Bhutan Watch

Introduction
Bhutan has emerged well as a promoter of happiness parameter to measure the status of social wellbeing. However, the country failed to ensure that the principle becomes part of the Bhutanese society. Bhutan talked much of happiness, implemented less of it. Bhutanese, in all, failed to feel they are happy.

Bhutan King’s ingenious idea of Gross National Happiness over Gross Domestic Product to measure development has stoked interests among many western scholars, governments and students. The fact is that the idea of happiness had evolved well before the enthronement of the King Jigme Singye Wangchuk in Europe and entered Bhutan in late 1990s. What Bhutan did is just coining a new term for it – Gross National Happiness.

Early philosophers have extensively discussed the need of happiness as essential part of the in human existence. The ideal concept lost its track with growing influences of consumerism that sought happiness in material possession than on solace of inner self. Yet, search for happiness had not ended up all. Today, this has come up as an idea of fusion between positive psychology and economics. You must be mentally sound and economically well to live a happy life.

Certainly the pursuit of happiness is not a new concept. The American Declaration of Independence eloquently makes a passing reference to it as the right of human to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Nevertheless economists have shied away from pursuing the path of happiness for long claiming that there is no scientific basis to measure happiness. But things seem to be changing.

Happiness in Buddhist, Hindu and Stoic sense points towards detachment and comes from within, not outside and this makes amuses among the western scholars. From that point of view, certainly the material development becomes pointless and of no consequence to actual happiness.

Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan make up most of the Himalayan range and were seen as the exotic place. The increasing tourism flow and exposure to consumerism of Nepal make it lost the idyllic status but Bhutan still holds the charm as the relatively un-spoilt and pristine place of nature. It has been exoticised as the peaceful and last remaining awe-inspiring places on earth in addition to the fact that Dalai Lama’s closeness to westerners made them soft to Buddhism.

Driglam Namzha and GNH: conflicting concepts
Cultural identity matters when it comes to living in a culturally and ethnically diverse country. To be happy, somewhere a negotiating point is required to find balance between diversity and identity. As the world grows towards multiculturalism, social scientists feared conflict especially among Asian and African groups who have lived in closed cultural society for centuries as they seek their cultural and ethnic identity. But, there is no solution that nation states are created just for a tribe or community.

In late 20th century, rulers in Bhutan popularised the slogan of nationalism in their effort for revival of Drukpa hegemony. A number of legislations and policies were brought in exclusively to be enforced in southern districts. The discontent in the eastern districts had not spilled off when the regime had unveiled these policies but the 1997 uprising in the east forced the regime to review number of its policies. Many of them have been made less effective since then.

The Bhutanese government unveiled the policy of Driglam Namzha in November 1989 with primary objectives of enforcing compulsory use of Gho and Kira, the cultural dresses from northwest Bhutan, to everyone in all climatic zones. The instrument was developed in the middle of the census that the regime was exclusively carrying out in the southern districts.

The policy makes it compulsory that citizens of the country wear gho and kira, just because they are declared as national dresses. The enforcement of the policy was such strict that those living in tropical south find it difficult when they are at farmland. The policy is still in force yet its gravity of compulsion has dramatically lessened.

Driglam namzha aims not only preserving Ngalung culture but want it to be part of the cultural of all Bhutanese. Some scholars put it as Bhutanisation. The policy contradicts with the basic foundation of the Gross National Happiness.

On one hand, GNH aims to preserve national culture, and to its paradox government takes steps to eliminate culture of other ethnic groups to expand that of the rulers. National culture of Bhutan consists of various forms derived from a large number of tribal and ethnic groups. Three major groups have different cultures and traditions. In addition to them, there are over a dozen tribal groups who practice entirely different social norms. In totality, Bhutan is a multi ethnic nation, consisting of large number of cultures, customs and practices integrated into one to form a distinct identity of a Himalayan nation.

The notion of implementing ethnic policies is will of the rulers. It is impossible to satisfy the will, and we are determined to walk the hedonistic treadmill endlessly. We feel pain if the will is blocked. In Aphorismen zur Lebensweisheit, Arthur Schopenhauer said, ‘personality, with all it entails, is the only immediate and direct fact in a person’s happiness and welfare’. The Driglam namzha has come short of this value, diminishing the social position that a person holds. Many Hindus and Christians were demoralized by the government action to wear gho or kira even while performing domestic and religious rituals.

Driglam namzha is regarded as state’s efforts of enslaving other ethnic groups and making them subservient to Drukpa ethnocentrism. Denial of cultural diversity and imposition of forced national integration policies through forced assimilation and racial discrimination have created for the Lhotshampas and other ethnic groups, a virtual apartheid of a western Bhutan culture.

Culture, Identity and Happiness
Cultures is “understood as systems of symbols and meanings that even their creators contest, that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another”¹ and is “the way of life for an entire society.” ²

Culture matters a lot when it comes to happiness. Culture is the reflection of social phenomenon and a person’s attachment with culture is his daily involvement in social life. Being a social animal, it is otherwise to say, human being remains happy in absence of his culture and tradition.

