BHUTAN: 15th Ministerial meeting at Thimpu on
refugees: Break through? Update
35
by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan
A rather desperate reader had once accused the South Asia Analysis
Group of unnecessarily raising the hopes of the poor refugees when there
was no chance of Bhutan taking any refugee back. It is in this context
that we would like to look at the results of the 15th
ministerial meeting.
Before official reports came in, the Kathmandu Post quoting foreign
office spokesman of Nepal said that
1. There has been an agreement on swift repatriation of all refugees
of categories one, two and four from the Kudenabari camp.
2. Bhutan has agreed to acquit all the refugees in category four
except for the "criminal chieftains."
This was too good to be true and it is not clear why the foreign
ministry spokesman mislead the Press and the refugees. Once before
we had seen, UNHCR representative Ms.Ogata who was privately promised a few
years back that Bhutan would take back all the refugees making a grand
declaration only to realise that she had been fooled. .
But we had our doubts and we had reasons. The last issue of Kuensel
made a strange case of welcoming the internationalisation of the refugee
issue. It said
"It appears that we need a new perspective on what we all agree
is a serious humanitarian problem. It is time perhaps, to draw back and
take a broader view of the problem. It is time to accept the realities
and adopt a doable approach."
(So far so good)
"The essence of a durable solution is that it must not
destabilize any of the countries involved. It must ensure the stability
of the region and therefore international interests. Otherwise, it would
not be a solution."
The "catch" is therefore in the second part that a solution
should not destabilize the region, which in actual fact means
destabilize Bhutan.
We have heard this argument before that the return of all the refugees
( estimated at 145,000- 100,000 in camps, 10,000 outside in Nepal and
another 25,000 in India) will destabilize the social fabric of Bhutan and
whatever may be the reasons for their expulsion, Bhutan is in no position
to take back the bulk of the refugees. Bhutan has convinced the Indian
authorities on these lines and it appears to be one of the reasons why
India has so far refused to get involved in the refugee crisis. The Indian
NGOs who are normally vocal and vociferous on issues not so important have
surprisingly been silent on the ethnic cleansing that has taken place in
Bhutan.
The Joint Press Release on the meeting.
The official Press release justified our doubts. There has been
no change in the stand of Bhutan in taking back the refugees. The
relevant decisions taken were
* The appeals submitted by people under category 3 (
non Bhutanese) will be considered by the JVT by the end of January 2004.
* The family members of persons in category 4 (
those involved in the so called criminal acts) will not be prosecuted upon
return to Bhutan.
* People in categories 1,2 and 4 who
voluntarily apply to return to Bhutan will be repatriated as per the
harmonised position on these categories. (emphasis ours)
* Sanichare camp has been selected for the next
verification.
It is clear from above, that the position of Bhutan government with
respect to category 2 which forms the bulk of the refugees has not
changed. The issue here is not whether the refugees under category 2
are volunteering to go back but whether they voluntarily left their homes
for leading their life in the refugee camps. If they were forced to
leave their home and properties, they are entitled to go back as full
citizens. The question of their volunteering to go back, apply for
citizenship and wait for another two years does not arise. We have
discussed this in our previous updates 186
and 189.
It was thought that only Bhutan government had short changed the refugees
and it is getting clearer that Nepal in no small measure appears to follow
the same way.
What is the way out for the refugees?
Now the refugees themselves have become very active as they feel that
having waited for justice for twelve long years, it is now necessary for
them to seek the help of international bodies, donors and NGOs to get them
back to their home land with dignity and honour.
There has been gross injustice to the refugees. There has been proven
ethnic cleansing and there have been human rights abuses. It has taken so
long for the international agencies to get activated, when they were quick
to act on such problems in other regions. They owe an explanation to the
poor refugees who have waited for over twelve years for a reasonable
solution.
Six leading NGOs, the Jesuit Refugee Service, Amnesty International,
Habitat international Coalition, Human Rights Watch, Lutheran World
Federation and Bhutanese Refugee Support group made a joint appeal to the
donor countries ( Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Nederland, Japan,
USA and UK) to convene an international conference to solve the
long-standing refugee crisis.
In the 54th Executive Committee meeting of UNHCR in Geneva,
the Chief Ruud Lubbers asked both Nepal and Bhutan to come out with
concrete results or "face action that could go any length." He
pointed out that UNHCR was kept out of the process of verification and
also denied access to potential areas of return of refugees to Bhutan. He
made three points in the meeting-
* to promote projects of social integration of refugees with Nepali
Society.
* to support resettlement for vulnerable cases.
* assist in verifying whether those who wish to remain in Nepal do so
voluntarily.
All the three points are not clear to us. Does UNHCR believe that all
the categories 1, 2 and 4 of Kudenabari camp would like to remain in
Nepal? If there is a prospect of the refugees getting back their land and
of being settled in their places of residence, none of them except those
married to the locals would like to stay in Nepal. What are the vulnerable
cases? On what basis does one call such cases vulnerable?
T.N.Rijal in Kathmandu: T.N.Rijal who was once unceremoniously
arrested and sent to Bhutan by the Panchayat regime in 1988, has mustered
enough courage to enter Nepal once again. He has met both G.P.Koirala and
Madhav Nepal, leaders of two leading political groups. He is said to have
appealed to the leaders to keep the democratic movement and fight for
basic human rights in Bhutan. Rijal is said to have met Prime minister
Surya Bahadur Thapa also. It is not the time for Rijal who is heading the
human rights group of Bhutan to discuss about political issues. The urgent
need is to get the refugees back to their homes. Taking any other issue at
this point of time would only confirm the fears of Bhutan that the
refugees on their return would "destabilize " the region.
Camps of Indian militant Groups in Bhutan: While Bhutan and India
have gone out of the way to ensure smooth relations between the two, it is
the problem of the camps of Indian militant groups in southern Bhutan
which is likely to sour the relations between the two.
There are 21 and odd Indian militant camps in southern Bhutan. Though
the militants belong to three groups, the ULFA, the NDFB and KLO ( United
Liberation Front of Assam, National Democratic Front of Bodoland and
Kamatipur Liberation Organisation ), of the three thousand present, more
than half of them are from ULFA.
While India has been insisting that Bhutan should take specific steps
to evict the militants, the King on the other hand believes that by
talking to them, the militants could be persuaded to leave Bhutan
voluntarily. In the last assembly session at Thimpu, it was decided that
Bhutan should make one more attempt to talk to the militants. But the
militants are not likely vacate the camps by any amount of sweet talk.
Bhutan by itself is in no position to evict the militants forcibly.
Bringing the Indian troops into Bhutanese soil is not an attractive
proposition. Joint operations will be one way of dealing with the issue
Then Bhutan will have to think of its citizens in southern Bhutan who
normally transit through Indian territory to reach other remote regions in
Bhutan. It is therefore unreasonable for India to insist on Bhutan using
force to remove the militants all by itself unless some face saving device
is thought of to get Indian assistance. The most important aspect to the
whole issue is that Bhutan by its ethnic cleansing has antagonised the
inhabitants of southern Bhutan. Any operation of the kind planned against
the Indian militant groups would need the support and assistance of the
people in southern Bhutan. Can Bhutan expect such support in south now?
