Notes on Bhutan
apropos.substack.com88 points by sg5421 a day ago
88 points by sg5421 a day ago
As much as I appreciate Bhutan's ideas around happiness and its style of sustainable development, I feel Bhutan being a tiny hilly country is what allows them to work. Add to that the gift of Hydroelectric power, which alone contributes 1/4th of government revenue, and was responsible for 14% of its GDP[1]. Its population is less than a million, where as even tier-3 towns in India have a couple of million people living there.
A large country, with a large population, has far fewer options other than supporting economic development at a scale.
[1]: https://thewire.in/world/south-asia/bhutan-hydropower-electr...
Renewable energy is literally available everywhere and solar and wind are now cheaper than hydro in many places.
„Economic development“ can mean many things and there is a scenario where it supports the concept of „well being“ rather than actively undermining it, as it is happening in many places currently.
> solar and wind are now cheaper than hydro in many places.
It's not possible to run a country entirely on wind and solar, you need backup for when it isn't windy or sunny.
It is possible to run a country entirely on Hydro. The lake on a hydro electric dam will last for a while - in some cases several months - between needing to be topped up by rainfall.
yes, but as the top comment suggest the problem in large countries is that economic development isn't as localized. one project that improves the lives of 1 million people in buthan means that india needs 1000 such projects to bring the same improvement to all its people. do less, and the effect is less noticeable.
They also get a lot of support from India, including military protection, and primary trade/currency links as well as covering most of their diplomatic needs. It’s like how Lichtenstein relates to Switzerland.
> support from India, including military protection
That protection is notional, and the expectation that China (their only other neighbour) is not really going to get aggressive about this peaceful tiny country, but then there’s Tibet as an example. So then why is it notional? If China were to get aggressive, we (India) will not be able to do jack about it because, hell, we couldn’t defend our own territorial claims and have been losing land to China, one outpost at a time. No, not only from the wars from decades ago, but also very recently — yeah, that means even after this omnipotent non-biological entity became our own version of the glorious leader.
> but then there’s Tibet as an example.
Tibet is an example of china protecting it from british/indian invasion at the request of tibetans. Funny how we don't hear about that part.
> If China were to get aggressive, we (India) will not be able to do jack about it
So doesn't that really means china is protecting bhutan?
> we couldn’t defend our own territorial claims and have been losing land to China,
It's not really your territorial claim. It's british territorial claims that india decided to take on for themselves.
Lets stop pretending india is the good guy here. India ain't. It's just selfish interests on all sides.
> Tibet is an example of china protecting it from british/indian invasion at the request of tibetans. Funny how we don't hear about that part.
Have you actually spoken to Tibetan refugees who fled Chinese extermination before you arrived at this crazy world-view ? There were 100,000 of them in India at one point of time. Still ~60k presently. Suggest coming to India and talking to them. You will know what true brutality means.
> Lets stop pretending india is the good guy here. India ain't. It's just selfish interests on all sides.
India hasn't annexed and exterminated several hundred-thousand native civilians. China has. Will never claim that India is good, but an objective assessor can definitely know who are the bad guys regarding the conquest of Tibet.
> Have you actually spoken to Tibetan refugees who fled Chinese extermination before you arrived at this crazy world-view ?
"Extermination"? Why lie so egregiously. It just makes you look like an agenda driven clown. To you people does "Crazy world view" mean anything based in reality and facts.
> There were 100,000 of them in India at one point of time.
I've watched videos of tibetans complaining about racism/violence in india. Does that count?
> Still >70k presently.
Wonder why so many left india? How many tibetans are in china? Over 7 million. Have you talked to them? Wonder why 99% of tibetans chose extermination in china to "freedom" in india.
The chinese must be terrible at extermination because the tibetan population grew during the past century.
Edit:
Stop stealth editing your comment.
> India hasn't annexed and exterminated several hundred-thousand native civilians.
You are right. It's in the millions.
> China has.
But not tibetans.
> Will never claim that India is good
But you just tried. "India hasn't annexed and exterminated several hundred-thousand native civilians.".
> but an objective assessor can definitely know who are the bad guys regarding the conquest of Tibet.
I agree. Those objective assessor are called TIBETANS. You know the 99% who chose "extermination" in china over "freedom" in india.
