Dear Reader,
You are here because you either heard about Bhutan or the so-called Bhutanese Refugees. With the recent resettlement program offered by countries led by the USA, the so-called Bhutanese Refugees have reached many foreign lands from where they have sped up their smearing campaign against Bhutan using falsified information and lies. We, the people of Bhutan, no doubt sympathize with the plight of these people, but the lies and false information spread by these people may come to be believed as the 'truth' unless we offer the other side of the story too to the world. This website was born to meet this need and as such, we provide here links to many well-researched articles written by reliable scholars and journalists. In the end, truth must be told, and it must be the truth that should prevail.
While we the peace-loving people of Bhutan sit comfortably at home in the Himalayas, oblivious to what is happening around the world, the so-called Bhutanese refugees resettled in countries around the world are actively spreading false information about Bhutan. They continue telling the world media that Bhutan is a despotic kingdom which has committed "ethnic cleansing" and is continuing to discriminate ethnic Nepalese. And they write that they were in Bhutan from the time of the Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel (1594 - 1651) - the founder of the modern Bhutanese State.
These claims of Nepalese being in Bhutan at the time of Zhabdrung are far from the truth. Except for a few Newari craftsmen who came to build statues in some monasteries, no big group of Nepalese came to Bhutan during the time of Zhabdrung. These Newari craftsmen often left after the projects were completed, or even if they did, they did not settle in the south where most of the recent immigrants settled. Even if we were to agree that these craftsmen did settle in the south, how would a few Newari craftsmen multiply into so many Nepalese (over 150,000) in a few decades?
According to historical records left by British Officials Charles Bell and John Claude White, the first time Nepalese were spotted in Bhutan was around 1904 and 1905. Those few groups of Nepalese who were initially brought into southern Bhutan legally as labourers were known as 'Tangyas'. The 'Tangyas' and even those who followed them were granted citizenship by an Act of the National Assembly in 1958. So these people are genuine citizens of Bhutan. But the problem arose because many illegal immigrants seeped into Bhutan through the porous international border until as late as the early 1980s.
Having just started modern economic development in 1961, Bhutan lacked the resources as well as manpower to effectively administer, control and manage immigration across the porous border in the 1960s, 70s and early 80s. This was being taken full advantage of by the illegal immigrants. To take stock of this unchecked illegal iratmmigration going on in the south, the Citizenship Act of 1985 was passed. It granted Bhutanese citizenship to all Nepalese immigrants, resident in Bhutan before 31 December 1958 in keeping with the spirit of the resolution of 1958. Any immigrant who came after this date were to be considered illegal and sent back to their original place.
Following this, a census was carried out and when many illegal immigrants caught, some refugee-leaders-to-be made a big political agitation with their support base in the neighbouring Nepali dominated areas of Kalimpong and Darjeeling. And that is how the southern Bhutan problem of the 1990s started.
This coincided with the time when they had their own big plan too. According to a journalist, "Leaving Bhutan in droves was Stage I of the Plan. Coming back to Bhutan in force of numbers and on their terms was supposed to be Stage II.
Many of the refugees-to-be wholeheartedly supported this plan. The concept of a Greater Nepal featured prominently in the delusions of the Nepalese diaspora those days, encouraged no doubt by the successes of the Gorkhaland movement in Darjeeling and Kalimpong. Many of them relished the idea of Bhutan going the Sikkim way. Kanak M. Dixit, a prominent editor from Nepal even wrote a cover page article on Bhutan revealingly titled “House of Cards” that seemed to foresee imminent collapse in Bhutan (Kanak Mani Dixit: House of cards: fearing for Bhutan. Himal Vol.7 No 4, July/August 1994.). Such sentiments had to be carefully hidden however, and not surprisingly were heatedly denounced as some Bhutan Government's bogey.
Despite the fact that their leaders had a big role to play in leading Nepalese out from Bhutan to Nepal for their 'big plan', the refugees keep claiming that they were forcefully evicted by the Bhutanese military. In this age of information, such lies can do great harm to Bhutan if we do not take measures to tell our side of the stories too. There is a risk that even our own people (especially the younger generation) would be misinformed.
Every country has its own immigration laws. Bhutan was only trying to implement its immigration laws. All countries deport illegal immigrants. Bhutan only wanted the illegal immigrants to go back to where they came from. In that respect, Bhutan did not do anything wrong. The need for Security Clearance also exists even in developed countries for the security of the country.
People are naturally attracted to peaceful places with economic opportunities. This is the reason why many people from poor and chaotic countries are trying to go to the US. In South Asia, without doubt, Bhutan is the best country to live in. So, it is only natural that it will attract illegal immigrants from the crowded surrounding areas. And it indeed did. And if we are not careful, more illegal immigrants will come in the future too.
To make the matter worse, Bhutan's population is too small to absorb any large number of immigrants. We have the real risk of becoming a minority in our own land. Remember that there are around 30 million Nepalese in Nepal and over 10 million ethnic Nepalese settled in Indian states bordering Bhutan. Compare this with just around 0.6 million of us in Bhutan. We are like just a drop in the ocean. For our culture's continuity and country's future survival, we have to understand this fact and never take things for granted. This does not mean that we have to discriminate against Bhutanese of Nepalese origin. Not at all. We have to respect them and treat them like you would treat any other Bhutanese (This is happening now as any visitor to Bhutan would testify), but we just have to be aware of our country's problems from a global perspective whether it is to find solutions to existing problems or to forge ahead with the vision of Gross National Happiness.
Please enjoy browsing through the articles and papers in the website from the menu on the right pane of this website.
Truly yours,
Pelden Drukpa.
2010年7月31日土曜日
2010年7月29日木曜日
How the refugees left Bhutan
"The Samtse Dzongda informed the people’s representatives that since he took office inSamtse in 1992, about 400 Lhotshampas from his Dzongkhag had emigrated and left forNepal despite all efforts to dissuade them from leaving. After registering themselves inthe refugee camps in eastern Nepal, some of these people have been coming back tocarry out terrorist activities in the Dzongkhag. He also informed the Assembly that over 20 Indian journalists and 14 Western journalists have visited Samtse Dzongkhag to seethe true situation for themselves. Members of international organisations and nongovernmentalorganisations, and officials from foreign embassies have also visited Samtse. They have all seen and studied the situation and know the true facts, including whether people have been forcefully evicted or not.
For instance, in May 1994, 269 persons from Dorokha Dungkhag came to Samtse and insisted on emigrating to Nepal despite every effort by all of us in the Dzongkhag Headquarters to persuade them to withdraw their applications, he said. Even after reading to them a Kasho sent by His Majesty the King appealing to them not to leave and exempting all rural taxes for three years to all those who withdrew their applications, only 32 persons accepted His Majesty’s Kasho and stayed back. All the others left for Nepal. Journalists and NGO members who have met these people and interviewed other emigrants and their neighbours know whether they were forced to leave or left of their own free will."
Please read below to find out more:
Title: Outside agencies providing assistance to the ngolops should be given clearinformation and true facts about the ngolops
Excerpted from: TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE 73RD SESSION OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF BHUTAN HELD
FROM10TH AUGUST TO 2ND SEPTEMBER, 1995.
The people’s representatives of Lhuntsi Dzongkhag and the representative of Khibisa,Lajab and Tshangkha gewogs in Dagana Dzongkhag pointed out that in the past fewyears people from the southern Dzongkhags had emigrated and left the country despiterepeated appeals made by the government not to leave. These people even ignored thepersonal appeals made to them by His Majesty the King through his Kashos and whenhe visited the southern Dzongkhags to meet the emigrants and asked them not to leavethe country. They even threatened local authorities and other villagers who tried todiscourage them from emigrating and left for Nepal after taking Kidu Soilra.
Lhotshampa civil servants who have stolen government funds also absconded to Nepalwhile other Lhotshampas had left after terrorising and robbing the villagers. After going to Nepal, these people have registered themselves as refugees by claiming to have beenforcefully evicted and making other false allegations against the Royal Government.
The people’s representatives said that they are shocked that these people have beengiven refugee status by international organizations and that their cause is beingsupported by the Nepalese government. If they had been forcefully evicted they wouldhave stayed across the border in India. Why go all the way to Nepal? Many of thesepeople who are registered in the refugee camps in Nepal have been sneaking back intothe country to carry out terrorist acts such as murder, rape, armed robbery anddestruction of development facilities. Such terrorist acts by the ngolops have been goingon for several years now. The people’s representatives asked the government to clearlyinform all the foreign agencies providing assistance to the ngolops about the seriouscrimes being constantly committed by these people. They said that the Nepalesegovernment and international organisations like the UNHCR should reconsider theirposition on this issue on the basis of the true facts.
The Home Minister acknowledged that there was much substance to the points raised bythe people’s representatives of Lhuntsi and Dagana Dzongkhags. Despite all the effortsmade by the government to dissuade them, most of the Lhotshampas who had applied toemigrate had left the country for Nepal. Many of these people have since been comingback to carry out terrorist raids inside Bhutan, he said. Giving a summary of the terroristactivities perpetrated uptil August, 1995, the Home Minister informed the NationalAssembly that the ngolops had committed 68 confirmed murders and 960 cases ofdacoity and armed robbery. They had burnt down or destroyed 66 private houses,hijacked 62 vehicles and destroyed another 36. They had also physically attacked andinjured 664 Bhutanese nationals and carried out 65 ambushes and attacks on the securityforces and government officials. The Home Minister also informed the members that112 terrorists had been apprehended and handed over to the police by the villagevolunteers in the southern Dzongkhags.
The Home Minister said that the terrorists and ngolops are persons who have stolengovernment funds, have incurred large loans and debts or were involved in criminalactivities while they were in Bhutan. The reason why all those who leave Bhutan gostraight to Nepal is because the ngolop leaders have been telling them to come to therefugee camps where they will receive free food and housing, free education for theirchildren, free health facilities and even free kerosene oil and soap, he said. They are alsoprovided free transport from Bhutan to the camps in eastern Nepal. All it takes for them to be accepted in the camps in Jhapa, is to be of Nepalese origin and to declare they areBhutanese refugees. As a result of this, many unemployed and destitute ethnicNepalese from Nepal and the nearby areas have congregated in the camps in easternNepal claiming to be Bhutanese refugees. Among this group of people claiming to beBhutanese refugees are many labourers brought from Nepal and the neighbouring areasby the Nepalese Baidars to work in Bhutan on development projects and who have sincereturned. The Home Minister agreed that it is indeed very important to apprise alloutside agencies helping the ngolops about these facts.
The Home Minister informed the members that several non-governmental organisations,some UN agencies and a few countries are involved in giving assistance to the people inthe refugee camps in eastern Nepal. Some of them are extending assistance out ofgenuine humanitarian concern while some are doing so to proselytise their own faith,and some others for political reasons. All of them are now aware that there are people inthe refugee camps in Nepal who are not really Bhutanese, he said. The Nepalesegovernment is also aware of this fact. However, the Nepalese government and theconcerned organisations continue to extend their support because they find it difficult towithdraw after being involved in establishing and running the camps over the last fouryears. The Home Minister assured the people’s representatives that the Royal Government has been making every effort to keep the agencies and organisations involved in the refugee camps properly informed about the true facts regarding thengolops and their activities.
The people’s representatives of Lhuntsi and Dagana Dzongkhags said that while theycould understand the position of the concerned organisations if the people in the campshad been forced to leave Bhutan, they are utterly shocked that people who refused toremain in the country when His Majesty the King himself had repeatedly appealed tothem not to leave have been given refugee status and are receiving assistance from theseorganisations and the Nepalese government. They once again emphasised the need toproperly apprise these agencies and the Nepalese government about the true factsregarding the ngolops.
The Samtse Dzongda informed the people’s representatives that since he took office inSamtse in 1992, about 400 Lhotshampas from his Dzongkhag had emigrated and left forNepal despite all efforts to dissuade them from leaving. After registering themselves inthe refugee camps in eastern Nepal, some of these people have been coming back tocarry out terrorist activities in the Dzongkhag. He also informed the Assembly that over 20 Indian journalists and 14 Western journalists have visited Samtse Dzongkhag to seethe true situation for themselves. Members of international organisations and nongovernmentalorganisations, and officials from foreign embassies have also visited Samtse. They have all seen and studied the situation and know the true facts, including whether people have been forcefully evicted or not.
For instance, in May 1994, 269 persons from Dorokha Dungkhag came to Samtse and insisted on emigrating to Nepal despite every effort by all of us in the Dzongkhag Headquarters to persuade them to withdraw their applications, he said. Even after reading to them a Kasho sent by His Majesty the King appealing to them not to leave and exempting all rural taxes for three years to all those who withdrew their applications, only 32 persons accepted His Majesty’s Kasho and stayed back. All the others left for Nepal. Journalists and NGO members who have met these people and interviewed other emigrants and their neighbours know whether they were forced to leave or left of their own free will.
He agreed with the people’s representatives that it is indeed shocking to see the Nepalesegovernment and the concerned outside agencies according refugee status and givingassistance to people who have emigrated from the country despite every effort topersuade them to stay back, especially when many of these very people have beencoming back to carry out terrorist activities inside Bhutan.
The representative of the Bhutan Chamber of Commerce and Industry reminded theNational Assembly that in October, 1991, Prime Minister G.P. Koirala of Nepal had clearly stated in a BBC interview that in 1952 he had helped to organise the first attemptby the Lhotshampas to rise against the Royal Government of Bhutan which had giventhem shelter and Kidu when they came to the country without any possessions to theirnames. It is very significant also, he said, that the relatives of some of the ngolop leaders today were involved in this attempt organised by the former Prime Minister of Nepal.
Persons carrying out ngolop activities as well as those who have been taking Kidu Soilra and emigrating have all been going straight to Nepal because they are beinggiven full support and encouraged to come there. It is important that these facts areexplained clearly to all those who are extending assistance to the ngolops, he said. Speaking on the issue, the Foreign Minister assured the people’s representatives that thecountries and international organisations and agencies giving assistance to the people inthe refugee camps in Nepal have been kept informed about the true facts regarding thengolops.
He said that one of the main reasons why some of the organisations areextending assistance to the people in the camps is to proselytise and convert as many ofthem as possible in return for free handouts of food and clothing, free education andhealth facilities, and other incentives. He informed the members that more than 3,000people in the camps have already been converted to Christianity. Some of theorganisations and countries involved in giving assistance to the people in the camps aredoing so for political reasons and others because all the people in the camps are ethnicNepalese, he said.
The Samdrupjongkhar Dzongda recalled that in February 1992, His Majesty the Kingtoured all the villages in Bhangtar, Daifam and Samrang by foot to meet with theLhotshampas who had applied to emigrate and appealed to them to stay back. Whilethese people assured His Majesty that they would not leave, the moment His Majestyreturned to Thimphu they all insisted on emigrating and pressed for their applications tobe processed without delay. Members of the media and foreign organisations who havevisited southern Bhutan are fully aware of the true facts since they have carried out theirown study of the situation and have also observed the emigration procedures and seenall relevant records and documents. Since some international organisations andcountries are giving assistance to these people who have left Bhutan on the basis of theirfalse allegations against the Royal Government, it is necessary to make them understandthat there are really no grounds at all for treating these people as refugees, he said.
The National Assembly resolved that the Royal Government must make every effort toclearly brief the international agencies and countries extending assistance to the peoplein the refugee camps in Nepal about the ngolops and their true motives and activities.The National Assembly also resolved that when the Nepal-Bhutan talks are held, theNepalese government must also be clearly briefed about the above views and concernsexpressed by the people’s representatives.
---------------------
The complete text (155 pages) of TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE 73RD SESSION OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF BHUTAN HELDFROM10TH AUGUST TO 2ND SEPTEMBER, 1995 can be found on this link: http://www.nab.gov.bt/downloads/1673rd%20Session.pdf
For instance, in May 1994, 269 persons from Dorokha Dungkhag came to Samtse and insisted on emigrating to Nepal despite every effort by all of us in the Dzongkhag Headquarters to persuade them to withdraw their applications, he said. Even after reading to them a Kasho sent by His Majesty the King appealing to them not to leave and exempting all rural taxes for three years to all those who withdrew their applications, only 32 persons accepted His Majesty’s Kasho and stayed back. All the others left for Nepal. Journalists and NGO members who have met these people and interviewed other emigrants and their neighbours know whether they were forced to leave or left of their own free will."
Please read below to find out more:
Title: Outside agencies providing assistance to the ngolops should be given clearinformation and true facts about the ngolops
Excerpted from: TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE 73RD SESSION OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF BHUTAN HELD
FROM10TH AUGUST TO 2ND SEPTEMBER, 1995.
The people’s representatives of Lhuntsi Dzongkhag and the representative of Khibisa,Lajab and Tshangkha gewogs in Dagana Dzongkhag pointed out that in the past fewyears people from the southern Dzongkhags had emigrated and left the country despiterepeated appeals made by the government not to leave. These people even ignored thepersonal appeals made to them by His Majesty the King through his Kashos and whenhe visited the southern Dzongkhags to meet the emigrants and asked them not to leavethe country. They even threatened local authorities and other villagers who tried todiscourage them from emigrating and left for Nepal after taking Kidu Soilra.
Lhotshampa civil servants who have stolen government funds also absconded to Nepalwhile other Lhotshampas had left after terrorising and robbing the villagers. After going to Nepal, these people have registered themselves as refugees by claiming to have beenforcefully evicted and making other false allegations against the Royal Government.
The people’s representatives said that they are shocked that these people have beengiven refugee status by international organizations and that their cause is beingsupported by the Nepalese government. If they had been forcefully evicted they wouldhave stayed across the border in India. Why go all the way to Nepal? Many of thesepeople who are registered in the refugee camps in Nepal have been sneaking back intothe country to carry out terrorist acts such as murder, rape, armed robbery anddestruction of development facilities. Such terrorist acts by the ngolops have been goingon for several years now. The people’s representatives asked the government to clearlyinform all the foreign agencies providing assistance to the ngolops about the seriouscrimes being constantly committed by these people. They said that the Nepalesegovernment and international organisations like the UNHCR should reconsider theirposition on this issue on the basis of the true facts.
The Home Minister acknowledged that there was much substance to the points raised bythe people’s representatives of Lhuntsi and Dagana Dzongkhags. Despite all the effortsmade by the government to dissuade them, most of the Lhotshampas who had applied toemigrate had left the country for Nepal. Many of these people have since been comingback to carry out terrorist raids inside Bhutan, he said. Giving a summary of the terroristactivities perpetrated uptil August, 1995, the Home Minister informed the NationalAssembly that the ngolops had committed 68 confirmed murders and 960 cases ofdacoity and armed robbery. They had burnt down or destroyed 66 private houses,hijacked 62 vehicles and destroyed another 36. They had also physically attacked andinjured 664 Bhutanese nationals and carried out 65 ambushes and attacks on the securityforces and government officials. The Home Minister also informed the members that112 terrorists had been apprehended and handed over to the police by the villagevolunteers in the southern Dzongkhags.
The Home Minister said that the terrorists and ngolops are persons who have stolengovernment funds, have incurred large loans and debts or were involved in criminalactivities while they were in Bhutan. The reason why all those who leave Bhutan gostraight to Nepal is because the ngolop leaders have been telling them to come to therefugee camps where they will receive free food and housing, free education for theirchildren, free health facilities and even free kerosene oil and soap, he said. They are alsoprovided free transport from Bhutan to the camps in eastern Nepal. All it takes for them to be accepted in the camps in Jhapa, is to be of Nepalese origin and to declare they areBhutanese refugees. As a result of this, many unemployed and destitute ethnicNepalese from Nepal and the nearby areas have congregated in the camps in easternNepal claiming to be Bhutanese refugees. Among this group of people claiming to beBhutanese refugees are many labourers brought from Nepal and the neighbouring areasby the Nepalese Baidars to work in Bhutan on development projects and who have sincereturned. The Home Minister agreed that it is indeed very important to apprise alloutside agencies helping the ngolops about these facts.
The Home Minister informed the members that several non-governmental organisations,some UN agencies and a few countries are involved in giving assistance to the people inthe refugee camps in eastern Nepal. Some of them are extending assistance out ofgenuine humanitarian concern while some are doing so to proselytise their own faith,and some others for political reasons. All of them are now aware that there are people inthe refugee camps in Nepal who are not really Bhutanese, he said. The Nepalesegovernment is also aware of this fact. However, the Nepalese government and theconcerned organisations continue to extend their support because they find it difficult towithdraw after being involved in establishing and running the camps over the last fouryears. The Home Minister assured the people’s representatives that the Royal Government has been making every effort to keep the agencies and organisations involved in the refugee camps properly informed about the true facts regarding thengolops and their activities.
The people’s representatives of Lhuntsi and Dagana Dzongkhags said that while theycould understand the position of the concerned organisations if the people in the campshad been forced to leave Bhutan, they are utterly shocked that people who refused toremain in the country when His Majesty the King himself had repeatedly appealed tothem not to leave have been given refugee status and are receiving assistance from theseorganisations and the Nepalese government. They once again emphasised the need toproperly apprise these agencies and the Nepalese government about the true factsregarding the ngolops.