Ed Diener and Christie Scollon, say, how we define happiness has as much to do with our cultural influences as it does with our personality, goals and other individual factors³.

The movement for religious reform in Europe was a glaring example of people’ s sentiments towards culture. Not only is this the matter of daily living but also the matter of identity and distinctiveness. In forming a cultural identity, people come to identify with and attach themselves to a particular set of ideas that are characteristic of their larger family. A strong cultural identity can contribute to people’s overall wellbeing⁴, which has been the most desired aspect of life by human being.

In the word of Ed Diener and Christie Scollon, what’s perhaps important is that each culture finds its own sources of wellbeing and maximizes them.

The Bhutanese rulers and their followers have distorted protection of culture in the campaign of GNH. According to the GNH advocates, culture forms the core principle of GNH and it is highest ethnical role for every citizen to uphold, protect and promote culture. GNH commission is mandated to promote harmonious living – in harmony with tradition and nature⁵.

Religion is part of the cultural traits. There’s more to religion than just prayers. In fact, the social aspects of organised religion may hold greater influence on wellbeing like culture does than just about anything else. For instances, sharing of greetings, hugging and staying together during Tshechus or Dashain adds more pleasure, satisfaction and happiness to people than they are in daily job schedules. Certainly many faces of religious participation make it a powerful potential resource for improving one’s happiness.

Bhutanese rulers have in some instances highlighted the necessity of promoting national identity over cultural identity, contradictory to what GNH emphasizes. In the post communist world where thoughts of multiculturalism have dominated, creating national identity exclusively through the cultural and religious dominance of one ethnic group is beyond imagination, rather people do believe in becoming multiculturalists⁶. And gradually, Bhutanese visiting western societies begin to feel the regime’s effort to impose one culture for shake of creating a happy nation is bogus. They have seen happiness exists even in diversity⁷.

Cultural and religious identity is an important contributor to people’s wellbeing and happiness. Identifying with a particular culture or religion makes people feel a sense of security in their community. Cultural identity provides them access to social networks, which helps to break down barriers and build a sense of trust what has sometimes been called the social capital. A recent study over 3000 identical and fraternal twins (some raised together and some apart) found that genetically identical twins reported similar level of happiness even when they have different life experiences – but fraternal twins did not⁸. They found that 44-52 percent of the variance in wellbeing was linked with genetic variation.

Social capital has two aspects and the government of Bhutan has masterminded on bonding social capital ignoring the importance of bridging social capital. So, when boding social capital drowns bridging social capital, conflict is inevitable⁹.

And, fundamentalists’ way of cultural identity expressed in the wrong way can bring barriers between groups or invite conflicts like in many newly formed nations. Bhutan must head not to this path.

Researches have shown participation in religious and cultural activities helps people to erase negative thoughts. And more positive you are, the happier you would be¹⁰. Thus, religion, culture and happiness have entwined relationship.

Despite the fact that GNH aims to protect and promote culture and religion for overall wellbeing of the citizens, religions and cultures other than that of the ruling elite have faced array of pre-planned prosecution from authorities in Bhutan. Existence of Christianity has been denied since the establishment of monarchy while Hinduism is extensively discouraged. In fact, since 1970s, government has sent several Buddhist monks to turn Hindus in the south into Buddhists while those following Christianity faced inhuman treatment.

Protection and promotion of culture and accept the cultural identity of other ethnic groups is not enough just in publicity. (It has the practice in Bhutan for king and the ministers to receive tika from Hindu pundits during Dashain). What people value will greatly determine what shape that pursuit of happiness will take. It is not the state that determines the form of culture or religion of its citizens rather it the individuals who have rights to choose that culture they like to adopt or which religion they follow¹¹. It is not forced adoption but an informed choice that brings cheers, pleasure and happiness.

A given culture may be highly intolerant to some who follow other, forcing those to suppress their views, go underground or go into exile. Dissent may lead to the formation of counter-cultures that promote values that are more accepting of dissenters¹². This has been the very case in Bhutanese context where cultural and religious suppression and prosecution created tension and dissent groups.

One of the propaganda that Bhutanese regime has raised for years is that the country like Bhutan, owing to its geographical size, cannot withstand the multiculturalism and ethnic diversities. The regime has strengthened this campaign much after the formulation of GNH policy, and continues a slow and steady measure to compel other ethnic groups to surrender to one cultural banner. Smaller ethnic groups like Monpas, Brokpas or Doyas are rarely now recognised as the tribal groups.

Countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Kuwait, Cyprus, Bahrain and scores of countries smaller than Bhutan¹³ have well maintained their diversities. Scandinavian countries, though smaller in sizes, have not only emerged as exemplary in democratic practices but have presented as the excellent combination of diversities still maintaining social order, cultural unity, brotherhood and political stability.