> "Extermination"? Why lie so egregiously. It just makes you look like an agenda driven clown. To you people does "Crazy world view" mean anything based in reality and facts.
Agenda-driven clown ? Dear lord, How can you be this ignorant ? That number is actually on the lower scale. The Central Tibetan administration (govt in exile) gave the upper estimate at above one million. You can check several sources - including wikipedia. Hell, there are books written on the subject by several authors. Most third-party estimates at a few hundred thousand, however, if you keep the scope to the invasion and the subsequent crackdowns.
> How many tibetans are in china? Over 7 million. Have you talked to them? Wonder why 99% of tibetans chose extermination in china to "freedom" in india.
Yeah, importing Han Chinese and calling it population of Tibet is 100% nonsense. You are aware, I hope, that the census includes all residents living in TAR - regardless of ethnicity ?
> You are right. It's in the millions.
What are you smoking ? When did Independent India invade and kill millions ?
> I agree. Those objective assessor are called TIBETANS.
You mean the Han Chinese are objective assessors ? Ask a group of people outside of China please.
[flagged]
> Is it? Why would you try to undersell genocide? Are you some kind of monster? They did? And you don't believe it? I wonder why? You mean the people who have provably told lies for decades lied so much that even you refuse to believe it?
No, because that number includes death by famine caused by cultural revolution repression as well. The other figures point to hundreds of thousands and not millions as they limit themselves to the invasion and the subsequent brutal crackdowns. This was the the "stealth edit" that you complained about.
> The problem with agenda clowns like you is that you have to continuously lie. All it takes is just one instance of truth and your house of lies crumbles.
What is this "instance of truth" ? Please educate me ? Can you give non PRC sources ? We all know that China lies by default regarding Tibet. It is an automatic party reflex at this point.
I can quote not just the Tibet Government in exile, but also the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD), the famous "Body Count" essay by Indiana University, the Independent conflict dataset, the Human Rights Watch, etc.
You continuously call me an "agenda clown", yet I am not sure what agenda do I have in simply stating that the Chinese invasion of Tibet included massive casualties of native civilians and refugee flight to other nations. This is proven fact.
> Keep making a laughing stock of yourself.
You should talk to Tibetan refugees who had their families killed by Chinese soldiers.
The basic problem is Salami Slicing is very difficult to protect against. And China is an expert at this and building infrastructure after point-by-point occupation which then defacto becomes part of their map. India should also do the same thing in return - but it requires way too much long term focus and investment for a democratic government.
The basic problem is PRC resolved 12/14 land borders (majority with concessions) and flipping Bhutan would make india the last holdout and the optics of that doesn't work in Indian favour. But Bhutan can't settle bilaterally since they are legally obligated to consider Indian security interests and being landlocked country with India as only feasible access abroad constrains Bhutan from true sovereign decision making. As in they could but they'd be stupid to piss off india especially when disputes invovle trijunction/chicken neck/strategic land. TBH PRC fine with ceding Doklam to Bhutan now (it's not that strategic anymore with how much PRC MIC has advanced), but it's far more useful as barginning chip to try to pressure India to settle broader border disputes with PRC, which India (at least populist Modi) can't because ceding territory is political suicide in democracy even if India gets >50%. Still the pressure point going to keep get pressed, salami going to keep getting sliced until India or Bhutan decides the opportunity costs of not security drama is worth settling. This isn't meant to malign/attribute blame to India (who just has a poor record settling borders, i.e. Bangladesh took 40 years, most of PRCs took 5-10), merely pointing out structurally/politically, it's much more difficult for India to settle border disputes with any loss via dialogue, after 50 years of getting nowhere, for PRC the only strategy left is to stir the pot.
> The basic problem is PRC resolved 12/14 land borders ...Still the pressure point going to keep get pressed, salami going to keep getting sliced until India or Bhutan decides the opportunity costs of not security drama is worth settling.
Yeah, this 12/14 number you picked out of the air will only work until China decides it is 12/30 next year and 12/50 the next decade. Kindly remember that China has expanded its international map. They have now formally put the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as part of Chinese territory since 2023. A state which has a duly ELECTED native chief minister and also native representatives. A state that has China has decided to claim due to its natural resources and extensive biodiversity - which India, by constitutional law, is not permitted to exploit to protect natives and indigenous tribal communities. NONE of whom have any Chinese traditions. You should come to the state and check for yourself.
