Quote
Ethnic conflict began to sharpen in Bhutan in 1985 when the citizenship law was retroactively applied. (Corboy italics)
Under this law, anyone born after 1958 who had only one Bhutanese parent had to apply for citizenship, demonstrate fluency in the national language of Dzongkha, and produce evidence of 15-20 years of residence in the country.
In 1988, the law was followed by a census to identify Bhutanese nationals. The census reclassified as "illegal" about 100,000 Nepalese who had arrived in recent decades. Many Lhotshampas were reported to be falsely registered for years as "southern Bhutanese" citizens.
In addition, a 1988 edict required Bhutanese to wear national dress on public occasions. Another enjoined a code of conduct based on Buddhist precepts and the teaching of Dzongkha, the national language, in schools. Schooling in the Nepali language was stopped in 1989. In 1990, many primary schools in southern areas heavily populated by ethnic Nepalese were (and still remain) closed. Today, discrimination is widely prevalent against Nepali-speaking Bhutanese in education, seeking employment and obtaining business licenses (ECDIS06 = 4).
Quote
Assessment for Lhotshampas in Bhutan
View Group Chronology
Bhutan Facts
Area: 46,620 sq. km.
Capital: Thimpu
Total Population: 1,908,000 (source: U.S. Census Bureau, est.)
Risk Assessment | Analytic Summary | References
Risk Assessment
The Lhotshampas have the following factors encouraging rebellion or protest: territorial concentration in southern Bhutan, where they constitute a majority of the population, and significant political, economic, and cultural discrimination. As of the end of 2006, the leaders of Nepal and Bhutan remained in talks regarding the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal.
top
Analytic Summary
Bhutan, a land-locked territory the size of Switzerland, is located in the eastern Himalayas. The Wangchuck dynasty from the Drukpa ethnic group has ruled Bhutan since 1907. King Jigme Dorji Wangchuck (1952-72), considered the father of modern Bhutan, began a program to move the kingdom into the modern world from medieval seclusion. Although he retained strong executive powers, the King created several important institutions, including the National Assembly (1953), the Royal Advisory Council (1965), and the Council of Ministers (1968) to provide broader participation. Land and legal reforms were also initiated. His son expanded upon those policies while emphasizing Bhutan's traditions and seeking to limit Western influences on the small, isolated country. Bhutan crowned a new king, 28-year-old Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuck, and held its first parliamentary elections in 2008.
Bhutan's official population consists of two broad groupings -- the Drukpas of the north, the original inhabitants, and the Lhotshampas of the south (GROUPCON = 3), who are immigrants of Nepali origin (RACE = 1). Lhotshampas constitute approximately 35 percent of Bhutan’s total population and differ from the plurality Bhote (or Ngalung) linguistically (LANG = 1), culturally (CUSTOM = 1) and religiously (BELIEF = 2). At the turn of this century, some Nepalese were brought in as laborers while others migrated to the southern plains of Bhutan. As a one time only measure, in 1958, these immigrants were granted Bhutanese citizenship.
In 1952, ethnic Nepalese set up the Bhutan State Congress (BSC), reportedly following the example of Nepal's Congress Party. The BSC, Bhutan's first political party, pressed for democratization and the provision of citizenship rights and political representation for Nepali settlers. The Drukpa majority refers to this period as the "first anti-national revolt." The Congress parties in India and Nepal are alleged to have provided support to this Bhutanese campaign.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, thousands of Nepali laborers reportedly entered Bhutan and never left. Ethnic Nepalis were estimated to constitute around 30 percent of Bhutan's population by the 1980s. The Buddhist Drukpas began to fear that they would lose their majority status in the tiny kingdom. Two other events also likely heightened their perceptions. Nepali migration to the independent Himalayan state of Sikkim led this group to outnumber the Buddhist Sikkimese and was seen as critical in leading the state to become part of India in 1975. Further, an ethnic Nepalese campaign to establish a separate state in India arose in the mid-1980s (led by the Gurkha National Liberation Front). The Drukpa-dominated government worried that Bhutan would soon be faced with a similar situation.