Size of a country or its location is not acceptable reason while aiming stability and unity in a country, rather the matter lies at how rulers and actors get in touch with people while addressing national interests and subjugating external threats. Additionally, happiness is not an issue having links with cultural differences. Few researchers have said people remain happy in their cultural group while others say not. Trevor Philips says people are happy if they are with people like themselves¹⁴. However, World Database of Happiness by Erasmus University Rotterdam has different results from its research that diverse countries have been happier in average. Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland and Finland, all having diverse societies, top the list of happiest countries. What the reality is people want to get attached with their cultural identity while still willing to intermingle with other cultural groups. This means, individuals must have the right to follow his or her culture despite living in diversity.

The claims made by the RGOB that Bhutan cannot assist diversity do not hold any rationality.

Creation of one-tribe country: Utopian idea
Three refuges of Buddhism, Buddha (omniscient), Dharma (the spiritual law) and Sangha (the order), have been politically misinterpreted to mean Tsa- Wa- Sum or three elements of King, Country and People in Bhutan to suit ruler’s interest. Any criticism of these three elements is considered treason and is subjected to death sentence or life imprisonment.

It is surely disappointing revelation for Buddhist followers world over that the Buddhist principles are being misinterpreted to serve the political ends of the Bhutanese ruler and that their great religion is being defamed.

Bhutan inherits a heterogeneous history having multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious identity in the past though the intensity of diversity was much in smaller scale compared to its neighbours. Historians have mentioned over dozen ethnic groups in Bhutan, most distinguishing themselves from others only through cultural behaviours. Beside three major ethnic groups – Nepali, Sarchop and Ngalung – tribal groups such as Brokpa, Monpa, Doya, Tota etc are the aborigines of the country. Despite some cultural similarities with Ngalung or Sarchops, there are fundamental characteristics that differentiate them to be separate ethnic groups.

For centuries, Bhutan did not see any communal or ethnic clashes, nor are there any records of wars evoked by ethnic differences. A small uprising in early 1950s was the result of influences generated by the waves of political changes seen in India and Nepal due to interlink between the residents of southern Bhutanese to these countries. Isolation of northern Bhutan due to barriers of high Himalayan ranges was the reason for northern Bhutan to remain out of political influences from surrounding territories.

Since 1960s, the Bhutanese government began making gradual changes in its policy for ultimate removal of other ethnic groups if they fail to assimilate into the Bhote culture. Bhote tradition, derived from the Drukpa Kagyukpa sect of Mahayana Buddhism, has its roots in feudal Buddhism, which with its central theocratic doctrine of Drukpa revivalism, is imbued with exclusive preference for Drukpa culture and mores and prejudiced against the Hindu culture.

Rulers yarn to make Bhutan culturally homogenous for which they unfurled various policies like ‘One Nation One People’ or Driglam namzha and assimilation though inter-group marriages. Instruments such as Citizenship Act, Marriage Act and waylay census exercise carried exclusively in southern districts were meant to discourage southern Bhutanese to stay in the country. In other sense, this was part of the mission for assimilation – Bhutanisation or else exclusion – eviction.

Bhutan stresses the need for a distinct ‘national identity’, but does not envision forging this identity to encompass the diversity of nation’s cultures. Catchphrase like Bhutanese nationalism was driven in for debate to justify its racial policies of annihilating culture, religion and language of Nepalis, Sharchhops and other minority ethnic, religious and linguistic groups.

Beauty of happiness lies in the harmony in diversity, love and respect to values and culture of other groups and tribute to friendship that exists in multicultural societies. Respect brings harmony and peace and harmony brings happiness. As we walk the way to global village, absolute control by single ethnic group means demoralising human values and waylay to democracy and peace.

Nationalism and national identity is not a product of fundamentalism rather product of harmonious existence of all those living within a defined territory. Geographical borders add little to our sense of nationalism when the world speaks of global village.

Bhutanese are forced to accept that Drukpa, state and Buddhism are synonymous. Rulers meticulously intertwined the monarchy with Buddhism so that the institution is imbued with a sacred and exalted place in the Bhutanese psyche. Bhutan projects other ethnic groups, religions and cultures as unwanted cultural elements of the foreign lands, which could rise as obstacle to its movement for revival of conservative Drukpa dichotomy.

Buddhism does not stress the importance of the rule of law, the government and communities, nor does it stress the importance of the humanities and arts, and it argues against science and technology as a means of improving life. Knowledge is not a necessary condition of a good life. Buddhism also lacks the idea of democracy. In short, this Buddhism is another negative philosophy of life, and is even more negative than classic Taoism¹⁵. In this view, we expect less that Buddhism is source of happiness philosophy.

‘One Nation One People’ policy and Driglam namzha are the most vital instruments that government of Bhutan has in hand as part of the assimilating cultures and values of other ethnic and cultural groups. An edict issued for Driglam namzha states that ‘all persons not following this directive will be answerable to the concerned Dzongdags who have been vested with full authority to implement this policy’.

Through these, the regime attempted to teach people how to eat, how to sit, how to speak, how to dress and how to bow down before authorities in line with the tradition of northwest Bhutan. Under this campaign teaching of Nepali language spoken by the southern Bhuatnese was banned from the school curriculum by the end of 1980s. Students failing in Dzonkha subject resulted in the denial of promotion to next higher grade in schools, entry to Civil Service or denial of citizenship.