The Samtse Dzongda informed the people’s representatives that since he took office inSamtse in 1992, about 400 Lhotshampas from his Dzongkhag had emigrated and left forNepal despite all efforts to dissuade them from leaving. After registering themselves inthe refugee camps in eastern Nepal, some of these people have been coming back tocarry out terrorist activities in the Dzongkhag. He also informed the Assembly that over 20 Indian journalists and 14 Western journalists have visited Samtse Dzongkhag to seethe true situation for themselves. Members of international organisations and nongovernmentalorganisations, and officials from foreign embassies have also visited Samtse. They have all seen and studied the situation and know the true facts, including whether people have been forcefully evicted or not.
For instance, in May 1994, 269 persons from Dorokha Dungkhag came to Samtse and insisted on emigrating to Nepal despite every effort by all of us in the Dzongkhag Headquarters to persuade them to withdraw their applications, he said. Even after reading to them a Kasho sent by His Majesty the King appealing to them not to leave and exempting all rural taxes for three years to all those who withdrew their applications, only 32 persons accepted His Majesty’s Kasho and stayed back. All the others left for Nepal. Journalists and NGO members who have met these people and interviewed other emigrants and their neighbours know whether they were forced to leave or left of their own free will.
He agreed with the people’s representatives that it is indeed shocking to see the Nepalesegovernment and the concerned outside agencies according refugee status and givingassistance to people who have emigrated from the country despite every effort topersuade them to stay back, especially when many of these very people have beencoming back to carry out terrorist activities inside Bhutan.
The representative of the Bhutan Chamber of Commerce and Industry reminded theNational Assembly that in October, 1991, Prime Minister G.P. Koirala of Nepal had clearly stated in a BBC interview that in 1952 he had helped to organise the first attemptby the Lhotshampas to rise against the Royal Government of Bhutan which had giventhem shelter and Kidu when they came to the country without any possessions to theirnames. It is very significant also, he said, that the relatives of some of the ngolop leaders today were involved in this attempt organised by the former Prime Minister of Nepal.
Persons carrying out ngolop activities as well as those who have been taking Kidu Soilra and emigrating have all been going straight to Nepal because they are beinggiven full support and encouraged to come there. It is important that these facts areexplained clearly to all those who are extending assistance to the ngolops, he said. Speaking on the issue, the Foreign Minister assured the people’s representatives that thecountries and international organisations and agencies giving assistance to the people inthe refugee camps in Nepal have been kept informed about the true facts regarding thengolops.
He said that one of the main reasons why some of the organisations areextending assistance to the people in the camps is to proselytise and convert as many ofthem as possible in return for free handouts of food and clothing, free education andhealth facilities, and other incentives. He informed the members that more than 3,000people in the camps have already been converted to Christianity. Some of theorganisations and countries involved in giving assistance to the people in the camps aredoing so for political reasons and others because all the people in the camps are ethnicNepalese, he said.
The Samdrupjongkhar Dzongda recalled that in February 1992, His Majesty the Kingtoured all the villages in Bhangtar, Daifam and Samrang by foot to meet with theLhotshampas who had applied to emigrate and appealed to them to stay back. Whilethese people assured His Majesty that they would not leave, the moment His Majestyreturned to Thimphu they all insisted on emigrating and pressed for their applications tobe processed without delay. Members of the media and foreign organisations who havevisited southern Bhutan are fully aware of the true facts since they have carried out theirown study of the situation and have also observed the emigration procedures and seenall relevant records and documents. Since some international organisations andcountries are giving assistance to these people who have left Bhutan on the basis of theirfalse allegations against the Royal Government, it is necessary to make them understandthat there are really no grounds at all for treating these people as refugees, he said.
The National Assembly resolved that the Royal Government must make every effort toclearly brief the international agencies and countries extending assistance to the peoplein the refugee camps in Nepal about the ngolops and their true motives and activities.The National Assembly also resolved that when the Nepal-Bhutan talks are held, theNepalese government must also be clearly briefed about the above views and concernsexpressed by the people’s representatives.
---------------------
The complete text (155 pages) of TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE 73RD SESSION OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF BHUTAN HELDFROM10TH AUGUST TO 2ND SEPTEMBER, 1995 can be found on this link: http://www.nab.gov.bt/downloads/1673rd%20Session.pdf
2010年7月25日日曜日
Non-discrimination of ngolops' relatives in civil service
"The Deputy Minister (of Royal Civil Service Commission) said that while he shared the concerns of the people, the Royal Government has always followed one policy for all Bhutanese and in keeping with this policy, the induction, training and promotions of civil servants by the RCSC has been based purely on merit.
Despite the ngolop problem in southern Bhutan, and the considerable risk and embarrassment to the Royal Government over the past five years on account of Lhotshampa civil servants absconding, the RCSC has, on the command of His Majesty the King, not resorted to any discriminatory measures against the Lhotshampas. Out of 11,793 Bhutanese in the civil service today, 3,179 are from southern Bhutan, he said.
Since 1990, 1,061 Lhotshampas have been inducted into the civil service and 784 Lhotshampa civil servants have been promoted by the Ministries and the RCSC. 441 Lhotshampas have been sent abroad for training out of which 59 are students sent to study in professional fields. On the other hand, the Deputy Minister said, 465 Lhotshampa civil servants have absconded during the same period, many of them with large amounts of government funds and assets, and hundreds have resigned to join the ngolops."
Excerpted from: TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE 73RD SESSION OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF BHUTAN HELD FROM10TH AUGUST TO 2ND SEPTEMBER, 1995.
------------------------------------------------
The complete (155 pages) of the TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RESOLUTIONS can be found on this link: http://www.nab.gov.bt/downloads/1673rd%20Session.pdf
Despite the ngolop problem in southern Bhutan, and the considerable risk and embarrassment to the Royal Government over the past five years on account of Lhotshampa civil servants absconding, the RCSC has, on the command of His Majesty the King, not resorted to any discriminatory measures against the Lhotshampas. Out of 11,793 Bhutanese in the civil service today, 3,179 are from southern Bhutan, he said.
Since 1990, 1,061 Lhotshampas have been inducted into the civil service and 784 Lhotshampa civil servants have been promoted by the Ministries and the RCSC. 441 Lhotshampas have been sent abroad for training out of which 59 are students sent to study in professional fields. On the other hand, the Deputy Minister said, 465 Lhotshampa civil servants have absconded during the same period, many of them with large amounts of government funds and assets, and hundreds have resigned to join the ngolops."
Excerpted from: TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE 73RD SESSION OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF BHUTAN HELD FROM10TH AUGUST TO 2ND SEPTEMBER, 1995.
------------------------------------------------
The complete (155 pages) of the TRANSLATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RESOLUTIONS can be found on this link: http://www.nab.gov.bt/downloads/1673rd%20Session.pdf
2010年7月21日水曜日
Minister's report about JVT attack to 82nd National Assembly
"At Khudunabari camp, on December 22, (year 2003), the Bhutanese officials, having already expressed their security concerns in writing to their Nepalese counterparts, began their briefing. About half an hour into the briefing they were attacked by the people in the make-shift hut, joined by most of the 12,000 people outside who also stormed in.
One Bhutanese official collapsed on the floor after he was struck on the head. The crowd punched and stoned the Bhutanese officials and beat them with bamboo sticks. After three officials were injured and the Bhutanese vehicles damaged, they managed to escape to the Lifeline Hospital in Damak town. In the early hours of December 23 the Bhutanese officials left Damak on the instructions of the royal government which had arranged an Indian security escort from the Nepal border to Phuentsholing. "
- Excerpted from Kuensel (10 July 2004).
In the 82nd National Assembly session held in July 2004, Foreign Minister Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk made a detailed report on the attack on the Bhutanese members of the Joint Verification Team (JVT) at Khudanbari camp on 22 December 2003. Here are some excerpts from the Kuensel news report titled "Assembly calls for proper investigation into JVT attack and action against perpetrators" published on 10 July 2004:
He (Foreign Minister) traced the origins of the camps to January, 1991, when the first group of people claiming to be refugees were allowed to enter Nepal. Bhutan’s attempts to prevent the establishment of camps and facilities that might attract the poor masses in the region were ignored.
It was only in July, 1993, that proper screening procedures for people claiming to be Bhutanese refugees were introduced. Until then the screening of such people were given to the people in the camps who were themselves claiming to be refugees. Once proper screening procedures were introduced there was a dramatic drop in the entry of people into the camps.
He then explained the bilateral process as the two governments met in July, 1993, and established the ministerial joint committee (MJC) that had, over the years, achieved several significant steps towards a durable solution to the problem
The MJC had categorised the people and harmonised the positions of the two governments on each category, established the joint verification team (JVT), and agreed that the solution would be found within the framework of the laws in the two countries.
The JVT started work at Khudunabari camp in March, 2001, and the results of its work was confirmed during the 15th MJC held in Thimphu in October, 2003. Among several significant decisions taken by the MJC, it was agreed that the repatriation of those found eligible would begin in February, 2004.
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk said that the attack on the Bhutanese members of the JVT took place when the JVT returned to Nepal for the final assignments mandated by the MJC. At Khudunabari camp, on December 22, the Bhutanese officials, having already expressed their security concerns in writing to their Nepalese counterparts, began their briefing. About half an hour into the briefing they were attacked by the people in the make-shift hut, joined by most of the 12,000 people outside who also stormed in.
One Bhutanese official collapsed on the floor after he was struck on the head. The crowd punched and stoned the Bhutanese officials and beat them with bamboo sticks. After three officials were injured and the Bhutanese vehicles damaged, they managed to escape to the Lifeline Hospital in Damak town. In the early hours of December 23 the Bhutanese officials left Damak on the instructions of the royal government which had arranged an Indian security escort from the Nepal border to Phuentsholing.
“What happened on December 22 was a failure of the Nepalese government to honour its responsibility towards the safety and security of the Bhutanese officials,” said the foreign minister. “But we are proud of the courage, dedication, and dignity with which our officials conducted themselves and appreciate the understanding with which their family members endured the constant worry over their safety.”
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuck submitted to the Assembly a detailed report of the actions taken by the government after the incident.
The government was, at that time, pre-occupied with the military operations. On being informed of the attack the foreign ministry issued a press release and the foreign minister called his counterpart on the same day to express his regret over the incident and to explain the withdrawal of the Bhutanese officials. The government had raised the issue with the Nepalese leaders during the 12th SAARC summit in January and the two foreign ministers met again at the BIMST-EC meeting in Thailand in February.
The foreign minister said that he had conveyed to his Nepalese counterpart that the December 22 incident was very serious as the Bhutanese members of the JVT could have been killed. The Bhutanese people were shocked and angered by the incident and could not understand the violent behaviour of the people in the camp when the process had reached the last stage and could only be of benefit to them. He expressed his conviction that the incident was pre-planned and premeditated and not provoked as it had been alleged by groups in Nepal with vested interests. The terms and conditions read out at the camp were not new because copies had been handed over to them as far back as June.
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk said that he had expressed his surprise and regret that an enquiry, that should have been a normal step, had not been initiated. He requested the Nepalese government to conduct a thorough enquiry into the incident, to punish the perpetrators, and to put in place safety and security measures before resuming work.
“The last time our officials had been lucky to escape with their lives but the same cannot be taken for granted in the future,” he said. Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk said that the Nepalese foreign minister had expressed his regret over the incident and also his doubts whether an investigation would be of any use. While there was no communication from Nepal for the next two months the Nepalese media had described the incident as a “minor scuffle” and the international community raised concerns about the stalled bilateral process.
“We have always maintained that we are committed to the bilateral process and the agreements reached during the 15th MJC meeting are a clear confirmation of our seriousness in seeking a lasting solution to the problem,” he said. “If our officials had not been attacked the repatriation would have started in February. We said that, if the international community was interested in helping the resumption of the talks, they should ask Nepal to act on our request to investigate the incident, to take action against the perpetrators, and put in place adequate security measures.”
The Nepalese foreign minister had called on April 5 to propose a ministerial meeting preceded by a meeting of senior officials. Bhutan’s foreign minister responded on April 12. “I made it clear that, given the seriousness of the incident and the strong public concern in Bhutan I would not be in a position to propose a resumption of the process without the Nepalese government investigating the incident, initiating legal action against the perpetrators, and putting in place adequate security measures,” the minister informed the Assembly.
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk said that the Bhutanese embassy in New Delhi had received on May 12 the “Report of investigation of the incident at Khudunabari camp on December 22, 2003”, forwarded by the Nepalese foreign minister. But the report contained a number of factual inaccuracies and fell far short of Bhutan’s requests. “The report states that no individuals could be identified as being responsible for the incident, it alleges that the attack was provoked by the Bhutanese officials, and also calls on the royal government to further relax the terms and conditions,” said Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk. “It seems to be the conclusion of the investigation report that beating up the Bhutanese officials should lead to further relaxation of Bhutan’s terms and conditions under its citizenship laws.”
Bhutanese members of the JVT, meanwhile, had expressed their dismay at the callous attitude of the Nepalese government. Apart from the fact that the terms and conditions had long been known to the camp people who had not complained about them in the past, there had been many tactics to intimidate the Bhutanese officials. They were harassed at the market, they were threatened at night, even with decapitation, and there had been aggressive strikes in front of the office of the Bhutanese verification team.
The foreign minister said that, despite the severe shortcomings and inaccuracies in the report, the royal government had indicated to the Nepalese government that, in the interest of moving the bilateral process forward, the report could be considered positively if Nepal deleted the unacceptable reference to the relaxation of the terms and conditions pertaining to the citizenship laws. The two governments had not only respected each other’s terms and conditions in the past, the investigation was meant to identify and take action against the perpetrators so the issue was out of context. It also sent the negative message that the attack and beating of Bhutanese officials would lead to further relaxation of the terms and conditions of the Citizenship Acts.
Nepal’s foreign minister had said that he understood Bhutan’s view but would need to consult his government. Meanwhile the government changed and he said that the response would have to be given by the new government. The foreign minister said that the government was still waiting for a reply from Nepal and was now seriously concerned about the political and security situation in Nepal.
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk informed the Assembly that there were other developments that might have serious implications on Bhutan’s security. A Bhutan Gorkha Liberation Front and a Bhutan Communist Party had been formed, the latter with links to the Maoists in Nepal. The Maoists were recruiting people from the camps and some of them had even taken part in attacks in Nepal. More than 2,000 of them had moved into India and could be close to the Indo-Bhutan border. These people posed a serious threat to Bhutan’s security.
“On our part the royal government will abide by all the agreements we have reached with Nepal to find a lasting and durable solution to the issue of the people in the camps,” said Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk. “This includes our commitment to take back all those people in the camps who have been found to be genuine Bhutanese refugees. In carrying out the discussions and agreements with Nepal we will, as in the past, continue to be guided by our national laws, the
Citizenship Acts, and the resolutions of the National Assembly.”
Many chimis expressed their views and concerns after the foreign minister’s report. They submitted that the Nepalese government’s first report was completely unacceptable. It was not possible that the Nepalese government could not identify and take legal action against the criminals in Khudunabari camp.
On the related developments, including the movement of people outside the camps, several chimis said that it was time for Bhutan to be aware of the implications and take necessary measures to ensure that Bhutan does not face Maoist problems as in Nepal.
The Speaker of the National Assembly, Dasho Ugen Dorje, noted that the Assembly had witnessed an outpouring of anger and indignation from the chimis over the assault on the Bhutanese members of the joint verification team and it was clearly a priority issue for the Assembly. The foreign minister had submitted a detailed and clear explanation of the actions taken by the government.
The National Assembly of Bhutan recorded its appreciation and commendation to the ministerial joint committee and the Bhutanese JVT members for their dedication in discharging their work and their loyalty to their nation.
While the relations between Bhutan and Nepal had greatly improved and the bilateral process had made significant achievements in 15 rounds of talks since 1993, the process had stalled at a critical stage, just before repatriation could take place. The next step was not clear because of the instability of the Nepalese government and its preoccupation with the Maoist problem. Under the circumstances it was vital that the two governments thoroughly discuss the issue and make sure that the necessary measures were taken to prevent such an incident from ever occurring again. This must be finalised before the bilateral process resumed.
The Speaker also noted that the government should continue to strictly adhere to the resolutions of the National Assembly, the Citizenship Acts of Bhutan, and the laws of the land.
--------------------------------
Reproduced Courtesy of Kuensel.
--------------------------------
The complete news report can be found at the following link.
http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4263
One Bhutanese official collapsed on the floor after he was struck on the head. The crowd punched and stoned the Bhutanese officials and beat them with bamboo sticks. After three officials were injured and the Bhutanese vehicles damaged, they managed to escape to the Lifeline Hospital in Damak town. In the early hours of December 23 the Bhutanese officials left Damak on the instructions of the royal government which had arranged an Indian security escort from the Nepal border to Phuentsholing. "
- Excerpted from Kuensel (10 July 2004).
In the 82nd National Assembly session held in July 2004, Foreign Minister Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk made a detailed report on the attack on the Bhutanese members of the Joint Verification Team (JVT) at Khudanbari camp on 22 December 2003. Here are some excerpts from the Kuensel news report titled "Assembly calls for proper investigation into JVT attack and action against perpetrators" published on 10 July 2004:
He (Foreign Minister) traced the origins of the camps to January, 1991, when the first group of people claiming to be refugees were allowed to enter Nepal. Bhutan’s attempts to prevent the establishment of camps and facilities that might attract the poor masses in the region were ignored.
It was only in July, 1993, that proper screening procedures for people claiming to be Bhutanese refugees were introduced. Until then the screening of such people were given to the people in the camps who were themselves claiming to be refugees. Once proper screening procedures were introduced there was a dramatic drop in the entry of people into the camps.
He then explained the bilateral process as the two governments met in July, 1993, and established the ministerial joint committee (MJC) that had, over the years, achieved several significant steps towards a durable solution to the problem
The MJC had categorised the people and harmonised the positions of the two governments on each category, established the joint verification team (JVT), and agreed that the solution would be found within the framework of the laws in the two countries.
The JVT started work at Khudunabari camp in March, 2001, and the results of its work was confirmed during the 15th MJC held in Thimphu in October, 2003. Among several significant decisions taken by the MJC, it was agreed that the repatriation of those found eligible would begin in February, 2004.
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk said that the attack on the Bhutanese members of the JVT took place when the JVT returned to Nepal for the final assignments mandated by the MJC. At Khudunabari camp, on December 22, the Bhutanese officials, having already expressed their security concerns in writing to their Nepalese counterparts, began their briefing. About half an hour into the briefing they were attacked by the people in the make-shift hut, joined by most of the 12,000 people outside who also stormed in.
One Bhutanese official collapsed on the floor after he was struck on the head. The crowd punched and stoned the Bhutanese officials and beat them with bamboo sticks. After three officials were injured and the Bhutanese vehicles damaged, they managed to escape to the Lifeline Hospital in Damak town. In the early hours of December 23 the Bhutanese officials left Damak on the instructions of the royal government which had arranged an Indian security escort from the Nepal border to Phuentsholing.
“What happened on December 22 was a failure of the Nepalese government to honour its responsibility towards the safety and security of the Bhutanese officials,” said the foreign minister. “But we are proud of the courage, dedication, and dignity with which our officials conducted themselves and appreciate the understanding with which their family members endured the constant worry over their safety.”
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuck submitted to the Assembly a detailed report of the actions taken by the government after the incident.
The government was, at that time, pre-occupied with the military operations. On being informed of the attack the foreign ministry issued a press release and the foreign minister called his counterpart on the same day to express his regret over the incident and to explain the withdrawal of the Bhutanese officials. The government had raised the issue with the Nepalese leaders during the 12th SAARC summit in January and the two foreign ministers met again at the BIMST-EC meeting in Thailand in February.
The foreign minister said that he had conveyed to his Nepalese counterpart that the December 22 incident was very serious as the Bhutanese members of the JVT could have been killed. The Bhutanese people were shocked and angered by the incident and could not understand the violent behaviour of the people in the camp when the process had reached the last stage and could only be of benefit to them. He expressed his conviction that the incident was pre-planned and premeditated and not provoked as it had been alleged by groups in Nepal with vested interests. The terms and conditions read out at the camp were not new because copies had been handed over to them as far back as June.
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk said that he had expressed his surprise and regret that an enquiry, that should have been a normal step, had not been initiated. He requested the Nepalese government to conduct a thorough enquiry into the incident, to punish the perpetrators, and to put in place safety and security measures before resuming work.
“The last time our officials had been lucky to escape with their lives but the same cannot be taken for granted in the future,” he said. Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk said that the Nepalese foreign minister had expressed his regret over the incident and also his doubts whether an investigation would be of any use. While there was no communication from Nepal for the next two months the Nepalese media had described the incident as a “minor scuffle” and the international community raised concerns about the stalled bilateral process.
“We have always maintained that we are committed to the bilateral process and the agreements reached during the 15th MJC meeting are a clear confirmation of our seriousness in seeking a lasting solution to the problem,” he said. “If our officials had not been attacked the repatriation would have started in February. We said that, if the international community was interested in helping the resumption of the talks, they should ask Nepal to act on our request to investigate the incident, to take action against the perpetrators, and put in place adequate security measures.”