Ethnic conflict began to sharpen in Bhutan in 1985 when the citizenship law was retroactively applied. Under this law, anyone born after 1958 who had only one Bhutanese parent had to apply for citizenship, demonstrate fluency in the national language of Dzongkha, and produce evidence of 15-20 years of residence in the country. In 1988, the law was followed by a census to identify Bhutanese nationals. The census reclassified as "illegal" about 100,000 Nepalese who had arrived in recent decades. Many Lhotshampas were reported to be falsely registered for years as "southern Bhutanese" citizens.
In addition, a 1988 edict required Bhutanese to wear national dress on public occasions. Another enjoined a code of conduct based on Buddhist precepts and the teaching of Dzongkha, the national language, in schools. Schooling in the Nepali language was stopped in 1989. In 1990, many primary schools in southern areas heavily populated by ethnic Nepalese were (and still remain) closed. Today, discrimination is widely prevalent against Nepali-speaking Bhutanese in education, seeking employment and obtaining business licenses (ECDIS06 = 4).
Bhutanese language laws require the use of Drukpa for all official purposes and positions, and these laws also explicitly ban the use of Napalese in education, business, and government. Moreover, the Nepalese names of places in southern Bhutan have been replaced officially with Drukpa names (CULPO206 = 3). While Bhutanese law allows for freedom of religion, the Bhutanese government restricts this right in practice, recognizing only one official religion: Buddhism, specifically the Drukpa Kargupa sect. For instance, as the U.S. State Department noted recently: "The King declared that major Hindu festivals were national holidays, and the royal family participated in them. However,...NGOs reported that permission from the Government to build a Hindu temple was required but rarely granted" (CULPO106 = 2).
Growing discontent among the Nepalese led to the formation of the opposition Bhutan People's Party (BPP). The BPP dismisses the validity of the National Assembly claiming that they are under-represented and that the Assembly is not democratically elected. The BPP has called for a constitutional monarchy to be established. It also seeks multi-party democracy, amendments to the citizenship act, including an end to the 1958 cutoff, abolition of the traditional judicial system, and the right to preserve Nepali dress, language and culture including the right to carry the traditional knife, the khukri.
Clashes between the Nepalese and government forces during the early 1990s, widespread human rights abuses against the Nepalese by state security forces, and the forced expulsion of large numbers of Nepalese under the country's citizenship law led to a large-scale exodus from Bhutan's southern region. Around 90,000 Nepalis remain in refugee camps in Nepal while another 30,000 are in India awaiting a return to Bhutan. Some analysts refer to this period as an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Nepalese. Bhutanese citizenship laws continue to deny citizenship to Lhotsampas and thus largely exclude them from the political system (POLDIS06 = 4).
Both Nepal and Bhutan (whose foreign and security policies are determined by India based on a 1949 agreement) are within the Indian sphere of influence. Although dissidents say Indian support is crucial, New Delhi has not pressed Wangchuck to institute political reforms. The reason could be Delhi's shared fear about a "Greater Nepal" bringing together close to 30 million Nepali speakers in the Himalayas -- 20 million in Nepal, over 8 million inside Indian borders and the rest in Bhutan. In recent years, India itself has "pushed back" 25,000 Nepalese who were illegally living in Assam and other northeastern states.
Doubts remain as to whether ethnic Nepalese in Bhutan will soon experience an improvement in their political, cultural, or economic status. In July 1998, the King instituted some political reforms, including giving the national assembly the legal power to call a no-confidence vote against him. However, the government also tightened restrictions on the employment of Nepalis in the civil sector and began resettling northerners on land that belongs to Lhotshampa refugees. There are limited reports about some unrest in the south, often attributed to the Bhutan People’s Party, but given the closed nature of Bhutanese society, it is not possible to get a clear picture of these events.
