The Bhutanese Leading the way.
The Tsirang Dzongda’s move to stop Rajen Tamang’s religious gatherings has split Bhutan down a fault line. The constitutional promise of religious freedom versus the cultural fear of conversion and proselytism. Both sides claim legality and both say they protect harmony. However, only one fully respects process and proportionality.
Article 7 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, religion and peaceful assembly subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. Article 3 recognises Buddhism as the nation’s spiritual heritage, but it also obliges the State to protect all religions. The Penal Code’s Section 463A criminalizes coercive or inducive conversion but not peaceful, voluntary worship. That distinction matters.
The Dzongda’s fear, echoed by many Bhutanese, is not fiction. Bhutan for a long time and especially in recent years has worried about aggressive proselytism destabilising social cohesion. In this context the preemptive caution of the Dzongkhag can look like responsible administration, but fear, without evidence, is not a legal standard. If there is no proof of coercion, inducement, disorder or incitement, the State’s power to curtail a private, peaceful gathering is narrow.
Compounding this is the Tsirang District Court’s May 2025 ruling, which held that the disputed basement is permitted for general commercial use, is not a Karaoke and ordered utilities restored. The Dzongkhag did not appeal within 10 days. Continuing to block the gathering after that verdict on the grounds that the basement is a Karaoke invites allegations of administrative overreach and possibly even contempt of court.
Could the Religious Organizations Act 2007 rescue the Dzongda? It could, only if the gathering is, in substance, an unregistered religious organization conducting public religious activity or fundraising. Small private worship typically falls outside that net. Likewise, the Local Government Act and licensing powers allow regulation of land use and business activity but not a unilateral rewrite of what a court has already clarified.
There is, however, a middle path. The administration can insist on transparency and compliance and get written undertakings against coercive proselytism, ensure fire-safety and occupancy numbers. This approach addresses genuine social concerns while staying within constitutional bounds.
Bhutan’s test here is not whether we fear conversion. It is whether we trust our Constitution and our courts enough to let evidence, not sentiment, decide when the State may intrude on faith. True harmony isn’t manufactured by force. It is negotiated openly, lawfully, and with equal respect for the majority’s heritage and the minority’s rights.
“To the wise, a word is sufficient.”
– John Lackland