14
May 2010:The
recent article in Kuensel by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse contains a refreshing
perspective and no doubt comes from one of the most influential and intelligent
minds in our country. We must be thankful to Rinpoche for indeed only a
few of our religious leaders embodying traditional knowledge and values are
able to discuss social issues in a popular idiom. However, does the
article provide us truly constructive suggestions? Can we imbibe inspiration
from it beyond what is merely granted by religious reverence? I agree with
many things Rinpoche has to say and they need no
reiteration. However, despite providing a compelling piece to
read, the article seems to paint a dismal picture of Bhutan. Is there
really such a cultural stagnation? Some of the ideas the article
implicitly advances may even prove to be harmful for Bhutan in the long run.
The
issue of greed and laidback attitude is a good one to begin with. While
I fully support Rinpoche’s campaign against greed, I beg to differ in
talking about greed and ambition in ambiguous terms. There is a fine
line between the two, as we all know in theory. Ambition should not be
mistaken for greed, just as love should not be mistaken for attachment. There
is, as it were, already too much laidback culture in the Bhutanese
society. It is mainly due to such laidback attitude, often mistaken for
contentment, that our public services are poor and institutions such as the
civil service thrives on the basis of a power structure rather than efficiency.
It is primarily responsible for the mediocre performance in the arts and crafts
industry, of which Rinpoche has many examples to quote. It stifles our economy.
Bhutanese must work hard and even harder if we are to excel and prosper.
At
the core of our progress is education – the right kind of education. I
personally do not buy the Laotian saying that too much education makes one
unhappy, which Rinpoche cites to begin his piece. Ignorance may be bliss
temporarily but not in the long run. In the true spirit of Buddhist pursuit of
omniscience and ultimate happiness, Bhutanese should set no limit to
their educational pursuit and personal development. For a small country
with limited resources, our best future is perhaps in building a knowledge
based industry.
The
problem of dignity of labour, which Rinpoche raises, is certainly a
pressing one. This is partly to be blamed for the problem
of unemployment we face. Yet, it is not just a structural
problem arising from the hierarchy in the civil service. It is deeply ingrained
in the Bhutanese mentality. There is no doubt that some high offices of the
state make excessive use of the symbols of hierarchy. But
we must also remember that most of these ideas
and insignias of hierarchy originate in religious institutions
and are still reinforced by them. The hierarchical settings
in the religious institutions themselves are appalling and ordinary
people, especially women, cannot even question them. Positions are
marked by birth and insignias and rarely by inner merits, which Buddhism is
supposed to be all about.
Given
this situation, perhaps the first step and best way to
challenge and start deconstructing the hierarchical mentality is for the
religious figures to set examples. Rinpoche, we know, is at the forefront
of reforming some of the religious practices and we hope his works will lead to
some systemic changes.
This
leads to the discussion of creativity in cultural
transformation. While we all seem to agree that some cultural practices
will have to go, it is difficult to agree on what exactly should go or
stay. Should the gho and kira go because many find them
inconvenient? Should the zhugdrel ceremony go because it is purely
a ritual? If so, what would be left behind to make us truly
Bhutanese? It is no easy decision to make but so far Bhutan has done very
well in balancing modernity with tradition.
There
is a dire need for the subtle discrimination, as
Rinpoche points out, in making our choices. Unfortunately, the
Bhutanese populace in general do not have the exposure to appreciate the
finesse of Zen style or the wealth to incorporate sanitary facilities
in rammed mud houses like Aman does (to use his examples). While this
remains, the state is obliged to make certain choices sometimes
obstructing the choices of individuals. To give in to the sway of passing
popular taste is being short sighted. So, the argument to change with time
is not always pertinent or persuasive. History is not always about dancing
to the tune of time. Bhutan must design its own future and hold its ground
firmly and not resign to the pressure of time or external forces. Today, many
people in the world are looking up to Bhutan for inspiration to find a new
order of life without losing the old. It will be a shame for us to
let the old erode so easily.
The
suggestion for replacing Dzongkha by English as lingua franca
may come as a timely argument for many. It would certainly strike a
chord with some elites and youth who increasingly prefer to use English as
their medium of communication. But what does such a suggestion portend for
Bhutan’s future? Bhutanese languages are declining fast as they are. Some are
already on the brink of extinction. The only sensible call would be for any
support to preserve them as long as we can. I am not myself a fan or native
speaker of Dzongkha but having English in place of Dzongkha is not going to
leave us in any better situation. As a new literary language, Dzongkha has made
remarkable progress despite the reluctance on the part of most people to invest
even a tenth of the time they devote to English.
The
Indian case, which Rinpoche uses, is a good one to illustrate the linguistic
disaster we will go through, if English is made the common language. Ever since
English became a common language in India, literary activity in local languages
such as Tamil, Kannada, Telephu, Maratha and even Hindi and Urdu dropped
drastically and the related cultures are ebbing away. Many people have native
tongues which they cannot even speak well and most youth have no first
language, a scenario we see in Thimphu too. NDTV is a good example of
linguistic adulteration. In comparison, our languages are spoken by a very
small number of people. Like it or not, English will be the weed to kill our
linguistic flora.
The
death of a language is the demise of a culture and we will be one culture
poorer with the death of each language. While the adoption of all major
Bhutanese languages as Constitutional languages is a fair and sensible
suggestion, should English really become the unifying language as proposed?
Instead of India, we may do better following the example of European countries
such as Germany, where people proudly use their own tongue and also speak
English fluently. It is a sign of weakness to resign to an easy and popular
choice. Similarly, time and resources are not an issue unless we make them one.
If it all, it is pressing that we reenergize our heritage and not leave it to
its slow death. All conditions are favourable for Bhutan today to boost our economy,
environment, culture and language and work towards GNH. Eventually, it will be
our own heritage which will remain the defining strength and mark of our
sovereignty as the fourth King noted. Short of our ethno-linguistic
distinction, what will make us true Bhutanese?
Lastly, are these
topics really ’sacred cows’? As far as I know, they are being debated
constantly and Bhutan is not as closed as it may seem.
No comments:
Post a Comment