The future of the 120,000 Bhutanese refugees who have spent most of the past decade in Nepali or Indian camps also remains bleak. Since 1996, the refugees have held numerous demonstrations and hunger strikes to press for their repatriation and the institutionalization of democracy in Bhutan. The Indian government's continual refusal to allow the refugees to cross its territory to return to Bhutan is viewed by some as a sign of India's position on the issue. To date, New Delhi says the issue should be resolved bilaterally and thus has refused calls to mediate.
In 2001-2003, Nepal and Bhutan held several rounds of negotiations to discuss the refugee issue. After years of deadlock, in 2001, the two countries agreed to intensify the process of verifying and repatriating Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. At the same time, Bhutan maintains that most of the refugees are not legitimate citizens. In addition, there are continued reports of the resettlement of Bhutanese people on land that formerly belonged to the Lhotshampas. This will be formidable block to the successful repatriation of the refugees.
In 2003, Nepal announced that thousand of refuges will start returning to Bhutan in early 2004. This apparent breakthrough should, however, be viewed with skepticism. Several human rights organizations have condemned the process of refugee screening as a serious violation of international and human rights norms. Under the complicated scheme of ethnic classification, only about 2.5 percent of the refugees were placed in category I and therefore eligible for repatriation to Bhutan. An additional 70 percent, under Category II, would be required to reapply for Bhutanese citizenship. Approximately 24 per cent will have their citizenship rejected, and the rest classified as criminals. Only about 9,000 refugees will be allowed to return to Bhutan, leaving the majority stateless.
Unless more concrete steps are taken to address both the refugee situation and democratic reforms in Bhutan, the possibility of increasing violence cannot be ruled out.
top
References
Asiaweek. Various reports. 1990-97.
Dahlburg, John-Thor. 12/23/1995. "Bhutan: A Shangri-La No Longer?." The Los Angeles Times.
Keesings Record of World Events. Various reports. 1990-95.
LexisNexis. Various reports. 1985-2006.
Rizal, Dhurba. 2004. "The Unknown Refugee Crisis: Expulsion of the Ethnic Lhotsampa from Bhutan." Asian Ethnicity 5:2.
Sinha, A.C., "Bhutan in 1994: Will the Ethnic Conflict be Resolved?", Asian Affairs, Vol. XXXV, No. 2, 1995.
U.S. State Department. "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Bhutan." 2000-2006.
top
Quote
The list of warning signs I got was:
– Has a superior attitude.
– Excludes members of any race or cultural group.
– Expresses an us-vs.-them point of view: “They’re out to get us” or “We’re better”.
– Is bigoted.
– Is shortsighted.
– Is attacking or violent.
– Is insensitive.
– Is overly serious.
– Has a “Do what I say, not what I do” point of view.
– Drinks heavily or consumes lots of drugs.
– Is ingratiating.
– Is controlling.
– Makes you wrong or an outcast for questioning.
– Teaches by belittling or making you an example in front of everyone.
– Wants lots of money up front.
– Has assistants or senior students who act inappropriately in your view and whom you are expected to obey.
– Believes the form of ritual is more important than the results.
– Pretends to be perfect.
– Is overly idealistic, not practical.
Any of these, on a regular basis -- avoid.
Quote
I think Nigel hit the nail right on the head with his assertion that the most toxic belief of premies is that they have an experience which is not dependent on belief.
Every experience is run through our belief system to see what meaning can be associated with it. There's no other route to meaning. Is there?
(Corboy--the term for this in cognitive science may be 'transderivational search'. Humans are pattern seekers)
Premies have learned to associate good experiences with Rawat, or 'Knowledge', and bad experiences with 'being in their minds', or whatever the jargon is currently. Since they deny the fundamental role of belief, they believe that their experience is direct, uninterpreted, 'pure'. They believe that they know something that is beyond belief. Which I guess is something they have in common with all religious fundamentalists.
I too used to believe that my 'experience of Knowledge' was so fundamental as to be beyond belief. Now that I have dropped that belief, my good experiences and bad experiences continue, without the need for evaluating them using Rawat's fundamentally flawed spiritual measuring system.