Throughout southern districts, where Nepali had been taught since the beginning of modern education system, all curriculum books for Nepali teaching were burnt in school compounds and Nepali language teachers were given compulsory retirement from government job. Dzongkha speakers replaced headmasters and principles for all schools in the districts, without taking account of their educational qualification and other criteria set to take up that position.

In late 1990s, the regime initiated further steps to assimilate the southern culture. Residents from northern districts were forced to resettle in southern districts that remained vacant since the mass eviction. Names of many places were tuned to match the Dzongkha tone. This is part of the Drukpa revivalism movement that started in early 70s. The extreme expression of Drukpa revivalism and Buddhist fundamentalism has been manifested in the change of the name of places to wipe out the cultural traces of Nepali speakers from the state memory. Thus, the Nepali names of places like Chirang, Sarbhang, Samchi and Pinjuli in southern Bhutan were replaced with Bhote sounding names like ‘Tsirang’, ‘Sarpang’ ‘Samtse’ and ‘Penjoreling”.

Thus under this cover the Bhutanese regime contrives to not only to maintain its stronghold in national sphere of life but also to ensure that there won’t be even small infringe into its fundamentalism from other cultures.

The government and the GNH campaigners must understand that one cannot live one’s own spirituality while rejecting others’ who do not share the same convictions. In a civilised society, the state does not infringe on the individual’s rights to culture and religion. Religion is a medium of communication between an individual and God, a basic spiritual necessity inherited from the birth of an individual until his death. Bhutanese administration has no business to interfere in the religious affairs of its individual citizen. Bhutanese citizens must not be subjected to the parochial mindset of the regime depriving them from enjoying their human rights, freedoms and democratic aspirations, while the whole world enjoys them.

Economic prosperity and happiness
Material welfare or economic prosperity, not necessarily, but has an important part to play in the overall well being of human existence. Human wants are elastic. The more you have, the more you desire. And it is precisely the luxury you prefer to have. The post World War II societies have grown their special attachment with monetary value because the cultures have developed in a way that a wealthier person maintains better privilege in social circle. Unless exceptional, there are hardly any people today who say he is happy with hand-to- mouth or with rags.

Researches revealed that richer counties are happier than poorer on average and wealthier section of people is happier than poorer, which implies the level of income has relation with happiness. But there have not been any indications if there is any kind of relation between increases in per capita income and average happiness level. So, monetary wealth adds to happiness up to a certain level, not beyond that.

Living in an environment of economic and psychological security seems to have a powerful impact on a society’s happiness level. The fact that both of these attributes tend to go with high levels of economic development largely explains the strong zero-order correlation between GNP per capita and happiness¹⁶.

Privileges and respects that billionaires get today have supplemented human desire for becoming wealthier. The consumerism and market economy that grew unprecedentedly in the last 50 years have instilled wants in human society. However, by mid 1980s, economists have begun their search for other side of quantitative economics, not just becoming wealthier. Questions are raised if material welfare has all in all capacities to make people happy.

Economics of happiness combines the techniques built by economists and psychologists. Psychologists came first to test the wellbeing and happiness in human being, and economists joined them later. The pursuit of happiness had been the subject for early economists such as Aristotle, Bentham, Mill or Smith as well. However, the quantitative economics that developed after the Second World War pushed the idea under shadow. As the capitalist and communist form of economic system failed to add happiness to people, an alternative measure was sought. The state was made more responsible to fulfilling the needs and aspiration of the people and new form of economics called ‘welfare economics’ was brought in debate that incorporates the values and principles of happiness for citizens. Economic growth and post-materialist values seem to have strong impacts on a society’s relative happiness level¹⁷.

Some economists relate the idea of happiness with utilitarianism. In Walrasian sense, people’s choice of preferences of one over the other is linked with the notion of happiness. Happiness economics relies on more expansive notions of utility and welfare, including interdependent utility functions, procedural utility, and the interaction between rational and non-rational influences in determining economic behavior¹⁸.

Bhutan, where happiness ideology is claimed to have germinated, still counts its growth in terms of market value. Government’s annual reports on national economic indicators so far have not attempted to measure the national happiness. The campaigners say, it is time for us to measure how happy are we rather than how much wealth we accumulated, yet during annual budget session, government presents the economic status of the country in terms of Gross Domestic Product.

Despite considerable attention from the international community and experts appreciating the way to measure the status of a country in term of GNH, the claimant founder Bhutan is still to implement the idea into reality.

Bhutan’s 10 per cent of the population live under extreme poverty – earning less than 1 dollar a day. Stronger economic growth brought about by commissioning of many hydropower projects, is not evenly distributed to the Bhutanese population. Rural regions lack development and facilities while benefits, allowances and salaries of those at higher position in the government job have been swelled up. Demands for luxury goods have increased sharply while the country’s dependency for daily-consuming goods continues to grow.

Additionally, Bhutan still speaking against consumerism makes continued attempts to join the world’s largest forum that aims to widen the idea of consumerism. Bhutan has made continued efforts to gain membership to World Trade Organization (WTO) since 1999.

