GNH and the Lhotshampa Exclusion

GNH and the Lhotshampa Exclusion refers to the intersection between Bhutan's Gross National Happiness development philosophy and the systematic expulsion of over 100,000 Lhotshampa — ethnic Nepali-speaking Bhutanese, predominantly Hindu — from the country between the late 1980s and mid-1990s. This intersection has been the subject of sustained academic and human rights scrutiny, with scholars arguing that GNH both provided ideological cover for the expulsion and was subsequently inflated by the removal of a marginalized population from the measurement pool.

Historical Sequence

King Jigme Singye Wangchuck first articulated the concept of Gross National Happiness in 1972, stating that "Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross Domestic Product." At this time, the Lhotshampa comprised a significant portion of the population of southern Bhutan, having settled in the region from the late nineteenth century onward — a timeline documented by historian Michael Hutt in Unbecoming Citizens (2003), which challenged the Bhutanese government's characterization of Lhotshampa as recent illegal immigrants.^[1]

The sequence of events that led to mass expulsion began in the 1980s. The 1985 Citizenship Act imposed stringent documentation requirements, demanding proof of residence before 1958 — documentation many Lhotshampa lacked. In 1988, a census in southern Bhutan reclassified thousands of Lhotshampa as "non-nationals" or "illegal immigrants." In 1989, the government introduced the Driglam Namzha cultural code under the "One Nation, One People" policy, mandating the Ngalop national dress and customs for all citizens and removing the Nepali language from the school curriculum.^[2]

Between 1990 and 1993, Bhutanese security forces carried out a campaign of forced expulsion. Lhotshampa were subjected to arbitrary detention, torture, and property confiscation. Many were compelled to sign "voluntary migration forms" under duress before being escorted to the border. By 1996, over 100,000 Bhutanese refugees were living in camps in eastern Nepal administered by the UNHCR.^[3]

The Conceptual Link

Scholars have identified a direct relationship between GNH's philosophical framework and the justification for Lhotshampa exclusion. GNH comprises nine domains, of which "cultural diversity and resilience" has been the most contested. In practice, critics argue, "cultural resilience" was interpreted as the preservation and promotion of Drukpa Buddhist culture — specifically Ngalop dress, language, and customs — at the expense of the country's ethnic and religious diversity.

Meier and Chakrabarti, writing in the Health and Human Rights Journal, argued that Bhutan's GNH framework "prioritizes collective happiness (of the majority citizens) over individual freedoms (of minority populations)," describing a system where development progress is measured in ways that structurally exclude those who have been removed or marginalized.^[4]

André Naffis-Sahely argued in The Baffler that GNH's cultural preservation pillar "provided a justification for ethnic cleansing" by framing the Lhotshampa — with their distinct language, religion, and customs — as threats to national cultural coherence rather than as citizens with legitimate claims to belonging.^[5]

Exclusion from GNH Measurement

The GNH survey, conducted every five years by the Centre for Bhutan Studies, samples approximately 8,000 randomly selected households. The survey covers Bhutanese citizens only. The expelled Lhotshampa — who were stripped of citizenship before or during their expulsion — are by definition excluded from the measurement of national "happiness." This creates a structural paradox: the population that experienced the most extreme government-inflicted unhappiness is precisely the population whose unhappiness cannot register in the national index.

Of the approximately 108,000 refugees who lived in camps in Nepal, over 113,000 were eventually resettled through a UNHCR program beginning in 2007, with the United States accepting approximately 84,819 — the largest share. Australia, Canada, and several European countries accepted smaller numbers. Approximately 6,500 Lhotshampa remain in refugee camps in Nepal as of 2025.^[6]

None of these populations — whether in refugee camps, resettled in third countries, or among the estimated 6,500 still in Nepal — are included in Bhutan's GNH calculations. Critics have described this as measuring the "happiness" of a country after first removing those it made most unhappy.