The Nepalese foreign minister had called on April 5 to propose a ministerial meeting preceded by a meeting of senior officials. Bhutan’s foreign minister responded on April 12. “I made it clear that, given the seriousness of the incident and the strong public concern in Bhutan I would not be in a position to propose a resumption of the process without the Nepalese government investigating the incident, initiating legal action against the perpetrators, and putting in place adequate security measures,” the minister informed the Assembly.
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk said that the Bhutanese embassy in New Delhi had received on May 12 the “Report of investigation of the incident at Khudunabari camp on December 22, 2003”, forwarded by the Nepalese foreign minister. But the report contained a number of factual inaccuracies and fell far short of Bhutan’s requests. “The report states that no individuals could be identified as being responsible for the incident, it alleges that the attack was provoked by the Bhutanese officials, and also calls on the royal government to further relax the terms and conditions,” said Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk. “It seems to be the conclusion of the investigation report that beating up the Bhutanese officials should lead to further relaxation of Bhutan’s terms and conditions under its citizenship laws.”
Bhutanese members of the JVT, meanwhile, had expressed their dismay at the callous attitude of the Nepalese government. Apart from the fact that the terms and conditions had long been known to the camp people who had not complained about them in the past, there had been many tactics to intimidate the Bhutanese officials. They were harassed at the market, they were threatened at night, even with decapitation, and there had been aggressive strikes in front of the office of the Bhutanese verification team.
The foreign minister said that, despite the severe shortcomings and inaccuracies in the report, the royal government had indicated to the Nepalese government that, in the interest of moving the bilateral process forward, the report could be considered positively if Nepal deleted the unacceptable reference to the relaxation of the terms and conditions pertaining to the citizenship laws. The two governments had not only respected each other’s terms and conditions in the past, the investigation was meant to identify and take action against the perpetrators so the issue was out of context. It also sent the negative message that the attack and beating of Bhutanese officials would lead to further relaxation of the terms and conditions of the Citizenship Acts.
Nepal’s foreign minister had said that he understood Bhutan’s view but would need to consult his government. Meanwhile the government changed and he said that the response would have to be given by the new government. The foreign minister said that the government was still waiting for a reply from Nepal and was now seriously concerned about the political and security situation in Nepal.
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk informed the Assembly that there were other developments that might have serious implications on Bhutan’s security. A Bhutan Gorkha Liberation Front and a Bhutan Communist Party had been formed, the latter with links to the Maoists in Nepal. The Maoists were recruiting people from the camps and some of them had even taken part in attacks in Nepal. More than 2,000 of them had moved into India and could be close to the Indo-Bhutan border. These people posed a serious threat to Bhutan’s security.
“On our part the royal government will abide by all the agreements we have reached with Nepal to find a lasting and durable solution to the issue of the people in the camps,” said Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk. “This includes our commitment to take back all those people in the camps who have been found to be genuine Bhutanese refugees. In carrying out the discussions and agreements with Nepal we will, as in the past, continue to be guided by our national laws, the
Citizenship Acts, and the resolutions of the National Assembly.”
Many chimis expressed their views and concerns after the foreign minister’s report. They submitted that the Nepalese government’s first report was completely unacceptable. It was not possible that the Nepalese government could not identify and take legal action against the criminals in Khudunabari camp.
On the related developments, including the movement of people outside the camps, several chimis said that it was time for Bhutan to be aware of the implications and take necessary measures to ensure that Bhutan does not face Maoist problems as in Nepal.
The Speaker of the National Assembly, Dasho Ugen Dorje, noted that the Assembly had witnessed an outpouring of anger and indignation from the chimis over the assault on the Bhutanese members of the joint verification team and it was clearly a priority issue for the Assembly. The foreign minister had submitted a detailed and clear explanation of the actions taken by the government.
The National Assembly of Bhutan recorded its appreciation and commendation to the ministerial joint committee and the Bhutanese JVT members for their dedication in discharging their work and their loyalty to their nation.
While the relations between Bhutan and Nepal had greatly improved and the bilateral process had made significant achievements in 15 rounds of talks since 1993, the process had stalled at a critical stage, just before repatriation could take place. The next step was not clear because of the instability of the Nepalese government and its preoccupation with the Maoist problem. Under the circumstances it was vital that the two governments thoroughly discuss the issue and make sure that the necessary measures were taken to prevent such an incident from ever occurring again. This must be finalised before the bilateral process resumed.
The Speaker also noted that the government should continue to strictly adhere to the resolutions of the National Assembly, the Citizenship Acts of Bhutan, and the laws of the land.
--------------------------------
Reproduced Courtesy of Kuensel.
--------------------------------
The complete news report can be found at the following link.
http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4263
Why do Nepalese always criticise Bhutan?
Why do Nepalese always criticise Bhutan? Really, this is a fact. If there is something positive happening in Bhutan, Nepalese media try to overlook it, or downplay it. On the other hand, they take the slightest hint of problem to bash Bhutan. So, this has led Nepalese in Nepal to have a really poor image of Bhutan and Bhutanese in recent years.
On the other hand, Bhutanese media are much more accommodating of Nepal. For instance, very positve coverage was given to Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and his wife when they visited Bhutan during the SAARC summit this year (2010).
The following article may give you insight into this problem. Please read on.
Title: Bhutanese reform, Nepalese criticism
By: Karma Phuntsho,
12 October 2006 (Published on OpenDemocracy.net)
The introduction of democracy in the small Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is a positive political development. Nepalese critics should give it fair consideration, says Karma Phuntsho.
About the author: Karma Phuntsho earned a doctorate in Buddhist studies at Oxford University and is research associate in the department of social anthropology, Cambridge University.
An outsider to the Himalayan region might expect the kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan to be akin, neighbourly and cordial, but such images belong to the fanciful realm of Shangri-La. The two nations are rarely on good terms. Differences between Bhutan and Nepal may begin in their socio-cultural roots - primarily a Himalayan Buddhist culture in the case of Bhutan and an Indic-Hindu one for Nepal - but their seemingly divergent paths in the more recent history of modernisation and development have taken them further apart.
In the process, Nepal has generally continued to view Bhutan as a closed medieval autocracy. For most Bhutanese, ancient Nepal is a sacred site of pilgrimage, but they rarely refer to modern Nepal. When they do, it is with a mixture of pity and contempt, depicting Nepal as a nation beleaguered by wayward modernisation and endless political strife. To many Bhutanese, Nepal is an example to avoid.
Nepalese writers have exacerbated the acrimony. Their reports of Bhutan, both from within Nepal and abroad, have been mainly critical. Dharma Adhikari's openDemocracy article "Bhutan's democratic puzzle" (20 June 2006) is a case in point.
A primary target of Nepalese criticism of Bhutan has been the monarch, who is loved and revered by most of his people. Many even deify Jigme Singye Wangchuck as a bodhisattva king, who is born to lead the country through the turmoil of our time. Nepalese writers, by contrast, generally portray him as a narcissistic potentate whom his people fear and who persecutes his adversaries ruthlessly.
Both Bhutanese deification and Nepalese demonisation take the perception of the monarchy to harmful extremes. The truth, and a useful understanding, lies somewhere in between. King Jigme is certainly the most powerful figure in Bhutan, but he lives a simple life and keeps in close contact with his people. He is a benign monarch, put to serious test by the challenges of our age, including western cultural invasion, the southern Bhutanese immigration and refugee problem, and the Indian rebels.
Nepalese writers also routinely paint a picture of Bhutan as a nation torn by factionalism. The ruling Ngalong (Dzongkha-speaking westerners) in Bhutan, these writers argue, hold power and continually suppress the other groups of Lhotshampas (Nepali-speaking southerners) and Sharchopas (Tsanglha-speaking easterners). There was a conflict in the late 1980s between the Nepali-speaking southerners and the non-Nepali northerners, who are loosely called Drukpas (athough this term should refer to all Bhutanese). Its aftermath looms large even today.
However, among the Drukpas there never was any stark political divide between the Sharchopa and Ngalong groups. The highly diverse, variable and interwoven ethnic and linguistic composition of northern Bhutan defies such simple bifurcation. For the last two decades, almost half the ministers were from the eastern districts of Bhutan. Many prominent posts in government are occupied by easterners and they make up about half of Bhutan's population.
Nepalese writers often assume that Bhutan's royal family line belongs to the "ruling" Ngalong group that is counterposed to the Sharchopa. The Wangchuck dynasty is mainly of a stock from the central districts of Kurtoe and Bumthang, which traditionally fall under the domain of eastern Bhutan. Power has been concentrated in the hands of the central Bhutanese ever since the great-great-grandfather of the present king. Power was never solely in Ngalong hands.
Similarly, the leading Drukpa dissident, Rongthong Kuenley Dorji, is often identified as a Sharchopa, in order to fuel the fictional Ngalong-Sharchopa conflict. Rongthong Kuenley is not a Sharchopa, or a native Tsanglha speaker. He comes from Kheng, a cultural and linguistic group distinct from both Ngalong and Sharchopa.
The refugee issue
One visible effect of ill-informed criticism of Bhutan is the widening rift between Bhutan and Nepal, and the subsequent stalemate that this entails for the refugees issue. Nepalese media have continually insisted that all 100,000 refugees languishing in the camps in eastern Nepal are citizens expelled from Bhutan in a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" which began in the late 1980s. They assert that Bhutan is solely responsible and should repatriate the refugees en masse. However, the refugee problem is far from straightforward.
The refugee crisis, the Bhutanese argue, is a consequence of demography. The Himalayan foothills region stretching from Nepal through the Darjeeling hills and Sikkim to Bhutan was populated by roaming groups, mostly ethnic Nepalese, seeking greener pastures.
When Bhutan opened its door to the outside world in the 1960s, thousands of these migrants entered Bhutan as labourers on various developments projects. Bhutan's low population density, fertile farmlands, free social services and sustained economic growth undoubtedly made the kingdom an attractive destination. For this reason, Bhutan has insisted that the refugee problem is largely a problem of illegal immigration and that Bhutan is being made the victim of its own success.
The initial number of refugees in 1991, when conflict erupted in Bhutan, was about 2,500, reaching 6,000 at the end of that year. When the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) set up camps in eastern Nepal - with poor screening and an attractive allowance - thousands of people are said to have flocked there, claiming to be refugees from Bhutan. Numbers soared to almost 100,000 by 2000. The figure given at the end of 2005 was 117,647, with almost a quarter of that number born in exile. The birthrate among refugees was twice as high as among the local Nepalese population.
In an attempt to resolve the crisis, the governments of Nepal and Bhutan had held fifteen rounds of bilateral talks by 2003, the most significant achievement of the negotiations being the formation of the Joint Verification Team. The verification of 12,183 residents of Khudunabari camp by the JVT revealed that only 293 were forcefully evicted from Bhutan, 8,595 emigrated voluntarily and 347 fled after criminal activities. The remainder (2,948, i.e., almost a quarter of the total) had no links to Bhutan. When the result was announced, the JVT team came under missile attack from the frustrated crowd, leading to the existing stalemate.
To effectively address the refugee crisis, the geopolitical situation in the region when the crisis began around 1990 must also be considered. Nepal was then exuberant and tumultuous with its new-found democracy, having stripped then King Birendra of power; Sikkim had Nar Bahadur Bhandari at its helm; and the Darjeeling hills were being turned into an autonomous Gorkhaland by Subhash Ghising. The fervour of Nepali dominion and nationalism was at its peak.
The "pro-democracy" and "‘human rights" movements within Bhutan, led by ethnically Nepalese individuals such as Tek Nath Rizal happened around this time. Moreover, the demonstrations organised by his Bhutan People's Party were never just non-violent protests by patriotic citizens. Most dissidents were seen by the authorities in the capital, Thimphu, to be more loyal to the Nepalese power abroad than to Bhutan's royal government. As the demonstrations of 1990 turned violent, Thimphu considered the movement an armed rebellion seeking to overthrow the ruling regime.
In such circumstances, the threat to Bhutan of Nepalese cultural expansion and demographic takeover was as serious as it could be. Bhutan dreaded facing the same fate as the erstwhile Buddhist kingdom of Sikkim, which by then was fully controlled by Hindu Nepalese.
The demonstrations and the conflict between the protestors - later branded by Thimphu as anti-nationals and terrorists - and the Bhutanese military, resulted in many deaths, tortures and displacements, and much destruction of property. For its part, the Bhutanese government has admitted excesses by its security forces in the course of the crackdown. But it was never a simple case of "ethnic cleansing" or a state-sponsored persecution of a non-compliant minority, as media outside Bhutan generally portray the situation. It was a sordid "ethnic conflict", and even the Drukpas in the north and southern Bhutanese who were loyal to the regime had to bear the brunt of it.
For over a decade and a half now, the refugee crisis has dragged on, desperate as ever, with an increasingly restless youth population, diminishing local sympathy, donor fatigue and no solution in sight. The refugee leaders have lost direction and the community is split by seven political parties. Yet the Nepalese and international media only blame Bhutan for the delay in finding a solution. In reality, however, the negotiations and the process of verification seems to have been obstructed more by Nepal's political instability than by Bhutan's reluctance. Doubts are being cast over whether Nepal is genuinely committed to ending the crisis.
Bhutan, however apprehensive it may seem in resolving the issue, knows that a permanent solution of the refugee problem is in its best interest. Whether or not Bhutan likes it, the people in the camps go under Bhutanese names. To say the least, the refugee issue is an embarrassment for a nation which champions the cause of Gross National Happiness. Bhutan, therefore, has good reasons to find a solution - as long as it is not pushed too hard from outside.
The Nepalese view of Bhutan is filtered almost entirely through the refugee issue. Everything else in Bhutan is measured against it. Hence, Nepalese writers also have begun to question the process of democracy in Bhutan and the draft constitution that is in circulation. Dharma Adhikari, in his openDemocracy article, cites doubts about the king's sincerity, noting arguments that the monarch "hopes to use the constitution to circumvent a simmering upheaval and delay a truly representative democracy". He further remarks that Bhutan's democratisation at best portends a two-party oligarchy.
Needless to say, many questions can be asked about the royal intention and the eventual outcome of the current process of democratisation in Bhutan. But there is no struggle for power between the palace and the people, as Adhikari claims. His is a reiteration of ill-founded perceptions of Bhutan blurred by incidents in Nepal itself, where a despotic king clung to power up to the last minute. The situation is reversed in Bhutan. Notwithstanding the apprehension and misgivings about democracy among the majority of his people, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck stands firm on ushering in democracy by 2008.
Bhutan's political evolution from an absolute monarchy to parliamentary democracy is proving, so far, to be one of the most unique and smooth processes of democratisation in our times. The king should be given due credit for his initiatives.
The introduction of democracy will be good for Bhutan and the region, although it will not be a panacea for all of the country's problems. It will not necessarily resolve the refugee problem, but most likely will create favourable circumstances for its solution.
A reconciliatory approach
The refugee crisis is primarily a humanitarian crisis, not a human-rights problem. Hence, its solution is a shared international responsibility. Bhutan, which has already made considerable concessions in the bilateral negotiations, should not be held solely responsible. A viable and perhaps the most realistic solution, as the UNHCR representative in Nepal suggests, would be repatriation to Bhutan for some and resettlement in Nepal and third countries for others.
Campaigns by refugees as well as by Nepalese have sought to force Bhutan into a settlement through international pressure. But the country, recently listed, variously, as the eighth- and thirteenth-happiest nation on earth, is enjoying peace, stability and economic development. It is unlikely to bow to pressure or intimidation.
India, Bhutan's closest ally, has considered the refugee issue a bilateral problem between Bhutan and Nepal, and has stayed out of the dispute. If India ever were to become involved, there is no guarantee that it would propose a solution favourable to the refugees. And involvement by a regional power in sub-regional disputes may only give rise to unforeseen complications.
If a solution were "found" through coercion and aggression, harmony would remain elusive. If any refugees were to be repatriated and resettled successfully in Bhutan, the first place they must find is in the hearts of the people. It is time for the people of both Nepal and Bhutan to set aside the politics of mudslinging and vitriolic reports and work towards a neighbourly amity.
Reproduced courtesy of Dr. Karma Phuntsho and OpenDemocracy.
Original article can be reached by clicking here.
On the other hand, Bhutanese media are much more accommodating of Nepal. For instance, very positve coverage was given to Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and his wife when they visited Bhutan during the SAARC summit this year (2010).
The following article may give you insight into this problem. Please read on.
Title: Bhutanese reform, Nepalese criticism
By: Karma Phuntsho,
12 October 2006 (Published on OpenDemocracy.net)
The introduction of democracy in the small Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan is a positive political development. Nepalese critics should give it fair consideration, says Karma Phuntsho.
About the author: Karma Phuntsho earned a doctorate in Buddhist studies at Oxford University and is research associate in the department of social anthropology, Cambridge University.
An outsider to the Himalayan region might expect the kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan to be akin, neighbourly and cordial, but such images belong to the fanciful realm of Shangri-La. The two nations are rarely on good terms. Differences between Bhutan and Nepal may begin in their socio-cultural roots - primarily a Himalayan Buddhist culture in the case of Bhutan and an Indic-Hindu one for Nepal - but their seemingly divergent paths in the more recent history of modernisation and development have taken them further apart.
In the process, Nepal has generally continued to view Bhutan as a closed medieval autocracy. For most Bhutanese, ancient Nepal is a sacred site of pilgrimage, but they rarely refer to modern Nepal. When they do, it is with a mixture of pity and contempt, depicting Nepal as a nation beleaguered by wayward modernisation and endless political strife. To many Bhutanese, Nepal is an example to avoid.
Nepalese writers have exacerbated the acrimony. Their reports of Bhutan, both from within Nepal and abroad, have been mainly critical. Dharma Adhikari's openDemocracy article "Bhutan's democratic puzzle" (20 June 2006) is a case in point.
A primary target of Nepalese criticism of Bhutan has been the monarch, who is loved and revered by most of his people. Many even deify Jigme Singye Wangchuck as a bodhisattva king, who is born to lead the country through the turmoil of our time. Nepalese writers, by contrast, generally portray him as a narcissistic potentate whom his people fear and who persecutes his adversaries ruthlessly.
Both Bhutanese deification and Nepalese demonisation take the perception of the monarchy to harmful extremes. The truth, and a useful understanding, lies somewhere in between. King Jigme is certainly the most powerful figure in Bhutan, but he lives a simple life and keeps in close contact with his people. He is a benign monarch, put to serious test by the challenges of our age, including western cultural invasion, the southern Bhutanese immigration and refugee problem, and the Indian rebels.
Nepalese writers also routinely paint a picture of Bhutan as a nation torn by factionalism. The ruling Ngalong (Dzongkha-speaking westerners) in Bhutan, these writers argue, hold power and continually suppress the other groups of Lhotshampas (Nepali-speaking southerners) and Sharchopas (Tsanglha-speaking easterners). There was a conflict in the late 1980s between the Nepali-speaking southerners and the non-Nepali northerners, who are loosely called Drukpas (athough this term should refer to all Bhutanese). Its aftermath looms large even today.
However, among the Drukpas there never was any stark political divide between the Sharchopa and Ngalong groups. The highly diverse, variable and interwoven ethnic and linguistic composition of northern Bhutan defies such simple bifurcation. For the last two decades, almost half the ministers were from the eastern districts of Bhutan. Many prominent posts in government are occupied by easterners and they make up about half of Bhutan's population.
Nepalese writers often assume that Bhutan's royal family line belongs to the "ruling" Ngalong group that is counterposed to the Sharchopa. The Wangchuck dynasty is mainly of a stock from the central districts of Kurtoe and Bumthang, which traditionally fall under the domain of eastern Bhutan. Power has been concentrated in the hands of the central Bhutanese ever since the great-great-grandfather of the present king. Power was never solely in Ngalong hands.
Similarly, the leading Drukpa dissident, Rongthong Kuenley Dorji, is often identified as a Sharchopa, in order to fuel the fictional Ngalong-Sharchopa conflict. Rongthong Kuenley is not a Sharchopa, or a native Tsanglha speaker. He comes from Kheng, a cultural and linguistic group distinct from both Ngalong and Sharchopa.
The refugee issue
One visible effect of ill-informed criticism of Bhutan is the widening rift between Bhutan and Nepal, and the subsequent stalemate that this entails for the refugees issue. Nepalese media have continually insisted that all 100,000 refugees languishing in the camps in eastern Nepal are citizens expelled from Bhutan in a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" which began in the late 1980s. They assert that Bhutan is solely responsible and should repatriate the refugees en masse. However, the refugee problem is far from straightforward.
The refugee crisis, the Bhutanese argue, is a consequence of demography. The Himalayan foothills region stretching from Nepal through the Darjeeling hills and Sikkim to Bhutan was populated by roaming groups, mostly ethnic Nepalese, seeking greener pastures.