Under this circumstance, it is more doubtful if Bhutan could liberate itself from the world of consumerism and wealth and chooses its path to happiness.

Democracy and happiness
There are numerous facts that contribute the happiness of a country but it is difficult to isolate the impact that political system has on happiness. Democracy has not only become a political system but part of social behaviour as well. Irate violence we observed across the globe is the lack of well functioning of the democracy. Political instability makes democracy weaker. We have observed that more stable the political system is and more functional the democracy – ultimately happier are the people.

One aspect of the movement for democracy around the world is the pursuit of people for happiness. Politics determines the maturity of democracy and democracy determines the participation of people in the governance. A study by Frey and Stutzer establishes political participation is an important determinant of citizens’ wellbeing¹⁹. According to them, there are two possible reasons why a higher degree of direct democracy may raise individuals’ sense of wellbeing. First, due to the more active role of citizens, politicians are better monitored and controlled, and government decisions are subsequently closer to the wishes of the people. Second, the institutions of direct democracy extend the opportunities to get involved in the political process. Experimental evidence suggests that people value this procedural effect in addition to the actual outcome of the activity. Democracy and happiness are closely co-related.

Democracy is the institution that maximizes human freedom. Every person may not be conscious of the linkage between free choice and happiness, but those who feel, they have relatively high levels of control and choice over how their lives consistently report higher levels of life satisfaction than those who don’t. Free choice tends to make people happier. This is a driving force in the process of human development.

The claims are that happiness policy in Bhutan began as early as 1970. However, the democratic transition initiated by King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk faced set back with the enthronement of the fourth monarch. Most legislative authorities of the parliament were confiscated, cabinet of ministers was made more powerless and against the spirit of democracy, power was centralised to Tashichodzong.

Indian writer Bhabani Sen Gupta, whom Bhutanese royal family sponsored to write book against southern Bhutan uprising, has a long list of countries without democracy to question the demand for democracy and human rights raised by southern and eastern Bhutanese. She begins with the maxim that Bhutanese rulers, with specific focus on King Jigme Singye Wangchuk, have begun the gradual process of establishing grass root democracy but ends with question why Bhutan needs democracy if many countries not²⁰. In Bhutan, by the end of 1970s, the culture of electing national assembly members through popular votes, family representative attending gatherings and raising their hands for person they favour, turn into the culture of pick-and-sent. The political leaders were nominated by local administrators and in some instances few villagers are called to say yes to the nominee. After 1990, participation of southern Bhutanese in the political sphere came to a complete halt. Their involvement in decision-making process, governance and village life was also substantially marginalised. The eastern Bhutanese faced similar actions by its severity fainter.

Democracy is not for exclusion but for maximum participation. Democracy is for accepting chaos of views and practices. Democracy means promoting pluralism and enhancing tolerance to others’ way of life and opinion. Democracy means sponsoring personal liberty, autonomy and self-expression. Since the beginning of 1980s, Bhutan evolved for zero tolerance to multiculturalism, multiple views and pluralism in all aspects. Participation in governance and politics was based on the merits of loyalty to rulers. The introduction of controlled democracy in 2008 has given hopes for revival of the freedom and democratic values.

Research by Freedom House has proved that changes for democratic system are not only the factor for people to be happy. It is rather the stable democracy and enjoying fullest liberties. For example, people in Russia were found not fully happy during its transition from a communist state into democratic nations in late 1980s. Similarly, the transition of Hungary from a communist nation to democracy and open market economy, even as smooth transition as claimed in Bhutan, made not all people happy in early 1980s. As of 2006, a huge increase in Romania’s level of democracy – rising nine points on a scale having a maximum of twelve—has not brought a significant increase in happiness²¹.

Mexico displays a pattern in which happiness and democracy levels move in tandem, with both variables showing a significant increase in 2000, the year in which one-party rule by the PRI finally ended through free elections while the democratic transition in Argentina that began well before in Mexico did not cheer the citizens much. In Belgium move from unitary system to federalism also led to decline in the happiness level of the citizens.

With the establishment and expansion of the European Union, the democracies in most countries of the continent begin to show stability and maturity. Those who ranked low in the happiness index during the entry years have gradually improved their places in the list as the people enjoy the democracy fruits.

Freedom House has marked China as the most authoritarian state but WVSs show that level of happiness among the Chinese people is higher than those states who abandoned communist rules. China has gradually moved to market economy without liberalizing its political system and has achieved tremendous results in economic prosperity. If democratic institutions are the facts behind happiness, China should have the unhappiest citizens in the world. The fact is the stable political system. Some even say, it is not the democracy that makes people happy but the happy people make democracies. But is does not mean that democracy matters not. It matters.

New evidences from World Value Surveys support the hypothesis that societies’ level of happiness is closely linked with flourishing of democratic institutions. In the last 35 years of survey, Danes have always said they are very satisfied with their life. Deep malaise in Weimar Germany led to collapse of democracy, but a rising sense of well being linked with West Germany’s post war economic miracle helped legitimize her newly established democratic institutions²².