Refugee and Diaspora Perspectives

For Lhotshampa communities in diaspora, the international celebration of GNH is experienced as a form of erasure. The "world's happiest country" narrative, widely reproduced in international media, makes it more difficult for refugees to gain recognition of the injustices they experienced. When Bhutan is discussed in international forums, the conversation tends to center on GNH, environmental conservation, and Buddhist spirituality — subjects that crowd out discussion of the refugee crisis.

The resettlement itself, while providing physical safety and economic opportunity, did not constitute justice. A 2024 paper in the International Journal of Transitional Justice titled "Transitions without Justice" noted that when Bhutan transitioned from monarchy to constitutional democracy in 2008, the new democratic government maintained the same position as the monarchy on the refugee issue: it did not recognize the expelled Lhotshampa as citizens and refused to allow repatriation. No process of transitional justice, truth-telling, or reparation has been undertaken.^[7]

The mental health impact on resettled refugees has been severe. Bhutanese refugees in the United States have experienced elevated rates of suicide and suicidal ideation, with studies documenting the compounding effects of forced displacement, cultural dislocation, and the absence of accountability or acknowledgment from the Bhutanese state.^[8]

The "Happiness for Whom?" Question

The Lhotshampa exclusion raises a fundamental question about GNH that extends beyond methodology to philosophy: whose happiness counts? When the Fourth King declared that Gross National Happiness was more important than Gross Domestic Product, "national" was an operative word. The subsequent policies of denationalization — stripping citizenship, reclassifying residents as aliens, and physically removing them — determined who would be part of the "nation" whose happiness was measured.

As the UAB Institute for Human Rights noted, "the GNH's benefits — at least for the Buddhist Bhutanese population — have seemingly overshadowed the ethnic atrocity in the public consciousness. Despite being utterly divorced from the reality of well-being for non-Buddhists, GNH has not only provided cover, but also justification for the acts of inhumanity by the Bhutanese government."^[9]

This critique extends to the international community. India, Bhutan's closest ally and primary aid donor, has not pressured Bhutan on the refugee issue. The United States, which accepted the largest number of resettled Bhutanese refugees, has similarly avoided diplomatic confrontation with Bhutan over accountability. Naffis-Sahely argued that Bhutan benefits from geopolitical protection, with strategic interests preventing major powers from pressing for accountability.^[5]

Continuing Exclusion

A 2005 Bhutanese government census classified 13% of Bhutan's resident population as "non-nationals," ineligible to vote and denied a range of rights. This indicates that even among the Lhotshampa who were not expelled, a significant proportion remain in a legally precarious position within the country, their status reflecting the continuation of the policies that produced the refugee crisis.

The Gelephu Mindfulness City (GMC) project, announced in 2023, has drawn additional scrutiny. Planned for southern Bhutan — the region from which most Lhotshampa were expelled — the project envisions a new city of up to one million residents. Exile community voices have raised questions about the ethics of developing land from which people were forcibly removed without any process of restitution or acknowledgment.^[10]

See Also

• Criticism of Gross National Happiness
• Ethnic Cleansing of Lhotshampa in Bhutan
• Bhutanese Refugees
• Lhotshampa
• Driglam Namzha

References

1. Unbecoming Citizens: Culture, Nationhood, and the Flight of Refugees from Bhutan — Michael Hutt, Oxford University Press (2003)
2. Bhutan's Dark Secret: The Lhotshampa Expulsion — The Diplomat (2016)
3. Bhutan's Ethnic Cleansing — Human Rights Watch (2008)
4. The Paradox of Happiness: Health and Human Rights in the Kingdom of Bhutan — Meier & Chakrabarti, Health and Human Rights Journal (2016)
5. The Mismeasure of Bhutan — André Naffis-Sahely, The Baffler (2025)
6. Resettlement of Bhutanese Refugees Surpasses 100,000 Mark — UNHCR
7. Transitions without Justice: Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal — International Journal of Transitional Justice (2024)
8. Suicide and Suicide-related Behavior among Bhutanese Refugees Resettled in the United States — PMC
9. Bhutan: Persecution in Paradise — UAB Institute for Human Rights (2021)
10. The Hidden Costs of Bhutan's Gelephug 'Mindfulness City' — Sapan News (2025)