Give, and you Shall be Given Kick.

If you give anything for free, you will be misrepresented and wronged someday. I have learned this the hard way: free without heart kills. DPT is right in some ways. Go on banning Druk Prohibition Party (DPT)—if you win next time, that is. No pressure.

Sometimes, religious philosophies mislead you. The religions say, "Give, and it shall be given to you" (Luke 6:38), and "Give to those needy poor" (a common Buddhist saying). The truth is, everyone needs. The rich need to get richer, and the poor are battling to become richer. So where does that leave the rest of us?

Give? I bet these human species will not give you back. They have learned to take and forget good deeds faster than a dog forgets who fed it. I have never heard of anyone who got so much free just like that without something going wrong. This "freeness" creates misapprehension in relationships too. Because of giving, I lost many people in my life. One was a relative who smilingly borrowed Nu. 10,000. Later, he stopped talking to my family. Apparently, silence is cheaper than repayment.

I have had many grave experiences like this. There was this boy—a crook with a grouchy mouth and a habit of showing very bad behavior. I taught him for free many times. I expected nothing, but I was afraid of kicks. The Bhutanese have a saying: if you raise a horse, you will only get kicks. Well, I raised a donkey. The next time he asked me again—because I have a job too, not a money tree. He became so dependent and so lazy that he couldn't even read a single line from a book. The more I told him to learn and improve, the more dependent he became. He wouldn't listen. That's how he got angry. Now, I am considered mean and selfish. He gets me wrong, and I find myself in the most awkward predicament. And guess who ends up in trouble? Not him. Me. Always me.

Last time, we had a guest lecture, and it was free. Nobody attended because it was free. Free seems to be worthless sometimes. The Sharchop word for free is "Tongpa," which literally means nothing—empty. 

This freeness has become an impediment to a peaceful life. Everything in life doesn't come free as we think. Everything is cost-effective. It's do and get, pay and receive—not always receiving. Learn to give back. The receiver becomes lazy and dependent. The Buddhist teaching says that to reach an enlightened state, and if you want to see the door of heaven, you must not search for and receive free things, but submit to gain freedom. Or maybe just submit to working for a living.

In giving anything free, I feel we must take some considerations into account. Here is my list, based on my own painful experience:

1. Why are you giving it for free? (Are you stupid or just nice?)
2. How to give it? (With conditions, hopefully.)
3. What will be the consequences? 
4. What is your future position? (Probably broke and bitter.)
5. Give only twice or thrice, and you will know the person. If you give every time, you are a fool. A generous fool, but still a fool.

I support DPT for their forceful and valid way of banning many things to bring the country back on track. Go on, DPT. And PDP (People's Dead Party, as I like to call them) farcically gives deadly attacks and deadly promises to kill DPT's banning. Here's a small—and favorite—joke of mine. Prime Minister Jigme Y. Thinley (JYT) proudly declared in one gathering before the 2008 election in Nanong that there are three "JIGMEs" in Bhutan, and the country may not function if two are missing: the Big Jigme (the King), the Small Jigme (JYT), and the Smaller Jigme (JD), who is not in the picture. The survival of the Smaller Jigme makes me laugh. That poor fellow survives his life beating his goat skin-coated dramnyen (Bhutanese guitar). Rock on, Smaller Jigme.

That autocratic statement by JYT to the Bhutanese media was really striking and strong. (Click for more info, The Bhutanese.) He warned media house owners and accused the media of creating disharmony and spoiling the country's image. The DPT President said, "I will not leave you." I am with him. The media will become strong. Facts and concrete proof will be reported. The freedom of the press doesn't mean they have the freedom to give false information or news to the public. In a free society—and especially under democratic rule—we should not take offense at our beliefs or wrongs being criticized. That is the hallmark of a healthy, vibrant democracy.

However, censorship and banning are the character of totalitarianism. Yet some standards of a totalitarian regime must not be allowed to drop. If they do, that would bring hatred and stifle the very liberal ideas of a vibrant democracy. The cost of freedom comes with the cost of sacrificing another freedom. It's like choosing which leg to stand on.

Some media must be banned to have a humane lifestyle in society. Some harmful social media like Facebook kill time, distract life, erode culture, and direct a false life. China has banned many such media to bring goodness to the country. We too can live without some of these harmful channels. If we can ban, we are moving forward, not backward—toward a civilized, culturally and socially attached life. Banning tobacco had significant benefits, and it was the right move.

Ban. Ban freedom to understand what freedom is and to value freedom.

Ban.

The Worst Win

The second-term MP election is just a few weeks away, and by now, people must have mastered the fine arts of political cunning, shrewdness, and tactfulness—or at least pretended to. Voters should already have a clear idea of what makes the right candidate. Fortunately, people had excellent choices: four parties in their hands. Let's hope they picked the best two in the preliminary round. 

