From UN Sales Pitch to Reality: The Questions Behind Bhutan’s Gelephu Mindfulness City

Bhutan’s Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay used his address to the 81st United Nations General Assembly on 22 September to promote Gelephu Mindfulness City as the centrepiece of the country’s economic transformation. Calling himself a “salesman”, he invited investors, businesses and entrepreneurs to “come and build it with us”. But behind the ambitious presentation are questions about land, displacement, the environment, public finances, governance and human rights.

By RB Chhetri

Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay’s address to the UN General Assembly on 22 September was largely a pitch for Bhutan’s new economic vision. At its centre was Gelephu Mindfulness City, or GMC, a planned economic centre in southern Bhutan, close to the Indian border. The IMF puts the proposed area at about 2,600 square kilometres. Tobgay described GMC as a different kind of economic centre, bringing together investment, technology, clean energy, environmental protection, Buddhist values and what he called human flourishing. He said GMC would have autonomy in governance, legislation and the judiciary, describing it as an “institutional blank slate” where new systems could be developed. He cited Singapore and Abu Dhabi as examples Bhutan could learn from. He also appealed directly to investors.

Bhutan wants international capital, businesses, technology and skilled people to come to Gelephu. But behind that appeal are questions investment figures alone cannot answer.

A blank slate, but for whom?

Calling GMC an “institutional blank slate” may appeal to investors looking for a new regulatory environment. But Gelephu is not an empty piece of land. People live there. Families farm there. Businesses have operated there for years. Communities have their own histories and ties to the land.

The question is therefore not simply what new institutions can be created, but how they will protect people whose lives are affected by the development. Who can challenge a decision made by GMC authorities? How will land and compensation disputes be settled? Which courts will deal with those cases? How will GMC’s legal system work alongside Bhutan’s existing courts?

These are basic questions for any area given substantial administrative and legal autonomy.

The land question

Land is likely to be one of the most difficult issues surrounding GMC. The Bhutan Watch has examined the project and its potential social and environmental consequences in its report GMC: A Challenging Vision. Its 2026 human rights report also discusses land acquisition and displacement associated with the project. Reports by the South China Morning Post and scroll.in have also featured former Bhutanese residents of Nepali origin who say that land in or around the GMC area once belonged to their families.

But when ownership is disputed, there needs to be a process to properly examine claims. If Bhutan wants GMC to be seen internationally as a model, how it handles such claims will matter.

Compensation is more than a payment

Compensation is not simply a question of how much money someone receives for land. For a farming family, land can mean food, income, security and a future for their children. For a small business, its location can be central to its survival.

Money paid for the loss of property does not necessarily replace the livelihood it supported. If people are offered replacement land, financial compensation or tokenised ownership, they need to know precisely what they are being offered. They should know how the value is calculated, whether it can be sold or inherited and what legal protection comes with it.

Independent legal and financial advice would also give affected families a better basis for making decisions.

The airport shows the scale of the project

The proposed international airport indicates the scale of the development planned around GMC. As construction moves forward, the authorities will have to balance major infrastructure projects with the interests of landowners and local communities.

Relocation cannot be measured simply by the number of houses built or the amount of money paid.

The real question is whether families can keep earning a living and maintain a secure life after they move.

Tokenisation needs clarity

Tokenisation has been presented as one of the new ideas associated with GMC. But new technology does not remove the need for clear rules. People whose land is affected need to understand what a token actually represents, how its value is set, whether it can be transferred or inherited and what happens if its value falls.

If the system is too complicated for ordinary landowners to understand, it could create more uncertainty rather than less.

A new house does not replace a livelihood

Relocation also has a social cost. Moving can mean losing farmland, customers, jobs, neighbours and established community networks. A new house can replace a building. It cannot necessarily replace the economic and social life built around it.

If GMC is to be described as a sustainable development project, the effect on displaced families should be followed over time, including their income, employment and ability to rebuild their lives.

Who will get the jobs?

Tobgay presented GMC partly as a response to the large number of young Bhutanese leaving the country in search of work and better opportunities. The IMF has also identified youth emigration as an important economic challenge and said GMC could help attract investment, diversify the economy and create jobs. But investment alone does not guarantee that local people will benefit. Will young Bhutanese have the skills needed for the new jobs? What training will be available? What wages and working conditions will workers receive? Will communities around Gelephu benefit directly from the new businesses?

If GMC is meant to help keep young Bhutanese in the country, these questions matter.

Nature needs more than promises

Environmental protection was a major part of Tobgay’s UN speech. He spoke about forests, rivers, elephants and tigers and said: “We will not build over it. We will build within it and protect it.” That is a clear commitment. But a project of this size will need more than assurances.

Environmental impact assessments, biodiversity studies, water assessments and long-term monitoring will be necessary. The public should also be able to see whether commitments made during the planning process are being followed once construction begins.

The Bhutan Watch has already raised concerns about the environmental and geographical challenges of developing such a large project in southern Bhutan.

Saying that GMC will be environmentally sustainable is one thing. Showing that it is sustainable over time is another.

What about the carbon footprint?

Bhutan’s renewable energy resources can help reduce emissions from operating the city. But building it will require cement, steel, machinery, roads, bridges and other infrastructure on a very large scale. The airport and other major projects will also have an environmental cost.