Citizens of the state with transit flights through China get harassed and bullied by Chinese officialdom, even after getting "no-objection" by the Chinese embassy at nation of departure.
How can you settle borders when one nation keeps expanding their formal map ?
https://i.imgur.com/207ewHW.png
https://i.imgur.com/K9JRarz.png
12/14 PRC ratified landborder is like... the easiest thing to cross reference since they're internationally ratified treatsies and you know... that 14 land border hasn't change post war, like are 16/36 new countries just going to pop out of existence? Is India going to fragment to create all those new countries for PRC to claim?
Kindly remember PRC map has remained exactly what is since inherited from ROC, i.e. there has been zero new claims except what was under dispute for the past 70 years. Hell, AP claim dates back to 1914 not 2023, it's always been in PRC maps. This is 101 history / geopoltics. This here ahistoric understanding is exactly why India has so much problems settling borders with her neighbours vs PRC resolving 12/14th, making PRC the most successfull and benevolent (i.e. almost all with >50% concessions) in human history.
So can you settle borders with such a magnamous power? Hint 12/14 countries did, the 13th Bhutan wants to, India is the holdout. So the answer is, very easily, unless your populous is terminally ignorant of history and thinks being the 1/14h holdout isn't a sign that maybe PRC isn't the problem. Note how in table PRC settled most of her disputes in <10 years, India took ~40 with Bangladesh, at some point timepass mentality stops being excuse. And again it's not PRC whose not willing to settle, and provide MORE concessions, it's India who thinks it should get 100%, which is frankly not a serious position.
https://img2.chinadaily.com.cn/images/202308/28/64ec91c2a310...
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/08/30/chinas-updated-map-and...
https://www.gmfus.org/news/unpacking-chinas-new-standard-map
This is the easiest thing to cross-reference regarding expansion of their national map. Why should we "magnanimously" decide to give away land that India actually holds according to the 1914 treaty ? Why should we give away our eastern states ? None of them have Chinese ethnicity. They all have native elected representatives. Again - come and do a tour of Eastern Indian states such as Arunachal Pradesh - they don't speak Chinese, they have indigenous native tribes. Calling the area "South Tibet" is an absolute joke.
We will stick to the 1914 Treaty. We will not accept China's formal territorial expansion in 2023. Neither do other states like Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia (nearly a dozen nations) that have completely rejected the same.
PS: As a clear contradiction - even the Russian negotiations never got properly settled in your 12/14. China claimed the whole Bolshoy Ussuriysky island yet again. So even stuff that is settled needs to get re-settled once China expands its ambitions. What is the point ?
Again... what expansion? These 2023 map did not introduce ANY new claims. Old PRC maps has always claimed AP and AC, and if anything 9dash is down grade from 10/11dash from decades ago (when PRC ceded Tonkin to North Vietnam, because again PRC magnanamous). There is quite literally nothing new in this map except the tizzy it caused because PRC released it before ASEAN and G20 summit and parties have to protest or else it's tacit acceptance. Generic geopolitical messaging. Like nothing in it was new except Indian media trying to pretend they're new claims to useful idiot audiences who don't know 101 history.
1914 treaty doesn't apply to PRC because you know... they didn't ratify Simla and explicitly repudiated it. A country is not bound to a treaty it didn't sign. India's position of what they ratify between UK and somehow that applies to ROC/PRC/China which isn't party to it and explictly does not endorse is is frankly another unserious position. Like this is a territory dispute, it's not about the fucking people. People can be moved, land can't. You can squeeze all 1.4B people in there and say look how Indian it is and it wouldn't matter because the dispute is over land.
E: Bolshoy, it's called more retarded geopolitical drama, propaganda by western sources trying to drive wedge between PRC/RU for obvious reasons (i.e. you linking to lol Bonnie Glaser of ex CSIS China Power doing atlantacism propaganda at German Martial Fund). RU and PRC affirmed both sides adhere to common position on resolved border issue, and in 2024 PRC/RU did joint development on the island... you know because it was never an issue to begin with. The point is once India stops FUDDING around fake news and learn some history/media literacy 101, maybe there can be productive border ratification, again like 12/14 other countries instead of living under the delusion that there's a scenario where India gets 100 and PRC gets 0 because the British OKayed it. Again utterly unserious, borderline infantile position to think 100/0 split is feasible.
