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.
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.
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.
Bhutan sovereignty is guaranteed by the fact that China (Tibet) also shares a border with Bhutan. It's a neutral place between the two powers. Although its ties are much closer to India (geographically, the flattest part is on its southern border with India--the location where Gelephu Mindfulness City will be located).
I think size is also what prevents countries too. Not enough people and not enough GDP? Well, some projects might take more than the country’s available capital.
I was there a couple of months ago.
It's truly a beautiful and extremely calm place.
There's one quote from our guide that I remember: "We are a small nation. We watch what our neighbors are doing and pick what will work for us."
Another impression I got (and I may be totally wrong) - the locals genuinely love the royal family. There are pictures of the king, his wife, and children literally everywhere. As someone who grew up in a communist country and is familiar with seeing portraits of "beloved" leaders everywhere, this seemed like something totally different.
The people are very respectful - no one tries to sell you things or bother you in any other way.
Highly recommended destination. Hope it doesn't change anytime soon.
I've been fascinated by Bhutan ever since reading "Beyond the Sky and the Earth". I wish them the best, but with the exodus of young people it's difficult to see long term success. The population is tiny. Will future growth only stem from tourism?
Tourism is not really a growth sector. There are too many hotels already, with hoteliers complaining they can't get bookings at a decent price because there's too much competition undercutting them, and tour operators demanding lower prices than is sustainable.
Truthfully, the GMC is Bhutan's best bet at growth. The idea is to attract foreign talent who can train and educate locals, so that it can act as an attractor for youths, and a flywheel for prosperity in the country.
It wouldn't be regarded as complicated if Bhutan wasn't le wholesome misty buddhist paradise with happiness instead of GDP. Westerners love stories like that and don't want anything to tarnish it
It's because of that youth exodus (to Australia mainly) that the government is pushing for Gelephu Mindfulness City as place for innovation and new business opps. That's what the gov't officials directly argued when asked.
I don’t think Bhutan has ever had any relationship with the Dalai Lama, there Buddhism is derived from Tibetan Buddhism but is a different school. The article is weird to suggest that Bhutan has some sort of role in the future relating to Tibet Buddhism leadership, it’s much more likely to come from India.
The article doesn't suggest that Bhutan has a future in the leadership of Tibetan Buddhism, but that when/if Tibetan Buddhism gets more fractured because of disputes around lineage, then Bhutan can become globally important in the thought leadership of Buddhism more generally, or maybe more specifically Vajrayana Buddhism.
There are 4 main schools of Vajrayana Buddhism: Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya and Gelug, and the Dalai Lama is head of just one of them - Gelug. They have independent teaching transmissions and succession lines. There's common misconception about Dalai Lama being a kind of a "pope" for Buddhism at all, or for the Diamond way (that means Vajrayana) Buddhism in particular, which is simply not true.
Having said that, it is of course unfortunate that the issue with two candidates, one of them "manufactured" by the PRC regime, is on the horizon and most likely will happen. Please note this already happened for the Kagyu lineage, where two Karmapa candidates emerged in 90s; interesting that after few decades the Chinese one admitted recently he's not the real one.
I think to be fair what they were meaning is that it may emerge as the primary source of Tibetan Buddhism now Tibet is irreversibly compromised. Yes, I am aware of the different schools and how they squabble.
India as of today plays the Hindu ideas .. and downplays Buddhist followers ( mostly poor and downtrodden following footsteps of BR Ambedkar)
BJP which is ruling party for 3rd consecutive term is staunchly supporting Upper caste ( Brahmins).
TLDR: Buddhist leadership although is prophesised seems unlikely as of today. (However their Vippassana is worth giving a 10 day shot in todays chaotic world https://www.dhamma.org/en-US/locations/directory)
> BJP ... is staunchly supporting Upper caste ( Brahmins).
I'm curious what you mean by this. I've heard a wide range of opinions on BJP from NRIs, but that's one position I haven't been told before. My understanding was that BJP supports caste and village inclusivity in universities and professional fields to such an extent that some people from tier 1 cities even feel left out.
Buddhism in India grew in opposition to the Hindu caste system instead of spiritual change of thought. The current Indian government is loudly Hindu nationalist and prefers to minimise or even dismiss the diversity of Indian religious practices as well as pretend that the caste system is no longer present.
They and their supporters downplay Buddhist followers by pretending that the lived experiences of these Buddhist (on in general the non-hindu) don't exist.
Bhutan sounds cute, but I wonder what the reality is. The city sounds like another one of these globalist smart city projects like Neom in Saudi Arabia, or Rwanda's African showpiece. I'm sure said city will have cameras on every corner, and probably 15 minute city aspects.
I think he refers to Gelephu Mindfulness City. I read it differently, not as a generic globalist city but very much a middle ground between Bhutanese culture (deep Buddhist presence, it will maintain vernacular architectures codes throughout, no skyscrapers) and global capital attractiveness (special economic zone, some tax benefits but not a tax haven in any way, crypto adoption, etc.)
