Bush’s incomplete remarks on democracy
If you were conscious enough, you might have turned your ears to the speech of Bush during his India visit.
The top leaders from two powerful and ‘democratic’ countries around the world join hand to fight to end terrorism and autocracy. Bush said he wants to see the Nepalese king handing over power to political parties. He said he wanted democratic liberalization in China and closure of atomic production in Iran.
He said he wanted democracy in Burma and respect of freedom in Cuba. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh did not dared to welcome the hugging bush while his partners in coalition government were organizing protests in streets. Bush may call these protests a democratic rights and heading of cabinet by king in Nepal as undemocratic. He and his Indian ‘co-worker’ agreed that there are no democratic rights in Burma.
But why don’t they see the undemocratic system in small Himalayan kingdom Bhutan. The only reason behind it was that the small country has been termed a ‘protectorate of Republic of India.’
The 2004 version of the Oxford dictionary printed in India defines Bhutan as independent kingdom but a protectorate of India. I shall write more about the independence of Bhutan later but at this time, let me focus on the Bush’s India visit.
Nepalese oppositions have said that the government has failed to raise the issue during this important event. Nepal was at par with defending its human rights situation legalization of king’s coup that left the issue of exiled Bhutanese in shade. Nevertheless, the ‘largest democratic country in the world’ closed the mouth of Bush speak on Bhutan’s issue. It was expected to that Bush may ensue the India rulers to take initiative of repatriation of over 100,000 exiled Bhutanese but in vein. Bush told that one year rule of Nepalese king was undemocratic and did not dare to say the 100 years of absolute rule of Wangchuk in Bhutan was undemocratic.
This is the double standard of the world power. At various intervals, it has been observed that ‘democratic’ voices from ‘democratic’ countries are for whoever be powerful for the time being. At the initial level, India termed the Nepalese guerillas as terrorists and not India has become the center for meeting of these rebels and other agitating political parties. It was simply because Maoists have become powerful.
America has spoken once for repatriation exiled Bhutanese but had never asked the absolute monarch of Bhutan to meet the democratic demands made by opposition and allow the existence of political parties, human rights groups and independent media in Bhutan.
This is shame for India and America who said they wanted democracy all over the world.