When Bhutan opened its door to the outside world in the 1960s, thousands of these migrants entered Bhutan as labourers on various developments projects. Bhutan's low population density, fertile farmlands, free social services and sustained economic growth undoubtedly made the kingdom an attractive destination. For this reason, Bhutan has insisted that the refugee problem is largely a problem of illegal immigration and that Bhutan is being made the victim of its own success.
The initial number of refugees in 1991, when conflict erupted in Bhutan, was about 2,500, reaching 6,000 at the end of that year. When the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) set up camps in eastern Nepal - with poor screening and an attractive allowance - thousands of people are said to have flocked there, claiming to be refugees from Bhutan. Numbers soared to almost 100,000 by 2000. The figure given at the end of 2005 was 117,647, with almost a quarter of that number born in exile. The birthrate among refugees was twice as high as among the local Nepalese population.
In an attempt to resolve the crisis, the governments of Nepal and Bhutan had held fifteen rounds of bilateral talks by 2003, the most significant achievement of the negotiations being the formation of the Joint Verification Team. The verification of 12,183 residents of Khudunabari camp by the JVT revealed that only 293 were forcefully evicted from Bhutan, 8,595 emigrated voluntarily and 347 fled after criminal activities. The remainder (2,948, i.e., almost a quarter of the total) had no links to Bhutan. When the result was announced, the JVT team came under missile attack from the frustrated crowd, leading to the existing stalemate.
To effectively address the refugee crisis, the geopolitical situation in the region when the crisis began around 1990 must also be considered. Nepal was then exuberant and tumultuous with its new-found democracy, having stripped then King Birendra of power; Sikkim had Nar Bahadur Bhandari at its helm; and the Darjeeling hills were being turned into an autonomous Gorkhaland by Subhash Ghising. The fervour of Nepali dominion and nationalism was at its peak.
The "pro-democracy" and "‘human rights" movements within Bhutan, led by ethnically Nepalese individuals such as Tek Nath Rizal happened around this time. Moreover, the demonstrations organised by his Bhutan People's Party were never just non-violent protests by patriotic citizens. Most dissidents were seen by the authorities in the capital, Thimphu, to be more loyal to the Nepalese power abroad than to Bhutan's royal government. As the demonstrations of 1990 turned violent, Thimphu considered the movement an armed rebellion seeking to overthrow the ruling regime.
In such circumstances, the threat to Bhutan of Nepalese cultural expansion and demographic takeover was as serious as it could be. Bhutan dreaded facing the same fate as the erstwhile Buddhist kingdom of Sikkim, which by then was fully controlled by Hindu Nepalese.
The demonstrations and the conflict between the protestors - later branded by Thimphu as anti-nationals and terrorists - and the Bhutanese military, resulted in many deaths, tortures and displacements, and much destruction of property. For its part, the Bhutanese government has admitted excesses by its security forces in the course of the crackdown. But it was never a simple case of "ethnic cleansing" or a state-sponsored persecution of a non-compliant minority, as media outside Bhutan generally portray the situation. It was a sordid "ethnic conflict", and even the Drukpas in the north and southern Bhutanese who were loyal to the regime had to bear the brunt of it.
For over a decade and a half now, the refugee crisis has dragged on, desperate as ever, with an increasingly restless youth population, diminishing local sympathy, donor fatigue and no solution in sight. The refugee leaders have lost direction and the community is split by seven political parties. Yet the Nepalese and international media only blame Bhutan for the delay in finding a solution. In reality, however, the negotiations and the process of verification seems to have been obstructed more by Nepal's political instability than by Bhutan's reluctance. Doubts are being cast over whether Nepal is genuinely committed to ending the crisis.
Bhutan, however apprehensive it may seem in resolving the issue, knows that a permanent solution of the refugee problem is in its best interest. Whether or not Bhutan likes it, the people in the camps go under Bhutanese names. To say the least, the refugee issue is an embarrassment for a nation which champions the cause of Gross National Happiness. Bhutan, therefore, has good reasons to find a solution - as long as it is not pushed too hard from outside.
The Nepalese view of Bhutan is filtered almost entirely through the refugee issue. Everything else in Bhutan is measured against it. Hence, Nepalese writers also have begun to question the process of democracy in Bhutan and the draft constitution that is in circulation. Dharma Adhikari, in his openDemocracy article, cites doubts about the king's sincerity, noting arguments that the monarch "hopes to use the constitution to circumvent a simmering upheaval and delay a truly representative democracy". He further remarks that Bhutan's democratisation at best portends a two-party oligarchy.
Needless to say, many questions can be asked about the royal intention and the eventual outcome of the current process of democratisation in Bhutan. But there is no struggle for power between the palace and the people, as Adhikari claims. His is a reiteration of ill-founded perceptions of Bhutan blurred by incidents in Nepal itself, where a despotic king clung to power up to the last minute. The situation is reversed in Bhutan. Notwithstanding the apprehension and misgivings about democracy among the majority of his people, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck stands firm on ushering in democracy by 2008.
Bhutan's political evolution from an absolute monarchy to parliamentary democracy is proving, so far, to be one of the most unique and smooth processes of democratisation in our times. The king should be given due credit for his initiatives.
The introduction of democracy will be good for Bhutan and the region, although it will not be a panacea for all of the country's problems. It will not necessarily resolve the refugee problem, but most likely will create favourable circumstances for its solution.
A reconciliatory approach
The refugee crisis is primarily a humanitarian crisis, not a human-rights problem. Hence, its solution is a shared international responsibility. Bhutan, which has already made considerable concessions in the bilateral negotiations, should not be held solely responsible. A viable and perhaps the most realistic solution, as the UNHCR representative in Nepal suggests, would be repatriation to Bhutan for some and resettlement in Nepal and third countries for others.
Campaigns by refugees as well as by Nepalese have sought to force Bhutan into a settlement through international pressure. But the country, recently listed, variously, as the eighth- and thirteenth-happiest nation on earth, is enjoying peace, stability and economic development. It is unlikely to bow to pressure or intimidation.
India, Bhutan's closest ally, has considered the refugee issue a bilateral problem between Bhutan and Nepal, and has stayed out of the dispute. If India ever were to become involved, there is no guarantee that it would propose a solution favourable to the refugees. And involvement by a regional power in sub-regional disputes may only give rise to unforeseen complications.
If a solution were "found" through coercion and aggression, harmony would remain elusive. If any refugees were to be repatriated and resettled successfully in Bhutan, the first place they must find is in the hearts of the people. It is time for the people of both Nepal and Bhutan to set aside the politics of mudslinging and vitriolic reports and work towards a neighbourly amity.
Reproduced courtesy of Dr. Karma Phuntsho and OpenDemocracy.
Original article can be reached by clicking here.
Is Bhutan a victim of Nepalese population explosion?
According to the following article published by none other than New York Times, "The last of the once-isolated Himalayan Buddhist kingdoms is fighting for survival, victim of a South Asian population explosion that is changing demography on the roof of the world. "
Please read on to find out more.
Title: BHUTAN STRUGGLES TO STOP MILITANTS
By BARBARA CROSSETTE,
Published: April 14, 1991, (New York Times)
THIMPHU, Bhutan— The last of the once-isolated Himalayan Buddhist kingdoms is fighting for survival, victim of a South Asian population explosion that is changing demography on the roof of the world.
Over the last six months, a campaign of violence and terror by small bands of ethnic Nepalese guerrillas in southern Bhutan, most of them Hindus based in India, has shattered the peace of this small mountainous nation.
The militants' campaign is couched in the language of democracy and minority rights, but the goal of the movement is free access to the underpopulated forests and valleys of Bhutan for those of Nepalese origin.
While there are about 600,000 Bhutanese, there are 32 million people of Nepalese extraction in overpopulated Nepal and India. Many prefer to be called Gurkhas, and they are heirs of a warrior clan who dream of a Gurkhaland stretching across the Himalayan foothills. The King Is a Modern Man
Bhutan, now ruled by a modernizing King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, had for 1,300 years of independence been the land of the Bhutia people, a group similar to Tibetans in language, culture and religion. Bhutanese say that over the last decade, illegal immigration across an unprotectable border with India has reduced the northern Bhutias to a fast-dwindling majority that is now about 60 percent.
"If this continues, we are done for," Foreign Minister Dawa Tsering said.
Bhutan's predicament raises questions about the rights of small, distinctive cultures to protect themselves by closing borders and introducing regulations on national dress and language.
The Bhutanese see that as the other side of the more common separatist demand heard from Eastern Europe to Kashmir.
Half a century ago, Bhutan was not alone among the Himalayan Buddhist states. There was Tibet, where Buddhist teachers known as lamas dominated society and often government. There was Sikkim and Ladakh.
Tibet, crushed by Beijing in 1959 and absorbed into China as a region, is being remade by Han Chinese. Ladakh and Sikkim have been absorbed by India. In the forefront of Bhutanese concern is the fate of the Sikkimese, against whose ruler New Delhi plotted until he was finally overthrown in 1975 with the help of disaffected subjects, most of them also ethnic Nepalese.
The King has personally taken charge of Bhutan's national defense and efforts to counter rebel assertions of human-rights abuses. He says he is prepared to abdicate if he cannot end the insurrection peacefully.
"I have little to lose when what is at stake is the survival of the Bhutanese people," he said in an interview at Tashichleo Dzong, the monastery-fortress that is the center of religion and Government in Bhutan. Symbol of Bhutanese Culture
The 35-year-old ruler had just returned from the south, where dozens of Government properties have been blown up or burned, bridges destroyed, and buses and trucks hijacked.
At least 38 policemen or soldiers have been killed or wounded, the King said, and 168 people kidnapped for ransoms as high as $30,000.
Because the King is the symbol of Bhutan's culture, the Nepalese make monarchy the focus of their movement, along with the regulations imposed on all Bhutanese citizens in 1988 requiring the wearing of national dress.
The King, dressed in an embroidered silk kho, the national costume, said tiny, landlocked Bhutan is neither an economic nor military power, "so the only factor we can fall back on, the only factor which can strengthen Bhutan's sovereignty and security is our identity, our different identity. We are really the last bastion of Himalayan Buddhism."
Bhutan's per-capita income shot up to nearly $400 last year, higher than in India, Nepal and Bangladesh.
"We have free education and health care, and plenty of land," the King said, adding: "The whole of Bhutan has become fertile ground for economic refugees. It has become the promised land."
The nearby Indian hill stations of Darjeeling and Kalimpong are controlled by Gurkha movements, the largest of which is the Gurkha National Liberation Front. Leaders of Bhutanese movements, including the Bhutanese People's Party and the Bhutanese Students' Union, operate from that region. To those people, the ethnic Bhutias are the regional minority.
The militants have benefited from the backing of political parties to the left of the Communists in the Indian state of West Bengal and in Nepal.
Reproduced courtesy of New York Times.
Please click here to go to the original article.
Please read on to find out more.
Title: BHUTAN STRUGGLES TO STOP MILITANTS
By BARBARA CROSSETTE,
Published: April 14, 1991, (New York Times)
THIMPHU, Bhutan— The last of the once-isolated Himalayan Buddhist kingdoms is fighting for survival, victim of a South Asian population explosion that is changing demography on the roof of the world.
Over the last six months, a campaign of violence and terror by small bands of ethnic Nepalese guerrillas in southern Bhutan, most of them Hindus based in India, has shattered the peace of this small mountainous nation.
The militants' campaign is couched in the language of democracy and minority rights, but the goal of the movement is free access to the underpopulated forests and valleys of Bhutan for those of Nepalese origin.
While there are about 600,000 Bhutanese, there are 32 million people of Nepalese extraction in overpopulated Nepal and India. Many prefer to be called Gurkhas, and they are heirs of a warrior clan who dream of a Gurkhaland stretching across the Himalayan foothills. The King Is a Modern Man
Bhutan, now ruled by a modernizing King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, had for 1,300 years of independence been the land of the Bhutia people, a group similar to Tibetans in language, culture and religion. Bhutanese say that over the last decade, illegal immigration across an unprotectable border with India has reduced the northern Bhutias to a fast-dwindling majority that is now about 60 percent.
"If this continues, we are done for," Foreign Minister Dawa Tsering said.
Bhutan's predicament raises questions about the rights of small, distinctive cultures to protect themselves by closing borders and introducing regulations on national dress and language.
The Bhutanese see that as the other side of the more common separatist demand heard from Eastern Europe to Kashmir.
Half a century ago, Bhutan was not alone among the Himalayan Buddhist states. There was Tibet, where Buddhist teachers known as lamas dominated society and often government. There was Sikkim and Ladakh.
Tibet, crushed by Beijing in 1959 and absorbed into China as a region, is being remade by Han Chinese. Ladakh and Sikkim have been absorbed by India. In the forefront of Bhutanese concern is the fate of the Sikkimese, against whose ruler New Delhi plotted until he was finally overthrown in 1975 with the help of disaffected subjects, most of them also ethnic Nepalese.
The King has personally taken charge of Bhutan's national defense and efforts to counter rebel assertions of human-rights abuses. He says he is prepared to abdicate if he cannot end the insurrection peacefully.
"I have little to lose when what is at stake is the survival of the Bhutanese people," he said in an interview at Tashichleo Dzong, the monastery-fortress that is the center of religion and Government in Bhutan. Symbol of Bhutanese Culture
The 35-year-old ruler had just returned from the south, where dozens of Government properties have been blown up or burned, bridges destroyed, and buses and trucks hijacked.
At least 38 policemen or soldiers have been killed or wounded, the King said, and 168 people kidnapped for ransoms as high as $30,000.
Because the King is the symbol of Bhutan's culture, the Nepalese make monarchy the focus of their movement, along with the regulations imposed on all Bhutanese citizens in 1988 requiring the wearing of national dress.
The King, dressed in an embroidered silk kho, the national costume, said tiny, landlocked Bhutan is neither an economic nor military power, "so the only factor we can fall back on, the only factor which can strengthen Bhutan's sovereignty and security is our identity, our different identity. We are really the last bastion of Himalayan Buddhism."
Bhutan's per-capita income shot up to nearly $400 last year, higher than in India, Nepal and Bangladesh.
"We have free education and health care, and plenty of land," the King said, adding: "The whole of Bhutan has become fertile ground for economic refugees. It has become the promised land."
The nearby Indian hill stations of Darjeeling and Kalimpong are controlled by Gurkha movements, the largest of which is the Gurkha National Liberation Front. Leaders of Bhutanese movements, including the Bhutanese People's Party and the Bhutanese Students' Union, operate from that region. To those people, the ethnic Bhutias are the regional minority.
The militants have benefited from the backing of political parties to the left of the Communists in the Indian state of West Bengal and in Nepal.
Reproduced courtesy of New York Times.
Please click here to go to the original article.
2010年7月20日火曜日
UNHCR's stand on Bhutanese refugees
The following paper published on the UNHCR homepage http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6a6c08.html probably shows the stand taken by the UNHCR. In most cases, it seems to strike a middle ground between the claims of the refugees and that of the Bhutanese Government; but sometimes it seems to favour the refugees which may be expected as UNHCR needs to justify its decision to help set up the camps in the first place.
Title : The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern Bhutan
Publisher
WRITENET
Country
Bhutan
Publication Date
1 April 1995
Cite as
WRITENET, The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern Bhutan, 1 April 1995, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6a6c08.html [accessed 20 July 2010]
The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern Bhutan
1. INTRODUCTION
In 1988, citing concerns about the possibility of a rapidly increasing illegal immigrant population, the Bhutanese authorities began to carry out a census in southern Bhutan to determine citizenship. Shortly after the census began, the Government also introduced a series of measures ostensibly designed to integrate ethnic Nepalis more fully into Bhutanese society. As a result, a series of demonstrations, unprecedented in the country's history, took place in southern districts of Bhutan in September 1990 as thousands of ethnic Nepalis protested about the census and the Government's so-called 'Bhutanization' policies. The Government's response to the demonstrations was reportedly swift and harsh, and the months that followed saw widespread arbitrary arrests, ill-treatment and torture, followed by an exodus from the country of thousands of ethnic Nepalis from southern Bhutan.[1]
2. OVERVIEW OF THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Bhutan is a monarchy, with sovereign power vested in the King. The present King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck (who ascended to the throne in 1972 at the age of 16 and was formally crowned two years later[2]2) is the fourth king of the Wangchuck dynasty in Bhutan. The country has no written constitution.
2.1 The National Assembly
A partially elected National Assembly was established in 1953. It usually meets once or twice a year for a two-week period, although since the problems in the south began it has only met annually, if at all. The last meeting of the National Assembly, its 72nd session, was held in July 1993. As of the time of writing there was no indication of when the 73rd session would take place.
The number of National Assembly members fluctuates around 150. There are usually between 105 and 110 members elected by limited franchise, 12 appointed from the monastic establishment, and the remainder, about 35, are high-level government officials appointed by the King.[3] In the 1991 elections the body consisted of 154 members: 105 indirectly elected representatives, 39 representatives of the Government and 10 representatives of the monastic establishment.[4] Members of the National Assembly serve three-year terms (recently changed from five-year terms), although members can, and often do, serve one or more consecutive terms.[5]
The main functions of the National Assembly are to enact laws, approve senior government appointments, and advise the King on matters of national importance. It also provides a forum for presenting grievances and rectifying cases of maladministration. The King is not in a position to formally veto legislation, but he may return bills to the Assembly for further consideration. The members occasionally have rejected the King's recommendations or delayed their implementation, but in practice the King retains sufficient influence to ensure approval of legislation he considers essential or the withdrawal of proposals he opposes. Government officials may be questioned by the Assembly, and ministers may be forced to resign by a two-thirds majority vote of no confidence.[6]
Representation in the National Assembly of Nepali speaking southern Bhutanese is low. In 1990 the National Assembly is reported to have had just sixteen southern Bhutanese members.[7] In an interview in October 1990 in the Indian newspaper, Sunday, the King conceded that there was insufficient representation of southern Bhutanese in the National Assembly and that the ethnic composition needed to be changed in order to better reflect the ethnic composition of the country,[8] although no such changes appear to have been made to date.
2.2 The Royal Advisory Council and the Council of Ministers
The official functions of the Royal Advisory Council (RAC) are to advise the King on all matters of national importance, to promote the welfare of the people and the country's national interests, to develop good relations between the Government and the people and to ensure that the laws and resolutions passed by the National Assembly are implemented.[9]
Since its establishment in 1965 there have been between eight and ten members in the Royal Advisory Council, and membership currently stands at ten. Of these, six are elected from the National Assembly, two are representatives of the Buddhist clergy and two are appointees of the King. Two of the six National Assembly members are members from southern districts.[10]
Three years after the formation of the RAC the Council of Ministers was established. Presided over by the King, the Council is made up of ministers, deputy ministers (who since 1978 have been appointed by the King) and all members of the RAC.[11]
2.3 Local Administration
Local administration is organized into 20 districts each headed by a district chief appointed by the King and directly responsible to the Ministry of Home Affairs.[12] In 1981, District Development Committees (DDCs) were established as part of a decentralization programme. There are currently twenty such DDCs in the country, encompassing a total of some 560 elected members.[13]
All districts are divided administratively into blocks, which in turn are made up of several villages. Block Development Committees (BDCs) were established in 1991 in all the 196 blocks of villages in the country to promote further decentralization. The 196 BDCs have a total of 2,589 elected members.[14]
Prior to National Assembly sessions, meetings take place at block level, where heads of households are entitled to put forward issues of concern. Issues that cannot be addressed at block level are passed on for discussion at the district level by the DDCs. Issues deemed by these committees to be of national importance are then forwarded for inclusion in the National Assembly agenda.[15]
2.4 International and Domestic Instruments
Bhutan is not a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide; the Convention on Statutory Limitations of War Crimes; the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, nor the Geneva Conventions, and has not signed the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.[16]
The country is, however, a state party to the 1979 Convention on Discrimination Against Women; the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[17]
Criminal cases and a variety of civil matters are adjudicated under a 17th century legal code, revised in 1959. Judges are responsible for all aspects of a case, including investigation, filing of charges, prosecution and judgment. The legal system does not provide for jury trials or the right to a court appointed defence counsel. It has no provision for lawyers or solicitors, although it does allow for the appointment of a jabmi (a person well versed in law) if the defendant so desires.[18]
Minor offenses are adjudicated by village headmen and appeals can be made to the district court.[19] More serious cases are dealt with in district courts, of which there are 20, presided over by a magistrate appointed by the King and aided by assistants.[20] There is one high court in the capital, Thimphu. This consists of the chief justice and seven other judges, out of whom three are from southern Bhutan.[21] The high court serves both as a court of appeal against district court decisions and as a special court for matters involving state security. Proceedings are brought before the high court by the Public Prosecutor's office which comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs.[22] There is no law school in Bhutan and during its visit to Bhutan in October 1994 the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that none of the judges has a law degree.[23] After appeal to the high court a final appeal may be made to the King.[24]
2.4.1 The Nationality Law of Bhutan, 1958
In 1958 the King granted Bhutanese citizenship to Nepali settlers living in Bhutan by virtue of the Nationality Law of Bhutan, enacted that year.
Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the 1958 Nationality Law set out the conditions for obtaining Bhutanese citizenship, as follows:
3. Any person can become a Bhutanese national:
a) If his/her father is a Bhutanese National and is a resident of the Kingdom of Bhutan; or
b) If any person is born within or outside Bhutan after the commencement of this law provided the previous father is a Bhutanese National at the time of his/her birth.
4 (1) If any foreigner who has reached the age of majority and is otherwise eligible, presents a petition to an official appointed by His Majesty and takes an oath of loyalty according to the rules laid down by the Government to the satisfaction of the concerned official, he may be enrolled as a Bhutanese National, provided that:
a) The person is a resident of the Kingdom of Bhutan for more than ten years; and
b) Owns agricultural land within the Kingdom.
4 (2) If a woman, married to a Bhutanese National, submits a petition and takes the oath of loyalty as stated above to the satisfaction of the concerned official, and provided that she has reached the age of majority and is otherwise eligible, her name may be enrolled as a Bhutanese National.
4 (3) If any person has been deprived of his Bhutanese Nationality or has renounced his Bhutanese Nationality or forfeited his Bhutanese Nationality, the person cannot become a Bhutanese National again unless His Majesty the Druk Gyalpo grants approval to do so.
5 (1) If any foreigner submits petition to His Majesty the Druk Gyalpo according to rules described in the above sections, and provided the person has reached the age of majority and is otherwise eligible, and has performed satisfactorily in Government service for at least five years and has been residing in the Kingdom of Bhutan for at least 10 years, he may receive a Bhutanese Nationality Certificate. Once the certificate is received, such a person has to take the oath of loyalty according to the rules laid down by the Government and from that day onwards, his name will be enrolled as a Bhutanese National.
5 (2) Any foreigner who has reached the age of majority and is otherwise eligible, can receive a Nationality Certificate provided that in the opinion of His Majesty the Druk Gyalpo his conduct and his performance as a Government servant is satisfactory.[25]
Under the law a person shall forfeit their Bhutanese nationality if s/he: becomes a national of a foreign country and lives in that country (Article 6 (a)); has renounced Bhutanese nationality and settled in a foreign country (Article 6 (b)); claims to be a citizen of a foreign country or pledges an oath of loyalty to that country (Article 6 (c)); is registered as a Bhutanese national but has left his agricultural land or has stopped residing in Bhutan (Article 6 (d)); being a bonafide national has stopped residing in the country or fails to observe the laws of the Kingdom (Article 6(e)).[26]
Citizenship is liable to cancellation if it is found to have been obtained under false pretences (Article 7(1)); for engaging in activities against the King or for speaking against the King or the people of Bhutan (Article 7(2)(a)); for assisting the enemy in times of war (Article 7(2)(b)); or if, within a five-year period from being made a Bhutanese National, a person is imprisoned in any country for more than one year (Article 7(2)(c)).[27]
The granting of citizenship in 1958 was notified by royal proclamation. It was not, however, accompanied by any special certification process and there is little evidence that the enactment of the 1958 law made any real practical difference to the population.[28]
2.4.2 The Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1977
With the passing of the 1977 Citizenship Act, the basic principles of the 1958 Act remained unchanged but amendments to the 1958 Act made eligibility criteria more stringent.
Under the 1977 Act the length of unblemished service required before citizenship may be granted is increased to 15 years.[29] For persons not in Government service, citizenship may only be granted after twenty years of residency in Bhutan.[30]
The criteria for spouses of Bhutanese nationals to acquire citizenship are also tightened under the 1977 amendment and they are no longer automatically eligible for citizenship. Spouses who are not Bhutanese nationals are allowed to live in Bhutan, but citizenship has to be applied for.[31] The children of a Bhutanese father and a non-national mother are automatically granted citizenship,[32] but the children of a Bhutanese mother and a non-national father have to apply for citizenship.[33]
New criteria were introduced in the 1977 legislation, namely that all applicants should have some knowledge of both written and spoken Dzongkha, as well as some knowledge of the country's history.[34] This stipulation was especially difficult to meet for ethnic Nepalis in Southern Bhutan. Most ethnic Nepalis had very little contact with northern Bhutanese, and only a small minority of ethnic Nepalis would have any knowledge of the Dzongkha language, even though they may have lived in Bhutan all their lives.[35]
Citizenship can be revoked under the 1977 Act for involvement in activities against the King, speaking against the Government, or association with others involved in anti-government activities,[36] and for presenting false information when applying for citizenship.[37]
Two years after the 1977 Act came into force, the Government embarked upon a three-year census, carried out by district officials and village headmen, following which Citizenship Identity Cards began to be distributed. However, refugees report that distribution had still not been completed when the 1988 census got underway.[38]
2.4.3 The Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1985
The 1985 Citizenship Act tightened up still further the regulations on eligibility for the automatic granting of citizenship. Under this amendment, citizenship by birth is only available to persons whose parents are both Bhutanese citizens (Article 2). Those who have only one parent who is a Bhutanese citizen must apply for citizenship by naturalization. Additional requirements introduced in the 1985 Act are that applicants for citizenship must demonstrate proficiency (i.e. "some knowledge" as required in the 1977 Act is no longer sufficient) in speaking, writing and reading Dzongkha (Article 4 (d)) and good knowledge (rather than "some" as required in the 1977 Act) of the culture, customs, traditions and history of Bhutan (Article 4 (e)). Anyone who has been imprisoned for criminal offenses in Bhutan or elsewhere or has spoken or acted against the King, country and people of Bhutan is not eligible to apply for citizenship (Article 4(f) and (g)).[39]
The most contentious provision of the Act is the one which retroactively makes 1958 the cut- off year for determining citizenship and limits the granting of citizenship to those who can prove residence since before 31 December of that year (Article 3).
2.4.4 The Bhutan Marriage Act, 1980
The Bhutan Marriage Act of 1980 sets out a number of conditions concerning marriage between Bhutanese citizens and non-nationals.
In addition to establishing requirements such as that the non-national abide by traditional customs and government orders,[40] the marriage itself is only recognised as valid under Bhutanese law provided two people are present at the wedding to act as guarantors, one of whom must be a Bhutanese citizen.[41]
The Act provides strong disincentives to marriage to a foreigner above and beyond the restrictions on citizenship eligibility of non-national spouses provided for under the 1977 Citizenship Act. Under the 1980 Act, a Bhutanese citizen who marries a foreigner loses the right to government assistance in the form of land, seed, loans and livestock, as well as health benefits.[42] This stipulation was to prove especially disadvantageous in the predominantly ethnic Nepali populated south of the country where agriculture is the primary occupation. If an individual is in the service of the Government, promotion is denied from the day of marriage,[43] and removal from service is mandatory for Bhutanese citizens working in the national defence department or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who marry a non- national.[44] All government funding for education and training terminates upon marriage to a non-national and any expenses incurred up to the day of the marriage must be refunded.[45]
Ethnic Nepali refugees in Nepal contend that this act is discriminatory because of the disparate impact on ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan who, because of strict cultural and caste restrictions concerning marriage, commonly seek spouses outside of their home communities, often in Nepal and India. Refugees have also pointed to the unequal application of the act, citing cases of high ranking Drukpa officials who have foreign spouses but who appear to have been exempted from the penalties set out in the Act.[46]
3. GOVERNMENT POLICY TOWARDS ETHNIC NEPALIS IN SOUTHERN BHUTAN
3.1 Ethnicity and Population
The three main ethnic groups in Bhutan are the Ngalongs, the Sarchops and the ethnic Nepalis. The Ngalongs live mainly in the west of Bhutan and are the dominant political group, while the Sarchops are primarily located in the east. The ethnic Nepalis, known in Bhutan as Lhotshampas (meaning "southerners"), live primarily in the southern districts of Samchi, Dagana, Chirang, Sarbhang, Chhukha and Samdrup Jongkhar. Other ethnic groups include Khengs (often grouped together with the Sarchops), Adhivasi, Birmi, Brokpa, Doya, Lepcha, Tibetan and Toktop. Together, these latter groups are estimated to make up approximately 10 per cent of the population.[47]
The Ngalongs and the Sarchops are Buddhists and the two groups are together called Drukpas (in reference to the followers of the Drukpa Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism). Ngalongs and Sarchops speak closely related languages, although the language of the Ngalong, Dzongkha, is the national language. Only a minority of ethnic Nepalis are Buddhists, while the majority practise Hinduism.[48]
Population statistics for Bhutan are a source of considerable controversy and the accuracy of available population data is unclear. No reliable independent data is available and government figures have varied widely over the last fifteen years. In 1979, the Government estimated that the population of the country was 1.2 million. The estimate rose to 1.375 million in 1988, but in 1991 the figure was drastically reduced to 600,000.[49]
The ethnic breakdown of these figures is equally controversial and, although the three main ethnic groups are accepted as together comprising 85-90 per cent of the population, estimates of the percentage of the population represented by each of these groups varies considerably. As an example of the lack of clarity on this issue, Michael Hutt (who believes it is probable that none of the main ethnic groups is in a majority) points out that estimates of the Ngalong population vary from 10 to 28 per cent, the Sarchops from 30 to 40 per cent and the Nepalis from 25 to 52 per cent.[50]
Ethnic Nepalis began to settle in Bhutan in large numbers at the end of the 19th century, when the Dorji family was granted permission to settle immigrants in the south of the country in order to open up the land for cultivation. Most of the settlers were Nepali-speaking Hindus and by 1932 a British army officer is reported to have estimated that about 60,000 had settled in Samchi and Chirang districts in southwest Bhutan.[51]
According to the Government, ethnic Nepalis remained in these two districts until the early 1950s, when they began to occupy the areas of Sarbhang, Geylegphug and Samdrup Jongkhar.[52] The timing of the arrival of Nepalis in Bhutan since then is a highly contentious issue. Most of the refugees in camps in Nepal claim to have settled in the southern districts of Bhutan before 1958 or to trace their ancestry to those early settlers to derive claims of citizenship.[53] However, the government argues that large numbers of Nepalis came to Bhutan as a result of the development activities undertaken under the first Five Year Plan, launched in 1961. The Government suggests that they were brought in either to work on development projects and road construction, or entered as illegal immigrants attracted by better economic prospects in Bhutan. The Government stresses, however, that it was unaware of the scale of immigration until the 1988 census was carried out.[54]
Until the 1950s the Government appears to have paid little attention to developments in the south of the country. It was then that it began to introduce policies which granted ethnic Nepalis greater recognition and involvement in political and administrative life. Some observers suggest that the impetus for this may have come from political developments in neighbouring countries as well as the formation in Assam of the Bhutan State Congress by ethnic Nepalis in 1952.[55] Regardless of the Government's motives, however, the mid- to late-1950s saw a distinct change in the Government's policy towards ethnic Nepalis living in the south of the country, at the same time as the King began to bring Bhutan out of its isolation and to implement development policies. Not only were they for the first time granted citizenship, but ethnic Nepalis were also represented in the National Assembly.[56] In addition, ethnic Nepalis began to be admitted into the bureaucracy, the army and the police, and were made members of the cabinet and the judiciary.[57] Recognition was also given to the Nepali language, as well as to the festivals, customs, dress and traditions of ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese.[58]
From the late 1970s there was another shift in the Government's approach which signalled a growing unease among the political leadership of Bhutan about the ethnic Nepali population in the south of the country. Legislation, such as the 1980 Marriage Act and the 1977 and 1985 amendments to the Citizenship Act, focused on deterring further immigration, while other policies became more integrationist, with the emphasis on encouraging ethnic Nepalis to adapt to northern Bhutanese practices. For example, in 1978 the National Assembly adopted a policy which provided for a payment of 5,000 ngultrum (Nu.) as an incentive for marriage between ethnic Nepalis and northern Bhutanese (this figure was increased in 1990 to Nu. 10,000, although the low take-up rate led to the policy being stopped the following year.)[59] And in the early 1980s ethnic Nepalis in government service began to be required to undergo training in driglam namzha (a code of values, dress and etiquette based on northern Bhutanese traditions), learn some Dzongkha, and wear the Ngalong dress when engaged in official duties.
Despite these efforts by the Government, by the late 1980s the ethnic Nepali population in southern Bhutan remained culturally distinct from the rest of society, and there was no indication that the Government's integrationist policies were achieving the desired effect. It was in this context that the Government initiated a census to determine citizenship, and to implement a series of more rigorous policies to integrate ethnic Nepalis into the northern Bhutanese culture.
3.2 The 1988 Census
The census of 1988 which was carried out only in the southern districts of Bhutan, used the criteria set out in the 1985 Citizenship Act to identify Bhutanese nationals. The census placed the population into one of seven categories:
F1 Genuine Bhutanese citizens.
F2 Returned migrants (people who left Bhutan and then returned).
F3 "Drop out" cases, i.e. people who were not around at the time of the census.[60]
F4 A non-national woman married to a Bhutanese man.
F5 A non-national man married to a Bhutanese woman.
F6 Adoption cases (children who have been legally adopted).
F7 Non-nationals, i.e. migrants and illegal settlers.
Although the way in which the census was conducted varied in different areas (some districts and villages are said not to have experienced the complications and harassment that others did) the census ran into controversy almost immediately.[61] Not only was there no clear indication given by census officials about the implications of being placed in any of the seven categories,[62] there were also consistent reports that the census was being carried out in an arbitrary fashion,[63] and that the standards being applied for proof of citizenship were unduly rigorous.[64]
In accordance with the 1985 Citizenship Act the census required ethnic Nepalis to provide documentary evidence of their residence in the country in 1958. The standards set for proving residence were extremely strict and in some areas no account appears to have been taken of the difficulties that the production of appropriate documentation would pose for a largely illiterate people in a country that has only recently adopted basic administrative procedures.[65] In some cases it has been suggested that appropriate documentation simply would not exist. It has also been pointed out, for example, that the Home Ministry did not exist until 1968, and that prior to this census records were held by village headmen who did not keep accurate and comprehensive records.[66] Although comprehensive systems for enumeration in the census records only date back to 1972, it was only in 1977 that proper documentation providing proof of payment of land taxes was instituted.[67] Furthermore, in some districts and villages no provision was made for village elders and headmen to vouch for people they knew to be citizens but who lacked the relevant paperwork, as had been permitted in the past.[68] Census teams are also said to have refused to accept as evidence of residence relevant documentation for the years prior to 1958.[69]
Even those ethnic Nepalis who were able to produce what they believed to be evidence of their eligibility to be granted F1 status were exempted under the very strict guidelines used by the census teams. Many ethnic Nepalis who possessed citizenship certificates issued by district officials under the provisions of the 1958 Nationality Law found these declared null and void unless they could produce documents proving at least residence, and often land ownership, prior to 1958.[70] Others who possessed the citizenship identity cards that had begun to be distributed following the previous census, were similarly classified as non- nationals or "illegal immigrants".[71] Many refugees have complained that when they provided relevant documentation it was frequently seized or confiscated by the census or other local officials.[72]
Even when people were able to supply the documentation required, refugees in Nepal complain that impossibly strict standards were set for their acceptance. For example, some said that documentation was rejected for minor spelling differences, or because middle names were spelled out on one document and were given simply as initials in another.[73]
Refugees report further that the results of the categorization were liable to change. In most cases families were advised orally of the decision, and despite being advised initially that their citizenship had been confirmed, in some cases they were subsequently told that they had been declared "illegal immigrants" or non-nationals.[74]
Despite the problems associated with the census, the Government has given no indication that it will be discontinued. In late October 1993 there were reports that the administration had begun evicting alleged non-nationals detected in Chhukha district, and it was announced that another census in Samchi district was to be carried out.[75] Three months earlier, the Home Minister estimated that the census would be continuing until at least 1998.[76]
3.3 "Bhutanization" Policies
There is no doubt that the census caused considerable anxiety among the ethnic Nepali population in southern Bhutan. But this was not the only concern of ethnic Nepalis in the late 1980s. The Government also introduced a series of policies as part of the promotion of the distinct national identity and the "One Nation, One People" theme of the sixth five-year plan, aimed at instilling a greater sense of unity among the population as a whole. Whether or not this was the true intention of the authorities, the policies have had a very different result. In practice, the measures which include the requirement that southern Bhutanese wear traditional northern Bhutanese dress, and the withdrawal of the Nepali language from school curriculums in the south, engendered a growing sense of anxiety, resentment and alienation among the ethnic Nepali population, culminating in unprecedented demonstrations in the south of the country in late 1990.[77]
In January 1989, the King issued a decree which required all citizens to observe driglam namzha, the traditional northern Bhutanese code of values, dress and etiquette. The most controversial element of this was the requirement that everyone wear the traditional costume of the Drukpa people (for men this means wearing the gho, a one-piece tunic, while women have to wear a kira, a one-piece dress) clothes commonly worn in the north, but seldom seen in the south of the country.[78]
The introduction of this requirement was regarded by ethnic Nepalis as a clear attack on their cultural identity. Resentment quickly grew as the policy was implemented. On-the-spot fines or imprisonment for a week were the penalties for failure to comply with the new dress code, and the police, who were permitted to keep 50 per cent of the fine as an incentive to enforce the policy, did so rigorously. The Government has since accepted that the policy was overzealously applied, and enforcement of the decree has since become lax, although it is still being observed during office hours in southern towns like Phuntsholing and Geylegphug.[79]
Concern among ethnic Nepalis about the threat to their cultural identity implied by the application of driglam namzha was heightened still further in February 1989 when the Nepali language was removed from the curriculum in schools in the south of the country.[80] The Director of Education claimed that the decision was taken on purely educational grounds, in response to a UNICEF report which suggested that the requirement for southern schoolchildren to study three languages -- Nepali, Dzongkha and English -- was hampering overall levels of achievement.[81] Nevertheless, the timing of the decision ensured that it was perceived as a further attack on ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese culture.
4. RESPONSE BY THE ETHNIC NEPALIS
4.1 Petition to the King and Demonstrations
As the census went on and the "Bhutanization" programmes continued, unrest grew as a result of what was perceived by the population in the south as an attempt by the Government to oust ethnic Nepalis and impose an alien culture. The widespread anxiety about the census was formally voiced in a petition to the King, submitted in April 1988 by two southern Bhutanese members of the Royal Advisory Council, Tek Nath Rizal and B. P. Bhandari. The petition raised concerns about the way in which the census was being carried out and about the retroactive application of the 1985 Citizenship Act, and urged the intervention of the King to remedy the situation. Far from achieving the desired result, the petition was declared seditious and against Tsa-Wa-Sum (the three elements of King, Country and People). Tek Nath Rizal was briefly detained, and the census operation continued as before. (Tek Nath Rizal was sentenced to life imprisonment in November 1993. Three days after he was sentenced he was granted a pardon by the King. However, the pardon is conditional on the Governments of Bhutan and Nepal resolving the issue of ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese refugees living in refugee camps in Nepal.)[82]
Disaffection among ethnic Nepalis also resulted in the politicization of at least a small sector of the ethnic Nepali population, and various political groups were formed, both in Bhutan and in Nepal, which set up discussion groups and circulated anti-government literature. One of the first of these was the Peoples Forum for Human Rights (PFHR), established in Nepal by Tek Nath Rizal and others in July 1989.[83]
By early 1990 discontent was widespread in the south of the country and the Government began to attribute criminal acts to people whom the Government labelled ngolops or "anti- nationals". Initially, their activities are reported to have centred on extortion and the stripping of people wearing northern Bhutanese dress. From mid-1990 the "anti-nationals", said by the Government to include members of the Bhutan People's Party (BPP), are alleged to have engaged in more serious crimes such as the murder and kidnapping of civilians, including census officers and other government officials.[84]
In September and October 1990, resentment of government policies erupted in a series of unprecedented public demonstrations throughout the south by thousands of ethnic Nepalis. The demonstrations, which in some districts continued for days, were reportedly organised by the BPP, together with the PFHR and the Students Union of Bhutan.[85] Although in the main peaceful, there were incidents involving material damage and violence, such as the destruction of census records and the stripping of local officials wearing ghos.[86] The Government responded by calling the protesters "anti-nationals" who were guilty of treason,[87] and banning the BPP, accusing it of responsibility for violent attacks on people and property.[88]
4.2 "Anti-National" Activities
Following the demonstrations there were increasing reports in the country's only newspaper, Kuensel, of criminal acts being committed in the south of the country, attributed to "anti- nationals". These ranged from murder, kidnapping and rape, to threats to local officials, harassment of teachers and students, and robbery and assaults on civilians. In addition, "anti- nationals" were blamed for attacks on property in the south of the country, including schools and private homes.[89]
It is generally accepted that a wide range of crimes have been committed in southern Bhutan since the beginning of the unrest.[90] In some cases so-called "anti-nationals" do appear to have been responsible for these acts. However, it is by no means clear that government opponents are to blame in all cases, and the Government's claim that "most of the terrorist raids are being carried out by terrorist groups sent from the refugee camps in Nepal"[91] is not substantiated. In fact, as the U.S. Department of State points out, it appears that a large number of the attacks the Government has identified as incidents of terrorism have in fact been the work of criminal gangs taking advantage of unsettled conditions on the Indo-Bhutan border.[92]
5. CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEMONSTRATIONS
5.1 Arbitrary Arrest, Ill-Treatment and Torture
In the aftermath of the demonstrations there were consistent reports of widespread human rights violations, including arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment and torture, being committed against ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese. Anyone suspected of involvement in, or support of, "anti- national activity" was a target, as were the families of people thought to have been involved in protest of any kind. In some cases the violations were simply carried out in retaliation to the protests. In others, the violations, or the threat of such, appear to have been deliberately aimed at forcing ethnic Nepalis to leave the country.
