As times change, so must culture
Driglam namzha in democratic Bhutan: Doesn’t it need to evolve too?
OUTLOOK12 January, 2009 – In the old days, an ordinary person was smacked for making crunchy sounds when eating his food in front of a government official. The risk of injury was bigger if he failed to bow low when an official walked by. He was flogged if he pranced anywhere near an official.
Certainly we are in a situation today we could not have expected eight or nine decades ago, when Bhutanese life was dominated by a ruling nobility certain of its values – values, in which, an austere conventional system dominated public life. Also ours has become an age of fluid boundaries and of a lowered general threshold of fear for such heights of strictness, so one might suppose that such a system would be obsolete. But it is not.
Driglam namzha was introduced in Bhutan by Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel in the 17 century. It was based on a code of etiquette practised within Buddhist clergy and elite. Driglam itself began with Buddhism. Dr Karma Phuntsho, a student of Buddhist ontology and epistemology, in his paper ‘Echoes of Ancient Ethos’, writes that it started with Buddhist vinaya (rules of monastic discipline), which was highly regulated and routinised. Manners, such as chuckling while eating and prancing while walking, which driglam deems unbecoming of a cultured person, is described in the vinaya as behavioural flaws to be eschewed by monks. So driglam is a code of etiquette based on what the Buddhist code of physical, verbal and mental conduct dictates as proper and wholesome.
Drig means order and uniformity
Driglam’s major flaw is that it describes only how a lower person should behave in front of a higher person and not the other way round.
Dr Karma Phuntsho writes: “In a situation where an inferior Bhutanese interacts with a senior one, driglam requires the inferior to be refined and restrained in the senior’s presence, while the senior could enjoy the freedom of ease and comfort.” Here refined meant you bow down and maintain a distance with your back bent low.
“It isn’t generally the case of exemplary manners, in which good manners are shown by superior and older people so as to inspire and impress the lower and younger ones, as it ideally should be and appears to be the case with comparable traditions like gentleman’s manners in Britain.”
This may explain why, in many aspects, our government behaves like an authoritarian body. It is dominated by a civil service and politicians, who are sure of themselves and aristocratic in assumption of both duty and privilege. They are, so to speak, a benevolent authority, modernised by meritocracy, democratised by the public opinion poll and a broadened social conscience, but remaining firmly seated in the old traditions of aristocratic ethos and its alliance with a hereditary social class.
It is inherent in the existence and nature of such a system to create division.
The last decade saw the publication of three different rulebooks on driglam namzha (a fourth is in the making), as well as the introduction of new norms, such as tshoglam, and, recently, coloured kabney, which many say is deepening the classification of Bhutanese society. It runs counter to one of the critical principles of democracy – equality.
Literates today see driglam as a social skill, something you have to learn formally, instead of as good manners you pick up and instil through one’s association with a cultured society. It has become akin to court behaviour and a controlled set of decorum during official days.
Tradition cannot remain static, it must evolve. Dr Karma writes that the spirit and beauty of driglam lies in its spontaneous practice and “inner appreciation as wholesome conduct”. He says formalisation and enforcement of driglam will turn the concept into mechanical acts of obligation and duty.
It is also important that culture does not leave out youth who will react if they perceive that aspects of culture like driglam are against change. The government must look at the rigidity of driglam if it’s to be made palatable to youth.
To challenge PM
The recent row between the Lyonchheon and the opposition leader in Trongsa has got the nation talking. Was that a breach of or unnecessary allegiance to driglam namzha?
It is more important that we focus on issues rather than denigrate the democratic process by making personal attacks, be it inside parliament or outside. There is little measurable difference between moral rightness and social correctness: both are aspects of a higher virtue known as civility. What the opposition leader could have done that day in Trongsa was show basic courtesy to the Lyonchheon (instead of disregarding him) and then challenging him inside the parliament on the relevance of driglam namzha in a democracy. That would have been a dignified and mature response – worthy of an opposition leader.
In the meantime, the debate on driglam namzha must continue, in the broader context of Bhutan’s evolution.
By Kencho Wangdi (Kuenselonline)