I didn't mean Bhutan in general. I was referring to Bhutan's new city project. It seems similar to new cities elsewhere, maybe even Auroville (or whatever it is called). Singapore is great in some ways, not so much in others. (It is arguable how democratic Singapore is, since its parliament has a lot of hereditary politicians in it, like Thailand or Greece.)
Bhutan has sold itself as a Shangri La for decades. Whether it is, is another problem. It seems all over the world the peasants are being herded into urban panopticons.
The 15 minute city is sold as a place with amenities within easy. The reality will end up being forced to live within a small area in some kind of gated community with a curfew.
Besides which, where are these amenities nowadays? Small businesses were decimated by discriminatory lockdown enforcement. Physical libraries and community centres are being shut. As are bars and cafes. If there was a real 15 minute city, it's in the past. The internet is no substitute for in person interaction.
I’d argue that any sufficiently dense city is naturally a 15 minute city, and tens of millions of people (including myself) live in them. For example: in New York, Tokyo, London etc. one can feasibly access all the amenities they need within a “15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transit ride”.
The key thing is that these cities developed this way organically. There is nothing stopping me leaving my 15 minute radius if I want to, and I regularly do.
You’ve been reading/watching too much propaganda and disinformation, and are weirdly focused on COVID precautions that are long over. You should break out of whatever online communities you’re part of that consume this sort of nonsense.
You can't imagine how insufferably smug everyone who lived there would be? Living lives all happy and nice and not horrible? Gosh, what a terrible place it must be!
Every place in the world is a mix of two things - the background and the foreground. The background is the natural stuff (terrain, greenery, water bodies, climate etc) and the foreground is the areas where people settled.
The people areas (houses, streets, work places) are dependent on the economic activity, prosperity and culture. And they look the same as any other place in the world with the same parameters.
Outside of people's areas, it depends on terrain (hill station), latitude (for climate) and greenery. Again for it looks the same as any other place in the world with the same parameters.
So, every place is a combination of these two things with different parameters. Sometimes, the foreground has dependencies on the background.
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.
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.
Interesting parallel. Does this reliance limit Bhutan's sovereignty in practice? What's the trade-off?
Bhutan sovereignty is guaranteed by the fact that China (Tibet) also shares a border with Bhutan. It's a neutral place between the two powers. Although its ties are much closer to India (geographically, the flattest part is on its southern border with India--the location where Gelephu Mindfulness City will be located).
Look what happened to Sikkim, when India annexed it. They have probably been reminded of that.
I think size is also what prevents countries too. Not enough people and not enough GDP? Well, some projects might take more than the country’s available capital.
Size isn’t everything: compare China to India.
I wish them luck, and success, because why not!
I was there a couple of months ago. It's truly a beautiful and extremely calm place.
There's one quote from our guide that I remember: "We are a small nation. We watch what our neighbors are doing and pick what will work for us."
Another impression I got (and I may be totally wrong) - the locals genuinely love the royal family. There are pictures of the king, his wife, and children literally everywhere. As someone who grew up in a communist country and is familiar with seeing portraits of "beloved" leaders everywhere, this seemed like something totally different.
The people are very respectful - no one tries to sell you things or bother you in any other way.
Highly recommended destination. Hope it doesn't change anytime soon.
I've been fascinated by Bhutan ever since reading "Beyond the Sky and the Earth". I wish them the best, but with the exodus of young people it's difficult to see long term success. The population is tiny. Will future growth only stem from tourism?
Tourism is not really a growth sector. There are too many hotels already, with hoteliers complaining they can't get bookings at a decent price because there's too much competition undercutting them, and tour operators demanding lower prices than is sustainable.
Truthfully, the GMC is Bhutan's best bet at growth. The idea is to attract foreign talent who can train and educate locals, so that it can act as an attractor for youths, and a flywheel for prosperity in the country.
Didn't Bhutan kicked out some people?
Yes, but it's complicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Lhotshampa...
It wouldn't be regarded as complicated if Bhutan wasn't le wholesome misty buddhist paradise with happiness instead of GDP. Westerners love stories like that and don't want anything to tarnish it
Despite all that happiness push, young people still prefer more opportunities (and money) abroad.
It's because of that youth exodus (to Australia mainly) that the government is pushing for Gelephu Mindfulness City as place for innovation and new business opps. That's what the gov't officials directly argued when asked.
I don’t think Bhutan has ever had any relationship with the Dalai Lama, there Buddhism is derived from Tibetan Buddhism but is a different school. The article is weird to suggest that Bhutan has some sort of role in the future relating to Tibet Buddhism leadership, it’s much more likely to come from India.
The article doesn't suggest that Bhutan has a future in the leadership of Tibetan Buddhism, but that when/if Tibetan Buddhism gets more fractured because of disputes around lineage, then Bhutan can become globally important in the thought leadership of Buddhism more generally, or maybe more specifically Vajrayana Buddhism.
There are 4 main schools of Vajrayana Buddhism: Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya and Gelug, and the Dalai Lama is head of just one of them - Gelug. They have independent teaching transmissions and succession lines. There's common misconception about Dalai Lama being a kind of a "pope" for Buddhism at all, or for the Diamond way (that means Vajrayana) Buddhism in particular, which is simply not true.