Democracy, human rights and good governance are themselves an integral part of the idea and the meaning of progress and they therefore should be measured in their own right²³.

Economic growth helps foster trust between citizens and the state, and trust is essential to democracy. That’s why in nations such as South Korea and Taiwan, a spurt of economic growth has preceded democratic reforms²⁴.

Bhutan has come late to join the intuition of democratic practices, thus having less fruits to bear for happiness. Most media reported when democratic transition initiated in Bhutan that people are not happy with the move and prime minster said the democracy in Bhutan is the gift of royal family²⁵. This leaves spaces for speculations over survival of democracy and multi party political system in the country ultimately the existence of happiness in Bhutanese society in question.

Measuring Happiness
Abstractness is characteristic of the social sciences. Since happiness study is part of the social science, it is harder to measure how happy you are. Level of happiness changes in short periods-victory and success bring happiness in you while loss brings you distress and sadness.

Social scientists say they have discovered to measure the extent of happiness in human kind. Their findings point out that our levels of happiness change throughout our life.

Positive psychology suggests that we need two vital ingredients if we want to achieve more lasting happiness: we need to be really engaged and engrossed and finding meaning of our life. Scientists explained this as doing interesting or worthwhile job or a project on which we really believe in.

However, the researchers’ claims are not much relevant. Work really does not make people happier in all aspects. More works make you workaholic and unhappy. That’s what has been the recent trend. People take long breaks from their jobs to travel abroad, which they think, makes them happier.

Professor Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania explains some exercises for happiness such as disputation, which involves challenging negative thoughts and analysing whether you need to be as negative, playing to your strengths and counting your blessings for the things that go well in your life.

There are efforts made in science to find ways to control happiness in the brain artificially. Traditionally, drug designers had prescribed ecstasy in a pill but neuroscientists today manipulate happiness in the brain.

In 1950s and 1960s psychologists through several experiments, including the experiment of Peter Milner and James Olds in 1954, pinpointed the happiness zones in the brains of rats and eventually in human patients.

In the 1960s, psychiatrist Robert Heath of Tulane University in New Orleans carried out experiments on human brains where he put electrodes deep into his patients’ brains to cure depression, pain, and addiction. But search for today is not the happiness stimulated by drugs or artificial means but a brain that can react to worst and good situations.

Most people progressively become less happy as they grow older and this reaches a saturation point at 40s, which has been marked by the researchers as the most miserable part of the life. Beyond that, people regain their happiness again.

Males are happier than females during teens but females overtake after that. Additionally, low level of happiness congests females in average life span compared to males. Both of them are happy when they are married than they are single. Kamp Dush and Amato describe in a large sample of Americans under the age of 55, that on average married people are happier than cohabiting people, cohabiting people are happier than the ones that are steady dating, steady dating people are happier than multiple daters, and the multiple daters are happier than the non-daters²⁶. Scholars through such various experiments have developed formula, which they claim can measure the degree of happiness in a person in a certain period of time. The formula can be summarized as:

Happiness = P + (5xE) + (3xH)

According the researchers, P stands for Personal Characteristics, including outlook on life, adaptability and resilience; E stands for Existence and relates to health, financial stability and friendships and H represents Higher Order needs, and covers self-esteem, expectations, ambitions and sense of humour.

Psychologists worked out the formula after interviewing more than 1,000 people. Each person who completes the questions ends up with a rating out of 100. The higher the score, the happier they are.

Sex and victory are factors that make men happy while being with family and losing weight make women happy. Romance, pay rise and hobby featured higher for men than women.

In fact, there is no such perfect formula that brings lasting happiness in human being because it has been passed through our genes that makes us return to our set points of happiness. With this conception in mind, it is no wonder that Schopenhauer thinks that happiness is impossible to achieve for a long time but temporary happiness seems to be a real possibility, although perhaps only for the happy few²⁷.

Lionel Ketchian of Happiness Club says you can be your own happiness doctor. His formula is ‘DOC’ which stands for Decision, Obstacle and Choice²⁸. Thus, your decision to be happy is negatively affected by obstacles and controlled by your choice.

He says decision brings power and changes you from passive to powerful. Without decision to be happy, no one can ever be happy in life. So, the first thing to do is to decide to be happy. Anthony Robbins puts it well: “It’s in your moments of decision that your destiny is shaped.”

Any decisions are liable to have obstacles relegate happiness in you. You run up against an obstacle to lose happiness. The simpler way is to take any obstacle to be normal phenomenon that occurs to all. That will help you not that relinquish your power. The last part is to add choice. The choice you make determines the level of happiness and power you acquire. Your choice, not your problem will determine how happy you will be even if you need to make choice to live with problem you cannot get rid of.

Thus, your acceptance to problem will bring back you power of happiness and you will be back to control the scale. Lionel’s justification is similar to the Greek philosopher Epictetus (55-135 AD) who had said, “There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power of our will.”

