Gross National Happiness in Bhutan: Is Buddhist Constitutionalism Legitimate in the Age of Secularism? A Post-Colonial View

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Addressing the role of GNH and the Constitution is interesting and worth doing. However, it would strengthen the article if you would do the following:

1: Be clear about the focus and purpose of the article. You provide a lot of information but you need to consider what is and what is not relevant or useful for your argument and presentation. Consider the title and the introduction carefully.

2: It is unclear what ethical approval and steps you took to ensure informed consent. Unpack the ethical basis of the research. 

3: The tables are unclear and it is too often left to the reader to interpret the information - you need to perhaps limit the tables. 

4: The discussion of Buddhism needs to be more nuanced. Bhutan is not the only Mahayana Buddhist country and there are wide differences in practice. It would be more appropriate to note that it is the last independent Vajrayana Buddhist country and its two main schools. Table 2 is Pali and whilst the Four Noble Truths are mentioned, it is less usual to see the Eight Foldpath in the texts usually used. Tailor this to how Buddhism is understood in Bhutan without relying on general sources. 

5: Take more time to think about what is it you need to tell the reader about the system of government established in the mid-seventeenth century by the Zhabdrung. What was continued under the monarchy established, after the collapse of the dual system, in 1907. 

6: The central core of the article needs to be reframed to bring out the main focus. The discussion of criminal law and the provision of details needs to be balanced out with analysis or with key findings from your interviewees (it should also be noted it is unclear why you include non-Bhutanese in the interviews).

7: in the sections on GNH what is your contribution away from using materials already available to the reader? This is not clear. 

8: The conclusion is too broad and this comes back to thinking about what it is you are trying to say in this article? What is its novel contribution (at present that is very hard to see). To do this, take more time to look at your own data and less on what others say. You draw too heavily on Kinga and others and more importantly, be critical of them.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for your many detailed remarks, which helped me restructure the article and bring out the argument more clearly. Please know that I am not a religions scholar and the research is not meant to be a data-based, anthropological research (see last point), but a counterargument of certain critics of postcolonialism and of the Bhutanese constitutional system. It is sent in at the invitation of the journal who knows that I am not a theological scholar but an interdisciplinary legal and development scholar dealing with religions/philosophies of the Global South.  To highlight all the changes, I have sent in a track-changes version.

1. I have altered the title. I have added the questions that will be addressed in the introduction. And added an explanation of the paragraphs at the end of methodology to help the reader. I have also added literature on the post-colonial argument.
2. I have added a clarification about the interview ethics
3. The tables have been typeset by the journal, and are indeed less clear now. I cannot alter them so I have added instructions how to alter them for the typesetters. Table 2 has been replaced by one on the six perfections, to match the text. Table 3 and 4 for I have added an extra column for explanation. Table 6 has been deleted. I have added more explanation with Figure 1.
4. I have added an explanation about Buddhism in Bhutan in the introduction, mentioning the two strands and the difference with Theravada Buddhism. Table 2 has been replaced and the text has been modified to explain the 6 perfections. The para on Buddhism is introductory.
5. I have added what was continued under the monarchy. This para is also introductory to give the context for the para on the current system.
6. I have deleted the discussion on criminal law. My interviews were about GNH in general and not specifically on the topic of secularism and theocracy; therefore, they are illustrative, supplementary material but the core argument is based on the literature. [I have added a note on why some non-Bhutanese were included]. I have restructured the text and the titles of the paragraphs to bring out the argument more clearly. I feel it is important to address these issues in coherence with one another, rather than taking out one provision of the constitution (like proselytization) and deal with it in isolation. I want to give a holistic view on the role of religion in the Bhutanese constitution.
7. The para on GNH and the accompanying table) is needed to illustrate the extent to which GNH is incorporated in the constitution, as the spiritual core, as some authors argue that Bhutan is therefore a theocracy. The results of GNH are briefly discussed in another para, which I have now moved up; I cannot go into that too deeply in this article. The para on the GNH index is necessary because I refer to the outcomes of the survey later.
8. I have moved parts of the concluding remarks up so that the discussion on democracy is all in one paragraph. The novel contribution of this article is that I counterargue certain critics of the secularity of Bhutan, notably Lee and Gallenkamp from a post-colonial perspective. Lee expressly attacks post-colonialism, therefore I am publishing an article that counterargues his criticism. I do not think it is fair to say that I am not adding anything new because I did not find an article counter-argueing the criticism of these authors. (I am happy to receive extra literature suggestions). Some authors like Kinga I have mainly used as an introduction to the subject. At the same time I have also made critical remarks of the policy of Bhutan, in a separate para, of which the issue of citizenship is extremely sensitive. I also recognize that there are restrictions on Christians that do not apply to Hindus but not as much as to warrant the position that Bhutan is not a secular state and/or a theocracy in its constitution. Human rights are also part of many constitutions worldwide and not always lived up to in practice for 100%, which obviously warrants criticism at implementation.
9. As I have explained above this is not an anthropological or theological research, proving a point with interview data but mainly a literature-based argument based on a larger research on development and legal theory and Buddhist philosophy. I am not a religions scholar, so I am sorry if I have not added anything new to your field or created the impression that this is a data-based research mainly. The journal invited me to write a feature article knowing that I am an interdisciplinary scholar from a different field. If the reviewer still disagrees with the position taken, I invite reviewer to counterargue it after publication. As a post-colonial scholar, I meet fierce resistance from many corners (and then deep gratitude from other corners after publications), but I think it is fair to also make this voice heard. I have also added more literature to substantiate the argument. (NB this scholar is in background Christian so no hostility in this regard).

