Comment by shubhamjain

Comment by shubhamjain a day ago

31 replies

View on Hacker News

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...

tfourb a day ago

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.

Reply View 5 replies
  • rjmunro a day ago

    > solar and wind are now cheaper than hydro in many places.

    It's not possible to run a country entirely on wind and solar, you need backup for when it isn't windy or sunny.

    It is possible to run a country entirely on Hydro. The lake on a hydro electric dam will last for a while - in some cases several months - between needing to be topped up by rainfall.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • jantissler a day ago

      Batteries exist.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • lenkite 21 hours ago

        Batteries need to be manufactured or imported at expense.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • archagon 18 hours ago

        Heh, OP even described a battery in the form of a lake!

        Reply View 0 replies
  • em-bee a day ago

    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.

    Reply View 0 replies
seanmcdirmid a day ago

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.

Reply View 23 replies
  • nephihaha a day ago

    Look what happened to Sikkim, when India annexed it. They have probably been reminded of that.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • badmonster a day ago

    Interesting parallel. Does this reliance limit Bhutan's sovereignty in practice? What's the trade-off?

    Reply View 2 replies
    • sg5421 a day ago

      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).

      Reply View 1 reply
      • tim333 a day ago

        Bhutan is also quite fierce against attempts to take it over. Their main hobby seems to be archery.

        Reply View 0 replies
  • mwnn a day ago

    > support from India, including military protection

    That protection is notional, and the expectation that China (their only other neighbour) is not really going to get aggressive about this peaceful tiny country, but then there’s Tibet as an example. So then why is it notional? If China were to get aggressive, we (India) will not be able to do jack about it because, hell, we couldn’t defend our own territorial claims and have been losing land to China, one outpost at a time. No, not only from the wars from decades ago, but also very recently — yeah, that means even after this omnipotent non-biological entity became our own version of the glorious leader.

    Reply View 18 replies
    • hearsathought 21 hours ago

      > but then there’s Tibet as an example.

      Tibet is an example of china protecting it from british/indian invasion at the request of tibetans. Funny how we don't hear about that part.

      > If China were to get aggressive, we (India) will not be able to do jack about it

      So doesn't that really means china is protecting bhutan?

      > we couldn’t defend our own territorial claims and have been losing land to China,

      It's not really your territorial claim. It's british territorial claims that india decided to take on for themselves.

      Lets stop pretending india is the good guy here. India ain't. It's just selfish interests on all sides.

      Reply View 5 replies
      • lenkite 20 hours ago

        > Tibet is an example of china protecting it from british/indian invasion at the request of tibetans. Funny how we don't hear about that part.

        Have you actually spoken to Tibetan refugees who fled Chinese extermination before you arrived at this crazy world-view ? There were 100,000 of them in India at one point of time. Still ~60k presently. Suggest coming to India and talking to them. You will know what true brutality means.

        > Lets stop pretending india is the good guy here. India ain't. It's just selfish interests on all sides.

        India hasn't annexed and exterminated several hundred-thousand native civilians. China has. Will never claim that India is good, but an objective assessor can definitely know who are the bad guys regarding the conquest of Tibet.

        Reply View 4 replies
    • lenkite 21 hours ago

      The basic problem is Salami Slicing is very difficult to protect against. And China is an expert at this and building infrastructure after point-by-point occupation which then defacto becomes part of their map. India should also do the same thing in return - but it requires way too much long term focus and investment for a democratic government.

      Reply View 11 replies
      • maxglute 20 hours ago

        The basic problem is PRC resolved 12/14 land borders (majority with concessions) and flipping Bhutan would make india the last holdout and the optics of that doesn't work in Indian favour. But Bhutan can't settle bilaterally since they are legally obligated to consider Indian security interests and being landlocked country with India as only feasible access abroad constrains Bhutan from true sovereign decision making. As in they could but they'd be stupid to piss off india especially when disputes invovle trijunction/chicken neck/strategic land. TBH PRC fine with ceding Doklam to Bhutan now (it's not that strategic anymore with how much PRC MIC has advanced), but it's far more useful as barginning chip to try to pressure India to settle broader border disputes with PRC, which India (at least populist Modi) can't because ceding territory is political suicide in democracy even if India gets >50%. Still the pressure point going to keep get pressed, salami going to keep getting sliced until India or Bhutan decides the opportunity costs of not security drama is worth settling. This isn't meant to malign/attribute blame to India (who just has a poor record settling borders, i.e. Bangladesh took 40 years, most of PRCs took 5-10), merely pointing out structurally/politically, it's much more difficult for India to settle border disputes with any loss via dialogue, after 50 years of getting nowhere, for PRC the only strategy left is to stir the pot.

        Reply View 10 replies
jiehong a day ago

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!

Reply View 0 replies