The Bhutanese Leading the way.
Following last week’s report on a mother’s appeal to the Sarpang Dzongkhag Court seeking recognition of a link between her 17-year-old son’s death by suicide, and an alleged assault at his monastery, new developments indicate that the monastic body will initiate its own disciplinary proceedings.
The Child Care and Protection Office (CCPO) under the Zhung Dratshang has completed its investigation into the battery case involving a Kudrung (senior monk/teacher) and confirmed that separate disciplinary action will be taken against him.
This action will be independent of the case currently under appeal before the Sarpang Dzongkhag Court.
The CCPO clarified that the use of excessive physical force is strictly prohibited within the monastic institution. It also stated that the widespread belief that the Dratshang Lhentshog permits physical punishment as a disciplinary practice is incorrect.
“Except the principles of compassion, beating is not part of our disciplinary system,” an official stated.
The CCPO highlighted that since its establishment in 2009, and with significant improvements made from 2016 onwards, efforts have been made to eliminate physical punishment. It added that such practices are not only unacceptable, but also discourage children and their parents from enrolling in monastic institutions.
Following the incident, officials conducted field investigations and reiterated that any form of corporal punishment is not allowed. They also stressed that the perception of physical punishment being a long-standing cultural practice in monastic institutions is false.
“We promote positive discipline to guide monks without the use of force,” the official said.
Currently, the CCPO is visiting various dratshangs across the country to raise awareness and advocate against such disciplinary practices.
After reviewing the court’s judgment, the Zhung Dratshang will convene a high-level meeting involving senior monks to deliberate on appropriate action against the Kudrung.
The office also shared details regarding life insurance and entitlements (thopthang) for monks. Registration with Dratshang Lhentshog is mandatory to qualify for such benefits. Each dratshang is responsible for registering its monks.
According to officials, in cases of death within institutions in Thimphu and Punakha, if a parent of a registered monk dies, the monk receives Nu 100,000. In the event of a monk’s death, the parents are entitled to Nu 300,000 (Nu 100,000 from the institution and Nu 200,000 from insurance).
In other dratshangs, the amount may vary but generally starts at Nu 100,000.
However, in the current case, the minor had not been registered with Dratshang Lhentshog.
Officials stated that the dratshang’s administrator had failed to complete the registration, rendering the family ineligible to claim life insurance benefits.
Sarpang Lam Neten reiterated that all dratshangs must update monk registration details with the Zhung Dratsang. He confirmed that the lapse in registration invalidated the family’s entitlement to insurance.
Following the minor’s death, the Sarpang Zhung Dratshang division conducted all funeral rites, including the 21-day mourning rituals (Gewa).
According to a senior monk, expenditures exceeded Nu 200,000, excluding an additional Nu 100,000 provided as Semso (condolence money).
RBP’s explains why their investigation did not establish causal link between battery and suicide
Meanwhile, police sources explained why their investigation did not establish a causal link between the battery and the suicide, an issue now central to the mother’s appeal.
According to police, there was a 15-day gap between the assault and the death. During this period, there was no contact between the deceased and the Kudrung, either in person or through communication.
The Dungkhag Court judgment also noted that, based on police findings, the suicide was attributed to personal and social factors, leading to closure of that aspect of the case.
Police sources stated that these factors included alleged relationship issues involving a girl and tensions with elder siblings.
Investigations further revealed that on the day before his death, the minor had been dropped near the dratshang by his elder brother after informing the family that he had been called for a mask dance (Cham) practice. However, police found that monks from the dratshang were attending an event in Thimphu at the time.
Police also stated that although the dratshang had initially decided not to accept the boy back due to prior disciplinary issues, it later expressed willingness to readmit him or assist in transferring him to another monastery based on his interests.
However, police emphasized that they could not charge the Kudrung in connection with the suicide due to lack of evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In contrast, the battery charge was substantiated by medical reports and the Kudrung’s admission.
Mother questions institutional accountability
The mother, however, continues to question institutional accountability.
She raised concerns over the failure to register her son with Zhung Dratshang, which deprived the family of insurance benefits.
She said, “If my son’s details were not registered by the Dratshang, whose responsibility was it? If he was not considered a registered monk even after nearly three years, why was he subjected to such punishment?”
She said that had she been informed earlier about the lack of registration, she would have enrolled her son in another monastery.
Reiterating her earlier claims, the mother said her son had visited the dratshang a day before his death.
She believes that if he had been allowed to rejoin, as previously assured, he would not have fallen into despair.
She maintained that her son never expressed any intention to leave monastic life, and had not mentioned any relationship with a girl.
Even after the assault, she said, he remained committed to becoming a monk.
She also refuted claims of family conflict, stating that her elder children never mistreated their younger sibling. Instead, they later told her that when they found him near the dratshang gate, he appeared withdrawn, silent, and emotionally low. When questioned, he declined to explain what had happened.
Reflecting on the funeral rites conducted by the dratshang, the mother said it was appropriate for the institution to carry them out, as her son had been doing well prior to the incident.
She added that she actively participated in the 21-day mourning rituals, contributing both financially and materially.
The incident first came to light on 31st October 2025, when the mother visited her son at the monastery and discovered signs of physical assault. After obtaining permission, both parents took him to the hospital, where they were advised to report the matter to the police before treatment.
As the case now proceeds before the Sarpang Dzongkhag Court, the mother continues to seek acknowledgment of what she believes is a direct link between the assault, subsequent events, and her son’s death along with accountability beyond the battery charge already established.