 

I sincerely hope that I have brought out the argument more clearly and convinced reviewer though I have not substantially narrowed the scope of the article. I want to give a holistic view of the issue and put it into a broader geopolitical context. I know that it complicates the argument but I do feel that it is necessary. Perhaps reviewer feels that it then does not belong in a religions journal but that would be up to the journal to decide.

Thank you once again and best regards.

                                                                                                                                

Reviewer 2 Report

The author gives a satisfactory description of Buthan's social, cultural, and political context. However, he does not go deep in the discussion about religious freedom and Religious pluralism as core traits of democracy. Besides, most Christian proselytism in this phase of modernity has its origins in the global South (Brazil, South Corea, for example). It is not just a question of Western post-colonialism. 

The author seems too much concerned in legitimize Buthan's "democracy", based on its definition of the Gross National Happiness indicator, rather than making a deeper reflexive exercise on the issue. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions. I have added new literature in the field that you mention but please note that my article is not a theoretical debate on the issue of religious pluralism as core trait of democracy but an examination of the religious extent of the Bhutanese constitution and whether that warrants the criticism of being a non-secular state and/or a theocracy (see also below). I have extensively restructured the article to bring out the argument and the purpose more clearly. To this end, I sent in a track-changes version of the text. Please note that the tables must be updated by the typesetters, since I cannot modify them. I have also made more clarifications on the issue of Buddhism in Bhutan at the request of reviewer 1 and on the tables, the interviews and the post-colonial context. If reviewer disagrees with the post-colonial position taken, I invite reviewer to write a criticism after publication of the article.

1. Thank you very much
2. See below.
3. Thank you for bringing up this interesting point. The fact that proselytism comes from the Global South as well, does not alter the argument. Countries like South-Korea and Brazil were themselves part of the (neo)colonial enterprise and the accompanying civilizing mission of Christianity, ‘developing’ nations. In Brazil and Latin-America and the Caribbean even to such an extent that one could say there was a cultural genocide by wiping out most of the indigenous population (in the Caribbean virtually all). If those who were the subject of the civilizing mission or the descendants of the colonizers now engage in the continuation of this mission, it is still falling under the post-colonial argument. More-over, this colonizing mission endured for centuries and shaped the mindset of those countries who underwent it and those who escaped it like Bhutan. Preserving one’s culture and identity is the main argument from Bhutan. Those who were the (neo)colonizing powers still hold positions of power in every sphere, including science, education, development and negotiations on international frameworks. I have added a para on these issues in the part on methodology, I have also expressly added a sentence on evangelization from the Global South.
4. (and 2). I am not a religions scholar, but a developmental and legal scholar dealing with religions/philosophies of the Global South, that was invited by the journal to write a feature article. The purpose of this article is not discussing religious theory but discussing the question whether there is space for Buddhist law/policy making within the secularism and human rights debate, and examining the specific implementation of Buddhist values in Bhutan. The novel contribution of this article is that I counterargue certain critics of the secularity of Bhutan, notably Lee and Gallenkamp from a post-colonial perspective. Lee expressly attacks post-colonialism, therefore I am publishing an article that counterargues his criticism. I did not find an article counter-argueing the criticism of these authors. Reviewer criticizes me as wanting to legitimize GNH. I do not think that is a fair criticism. I think I I have made a balanced review of both sides. I have made critical remarks of the policy of Bhutan, in a separate para, of which the issue of citizenship is extremely sensitive (and unwelcome). On these issues the author does not side with the Bhutanese argument, but puts the argument in a larger context than religion. I also recognize that there are restrictions on Christians that do not apply to Hindus but not as much as to warrant the position that Bhutan is not a secular state and/or a theocracy in its constitution. Human rights are also part of many constitutions worldwide and not always lived up to in practice for 100% which obviously warrants criticism at implementation. Please note that this is not an anthropological or theological research, proving a point with interview data, but mainly a literature-based argument based on a larger research on development and legal theory and Buddhist philosophy. I am sorry if I have not added anything new to your field. The journal invited me to write a feature article knowing that I am an interdisciplinary scholar from a different field. I did add more literature to give context (and am happy to receive other suggestions).

I sincerely hope that I have brought out the argument more clearly. I have also added more literature to substantiate the argument.

thank you once again and best regards.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has carried out major changes to the article. These have improved it generally and made the claims stand more fully supported. There is some tidying up of full stops etc, but that can easily be done once the changes are accepted and the author carefully reads through.

There remain an error in regard a reference to Khilnani line 309 and line 716. It is an edited volume by Khilnani etc and the chapter four's author's name should appear rather than the editors as it is not they that refer to Bhutan as a nascent democracy. 

Author Response

No new report has been submitted in round 2, I have improved the references and typos.