Amnesty International reports that from late 1990 raids on the homes of Nepali speaking southern Bhutanese became common. During the raids families were questioned about their involvement in the September 1990 demonstrations and about their links with the BPP. Suspects were arrested. Those detained were held in poor conditions either at the district jail or local school (all schools in the south were closed following the demonstrations and many of them were converted into army barracks or detention centres) and kept for periods ranging from one week to 12 months without charge or trial. Upon release former prisoners report being warned against involvement in "anti-national" activity and threatened with rearrest. Others say that they were released only on condition that they leave the country.[93]
In some cases the Government is said to have arrested and ill-treated prominent figures in local communities to intimidate others into leaving the country so as to avoid a similar fate. For example, following the refusal in late 1991 by the inhabitants of Lamidara in Chirang district to leave the country, three respected community figures were arrested and tortured. Following this, some 500 households in Lamidara, almost the whole population, filled out emigration forms.[94]
Many of those detained were ill-treated and tortured and several prisoners are reported to have died in detention during 1991 as a result of ill-treatment or torture or due to receiving either inadequate medical treatment or no treatment at all for illnesses contracted during imprisonment.[95]
In a survey carried out in the refugee camps in Nepal between May and July 1993, 95 male torture victims confirmed that severe beating and kicking was the most common method of torture. Beatings were frequently carried out with bamboo canes or wooden sticks, but also with iron rods, electric wire, belts, whips, rifle butts, bayonets, roots of trees and thorn branches. The men also described being subjected to a variety of other torture techniques, as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.[96]
From the evidence it appears that abuse by government forces peaked during the eighteen months following the September 1990 disturbances. Amnesty International points out that reports of gross human rights violations declined "significantly" from about mid-1992 onwards.[97] The findings of the survey appear to bear this out, with 86 of the 95 torture victims interviewed claiming to have been tortured during 1990 and 1991.[98]
Following the demonstrations another form of gross human rights abuse being perpetrated was rape. Amnesty International reports having received numerous allegations of rape of women by army personnel. Some of the victims are said to have died as a result of being raped.[99]
5.2 Other Human Rights Violations
For approximately eighteen months after the demonstrations ethnic Nepalis were at the greatest risk of gross physical abuse. Experience of such treatment, or the threat or fear of being subjected to it, was commonly cited by refugees who left the country during this period as the primary motivation for doing so. Since then, the level of serious physical abuse has declined significantly, although cases of torture and ill-treatment in police stations and prisons in the south continue to be reported.[100] The arrest of ethnic Nepalis also continues, albeit on a much smaller scale, but refugees state that many of those who are detained are released only after specifically agreeing to leave the country.[101] As of late 1993, in spite of the release in amnesties of over 1500 suspected government opponents, about 200 "anti-nationals" were still in detention pending trial on charges related to political unrest in southern Bhutan.[102] During their visit to Bhutan in October 1994 the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited Chemgang Central Jail which then held 148 prisoners. Of these 36 had been convicted under the National Security Act, 1992, 51 were charged with having committed offenses under the Act and the other 61 were awaiting commencement of proceedings against them under the Act.[103] The Working Group reported that in the course of its interviews at Chemgang Central Jail it found that in many instances people had been detained for years without having been charged and that persons who had been charged had not been brought before a judge for trial. In most instances those charged did not know when they might be tried.[104]
In the main, however, the methods of persecution of ethnic Nepalis have changed. Where previously they were at risk of arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment and torture, including rape, from about mid-1992 onwards ethnic Nepalis were increasingly coming under different forms of pressure to leave the country. Reasons for departure now more commonly cited include forcible eviction, the destruction of houses and harassment and intimidation by local authorities. This despite a royal decree issued in January 1992 making it a criminal offence to force any genuine citizens to leave the country, and reports that some district officials in the south have been prosecuted for intimidation and corruption.[105] The continuing denial of public services, increasing depopulation in the south of the country, and the wish to be reunited with family members who have already left the country are also reasons for departure given by refugees arriving in Nepal.
The census operation, which is continuing in southern Bhutan, is another reason why ethnic Nepalis are still leaving the country. Refugees interviewed by Amnesty International in November 1993 reported that the census continues to be carried out unfairly and improperly and described a variety of abuses associated with the census. These include the confiscation of citizenship identity cards and land tax receipts, and being threatened with imprisonment or a fine for failure to leave the country within days of a negative citizenship decision being made. The census also continues to be carried out arbitrarily. For example, one refugee reported being classified as a non-national simply because his parents and brother had left the country. In some cases people who were told that they were classified as genuine Bhutanese citizens have subsequently been deprived of citizenship on the basis of a decision by a local government official. In others, married couples have been forced to leave Bhutan after they were put in different categories by the census teams, even when one of them was confirmed as a Bhutanese citizen.[106] In 1993 there were also reports that additional administrative obstacles, such as alterations to the way in which land deeds are numbered, have been placed in the way of ethnic Nepalis seeking to provide proof of land ownership to the census teams.[107]
Another means by which ethnic Nepalis are being forced to leave the country, and a method cited by an increasing number of refugees during 1993, is the revocation of their citizenship under the provision of the 1985 Citizenship Act concerning citizens who have been "shown by act or speech to be disloyal in any manner whatsoever to the King, country, and people of Bhutan" (Article 6(c)).[108]
Refugees also report being coerced into signing so-called "voluntary migration forms", stating that they are selling their land and leaving the country of their own free will, under the threat of large fines or imprisonment if they failed to comply.[109] Many acknowledge that they did receive some compensation for their land, although others did not, but almost all stress that any money they received was well below the market value. More importantly, though, they all confirm that they felt they had no choice but to sign the forms. Occasionally, refugees report that they were videotaped signing the forms. One refugee said that after the camera was turned off officials made various "deductions" which left him with no money.[110] Another refugee, who was told during the census that he could not stay in the country because his brother had already left, said that a pistol was held against his back while he made a statement in front of the video saying he would not return to Bhutan.[111] Amnesty International reports that journalists and visitors to Bhutan have been shown videos of ethnic Nepalis signing the forms as proof that those involved left the country of their own volition.[112] Human rights organizations report that the practice of the forced signing of "voluntary migration forms" continues.[113]
There are also reports of ethnic Nepalis being forced by the authorities to leave Bhutan in retaliation for criminal activities perpetrated by others. In some instances interviewees described whole village blocks (a group of between three and six villages) of families, who were recognised as Bhutanese citizens, being nonetheless forced out en masse, apparently in retaliation for a robbery or an attack on a local government official attributed by the authorities to "anti-national" elements.[114]
On a day-to-day basis ethnic Nepalis are also liable to be subjected to lower level harassment, such as the repeated checking of documents. For example, during December 1993 there were reports of security forces visiting houses in Gaylegphug, Sarbhang district, at night and demanding to check identification documents.[115]
As the number of ethnic Nepalis who have left Bhutan has increased, so the depopulation of villages in the south of the country has become an increasingly serious problem for those who remain. Without community support, such as the joint maintenance of irrigation canals and assistance with sowing and harvesting, and the lack of common security against criminals, it can be extremely difficult for isolated households to survive on their own, with the result that in some cases they opt to leave and seek refuge in Nepal.[116]
Although depopulation is causing considerable hardship for ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan, the Government's response, through the settlement of northern Bhutanese in areas formerly inhabited by ethnic Nepalis, is a matter of some concern, and could have serious implications for any future repatriation programme. Resettlement does not yet appear to be happening on a large scale, but there is evidence that resettlement is already taking place in some parts of southern Bhutan, for example in Samdrup Jongkhar district. There have also been reports that land in Samdrup Jongkhar, Chirang and Samchi districts, left vacant by ethnic Nepalis who have sought refuge in Nepal, is being made available to northern Bhutanese at very low prices.[117] The statement by the Home Minister in the 1993 session of the National Assembly, when he confirmed that a nationwide survey of suitable land for resettlement of landless people was then in progress,[118] indicates that the Government plans to increase the rate of resettlement.
5.3 Denial of Public Services
A number of other government initiatives that discriminate against ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese have created additional hardship for them since the 1990 demonstrations. Many of these are still in operation today.
One of the most controversial of these initiatives was the introduction of "No Objection Certificates" (NOCs), documents issued by the police which confirm that the bearer has no involvement in "anti-national activity". Following the unrest in the south of the country prompted by the census operation and the Government's "Bhutanization" policies, possession of an NOC became mandatory for ethnic Nepalis who wished to gain admission to schools, be eligible for scholarships to study outside Bhutan, get jobs in the civil service and places on training courses, as well as in order to obtain business and trading licenses and travel documents. Farmers also required an NOC in order to access their earnings from cash crops, the sale of which is government controlled.[119] Refugees report that it was virtually impossible for ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese to obtain NOCs.[120]
The Government claims that, on command of the King, the NOC requirement for school admissions was dropped in 1992.[121] However the NOC is still reported to be required for ethnic Nepalis seeking government employment and training, or to travel abroad.[122] Ethnic Nepalis are also said to be denied the necessary documents to enable them to travel within the country, thereby denying them educational and employment opportunities.[123]
It is unclear to what extent public services in the south of the country, many of which were suspended in the wake of the 1990 demonstrations, have been restored as Government statistics on this are challenged by refugee groups. For example, as of mid-1993 the Government claimed that sixty-four schools had been reopened,[124] but refugee sources claim that only twenty-four schools were then in operation. According to these sources, of the twenty-four, nine are in parts of the south without ethnic Nepali populations, while admission to the remainder is said to be restricted to children of members of the security forces, government officials, etc.[125]
6. NEPAL-BHUTAN TALKS
Talks between the governments of Bhutan and Nepal on the refugee issue have been continuing since November 1992, although progress has been slow and the signs are that it has by and large been Nepal that has made the concessions necessary to keep the talks going. The first major breakthrough in the talks occurred in July 1993 when a joint statement was signed announcing the formation of a six-member Joint Ministerial Level Committee. The joint statement gave the Committee the mandate to "determine the different categories of people in the refugee camps who are claiming to have come from Bhutan" and "to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement on each category, which will provide a basis for the resolution of the problem".[126] It took a further two months before the committee members were announced.
Progress since then has been disappointing. The first meeting of the Bhutan-Nepal Joint Ministerial Level Committee, headed by the home ministers from both countries, took place in Kathmandu in October 1993. At the meeting the two sides agreed that all the people in the refugee camps in Nepal would be grouped into one of four categories. Since then there have been three more joint ministerial meetings (in February, April and June 1994) but little concrete progress has been made. The Government of Bhutan has refused to agree to Nepal's proposal that an independent panel be set up to categorise the refugees, and instead a bilateral joint verification team is to be established. As yet, however, no agreement has been reached about the criteria that will be used to categorise the refugees, and the fifth meeting, scheduled for September 1994, was postponed because of general elections in Nepal held in November.
A sixth meeting of bilateral talks which was held in April 1995 concluded without an agreed date for the next meeting.
The four categories of refugees that have been agreed are:
1. Bonafide Bhutanese, if they have been evicted forcefully
2. Bhutanese who emigrated
3. Non-Bhutanese
4. Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts
Refugee groups and human rights organizations have expressed serious reservations about the agreement on categorization that has been reached between the two governments and about the methods that appear likely to be used to implement it.[127] If eligibility for return is based on Bhutanese citizenship laws (and the nature of the four categories clearly implies that this is so) this will certainly raise serious problems, not least because some of the provisions contained in Bhutan's citizenship laws conflict with international law. Therefore, if Bhutan's domestic laws are used to define eligibility, they are likely to result in people who are entitled under international law to return to their own country (for example, those who signed "voluntary migration forms" and so-called "anti-nationals", who would presumably be placed in category 2 and category 4, respectively) finding themselves denied citizenship and therefore the right to return. Clarification of the criteria to be used to classify refugees into the four groups must therefore be sought at the earliest opportunity.
Even as far as category 1 is concerned, there is no clarity about the criteria that will be used to determine who will be defined as belonging to this category. If the criteria are the same as those used during the census operation to define citizenship then all the problems associated with that will arise again. Indeed the difficulties will be compounded for refugees, many of whom have had what documentation they possessed confiscated prior to leaving the country.
Finally, if Bhutanese law is used to determine eligibility for return to Bhutan a crucial question that needs to be addressed is what will happen to ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese who are denied the right to return and who will have no claim to nationality or right to live in any other country. There is thus a very real danger that the process as it now stands is likely to result in a large number of refugees being rendered stateless.
7. CONCLUSION
The slow pace of progress of the Nepal-Bhutan government talks means that there is still some way to go before an end to the refugee crisis will be in sight. However, the situation as it stands leaves considerable room for an unsatisfactory resolution to the crisis unless certain key issues are addressed.
First, as far as the refugees in Nepal are concerned, the priority must be to clarify the categorization process agreed by the Bhutan and Nepal governments before any screening of refugees begins, and to ensure that eligibility will be defined according to international law and not simply in accordance with Bhutanese domestic legislation. However, for as long as talks continue on a bilateral basis only, it is questionable whether this will be achieved. Bhutan seems to be under no great pressure, and is therefore in no great rush, to resolve the matter, while Nepal would no doubt like to see the refugee crisis resolved as soon as possible.
If a third party were introduced into the equation, there is a chance that further backsliding could be avoided and a fair and safe resolution to the crisis could be achieved. The Government of Nepal has, since talks with Bhutan on the matter began, indicated that it would seek India's good offices to resolve the issue in the event that Nepal and Bhutan were unable to resolve the matter bilaterally, and this was reiterated in October 1994 by the then- prime minister (of Nepal) Girija Prasad Koirala. Most observers argue that India holds the key to the solution of the crisis and that its considerable influence over both Bhutan and Nepal can be used to press for progress to be made. However, it does not appear that India is prepared to get involved, and indeed it has repeatedly stressed that it regards the issue as a bilateral one, to be sorted out by the governments of Bhutan and Nepal. A solution to the issue at hand may thus be to engage the involvement of either a third government to act as arbiter, or an independent third party to act as intermediary.
Even if this were to occur, and in the event that a determination process gets under way that accords with international law, the matter of the human rights situation in Bhutan still needs to be resolved. From the evidence of refugees arriving in the camps it is clear that the persecution of ethnic Nepalis by the Bhutanese authorities continues. Before any of the refugees are repatriated it seems imperative that the Government of Bhutan undertakes to end state-sanctioned persecution and to offer guarantees for the safety and security of returning refugees and of ethnic Nepalis who remain in the country. Before repatriation begins the problems associated with the on-going census operation should also be addressed, and there should be an immediate halt to continuing forcible eviction of ethnic Nepalis. The resettlement of northern Bhutanese in areas formerly inhabited by the refugees should also cease.
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
AHURA (Association of Human Rights Activists, Bhutan).
Bhutan: A Shangri-la Without Human Rights. Jhapa [Nepal], June 1993
Amnesty International.
Bhutan: Human Rights Violations against the Nepali-speaking Population in the South. AI Index: ASA 14/04/92. London, December 1992
Amnesty International.
Bhutan: Appeal for the Release of Tek Nath Rizal. AI Index: ASA 14/02/94. London,
March 1994
Amnesty International.
Report 1994. London, 1994
Amnesty International.
Bhutan: Forcible Exile. AI Index: ASA 14/04/94. London, August 1994
Aziz-al Ahsan, Syed and Chakma, Bhumitra.
"Bhutan's Foreign Policy: Cautious Self-Assertion, Asian Survey, vol. XXXIII, no. 11 (November 1993)
Bhutan Department of Information.
Anti-National Activities in Southern Bhutan: An Update on the Terrorist Movement. Thimphu [Bhutan], 12 August 1992
Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Southern Bhutan Problem: Threat to a Nation's Survival. Thimphu [Bhutan], May 1993
The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, Nepal],
"Schools Reopened in Southern Bhutan?". May 1993
The Bhutan Review Monthly,
"Build-Up to the 73rd Session of the National Assembly". August 1994
The Bhutan Review Monthly,
"'Amnesty' to Prisoners". September 1994
Dhakal, D.N.S., and Strawn, C.
Bhutan: A Movement in Exile. Jaipur: Nirala Publications, 1994
Dubble, C.
Survey of Victims of Violence in the Bhutanese Refugee Camps in Eastern Nepal (May-July 1993). N.p., July 1993
Far East and Australasia 1994,
Europa Publications Ltd
HUROB (Human Rights Organization of Bhutan).
Annual Report 1992. Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December 1992
HUROB.
Annual Report 1993. Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December 1993
HUROB.
Letters to the author, 27 August 1994 and 5 October 1994
Hutt, M.
"Bhutan's Crisis of Identity" in The World Book Year Book. London. 1994
Hutt, M.
"Refugees from Shangri-la" in Index on Censorship, vol. 22, no. 4, (April 1993)
INHURED (International Institute for Human Rights Environment and Development).
Bhutan: An Iron Path to Democracy. Kathmandu, January 1992
INHURED.
Bhutanese Refugees: Destitutes without Destination. A Documentation of Human Rights Violations in the Kingdom of Bhutan. Kathmandu, February 1993
The Kathmandu Post.
"Bhutanese Refugees: One Year of Talks". 30 April 1994
Kuensel [Thimpu],
National Assembly Supplement, "The Proceedings and Resolutions of the 72nd Session of the National Assembly (8-30 July 1993), 7 August 1993
Parmanand.
The Politics of Bhutan: Retrospect and Prospect. Delhi: Pragati Publications, 1992
SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation).
The Bhutan Tragedy When Will It End?. Kathmandu, May 1992
Thronson, D. B.
Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan. Kathmandu: INHURED, August 1993
UN Commission on Human Rights.
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994
U.S. Department of State.
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993: Bhutan. Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic format].
The views expressed in the papers are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of UNHCR.
[1]Although the flow of refugees has diminished considerably since 1993, the slow but steady trickle of ethnic Nepalis into Nepal, and the testimonies they provide, are evidence that they continue to face persecution in Bhutan, albeit the methods have changed.
[2]Far East and Australasia 1994, Europa Publications Ltd, p. 134.
[3]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, (New Delhi, 1994), p. 88
[4]According to the Bhutanese newspaper, Kuensel, 28 September 1991, quoted in D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 88
[5]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 93
[6]U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993, Bhutan. Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic format]
[7]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la' in Index on Censorship [London] (April 1994), p. 11
[8]Parmanand, The Politics of Bhutan: Retrospect and Prospect, (Delhi: Pragati Publications, 1992), pp. 60-61, citing Sunday [Calcutta], 'The People will Decide: King Jigme Singye Wangchuck on the future of Bhutan', 28 October 1990
[9]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 99, citing Dorji, Rigzin. 1989. A Brief Religious, Cultural and Secular History of Bhutan. Asia Society Galleries: New York, p. 13
[10]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 98
[11]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 100 quoting Parmanand, p. 54
[12]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, paragraph 10
[13]Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs, The Southern Bhutan Problem: Threat to a Nation's Survival, (Thimphu [Bhutan], May 1993), p. 20
[14]Ibid.
[15]Parmanand, The Politics of Bhutan: Retrospect and Prospect, p. 60
[16]UNHCR/CDR Legal Databases, April 1995
[17]UNHCR/CDR Legal Databases, April 1995
[18]U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993, Bhutan. Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic format]
[19]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, paragraph 14(a)
[20]Ibid, paragraph 14(b)
[21]Bhutan Department of Information, Anti-National Activities in Southern Bhutan: An Update on the Terrorist Movement, p. 43. These figures do not tally with those given in the report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention which states that the high court consists of six judges. See UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, paragraph 14(c)
[22]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, paragraph 14(c)
[23]ibid., paragraph 27
[24]Ibid, paragraph 8
[25]The text of the Nationality Law of Bhutan, 1958, is reproduced from the text as it appears in Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs. The Southern Bhutan Problem, Appendix Two. References are to numbered paragraphs (articles) in this text.
[26]Ibid.
[27]Ibid.
[28]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), pp. 14-15
[29]The text of the Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1977, is reproduced from the text as it appears in Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs. The Southern Bhutan Problem, Appendix Two. References are to numbered paragraphs within sections identified by letter combinations (KA, KHA etc.). Conditions Required for the Grant of Citizenship, KA 1".
[30]Conditions Required for the Grant of Citizenship, KA 2.
[31]Procedure for Acquisition of Citizenship, CHA 1 and 2.
[32]Procedure for Acquisition of Citizenship, CHA2.
[33]Procedure for Acquisition of Citizenship, CHA 1.
[34]Conditions Required for the Grant of Citizenship, KA 3.