Selling happiness
Bhutan’s efforts so far are concentrated on selling the idea of happiness to the western developed countries. The idea of happiness resists consumerism while consumers for Bhutan’s GNH have been the western societies who thrive on consumerism. Interestingly, Europe, the first land where thoughts of happiness philosophy germinated centuries back and America that incorporated the idea of happiness its independence declaration, are now pretending to learn from Bhutan about importance of happiness in human life.

The idea of Gross National Happiness did not get enough attention from present day scholars until the US media took initiatives to write on it.

Today, Bhutanese regime makes most of its effort to sell the idea but is less concerned that it has to be practical within the country. Within Bhutan, GNH debates circle only around select urban centres, more specifically in Thimphu despite the fact that people in the remote parts of the country live under poverty and happiness has no signs in their lives. In that sense, happiness principles that Bhutan talked today penetrated the New York society but failed to meet Bhutan’s poor populace.

The packages that Bhutan today sells of happiness do not speak anything about democracy and human rights. Happiness does not prosper in absence of democracy and human rights, be it not necessary criteria. Liberty and freedom are not all, but essential components of human wellbeing, for which civilization has so far directed to. In a recent happiness conference hosted by Harvard students, the promoters of happiness ignored or rejected to discussed anything about the gross human rights violations in 1990.

Question over founder of happiness philosophy
On January 10, 2005 Nadia Mustafa wrote in Time weekly, “When Jigme Singye Wangchuck was crowned king of the Himalayan nation of Bhutan in 1972, he declared he was more concerned with ‘Gross National Happiness’ than with Gross Domestic Product.”

Few writers today claim the happiness ideology is the product of Bhutanese king and project him to be the philosopher who crafted middle path for capitalists and communists. In his address to the nation during his coronation on June 2, 1974, King Jigme had said Bhutan will grow from strength to strength and achieve peace, prosperity and happiness.

In fact, he used the term peace, prosperity and happiness in few of his addresses to national and international stages. Peace, prosperity and happiness is a cliché of so many political leaders across the world. I scanned over seven dozens speeches King Jigme Singye has given in his life on important occasions and nowhere he mentioned that his attempt was to find a new ideology of happiness. It was once in 1978 that he said the national policy will be to achieve happiness for people and the country²⁹.

He rather in his speeches has stressed the need of economic growth, which according to present GNH campaigners is not the mission of the happiness ideology. They stress on economic development over economic growth for happiness to achieve.

In most of his speeches to the SAARC summits, King Jigme Singye has laid emphasis on market economy whose basic aim is achieving maximum profits. He cited the over a billion population in this region and sought effort for taping the vast market of South Asia that can help crate ‘New International Economic Order’³⁰.

Additionally, there are no records so far that this philosopher has ever delivered any speech underlining the principles, objectives and prospects of his ideology. He does not have any article published or a book written to his credit about GNH.

The search for happiness had begun in the ancient age. Various philosophers have discussed the idea in their writings. However, the search for wider aspect of the subject did not get mainstreamed as has been today. The story of happiness begins as early as the day of Aristotle. The prominent philosopher is Epicurus.

Epicurus outlines the view that pleasure and pain are jointly exhaustive: the absence of pain is itself pleasure. This implies that there is no intermediate state: For we are in need of pleasure only when we are in pain and when we are not in pain then we no longer need pleasure³¹.

The freedom from pain, which is, as we have seen, in itself a pleasant state, consists in the lack of pain in the body––aponia––and the non-disturbance of the soul, a state Epicurus called the tranquillity of the mind––ataraxia³². He said people must be away from any form of trouble to achieve longer happiness.

Epicurus was an ‘unimpeachable ascetic who taught that ‘‘genuine pleasure’’ was not ‘‘the pleasure of profligates,’’ but rather the simple satisfaction of a mind and body at peace’³³.

When the mind is free from fears, the body is content with natural satisfactions. You can achieve this state of happiness if you accept the four basic truths of Epicureanism, the so-called ‘four-part cure’³⁴.

1. Don’t fear the gods
2. Don’t worry about death
3. What is good is easy to get
4. What is terrible is easy to endure

There are various other philosophers who discussed that foremost objective of the human existence will be to find the highest degree of happiness. But they differ on the way how it can be achieved and is still the issue of debate.

In 1776, American declaration argues for ‘certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness³⁵. In the U.K. interest in happiness was brought to widespread attention with the moral philosophy of Jeremy Bentham (1789) who argued that the purpose of politics should be to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people³⁶. The search for happiness in other parts of the Europe started as early as 1970s when the European Union started conducting Value Surveys in 1973, which continues still today. The European leaders have since those days stressed the need that primary objective of the government must be to provide subjective wellbeing to the citizens.

There are number of philosopher who begun studying happiness philosophy before Bhutanese King Jigme Sinye Wangchuk. Earlier stated, there were attempts to find through rat-experiments if happiness can be injected in human brains. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi says he started his research on happiness some 50 years ago³⁷. Abraham Maslow, Martin Seligman, Ed Diener among others have spent their lives studying happiness philosophy.

Under these evidences, it is questionable to the claims of Bhutanese pro-monarchy scholars if King Jigme Singye Wangchuk was the founder of happiness philosophy.

