Conclusion:

We know the verdict of my case from the fate of Socrates.

[I wrote this for one of my philosophy courses that I had taken in my undergraduate studies. It is a court case based on Socrates’ model. It was chosen as a model paper for the class. I am submitting this paper in a hope that it will serve as a sample paper for our Bhutanese students, who, I am sure, will have to take at least one Philosophy or Critical Thinking course during their college lives-Writer ]



Tags: One Nation One People Socratic Dialogue Yeshey Pelzom