[35]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, pp. 172-173
[36]Penalty for Violation of Rules, TA 1
[37]Penalty for Violation of Rules, TA2
[38]HUROB (Human Rights Organization of Bhutan), Annual Report 1992 (Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December 1992), p. 2
[39]The text of the Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1985, is reproduced from the text as it appears in Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs. The Southern Bhutan Problem, Appendix Two. References are to numbered sections (articles) in this text.
[40]The Bhutan Marriage Act, 1980, Kha 2-10. References in this section are to numbered paragraphs (Kha 2-1 etc.), of the text of the Act as reproduced in D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing, Appendix 2. Thronson notes that this text is reproduced from SAARC, The Bhutan Tragedy. When Will It End? and is not an official translation by the Bhutanese Government.
[41]Ibid.,Kha 2-1
[42]Ibid.,Kha 2-7
[43]Ibid.,Kha 2-4, Kha 2-5
[44]Ibid.,Kha 2-6
[45]Ibid.,Kha 2-8
[46]INHURED (International Institute for Human Rights Environment and Development), Bhutan: An Iron Path to Democracy, (Kathmandu, January 1992), p. 9
[47]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, (New Delhi, 1994), pp. 44 and 49
[48]M. Hutt, 'Bhutan's Crisis of Identity', in The World Book Year Book, (London, 1994), pp. 65-66
[49]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 48
[50]M.Hutt, 'Bhutan's Crisis of Identity', p. 66
[51]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 11
[52] Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs. The Southern Bhutan Problem, p. 3
[53]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 7
[54]Dawa Tsering, Bhutan's Foreign Minister, quoted in Himal, July/August 1994, p. 22
[55]Ibid.
[56]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 143
[57]Ibid, p. 151, citing Sinha, 1991, p. 223
[58]Ibid, p. 152
[59]Syed Aziz-al Ahsan and Bhumitra Chakma, 'Bhutan's Foreign Policy: Cautious Self-Assertion', Asian Survey, vol. XXXIII, no. 11, (November 1993), p. 1050, citing Kuensel, National Assembly Supplement, 2 November 1991, pp. 9-11
[60] Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations Against the Nepali-Speaking Population in the South, According to Amnesty International, this category has been phased out and the people originally placed in this category have been allocated to others, London, December 1992, p. 6
[61]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 193
[62]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 16
[63]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, pp. 193-194
[64] D.B.Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 18
[65]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, pp. 192
[66]INHURED, Bhutan: An Iron Path to Democracy, p. 4
[67]SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation), The Bhutan Tragedy. When Will It End?, p. 9
[68]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 193
[69]SAARC, The Bhutan Tragedy. When Will It End?, p. 9
[70]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la, p. 10
[71]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, London, August 1994, p. 7
[72]AHURA (Association of Human Rights Activists, Bhutan), Bhutan: A Shangri-la Without Human Rights. (Jhapa [Nepal], June 1993), p. 24, citing Petition to the King of Bhutan, 9 April 1988
[73]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 18
[74]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, p. 7
[75]HUROB (Human Rights Organization of Bhutan), Annual Report 1993, (Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December 1993), p. 9
[76]Kuensel [Thimpu], National Assembly Supplement, 'The Proceedings and Resolutions of the 72nd Session of the National Assembly (8-30 July 1993), 7 August 1993, p. 8
[77]M. Hutt, 'Bhutan's Crisis of Identity', p. 69
[78]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 20
[79]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993: Bhutan, Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic format]
[80]Ibid.
[81]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 10
[82]Amnesty International believes Tek Nath Rizal to be a prisoner of conscience held for the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression and association. For further information see Amnesty International, Bhutan: Appeal for the Release of Tek Nath Rizal, London, March 1994
[83]The formation of the PFHR was followed in June 1990 by the establishment of the Bhutan People's Party (BPP) and, in February 1992, the Bhutan National Democratic Party (BNDP), which was led by former government officials. Both the BPP and the BNDP have been labelled by the Government as "anti-national organizations" aimed at achieving the political domination of the country by ethnic Nepalis, and they are not allowed to function in Bhutan. Both parties advocate a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy and claim wide support in the south of the country. The most recently formed political party, the Druk National Congress, was founded in Nepal in June 1994. It is unusual in that its membership is made up of northern Bhutanese.
[84]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations, pp. 10-11
[85]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 26
[86]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 12
[87]Ibid, p. 13
[88]U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993, Bhutan. Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic format]
[89]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations, pp. 10-11
[90]A "Summary of Terrorist Activities" updated as of 17 October 1994, was given to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention by the Government of Bhutan. See UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, Annex 1
[91]Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs, The Southern Bhutan Problem, p. 10
[92]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993, Bhutan, [electronic format]
[93]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations, pp. 13-14
[94]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 259
[95]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations, p. 21
[96]C. Dubble, Survey of Victims of Violence in the Bhutanese Refugee Camps in Eastern Nepal (May-July 1993), (n.p., July 1993), pp. 7-12
[97]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, p. 3
[98]C. Dubble, Survey of Victims of Violence, pp. 7-12
[99]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations, p. 19
[100]Amnesty International, Report 1994, London, 1994, p. 74
[101]The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, Nepal], '"Amnesty" to Prisoners', September 1994, p. 1
[102]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993: Bhutan, [electronic format].
[103]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, paragraph 20
[104]Ibid., paragraph 21
[105]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 14, citing Kuensel [Thimpu], 30 November 1992
[106]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, pp. 9-11
[107]HUROB, Annual Report 1993, p. 9
[108]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993: Bhutan, [electronic format]
[109]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, p. 3
[110]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing, p. 33
[111]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, p. 15
[112] Ibid., p. 13
[113]Ibid., p. 15 and HUROB, Letter to the author, 27 August 1994
[114]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, p. 7
[115]HUROB, Annual Report 1993, p. 9
[116]HUROB, Letter to the author, 27 August 1994
[117]HUROB, Letter to the author, 5 October 1994
[118]Kuensel [Thimpu, Bhutan], National Assembly Supplement, 7 August 1993, pp. 17-18
[119]HUROB, Annual Report 1992, p. 14
[120]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing, p. 24
[121]Kuensel [Thimpu, Bhutan], National Assembly Supplement, 7 August 1993, p. 7
[122]HUROB, Letter to author, 27 August, 1994
[123]The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, Nepal], 'Build-Up to the 73rd Session of the National Assembly', August 1994, p. 4
[124]Kuensel [Thimpu, Bhutan], National Assembly Supplement, 7 August 1993, p. 7
[125]The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, Nepal] 'Schools Reopened in Southern Bhutan?', p. 4
[126]The Kathmandu Post, 'Bhutanese Refugees: One Year of Talks', 30 April 1994
[127]
Topics: Nepalis, Ethnic persecution, Ethnic discrimination, Mass exodus,
Title : The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern Bhutan
Publisher
WRITENET
Country
Bhutan
Publication Date
1 April 1995
Cite as
WRITENET, The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern Bhutan, 1 April 1995, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6a6c08.html [accessed 20 July 2010]
The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern Bhutan
1. INTRODUCTION
In 1988, citing concerns about the possibility of a rapidly increasing illegal immigrant population, the Bhutanese authorities began to carry out a census in southern Bhutan to determine citizenship. Shortly after the census began, the Government also introduced a series of measures ostensibly designed to integrate ethnic Nepalis more fully into Bhutanese society. As a result, a series of demonstrations, unprecedented in the country's history, took place in southern districts of Bhutan in September 1990 as thousands of ethnic Nepalis protested about the census and the Government's so-called 'Bhutanization' policies. The Government's response to the demonstrations was reportedly swift and harsh, and the months that followed saw widespread arbitrary arrests, ill-treatment and torture, followed by an exodus from the country of thousands of ethnic Nepalis from southern Bhutan.[1]
2. OVERVIEW OF THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Bhutan is a monarchy, with sovereign power vested in the King. The present King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck (who ascended to the throne in 1972 at the age of 16 and was formally crowned two years later[2]2) is the fourth king of the Wangchuck dynasty in Bhutan. The country has no written constitution.
2.1 The National Assembly
A partially elected National Assembly was established in 1953. It usually meets once or twice a year for a two-week period, although since the problems in the south began it has only met annually, if at all. The last meeting of the National Assembly, its 72nd session, was held in July 1993. As of the time of writing there was no indication of when the 73rd session would take place.
The number of National Assembly members fluctuates around 150. There are usually between 105 and 110 members elected by limited franchise, 12 appointed from the monastic establishment, and the remainder, about 35, are high-level government officials appointed by the King.[3] In the 1991 elections the body consisted of 154 members: 105 indirectly elected representatives, 39 representatives of the Government and 10 representatives of the monastic establishment.[4] Members of the National Assembly serve three-year terms (recently changed from five-year terms), although members can, and often do, serve one or more consecutive terms.[5]
The main functions of the National Assembly are to enact laws, approve senior government appointments, and advise the King on matters of national importance. It also provides a forum for presenting grievances and rectifying cases of maladministration. The King is not in a position to formally veto legislation, but he may return bills to the Assembly for further consideration. The members occasionally have rejected the King's recommendations or delayed their implementation, but in practice the King retains sufficient influence to ensure approval of legislation he considers essential or the withdrawal of proposals he opposes. Government officials may be questioned by the Assembly, and ministers may be forced to resign by a two-thirds majority vote of no confidence.[6]
Representation in the National Assembly of Nepali speaking southern Bhutanese is low. In 1990 the National Assembly is reported to have had just sixteen southern Bhutanese members.[7] In an interview in October 1990 in the Indian newspaper, Sunday, the King conceded that there was insufficient representation of southern Bhutanese in the National Assembly and that the ethnic composition needed to be changed in order to better reflect the ethnic composition of the country,[8] although no such changes appear to have been made to date.
2.2 The Royal Advisory Council and the Council of Ministers
The official functions of the Royal Advisory Council (RAC) are to advise the King on all matters of national importance, to promote the welfare of the people and the country's national interests, to develop good relations between the Government and the people and to ensure that the laws and resolutions passed by the National Assembly are implemented.[9]
Since its establishment in 1965 there have been between eight and ten members in the Royal Advisory Council, and membership currently stands at ten. Of these, six are elected from the National Assembly, two are representatives of the Buddhist clergy and two are appointees of the King. Two of the six National Assembly members are members from southern districts.[10]
Three years after the formation of the RAC the Council of Ministers was established. Presided over by the King, the Council is made up of ministers, deputy ministers (who since 1978 have been appointed by the King) and all members of the RAC.[11]
2.3 Local Administration
Local administration is organized into 20 districts each headed by a district chief appointed by the King and directly responsible to the Ministry of Home Affairs.[12] In 1981, District Development Committees (DDCs) were established as part of a decentralization programme. There are currently twenty such DDCs in the country, encompassing a total of some 560 elected members.[13]
All districts are divided administratively into blocks, which in turn are made up of several villages. Block Development Committees (BDCs) were established in 1991 in all the 196 blocks of villages in the country to promote further decentralization. The 196 BDCs have a total of 2,589 elected members.[14]
Prior to National Assembly sessions, meetings take place at block level, where heads of households are entitled to put forward issues of concern. Issues that cannot be addressed at block level are passed on for discussion at the district level by the DDCs. Issues deemed by these committees to be of national importance are then forwarded for inclusion in the National Assembly agenda.[15]
2.4 International and Domestic Instruments
Bhutan is not a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide; the Convention on Statutory Limitations of War Crimes; the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, nor the Geneva Conventions, and has not signed the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.[16]
The country is, however, a state party to the 1979 Convention on Discrimination Against Women; the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[17]
Criminal cases and a variety of civil matters are adjudicated under a 17th century legal code, revised in 1959. Judges are responsible for all aspects of a case, including investigation, filing of charges, prosecution and judgment. The legal system does not provide for jury trials or the right to a court appointed defence counsel. It has no provision for lawyers or solicitors, although it does allow for the appointment of a jabmi (a person well versed in law) if the defendant so desires.[18]
Minor offenses are adjudicated by village headmen and appeals can be made to the district court.[19] More serious cases are dealt with in district courts, of which there are 20, presided over by a magistrate appointed by the King and aided by assistants.[20] There is one high court in the capital, Thimphu. This consists of the chief justice and seven other judges, out of whom three are from southern Bhutan.[21] The high court serves both as a court of appeal against district court decisions and as a special court for matters involving state security. Proceedings are brought before the high court by the Public Prosecutor's office which comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs.[22] There is no law school in Bhutan and during its visit to Bhutan in October 1994 the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that none of the judges has a law degree.[23] After appeal to the high court a final appeal may be made to the King.[24]
2.4.1 The Nationality Law of Bhutan, 1958
In 1958 the King granted Bhutanese citizenship to Nepali settlers living in Bhutan by virtue of the Nationality Law of Bhutan, enacted that year.
Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the 1958 Nationality Law set out the conditions for obtaining Bhutanese citizenship, as follows:
3. Any person can become a Bhutanese national:
a) If his/her father is a Bhutanese National and is a resident of the Kingdom of Bhutan; or
b) If any person is born within or outside Bhutan after the commencement of this law provided the previous father is a Bhutanese National at the time of his/her birth.
4 (1) If any foreigner who has reached the age of majority and is otherwise eligible, presents a petition to an official appointed by His Majesty and takes an oath of loyalty according to the rules laid down by the Government to the satisfaction of the concerned official, he may be enrolled as a Bhutanese National, provided that:
a) The person is a resident of the Kingdom of Bhutan for more than ten years; and
b) Owns agricultural land within the Kingdom.
4 (2) If a woman, married to a Bhutanese National, submits a petition and takes the oath of loyalty as stated above to the satisfaction of the concerned official, and provided that she has reached the age of majority and is otherwise eligible, her name may be enrolled as a Bhutanese National.
4 (3) If any person has been deprived of his Bhutanese Nationality or has renounced his Bhutanese Nationality or forfeited his Bhutanese Nationality, the person cannot become a Bhutanese National again unless His Majesty the Druk Gyalpo grants approval to do so.
5 (1) If any foreigner submits petition to His Majesty the Druk Gyalpo according to rules described in the above sections, and provided the person has reached the age of majority and is otherwise eligible, and has performed satisfactorily in Government service for at least five years and has been residing in the Kingdom of Bhutan for at least 10 years, he may receive a Bhutanese Nationality Certificate. Once the certificate is received, such a person has to take the oath of loyalty according to the rules laid down by the Government and from that day onwards, his name will be enrolled as a Bhutanese National.
5 (2) Any foreigner who has reached the age of majority and is otherwise eligible, can receive a Nationality Certificate provided that in the opinion of His Majesty the Druk Gyalpo his conduct and his performance as a Government servant is satisfactory.[25]
Under the law a person shall forfeit their Bhutanese nationality if s/he: becomes a national of a foreign country and lives in that country (Article 6 (a)); has renounced Bhutanese nationality and settled in a foreign country (Article 6 (b)); claims to be a citizen of a foreign country or pledges an oath of loyalty to that country (Article 6 (c)); is registered as a Bhutanese national but has left his agricultural land or has stopped residing in Bhutan (Article 6 (d)); being a bonafide national has stopped residing in the country or fails to observe the laws of the Kingdom (Article 6(e)).[26]
Citizenship is liable to cancellation if it is found to have been obtained under false pretences (Article 7(1)); for engaging in activities against the King or for speaking against the King or the people of Bhutan (Article 7(2)(a)); for assisting the enemy in times of war (Article 7(2)(b)); or if, within a five-year period from being made a Bhutanese National, a person is imprisoned in any country for more than one year (Article 7(2)(c)).[27]
The granting of citizenship in 1958 was notified by royal proclamation. It was not, however, accompanied by any special certification process and there is little evidence that the enactment of the 1958 law made any real practical difference to the population.[28]
2.4.2 The Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1977
With the passing of the 1977 Citizenship Act, the basic principles of the 1958 Act remained unchanged but amendments to the 1958 Act made eligibility criteria more stringent.
Under the 1977 Act the length of unblemished service required before citizenship may be granted is increased to 15 years.[29] For persons not in Government service, citizenship may only be granted after twenty years of residency in Bhutan.[30]
The criteria for spouses of Bhutanese nationals to acquire citizenship are also tightened under the 1977 amendment and they are no longer automatically eligible for citizenship. Spouses who are not Bhutanese nationals are allowed to live in Bhutan, but citizenship has to be applied for.[31] The children of a Bhutanese father and a non-national mother are automatically granted citizenship,[32] but the children of a Bhutanese mother and a non-national father have to apply for citizenship.[33]
New criteria were introduced in the 1977 legislation, namely that all applicants should have some knowledge of both written and spoken Dzongkha, as well as some knowledge of the country's history.[34] This stipulation was especially difficult to meet for ethnic Nepalis in Southern Bhutan. Most ethnic Nepalis had very little contact with northern Bhutanese, and only a small minority of ethnic Nepalis would have any knowledge of the Dzongkha language, even though they may have lived in Bhutan all their lives.[35]
Citizenship can be revoked under the 1977 Act for involvement in activities against the King, speaking against the Government, or association with others involved in anti-government activities,[36] and for presenting false information when applying for citizenship.[37]
Two years after the 1977 Act came into force, the Government embarked upon a three-year census, carried out by district officials and village headmen, following which Citizenship Identity Cards began to be distributed. However, refugees report that distribution had still not been completed when the 1988 census got underway.[38]
2.4.3 The Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1985
The 1985 Citizenship Act tightened up still further the regulations on eligibility for the automatic granting of citizenship. Under this amendment, citizenship by birth is only available to persons whose parents are both Bhutanese citizens (Article 2). Those who have only one parent who is a Bhutanese citizen must apply for citizenship by naturalization. Additional requirements introduced in the 1985 Act are that applicants for citizenship must demonstrate proficiency (i.e. "some knowledge" as required in the 1977 Act is no longer sufficient) in speaking, writing and reading Dzongkha (Article 4 (d)) and good knowledge (rather than "some" as required in the 1977 Act) of the culture, customs, traditions and history of Bhutan (Article 4 (e)). Anyone who has been imprisoned for criminal offenses in Bhutan or elsewhere or has spoken or acted against the King, country and people of Bhutan is not eligible to apply for citizenship (Article 4(f) and (g)).[39]
The most contentious provision of the Act is the one which retroactively makes 1958 the cut- off year for determining citizenship and limits the granting of citizenship to those who can prove residence since before 31 December of that year (Article 3).
2.4.4 The Bhutan Marriage Act, 1980
The Bhutan Marriage Act of 1980 sets out a number of conditions concerning marriage between Bhutanese citizens and non-nationals.