Conclusion
The Bhutanese regime destabilized the society in late 1980s to such a critical condition that consolidating happiness again here would take a long walk. Harmony and unity flourished in Bhutanese society until the late 1970s have now almost knocked off balance that building similar society under multiculturalism requires another few decades. Unless, the racist policies and legal instruments formulated in those decades are declared void, campaign for happiness around by Bhutanese politicians will bring little or hardly any cheers to Bhutanese citizens.

Three primary ethnic groups of the country are not in eye-to-eye with each others. Easterners and southerners still feel suppressed while ruling class see them with suspicion. Without filling up this gap, building confidence for harmonious living and inculcating trust, formation of happy Bhutanese society will be a distant dream.

The seminars and conferences so far Bhutan organised have been successful on building theoretical foundation for GNH. What it really matters to general people if practical approaches are not brought out that bring happiness and cheers to grim faces in distant villages.

With no systematic approach to operationalise the concept of GNH and a significant portion of population still under poverty or in a state of unhappiness in refugee camps in Nepal, it’s clear who it (GNH) really makes happy: the regime.

1. Twentieth-century World by Findley, Carther Vaughn and John Alexander Rothney (2006), Sixth edition, p. 14
2. Williams, Raymond, Keywords: Culture
3. Subjective Well-Being Is Desirable, But Not the Summum Bonum by Ed Diener and Christie Scollon
4. The Social Report 2008 by Ministry of Social Development, New Zealand
5. http://www.pc.gov.bt/mandates.asp
6. See In Praise of Cultural Polyamory by Beat Barblan, and I am Plural, I am Sulgular by Atsushi Furuiye in Cr ossing Cultur es, V ol 1, No 2, Spring/Summer 2000 for further reading
7. Kuensel, October 28, 2008
8. Happiness is a stochastic Phenomenon by D Lykken and A. Tellegen in Psychological Science Vol VII, 1996
9. Does diversity make us happy?, BBC, May 30, 2006
10. Illusion and W ell-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental Health by Shelley E. Taylor and Jonathon Brown in Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, Issue 2
11. Universal Declaration of Human Rights by UN, 1948
12. Cultural Identity by Mark Dombeck, Ph.D. and Jolyn Wells-Moran, Ph.D in MentalHelp.net.
13. Wikipedia: List of countries by size
14. Does diversity make us happy?, BBC, May 30, 2006
15. Ancient Chinese philosophical advice: can it help us find happiness today? By Guoqing Zhang and Ruut Veenhoven in Journal of Happiness Studies (2008) Vol 9 page 432
16. Democracy and Happiness: What Causes What?, by Ronald Inglehart, University of Michigan
17. Democracy and Happiness: What Causes What?, by Ronald Inglehart, University of Michigan
18. The Economics of Happiness by Carol Graham, The Brookings Institution
19. ‘Happiness, Economy and Institutions’ by Bruno Frey and Alois Stutzer in the October 2000 issue of the Economic Journal
20. Bhutan growing into grassroot democracy by Bhabani Sen Gupta
21. Democracy and Happiness: What Causes What?, by Ronald Inglehart, University of Michigan
22. Genes, culture, democracy and happiness, by Ronald Inglehart and Hans-Dieter Klingemann
23. Democracy, happiness and progress measurement by Adj Professor Mike Salvaris School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University, Melbourne, paper presented at the Third International Conference on Gross National Happiness 22-28 November 2007, Bangkok, Thailand
24. By Eric Weiner in Foreign Policy # 165, march- April 2008
25. PM addressing the 63rd session of the UN general Assembly
26. Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being by Kamp Dush, C. M., & Amato, P. R., in Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 22, 607–627, 2005
27. Arthur’s advice: comparing Arthur Schopenhauer’s advice on happiness with contemporary research by Rozemarijn Schalkx and Ad Bergsma in Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol 9. 2008
28. Happiness Formula by Lionel Ketchian in Fairfield Citizen-News on February 27, 2002
29. Speech delivered by King Jigme Singye Wangchuk during the national day celebration in Gaylegphug (now spelled Gelephu) on December 17, 1978
30. Address by King Jigme Singye Wangchuk to the inaugural session of the Third SAARC summit, November 2-4, 1987, Kathmandu, Nepal
31. Epicurus 1994, The Epicurus Reader , selected writings and testimonia. Indianapolis: Hackett. page 128
32. Epicurus 1994, The Epicurus Reader , selected writings and testimonia. Indianapolis: Hackett. page 131
33. McMahon, D. M. (2004), From the happiness of virtue to the virtue of happiness: 400 b.c.– a.d.1780. Daedalus, 133(2), page 11
34. Philodemus of Gardara, cited in Epicurus (1994, p. vii)
35. A transaction of free men: The Birth and course of the declaration of independence by D. F. Hawke, (1964), London: Scribner
36. A Global Projection of Subjective Well-being: A Challenge To Positive Psychology? by A. White (2007), Psychtalk 56, 17-20
37. Secrets of Happiness by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, The Times, September 19, 2005