OPTIONS FOR THE BHUTANESE REFUGEES IN NEPAL- Update
No. 25.
by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan
The optimism expressed by the Bhutanese refugees on
the verification process appears to be totally misplaced and it is
becoming increasingly clear that Bhutan is not going accept any of the
refugees back to Bhutan. The reasons for the refugees to lose all hopes
are
* The verification process appears to heave been
abandoned after the first camp at Kudenabari was completed in
December 2001.
* Nepal which appears to have been trapped in the
so-called categorisation of refugees is caught up in the semantic
definition of "harmonisation" little realisng that this
step was suggested by Bhutan to delay the process as much as
possible.
* Bhutan on the excuse that Nepal is passing
through political turmoil has sought to win over senior politicians
of Nepal by wining and dining them The "charm offensive
included" an audience with the King.
* Bhutan has gone about in a systematic way to
destroy all buildings, gardens, fields and remnants of dwellings of
the refugees- the result- the refugees will not be able to identify
their places of residence now. Meantime, the Royal government of
Bhutan is desperately trying to locate the reluctant northerners in
southern Bhutan. The northerners being used to a colder
climate are unwilling to move south. They are being showered with
incentives and where this fails with threats to move south. By
any international standards this process of driving out lawful
citizens of specific ethnicity and making the lands and places
available to another group of different ethnic origin is nothing but
ethnic cleansing.
* The UNHCR which has
been feeding the refugees all along, has expressed a view that it
cannot go on feeding the refugees indefinitely and that it is time
that the refugees are permanently settled. They were thinking
of Nepal or any other third country. This appears to be the
view of other donor countries also. No country would be more
grateful that Bhutan as this would legitimise its blatant illegal
action in evicting the innocent people of southern Bhutan.
It appears that the Bhutanese refugees have been
abandoned finally. The refugees to their
credit have behaved themselves in an exemplary manner. The UNHCR
had some role to play in maintaining discipline in the camps.
Strict control was maintained and anyone who left the camp to indulge in
any political activity was not allowed to return and the rations for
him/her was denied. Now, if the rations are denied for the whole
lot of hundred thousand refugees in the camps without proper acceptable
resettlement or return to Bhutan, what would they do? The leadership of
the refugees in the camps is going into the hands of the younger
reactionary generations. No one can predict at this stage what
will happen.
The refugees themselves, unless they are forced or
threatened would not like to go back any where else other than their own
places in southern Bhutan. After all in the verification done so
far in one camp they have proved with documents that they were genuine
citizens in spite of strict citizenship laws proclaimed by the Bhutanese
government from time to time.
Let us look at the citizenship law itself and how
progressively Bhutan tired to place more hurdles on the Lhotsampas in
gaining their citizenship.
* In 1958, the Nationality law permitted the
Nepalese migrants to attain citizenship after residing in Bhutan 10
years and owning agricultural land.
* The 1977 Citizenship Act dramatically increased
the period of residence for citizenship to 20 years and added a new
requirement that the applicants should be able to write and speak
Dzongkha and have some knowledge of Bhutan.
* The 1985 Act was made more stringent requiring
sound knowledge of Bhutanese history, culture, customs and
traditions and the ability to speak, read and write Dzongkha
well. Anyone born after 1958 and had only one Bhutanese parent
also had to apply for naturalization. Additional requirements
included good moral character, no criminal record or record of
disloyalty to King, country and people. All these are
subjective conditions.
It could be seen that these citizenship laws were made
more and more stringent to exclude the poor uneducated sustenance
farmers of Nepalese origin.. Is this not one form of ethnic cleansing?
It looks that the international community is not doing
enough for the Bhutanese refugees. The UN General Assembly
resolution unanimously adopted in 2000, designated June 20 as
"World Refugee Day". The UN High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) Rudd Lubbers on the Refugees Day, had hoped that over
100,000 Bhutanese refugees languishing in eastern Nepal would be able to
repatriate to their homeland before the next Refugee day is
observed. Denmark, the largest donor to Bhutan and the next
President of European Union has done nothing so far. . Members of the
Bhutan Refugee Support Group (BRSG) referred to the "massive
resettlement exercise on southern Bhutan which belongs to the Lhotsampas"
on the World refugee Day. The German envoy on briefing the Press after
the visit of EU delegation to Jhapa and Morang districts is said to have
remarked that the international community was not giving enough
attention to the vexed Bhutanese refugee problem. But words will not
do. They will have to put more pressure on both Bhutan and Nepal
to settle the issue amicably to the satisfaction of everyone including
the refugees themselves.
It is tempting to say that the frustrated refugees
particularly the younger lot would take recourse to violence if the
problem is allowed to linger on. It is our view that the Refugees
have not done enough to internationalise the issue. Secondly
violence is no solution as it would only destabilise the entire Nepali
population not only in southern Bhutan but also in Nepali dominated
areas of North Bengal, Sikkim and eastern Nepal. There are enough
legal, political and diplomatic means available to solve the problem.
India’s role is crucial. We
have said it before and we say it again emphatically. It is within
India’s means to solve the refugee problem in a very short time if it
wants to. But it is not doing, we suspect, because of its close
relations with Bhutan and India does not want to offend Bhutan.
But let us see what Bhutan is doing in return.
Kuensel dated July 6, 2002 gives details of discussion in the National
Assembly of Bhutan on the question of the militant (ULFA) problem in
southern Bhutan. The question was whether the ULFA had vacated the
four camps as promised in the minutes of June 2001 and where they had
gone. The general opinion was that though the four camps had been
vacated, the militants most probably had gone to other camps within
southern Bhutan and that they are still in Bhutan because of the fact
that the Indian security forces on the border are alert and that the
militants are unable to leave.
Anyone familiar with southern Bhutan are aware that
the border is porous and that the security forces cannot cover the
entire area. Secondly the ULFA camps are bringing their rations
and other supplies from India without any check from Bhutanese
authorities. If the ULFA cadres wanted to leave Bhutan they could
do so as they are in process of setting up camps in Bangladesh.
Instead what do we see in the Bhutan Foreign minister’s statement in
the assembly? We quote the Kuensel of July 6, 2002, page 4.
The foreign minister, Lyonpo Jigmi Thinley,
pointed out that several Chimis had implied that the government of
India might somehow be involved in the infiltration of the militants
into Bhutan. Some had also implied that Indian security forces
were stopping the militants from leaving Bhutan. Some members
had even suggested that if Bhutan could not rely on its good
friend in the south, Bhutan should look towards the north.
(Emphasis ours)
No Chimi would dare to talk against India unless he
had the expert permission or acquiescence of the Palace. This
should be noted by the Indian authorities.