Quote
I think Nigel hit the nail right on the head with his assertion that the most toxic belief of premies is that they have an experience which is not dependent on belief.
Yeah, I totally agree with Nigel. I think it's important to know and understand how that happens in destructive cults.
The whole point of the Rawat belief system is that it is not dependent upon belief or religious ritual (that was true even in the 70s) because Rawat's got the exclusive route to "that experience" which only he can explain, impart, and control, with the result being that a premie becomes indoctrinated (coercive persuasion, mind/thought control or reform, brainwashing) to the point they can say (and believe their own words when they say it): "I don't believe anything, I know -- through my experience of Knowledge."
It's starts with the constant repetition of hearing Rawat say the same things over and over, with the use of calming music and beautiful natural scenes that can eventually cause a vulnerable person to make those particular language associations, and even the natural scenes, to Rawat. It's a classic cult tactic to recruit and retain. Interesting is that Rawat continues to use instrumental music in some videos of Arti and other older devotional songs that would never be sung in the current day. Those evoke in older premies the "old days" when open worship of him was common.
Every experience is run through our belief system to see what meaning
can be associated with it. There's no other route to meaning. Is there?
True, under normal circumstances. But, what Rawat and other cult leaders do is reinvent the language by loading words and phrases with new meanings and associations, that, when successful, terminate logical thought and critical thinking.
The most problematic circumstance is when premies continue to listen to Rawat repetitiously, because they try to meditate on the breath which puts them in a trance
state. Then they likely go under the sheet for the full boat. That's how this cult leader controls the minds of his followers. And that's why I never, ever recommend the K techs for anyone, especially those who are trying to extract themselves from that cult.
Quote
The air of paradox, however, is merely what Dennett calls (in conversation) a “
deepity,” a claim that appears profound but is in fact a superficial equivocation.
Quote
Dan Dennett talks about purposely-confusing theology and how it's used. He also
describes his new project interviewing clergyman who secretly don't believe
anymore, and introduces a new term: "Deepity."
Quote
Pseudo-profundity is the art of sounding profound while talking tosh. Unlike the art of actually being profound, the art of sounding profound is not particularly difficult to master. As we’ll see, there are certain basic recipes that can produce fairly convincing results – good enough to convince others, and perhaps even yourself, that you have gained some sort of profound insight into the human condition.
If you want to achieve the status of a guru it helps to have some natural charisma and presentational skills. Sincerity, empathy, or at least the ability to fake them, can be useful. Props also help. Try wearing a loincloth, a fez, or, in a business setting, a particularly brash waistcoat. But even without the aid of such natural talents or paraphernalia, anyone can produce deep- and meaningful-sounding pronouncements if they are prepared to follow a few simple recipes.
Quote
Contradict yourself
A second technique is to select words with opposite or incompatible meanings and cryptically combine them in what appears to be a straightforward contradiction. Here are a few examples:
Sanity is just another kind of madness
Life is a often a form of death
The ordinary is extraordinary
Such sentences are interpretable in all sorts of ways and can easily appear profound. In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, two of the three slogans of the Party have this character:
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
If you’re an aspiring guru, why not produce your own contradictory remarks? The great beauty of such comments is that they make your audience do the work for you. Their meaning is not for you, the guru, to say – it’s for your followers to figure out. Just sit back, adopt a sage-like expression, and let them do the intellectual labour.
The thought that contradiction is a mark of profundity sometimes crops up in a religious context. Non-believers will suppose contradictions within a religious doctrine reveal that it contains falsehoods. The faithful are likely to take the same contradictions as a mark of profundity. Contradictions have other advantages too. A series of simple, unambiguous claims is easy to refute. Not so a series of such cryptic remarks. So, if you’re planning to start your own religion and want to say things that will both appear profound and also be invulnerable to criticism, try making a series of contradictory pronouncements. Assert, but then deny. For example, say that your particular god is. And yet, he is not. Your god is everything, and yet nothing. He is one, and yet he is many. He is good. But then again he isn’t.