If GMC is to be described as carbon negative, the calculation should include construction emissions as well as those produced once the city is operating.

Flood risk

Gelephu lies in southern Bhutan, where heavy monsoon rainfall and rivers are part of the natural environment. Large-scale development, including roads, buildings and an airport, will inevitably change drainage patterns and the movement of water. Climate change adds another uncertainty.

Flood modelling, drainage and climate resilience therefore need to be considered alongside the economic plans for GMC.

The IMF’s concerns

The IMF has recognised that GMC could attract investment and help diversify Bhutan’s economy. At the same time, it has identified fiscal and financial risks that will need careful management. The IMF has also said the legal framework governing GMC’s relationship with the rest of Bhutan needs greater clarity, including rules on labour, goods, and capital movements. It has also raised financial-sector and crypto-related risks.

Those concerns do not answer whether GMC will succeed. They show why strong safeguards will be important as the project develops.

Who carries the risk?

Tobgay told the UN that Bhutan was “all in”. For investors, that was clearly intended as a statement of commitment. For the public, another question follows: what happens if investment does not arrive at the expected level?

How much public money is being committed? What guarantees has the government given? Could the state eventually be left with financial liabilities? The IMF has stressed the importance of controlling the fiscal risks associated with GMC. The scale of the project makes transparency about those risks particularly important.

A new financial centre needs strong regulation

GMC is intended to attract financial businesses, technology companies and digital industries. That creates opportunities, but it also places demands on regulators. A financial centre needs effective supervision, transparency, anti-money laundering controls and enforcement.

The IMF has highlighted risks connected with the financial sector and crypto activities in Bhutan and stressed the importance of effective supervision. The issue is not whether Bhutan should use new technology. The question is whether its regulatory institutions can keep up with the companies and financial activities GMC hopes to attract.

Autonomy must come with accountability

Tobgay described GMC as a special administrative region with autonomy in governance, legislation and the judiciary. He also referred to the idea of “one country, two systems”. That raises practical questions. Who appoints GMC’s authorities? Who holds them accountable? What happens when a resident, business or landowner believes a decision is unlawful? Which court has the final authority? These questions will matter to residents as well as investors. A special legal system needs clear checks and balances from the outset.

The human rights question

One issue that received little attention in Tobgay’s UN presentation was Bhutan’s political prisoners. On 21 September, Human Rights Watch called on Bhutan to release all remaining political prisoners and said at least 28 were still detained. The organisation has raised concerns about lengthy imprisonment, prison conditions, medical care and family contact.

Two political prisoners, Chatur Man Tamang and Hasta Bahadur Rai, were released in June 2026 after nearly two decades in prison. Human Rights Watch said 28 political prisoners remained at the time. This raises a wider question for a country presenting itself as a model of development based on wellbeing and values. What does that commitment mean for people who remain in prison due to their different political opinions?

What does “human flourishing” mean?

Human flourishing was a recurring theme in Tobgay’s description of GMC. The phrase raises a simple question: what does it mean in practice? Does it mean better jobs, modern infrastructure, clean energy and access to technology? Or does it also include due process, freedom, family contact, humane prison conditions and respect for human rights?

The question is relevant to Bhutan’s broader claim that its development model is about wellbeing as well as economic growth.

The refugee issue has not disappeared

GMC is being developed in southern Bhutan, a region closely connected to the country’s unresolved refugee history. More than 100,000 Bhutanese refugees were eventually resettled in third countries after years in camps in Nepal, while several thousand remain in the camps. Majority of them came from southern Bhutan including from Gelephu. For these communities and their families, the transformation of southern Bhutan inevitably brings the past into the discussion about the future.

Economic development and historical accountability do not have to be treated as opposing goals.

Bhutan can pursue GMC while also addressing unresolved questions surrounding displacement and the rights of people affected by it.

From presentation to scrutiny

Tobgay’s UN speech was clearly intended to attract international attention and investment. He presented Bhutan as a stable country with clean energy, political stability, environmental values and a willingness to create new institutions around a new economic centre. It is a large undertaking.

But investors will not be the only people watching what happens in Gelephu. Landowners, local communities, workers, environmental organisations, human rights groups and Bhutanese citizens will also be watching.

The Bhutan Watch has raised concerns about the project’s social and environmental impact. The IMF has pointed to fiscal, financial and legal risks. Human Rights Watch continues to raise concerns about political prisoners. These issues do not by themselves answer whether GMC will succeed.They do show why the project will face scrutiny as well as promotion.

What should happen next?

If Bhutan wants international investors to come to GMC, greater transparency would help. Bhutan should make information about land acquisition and compensation public. Historical land claims should have access to a credible and independent process. Environmental assessments and monitoring should be available for public scrutiny. The legal relationship between GMC and the rest of Bhutan should be clearly defined.

The government should also disclose its financial exposure to the project and ensure that financial and regulatory safeguards develop alongside its ambitions. Most importantly, people affected by the development should have a meaningful say in decisions that will change their lives.

Tobgay invited the world to become “co-founders” of this vision. The international community may take an interest in that vision. But the project will ultimately be judged not only by the investment it attracts, the buildings it creates or the technology it introduces. It will also be judged by what happens to the people living on the land where it is being built.

The real test of Gelephu Mindfulness City will not take place at the United Nations. It will take place in Gelephu. That is where the sales pitch will meet reality.