Having said that, it is of course unfortunate that the issue with two candidates, one of them "manufactured" by the PRC regime, is on the horizon and most likely will happen. Please note this already happened for the Kagyu lineage, where two Karmapa candidates emerged in 90s; interesting that after few decades the Chinese one admitted recently he's not the real one.
Do you have a link to the Karmapa admitting he's not the real deal? I tried to google it but got nothing.
I think to be fair what they were meaning is that it may emerge as the primary source of Tibetan Buddhism now Tibet is irreversibly compromised. Yes, I am aware of the different schools and how they squabble.
India as of today plays the Hindu ideas .. and downplays Buddhist followers ( mostly poor and downtrodden following footsteps of BR Ambedkar)
BJP which is ruling party for 3rd consecutive term is staunchly supporting Upper caste ( Brahmins).
TLDR: Buddhist leadership although is prophesised seems unlikely as of today. (However their Vippassana is worth giving a 10 day shot in todays chaotic world https://www.dhamma.org/en-US/locations/directory)
> BJP ... is staunchly supporting Upper caste ( Brahmins).
I'm curious what you mean by this. I've heard a wide range of opinions on BJP from NRIs, but that's one position I haven't been told before. My understanding was that BJP supports caste and village inclusivity in universities and professional fields to such an extent that some people from tier 1 cities even feel left out.
> and downplays Buddhist followers
How does it downplay Buddhist followers?
Buddhism in India grew in opposition to the Hindu caste system instead of spiritual change of thought. The current Indian government is loudly Hindu nationalist and prefers to minimise or even dismiss the diversity of Indian religious practices as well as pretend that the caste system is no longer present.
They and their supporters downplay Buddhist followers by pretending that the lived experiences of these Buddhist (on in general the non-hindu) don't exist.
Do you have a source on how BJP downplays Buddhist followers?
[dead]
Bhutan sounds cute, but I wonder what the reality is. The city sounds like another one of these globalist smart city projects like Neom in Saudi Arabia, or Rwanda's African showpiece. I'm sure said city will have cameras on every corner, and probably 15 minute city aspects.
Weird comparison. Neom doesn’t exist, whereas Bhutan has been around for centuries.
It’s a unique place, not just an idea. Friendly people and a government that looks at more than GDP as a success metric.
I think he refers to Gelephu Mindfulness City. I read it differently, not as a generic globalist city but very much a middle ground between Bhutanese culture (deep Buddhist presence, it will maintain vernacular architectures codes throughout, no skyscrapers) and global capital attractiveness (special economic zone, some tax benefits but not a tax haven in any way, crypto adoption, etc.)
I didn't mean Bhutan in general. I was referring to Bhutan's new city project. It seems similar to new cities elsewhere, maybe even Auroville (or whatever it is called). Singapore is great in some ways, not so much in others. (It is arguable how democratic Singapore is, since its parliament has a lot of hereditary politicians in it, like Thailand or Greece.)
Bhutan has sold itself as a Shangri La for decades. Whether it is, is another problem. It seems all over the world the peasants are being herded into urban panopticons.
what’s wrong with a 15-minute city?
The 15 minute city is sold as a place with amenities within easy. The reality will end up being forced to live within a small area in some kind of gated community with a curfew.
Besides which, where are these amenities nowadays? Small businesses were decimated by discriminatory lockdown enforcement. Physical libraries and community centres are being shut. As are bars and cafes. If there was a real 15 minute city, it's in the past. The internet is no substitute for in person interaction.
I’d argue that any sufficiently dense city is naturally a 15 minute city, and tens of millions of people (including myself) live in them. For example: in New York, Tokyo, London etc. one can feasibly access all the amenities they need within a “15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transit ride”.
The key thing is that these cities developed this way organically. There is nothing stopping me leaving my 15 minute radius if I want to, and I regularly do.
Why would there be lockdowns?
You’ve been reading/watching too much propaganda and disinformation, and are weirdly focused on COVID precautions that are long over. You should break out of whatever online communities you’re part of that consume this sort of nonsense.
You can't imagine how insufferably smug everyone who lived there would be? Living lives all happy and nice and not horrible? Gosh, what a terrible place it must be!
How much was rent again?
It depends whether your happiness relies on someone else micromanaging every step of your life. Mine doesn't. Maybe yours does.
Everything's fine until the government enforced lockdowns start
Every place in the world is a mix of two things - the background and the foreground. The background is the natural stuff (terrain, greenery, water bodies, climate etc) and the foreground is the areas where people settled.
The people areas (houses, streets, work places) are dependent on the economic activity, prosperity and culture. And they look the same as any other place in the world with the same parameters.
Outside of people's areas, it depends on terrain (hill station), latitude (for climate) and greenery. Again for it looks the same as any other place in the world with the same parameters.
So, every place is a combination of these two things with different parameters. Sometimes, the foreground has dependencies on the background.