Quote
Deepity" has such a nice ring to it. I'm reminded of a comment by Sri-squared Ravi Shankar in a video posted in one of the forums here:
"You don't use breath. Breath uses you."
I think that qualifies as a deepity too?
Quote
he Unconscious as Infinite Sets: An Essay in Bi-Logic
Top
Home > Library > Health > Psychoanalysis Dictionary
In The Unconscious as Infinite Sets: An Essay in Bi-Logic, a major work published in 1975, Ignacio Matte-Blanco introduced an important modification of Freud's notion of the unconscious. His purpose was to save the notion from being progressively forgotten in contemporary psychoanalytic developments. The author refused to consider the unconscious as chaotic (Freud, 1933a [1932]). If a characteristic form of functioning, like the primary process (the processes of the id), may be described as belonging to the unconscious system, then, he thought, one can discover a different organization for it than the one ruling the conscious system. Grounded in this idea, Matte-Blanco studied the logical principles that would allow systematic unconscious violations of classical, asymmetric logic, the basis of consciousness.
Unconscious logic rises from two principles: the principle of generalization and the principle of symmetry. The principle of generalization, also present in classical logic, postulates that in the unconscious each entity is treated as part of a set with other elements, this set being treated in turn as a subset of a greater set, and so forth. Entities are distinguished one from the other and grouped together again through abstraction of their similarities. The second principle is that in the unconscious, asymmetrical relations are selectively treated as if they were symmetrical (Rayner, 1995), with the result that relations of succession and contiguity, like time and three-dimensional space, disappear. A part can equal the whole, and similarities can be transformed into identities.
The unconscious is conceptualized as an aggregate of infinite sets. According to the definition of the mathematician Richard Dedekind (1831-1916), infinite sets are those in which a specific subset, for example, the even numbers, can be placed in a one-to-one correspondence with the whole set—for example, the set of natural numbers. The part is equal to the whole.
Symmetrical logic is the expression of a symmetrical system, according to which reality is a homogenous and indivisible whole. Asymmetrical logic is the manifestation of an asymmetrical system, where reality divides into parts. In states of intense emotion, the experience and logic of the symmetrical system are dominant, so for the mind, the emotional object is infinite and is also part of an infinite set.
Matte-Blanco succeeded in formalizing (or mathematizing) the study of the unconscious. He discovered a startling isomorphism among the emotional, the unconscious, and infinite logic (Bria and Durst, 1992).
Source Citation
Matte-Blanco, Ignacio. (1975). The unconscious as infinite sets: An essay in bi-logic. London: Duckworth.
Bibliography
Bria, Pietro, and Durst, Margarete. (1992). Ignacio Matte Blanco (Portrait). In A. Negri (Ed.), Novecento filosofico e scientifico. Protagonisti (Vol. 3, pp. 409-443). Marzorati: Milano.
Freud, Sigmund. (1933a [1932]). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. SE, 22: 1-182.
Rayner, Eric. (1995). Unconscious logic: An introduction to Matte Blanco's bi-logic and its uses. London: Routledge.
—JUAN FRANCISCO JORDAN MOORE
The Unconscious as Infinite Sets: An Essay in Bi-Logic
Quote
Adding some scientific jargon or references can be particularly useful in lending your ramblings further fake authority and gravitas. Many purveyors of pseudo-profundity have learned the insight expressed by the great 19th Century scientist James Clerk Maxwell that such
is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current, provided they are expressed in language, the sound of which recalls some well-known scientific phrase.
References to quantum mechanics are particularly popular among peddlers of pseudo-scientific claptrap. Quantum mechanics is widely supposed to make weird claims, and hardly anyone understands it, so if you start spouting references to it in support of your own bizarre teachings, people will assume you must be very clever and probably won’t realize that you are, in fact, just bullshitting. So perhaps, if you’re feeling ambitious, put on another seminar entitled “Positive Attitudinal Energies And Quantum Mechanics”.