Back in 2008, with powerful and influential candidates in the fray, people's minds were completely hijacked—sorry, "taken over"—by DPT. And that was good. People's choice was right. DPT ruled the country with much peace and happiness, bringing development to many rural areas. On the flip side, DPT also taught Bhutanese people the value of money—and that is genuinely good. Bhutanese by nature are spendthrifts who never cared much about balances or savings. Then came the financial crunch. It was a blessing in disguise, like a strict parent who finally teaches you to save your pocket money.

Now, the two political parties' promises look lofty and sometimes downright wobbly. If their manifestos were to come true, every Bhutanese could just sit back, relax, and be spoon-fed. Government budget to each gewog, a health centre in every chiwog, community-based services, blacktopping of farm roads, 100% jobs—and etc., etc., etc. (I'm waiting for the one that promises a free pony for every household.)

But if lessons are to be learned, there are scores of very bad examples of elected members who joined politics for the love of power and money. A few turned out to be worse than statues—at least statues don't secretly fill their stomachs. Some even bought three or more bulldozers and excavators and are now running businesses on projects like Punatsangchhu. A few others relied on lip service and fake promises to grab votes. People noticed. These kinds of malfunctions—especially from the ruling party—will shrink our small nation faster than a cold shower.

Bhutan didn't know much about these pitfalls during the first election. Now people know. There are tensions lurking between the horse and the bird. Blame games are being played. Differences exist, though everyone tries to reach a common conclusion. There are talks in every small gathering about choosing a leader with a good heart, responsibility, capability, understanding—basically a superhero without a corrupt practice.

Meanwhile, the group that is supposed to remain apolitical—civil servants—are apolitical in name only. In reality, they are the most politically active bunch in society, influencing voters left and right. The majority of voters believe that educated people's choice must be right, often ignoring grassroots needs. The same goes for the religious body. In the name of religion, anti-political religious people become very political indeed. For example, some might hint that if you vote for Mr. X, he will bring good luck, good power, and good things to your village—maybe even that pony.

Politicization is important. Therefore, voters shouldn't be moved by any shaft of false hope. By now, people must also know that an individual shouldn't decide the candidate alone. Rather, it is the responsibility of people coming together and choosing their representative. Democracy is sometimes described as communities gathering together, imagining many voices pouring into a unified whole. Democracy should permeate the world beyond politics, making itself felt in the way people think, speak, work, fight, and even make mistakes. No nepotism, no relations, no bribery, nothing—but electing through collective decision is the true principle of democracy. Because it's for the greater goodness and well-being of the whole, not just one individual.

And that, is no laughing matter—even if the journey to get there often is.

Time to Wag Tails Politicians

Now that the second-term election is only a few months away, people must have some qualifications of a right person in their minds. That’s good. Bhutan was in the middle of an enigma in 2008. There were instances of choosing the wrong person. Or was it because of the limited choice?

I write this because I am reminded of a bad example of how our government can be irresponsible in choosing the right ministers for a ministry. I am lifting an old example from The Journalist newspaper (13/6/10, page 5): the confession made by Health Minister Zanglay Drukpa. He said to the paper, “I came with an open mind since I knew nothing about health.” I laughed at his frankness but at the same time felt ashamed. From then on, I knew there was something artificial in the functioning of our system. There are many "hotch-potch Dashos" like him. It is like the right person for the wrong job. There are scores of others in the present batch of elected members who have joined politics for the love of power and money. Some of them have turned out to be worse than statues, stealthily filling their stomachs, as they don’t speak a word in the National Assembly. Others survive on lip service and fake promises.

Bhutan didn’t know that much of this would happen in the first election. Now people know; there are talks in every small gathering and the like about choosing a leader of good heart—someone responsible, capable, understanding, etc. Politicization is important, therefore. People must by now also know that an individual must not decide the candidate alone; rather, it is the responsibility of people coming together to decide on their representative. Democracy is sometimes described as communities of people coming together, and it imagines many voices pouring into a unified whole. Democracy should permeate the world beyond politics, making itself felt in the ways people think, speak, work, fight, and even make art. No nepotism, no relations, no bribery—nothing but selecting through collective decision would yield a good leader, because it is for the greater goodness and well-being of the whole, not for an individual.

Coming back to the right person for the right job: the subject matter is very important. Every job demands specialization in a specific subject. One cannot be a jack of all trades. An untrained person cannot suddenly declare himself a carpenter. An educationist cannot become a doctor. An accountant takes up their profession because it is professional. But when it comes to a society like ours, everyone wags their tail in front of money (and barks back nonsensically at their own people) and the post, not necessarily thinking about their area of responsibility and the outcome. As a result, our government becomes buoyant and susceptible, where everyone tries to make a bulb with no knowledge of how to light it, but nobody succeeds. Because of this, I think we had so many problems in the Health Ministry. This type of malfunction, which pulls our nation down, should not be repeated, as society depends upon them. And in turn, they depend on society.