In addition to establishing requirements such as that the non-national abide by traditional customs and government orders,[40] the marriage itself is only recognised as valid under Bhutanese law provided two people are present at the wedding to act as guarantors, one of whom must be a Bhutanese citizen.[41]
The Act provides strong disincentives to marriage to a foreigner above and beyond the restrictions on citizenship eligibility of non-national spouses provided for under the 1977 Citizenship Act. Under the 1980 Act, a Bhutanese citizen who marries a foreigner loses the right to government assistance in the form of land, seed, loans and livestock, as well as health benefits.[42] This stipulation was to prove especially disadvantageous in the predominantly ethnic Nepali populated south of the country where agriculture is the primary occupation. If an individual is in the service of the Government, promotion is denied from the day of marriage,[43] and removal from service is mandatory for Bhutanese citizens working in the national defence department or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who marry a non- national.[44] All government funding for education and training terminates upon marriage to a non-national and any expenses incurred up to the day of the marriage must be refunded.[45]
Ethnic Nepali refugees in Nepal contend that this act is discriminatory because of the disparate impact on ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan who, because of strict cultural and caste restrictions concerning marriage, commonly seek spouses outside of their home communities, often in Nepal and India. Refugees have also pointed to the unequal application of the act, citing cases of high ranking Drukpa officials who have foreign spouses but who appear to have been exempted from the penalties set out in the Act.[46]
3. GOVERNMENT POLICY TOWARDS ETHNIC NEPALIS IN SOUTHERN BHUTAN
3.1 Ethnicity and Population
The three main ethnic groups in Bhutan are the Ngalongs, the Sarchops and the ethnic Nepalis. The Ngalongs live mainly in the west of Bhutan and are the dominant political group, while the Sarchops are primarily located in the east. The ethnic Nepalis, known in Bhutan as Lhotshampas (meaning "southerners"), live primarily in the southern districts of Samchi, Dagana, Chirang, Sarbhang, Chhukha and Samdrup Jongkhar. Other ethnic groups include Khengs (often grouped together with the Sarchops), Adhivasi, Birmi, Brokpa, Doya, Lepcha, Tibetan and Toktop. Together, these latter groups are estimated to make up approximately 10 per cent of the population.[47]
The Ngalongs and the Sarchops are Buddhists and the two groups are together called Drukpas (in reference to the followers of the Drukpa Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism). Ngalongs and Sarchops speak closely related languages, although the language of the Ngalong, Dzongkha, is the national language. Only a minority of ethnic Nepalis are Buddhists, while the majority practise Hinduism.[48]
Population statistics for Bhutan are a source of considerable controversy and the accuracy of available population data is unclear. No reliable independent data is available and government figures have varied widely over the last fifteen years. In 1979, the Government estimated that the population of the country was 1.2 million. The estimate rose to 1.375 million in 1988, but in 1991 the figure was drastically reduced to 600,000.[49]
The ethnic breakdown of these figures is equally controversial and, although the three main ethnic groups are accepted as together comprising 85-90 per cent of the population, estimates of the percentage of the population represented by each of these groups varies considerably. As an example of the lack of clarity on this issue, Michael Hutt (who believes it is probable that none of the main ethnic groups is in a majority) points out that estimates of the Ngalong population vary from 10 to 28 per cent, the Sarchops from 30 to 40 per cent and the Nepalis from 25 to 52 per cent.[50]
Ethnic Nepalis began to settle in Bhutan in large numbers at the end of the 19th century, when the Dorji family was granted permission to settle immigrants in the south of the country in order to open up the land for cultivation. Most of the settlers were Nepali-speaking Hindus and by 1932 a British army officer is reported to have estimated that about 60,000 had settled in Samchi and Chirang districts in southwest Bhutan.[51]
According to the Government, ethnic Nepalis remained in these two districts until the early 1950s, when they began to occupy the areas of Sarbhang, Geylegphug and Samdrup Jongkhar.[52] The timing of the arrival of Nepalis in Bhutan since then is a highly contentious issue. Most of the refugees in camps in Nepal claim to have settled in the southern districts of Bhutan before 1958 or to trace their ancestry to those early settlers to derive claims of citizenship.[53] However, the government argues that large numbers of Nepalis came to Bhutan as a result of the development activities undertaken under the first Five Year Plan, launched in 1961. The Government suggests that they were brought in either to work on development projects and road construction, or entered as illegal immigrants attracted by better economic prospects in Bhutan. The Government stresses, however, that it was unaware of the scale of immigration until the 1988 census was carried out.[54]
Until the 1950s the Government appears to have paid little attention to developments in the south of the country. It was then that it began to introduce policies which granted ethnic Nepalis greater recognition and involvement in political and administrative life. Some observers suggest that the impetus for this may have come from political developments in neighbouring countries as well as the formation in Assam of the Bhutan State Congress by ethnic Nepalis in 1952.[55] Regardless of the Government's motives, however, the mid- to late-1950s saw a distinct change in the Government's policy towards ethnic Nepalis living in the south of the country, at the same time as the King began to bring Bhutan out of its isolation and to implement development policies. Not only were they for the first time granted citizenship, but ethnic Nepalis were also represented in the National Assembly.[56] In addition, ethnic Nepalis began to be admitted into the bureaucracy, the army and the police, and were made members of the cabinet and the judiciary.[57] Recognition was also given to the Nepali language, as well as to the festivals, customs, dress and traditions of ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese.[58]
From the late 1970s there was another shift in the Government's approach which signalled a growing unease among the political leadership of Bhutan about the ethnic Nepali population in the south of the country. Legislation, such as the 1980 Marriage Act and the 1977 and 1985 amendments to the Citizenship Act, focused on deterring further immigration, while other policies became more integrationist, with the emphasis on encouraging ethnic Nepalis to adapt to northern Bhutanese practices. For example, in 1978 the National Assembly adopted a policy which provided for a payment of 5,000 ngultrum (Nu.) as an incentive for marriage between ethnic Nepalis and northern Bhutanese (this figure was increased in 1990 to Nu. 10,000, although the low take-up rate led to the policy being stopped the following year.)[59] And in the early 1980s ethnic Nepalis in government service began to be required to undergo training in driglam namzha (a code of values, dress and etiquette based on northern Bhutanese traditions), learn some Dzongkha, and wear the Ngalong dress when engaged in official duties.
Despite these efforts by the Government, by the late 1980s the ethnic Nepali population in southern Bhutan remained culturally distinct from the rest of society, and there was no indication that the Government's integrationist policies were achieving the desired effect. It was in this context that the Government initiated a census to determine citizenship, and to implement a series of more rigorous policies to integrate ethnic Nepalis into the northern Bhutanese culture.
3.2 The 1988 Census
The census of 1988 which was carried out only in the southern districts of Bhutan, used the criteria set out in the 1985 Citizenship Act to identify Bhutanese nationals. The census placed the population into one of seven categories:
F1 Genuine Bhutanese citizens.
F2 Returned migrants (people who left Bhutan and then returned).
F3 "Drop out" cases, i.e. people who were not around at the time of the census.[60]
F4 A non-national woman married to a Bhutanese man.
F5 A non-national man married to a Bhutanese woman.
F6 Adoption cases (children who have been legally adopted).
F7 Non-nationals, i.e. migrants and illegal settlers.
Although the way in which the census was conducted varied in different areas (some districts and villages are said not to have experienced the complications and harassment that others did) the census ran into controversy almost immediately.[61] Not only was there no clear indication given by census officials about the implications of being placed in any of the seven categories,[62] there were also consistent reports that the census was being carried out in an arbitrary fashion,[63] and that the standards being applied for proof of citizenship were unduly rigorous.[64]
In accordance with the 1985 Citizenship Act the census required ethnic Nepalis to provide documentary evidence of their residence in the country in 1958. The standards set for proving residence were extremely strict and in some areas no account appears to have been taken of the difficulties that the production of appropriate documentation would pose for a largely illiterate people in a country that has only recently adopted basic administrative procedures.[65] In some cases it has been suggested that appropriate documentation simply would not exist. It has also been pointed out, for example, that the Home Ministry did not exist until 1968, and that prior to this census records were held by village headmen who did not keep accurate and comprehensive records.[66] Although comprehensive systems for enumeration in the census records only date back to 1972, it was only in 1977 that proper documentation providing proof of payment of land taxes was instituted.[67] Furthermore, in some districts and villages no provision was made for village elders and headmen to vouch for people they knew to be citizens but who lacked the relevant paperwork, as had been permitted in the past.[68] Census teams are also said to have refused to accept as evidence of residence relevant documentation for the years prior to 1958.[69]
Even those ethnic Nepalis who were able to produce what they believed to be evidence of their eligibility to be granted F1 status were exempted under the very strict guidelines used by the census teams. Many ethnic Nepalis who possessed citizenship certificates issued by district officials under the provisions of the 1958 Nationality Law found these declared null and void unless they could produce documents proving at least residence, and often land ownership, prior to 1958.[70] Others who possessed the citizenship identity cards that had begun to be distributed following the previous census, were similarly classified as non- nationals or "illegal immigrants".[71] Many refugees have complained that when they provided relevant documentation it was frequently seized or confiscated by the census or other local officials.[72]
Even when people were able to supply the documentation required, refugees in Nepal complain that impossibly strict standards were set for their acceptance. For example, some said that documentation was rejected for minor spelling differences, or because middle names were spelled out on one document and were given simply as initials in another.[73]
Refugees report further that the results of the categorization were liable to change. In most cases families were advised orally of the decision, and despite being advised initially that their citizenship had been confirmed, in some cases they were subsequently told that they had been declared "illegal immigrants" or non-nationals.[74]
Despite the problems associated with the census, the Government has given no indication that it will be discontinued. In late October 1993 there were reports that the administration had begun evicting alleged non-nationals detected in Chhukha district, and it was announced that another census in Samchi district was to be carried out.[75] Three months earlier, the Home Minister estimated that the census would be continuing until at least 1998.[76]
3.3 "Bhutanization" Policies
There is no doubt that the census caused considerable anxiety among the ethnic Nepali population in southern Bhutan. But this was not the only concern of ethnic Nepalis in the late 1980s. The Government also introduced a series of policies as part of the promotion of the distinct national identity and the "One Nation, One People" theme of the sixth five-year plan, aimed at instilling a greater sense of unity among the population as a whole. Whether or not this was the true intention of the authorities, the policies have had a very different result. In practice, the measures which include the requirement that southern Bhutanese wear traditional northern Bhutanese dress, and the withdrawal of the Nepali language from school curriculums in the south, engendered a growing sense of anxiety, resentment and alienation among the ethnic Nepali population, culminating in unprecedented demonstrations in the south of the country in late 1990.[77]
In January 1989, the King issued a decree which required all citizens to observe driglam namzha, the traditional northern Bhutanese code of values, dress and etiquette. The most controversial element of this was the requirement that everyone wear the traditional costume of the Drukpa people (for men this means wearing the gho, a one-piece tunic, while women have to wear a kira, a one-piece dress) clothes commonly worn in the north, but seldom seen in the south of the country.[78]
The introduction of this requirement was regarded by ethnic Nepalis as a clear attack on their cultural identity. Resentment quickly grew as the policy was implemented. On-the-spot fines or imprisonment for a week were the penalties for failure to comply with the new dress code, and the police, who were permitted to keep 50 per cent of the fine as an incentive to enforce the policy, did so rigorously. The Government has since accepted that the policy was overzealously applied, and enforcement of the decree has since become lax, although it is still being observed during office hours in southern towns like Phuntsholing and Geylegphug.[79]
Concern among ethnic Nepalis about the threat to their cultural identity implied by the application of driglam namzha was heightened still further in February 1989 when the Nepali language was removed from the curriculum in schools in the south of the country.[80] The Director of Education claimed that the decision was taken on purely educational grounds, in response to a UNICEF report which suggested that the requirement for southern schoolchildren to study three languages -- Nepali, Dzongkha and English -- was hampering overall levels of achievement.[81] Nevertheless, the timing of the decision ensured that it was perceived as a further attack on ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese culture.
4. RESPONSE BY THE ETHNIC NEPALIS
4.1 Petition to the King and Demonstrations
As the census went on and the "Bhutanization" programmes continued, unrest grew as a result of what was perceived by the population in the south as an attempt by the Government to oust ethnic Nepalis and impose an alien culture. The widespread anxiety about the census was formally voiced in a petition to the King, submitted in April 1988 by two southern Bhutanese members of the Royal Advisory Council, Tek Nath Rizal and B. P. Bhandari. The petition raised concerns about the way in which the census was being carried out and about the retroactive application of the 1985 Citizenship Act, and urged the intervention of the King to remedy the situation. Far from achieving the desired result, the petition was declared seditious and against Tsa-Wa-Sum (the three elements of King, Country and People). Tek Nath Rizal was briefly detained, and the census operation continued as before. (Tek Nath Rizal was sentenced to life imprisonment in November 1993. Three days after he was sentenced he was granted a pardon by the King. However, the pardon is conditional on the Governments of Bhutan and Nepal resolving the issue of ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese refugees living in refugee camps in Nepal.)[82]
Disaffection among ethnic Nepalis also resulted in the politicization of at least a small sector of the ethnic Nepali population, and various political groups were formed, both in Bhutan and in Nepal, which set up discussion groups and circulated anti-government literature. One of the first of these was the Peoples Forum for Human Rights (PFHR), established in Nepal by Tek Nath Rizal and others in July 1989.[83]
By early 1990 discontent was widespread in the south of the country and the Government began to attribute criminal acts to people whom the Government labelled ngolops or "anti- nationals". Initially, their activities are reported to have centred on extortion and the stripping of people wearing northern Bhutanese dress. From mid-1990 the "anti-nationals", said by the Government to include members of the Bhutan People's Party (BPP), are alleged to have engaged in more serious crimes such as the murder and kidnapping of civilians, including census officers and other government officials.[84]
In September and October 1990, resentment of government policies erupted in a series of unprecedented public demonstrations throughout the south by thousands of ethnic Nepalis. The demonstrations, which in some districts continued for days, were reportedly organised by the BPP, together with the PFHR and the Students Union of Bhutan.[85] Although in the main peaceful, there were incidents involving material damage and violence, such as the destruction of census records and the stripping of local officials wearing ghos.[86] The Government responded by calling the protesters "anti-nationals" who were guilty of treason,[87] and banning the BPP, accusing it of responsibility for violent attacks on people and property.[88]
4.2 "Anti-National" Activities
Following the demonstrations there were increasing reports in the country's only newspaper, Kuensel, of criminal acts being committed in the south of the country, attributed to "anti- nationals". These ranged from murder, kidnapping and rape, to threats to local officials, harassment of teachers and students, and robbery and assaults on civilians. In addition, "anti- nationals" were blamed for attacks on property in the south of the country, including schools and private homes.[89]
It is generally accepted that a wide range of crimes have been committed in southern Bhutan since the beginning of the unrest.[90] In some cases so-called "anti-nationals" do appear to have been responsible for these acts. However, it is by no means clear that government opponents are to blame in all cases, and the Government's claim that "most of the terrorist raids are being carried out by terrorist groups sent from the refugee camps in Nepal"[91] is not substantiated. In fact, as the U.S. Department of State points out, it appears that a large number of the attacks the Government has identified as incidents of terrorism have in fact been the work of criminal gangs taking advantage of unsettled conditions on the Indo-Bhutan border.[92]
5. CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEMONSTRATIONS
5.1 Arbitrary Arrest, Ill-Treatment and Torture
In the aftermath of the demonstrations there were consistent reports of widespread human rights violations, including arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment and torture, being committed against ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese. Anyone suspected of involvement in, or support of, "anti- national activity" was a target, as were the families of people thought to have been involved in protest of any kind. In some cases the violations were simply carried out in retaliation to the protests. In others, the violations, or the threat of such, appear to have been deliberately aimed at forcing ethnic Nepalis to leave the country.
Amnesty International reports that from late 1990 raids on the homes of Nepali speaking southern Bhutanese became common. During the raids families were questioned about their involvement in the September 1990 demonstrations and about their links with the BPP. Suspects were arrested. Those detained were held in poor conditions either at the district jail or local school (all schools in the south were closed following the demonstrations and many of them were converted into army barracks or detention centres) and kept for periods ranging from one week to 12 months without charge or trial. Upon release former prisoners report being warned against involvement in "anti-national" activity and threatened with rearrest. Others say that they were released only on condition that they leave the country.[93]
In some cases the Government is said to have arrested and ill-treated prominent figures in local communities to intimidate others into leaving the country so as to avoid a similar fate. For example, following the refusal in late 1991 by the inhabitants of Lamidara in Chirang district to leave the country, three respected community figures were arrested and tortured. Following this, some 500 households in Lamidara, almost the whole population, filled out emigration forms.[94]
Many of those detained were ill-treated and tortured and several prisoners are reported to have died in detention during 1991 as a result of ill-treatment or torture or due to receiving either inadequate medical treatment or no treatment at all for illnesses contracted during imprisonment.[95]
In a survey carried out in the refugee camps in Nepal between May and July 1993, 95 male torture victims confirmed that severe beating and kicking was the most common method of torture. Beatings were frequently carried out with bamboo canes or wooden sticks, but also with iron rods, electric wire, belts, whips, rifle butts, bayonets, roots of trees and thorn branches. The men also described being subjected to a variety of other torture techniques, as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.[96]
From the evidence it appears that abuse by government forces peaked during the eighteen months following the September 1990 disturbances. Amnesty International points out that reports of gross human rights violations declined "significantly" from about mid-1992 onwards.[97] The findings of the survey appear to bear this out, with 86 of the 95 torture victims interviewed claiming to have been tortured during 1990 and 1991.[98]
Following the demonstrations another form of gross human rights abuse being perpetrated was rape. Amnesty International reports having received numerous allegations of rape of women by army personnel. Some of the victims are said to have died as a result of being raped.[99]
5.2 Other Human Rights Violations
For approximately eighteen months after the demonstrations ethnic Nepalis were at the greatest risk of gross physical abuse. Experience of such treatment, or the threat or fear of being subjected to it, was commonly cited by refugees who left the country during this period as the primary motivation for doing so. Since then, the level of serious physical abuse has declined significantly, although cases of torture and ill-treatment in police stations and prisons in the south continue to be reported.[100] The arrest of ethnic Nepalis also continues, albeit on a much smaller scale, but refugees state that many of those who are detained are released only after specifically agreeing to leave the country.[101] As of late 1993, in spite of the release in amnesties of over 1500 suspected government opponents, about 200 "anti-nationals" were still in detention pending trial on charges related to political unrest in southern Bhutan.[102] During their visit to Bhutan in October 1994 the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited Chemgang Central Jail which then held 148 prisoners. Of these 36 had been convicted under the National Security Act, 1992, 51 were charged with having committed offenses under the Act and the other 61 were awaiting commencement of proceedings against them under the Act.[103] The Working Group reported that in the course of its interviews at Chemgang Central Jail it found that in many instances people had been detained for years without having been charged and that persons who had been charged had not been brought before a judge for trial. In most instances those charged did not know when they might be tried.[104]
In the main, however, the methods of persecution of ethnic Nepalis have changed. Where previously they were at risk of arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment and torture, including rape, from about mid-1992 onwards ethnic Nepalis were increasingly coming under different forms of pressure to leave the country. Reasons for departure now more commonly cited include forcible eviction, the destruction of houses and harassment and intimidation by local authorities. This despite a royal decree issued in January 1992 making it a criminal offence to force any genuine citizens to leave the country, and reports that some district officials in the south have been prosecuted for intimidation and corruption.[105] The continuing denial of public services, increasing depopulation in the south of the country, and the wish to be reunited with family members who have already left the country are also reasons for departure given by refugees arriving in Nepal.
The census operation, which is continuing in southern Bhutan, is another reason why ethnic Nepalis are still leaving the country. Refugees interviewed by Amnesty International in November 1993 reported that the census continues to be carried out unfairly and improperly and described a variety of abuses associated with the census. These include the confiscation of citizenship identity cards and land tax receipts, and being threatened with imprisonment or a fine for failure to leave the country within days of a negative citizenship decision being made. The census also continues to be carried out arbitrarily. For example, one refugee reported being classified as a non-national simply because his parents and brother had left the country. In some cases people who were told that they were classified as genuine Bhutanese citizens have subsequently been deprived of citizenship on the basis of a decision by a local government official. In others, married couples have been forced to leave Bhutan after they were put in different categories by the census teams, even when one of them was confirmed as a Bhutanese citizen.[106] In 1993 there were also reports that additional administrative obstacles, such as alterations to the way in which land deeds are numbered, have been placed in the way of ethnic Nepalis seeking to provide proof of land ownership to the census teams.[107]
Another means by which ethnic Nepalis are being forced to leave the country, and a method cited by an increasing number of refugees during 1993, is the revocation of their citizenship under the provision of the 1985 Citizenship Act concerning citizens who have been "shown by act or speech to be disloyal in any manner whatsoever to the King, country, and people of Bhutan" (Article 6(c)).[108]
Refugees also report being coerced into signing so-called "voluntary migration forms", stating that they are selling their land and leaving the country of their own free will, under the threat of large fines or imprisonment if they failed to comply.[109] Many acknowledge that they did receive some compensation for their land, although others did not, but almost all stress that any money they received was well below the market value. More importantly, though, they all confirm that they felt they had no choice but to sign the forms. Occasionally, refugees report that they were videotaped signing the forms. One refugee said that after the camera was turned off officials made various "deductions" which left him with no money.[110] Another refugee, who was told during the census that he could not stay in the country because his brother had already left, said that a pistol was held against his back while he made a statement in front of the video saying he would not return to Bhutan.[111] Amnesty International reports that journalists and visitors to Bhutan have been shown videos of ethnic Nepalis signing the forms as proof that those involved left the country of their own volition.[112] Human rights organizations report that the practice of the forced signing of "voluntary migration forms" continues.[113]
There are also reports of ethnic Nepalis being forced by the authorities to leave Bhutan in retaliation for criminal activities perpetrated by others. In some instances interviewees described whole village blocks (a group of between three and six villages) of families, who were recognised as Bhutanese citizens, being nonetheless forced out en masse, apparently in retaliation for a robbery or an attack on a local government official attributed by the authorities to "anti-national" elements.[114]
On a day-to-day basis ethnic Nepalis are also liable to be subjected to lower level harassment, such as the repeated checking of documents. For example, during December 1993 there were reports of security forces visiting houses in Gaylegphug, Sarbhang district, at night and demanding to check identification documents.[115]
As the number of ethnic Nepalis who have left Bhutan has increased, so the depopulation of villages in the south of the country has become an increasingly serious problem for those who remain. Without community support, such as the joint maintenance of irrigation canals and assistance with sowing and harvesting, and the lack of common security against criminals, it can be extremely difficult for isolated households to survive on their own, with the result that in some cases they opt to leave and seek refuge in Nepal.[116]
Although depopulation is causing considerable hardship for ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan, the Government's response, through the settlement of northern Bhutanese in areas formerly inhabited by ethnic Nepalis, is a matter of some concern, and could have serious implications for any future repatriation programme. Resettlement does not yet appear to be happening on a large scale, but there is evidence that resettlement is already taking place in some parts of southern Bhutan, for example in Samdrup Jongkhar district. There have also been reports that land in Samdrup Jongkhar, Chirang and Samchi districts, left vacant by ethnic Nepalis who have sought refuge in Nepal, is being made available to northern Bhutanese at very low prices.[117] The statement by the Home Minister in the 1993 session of the National Assembly, when he confirmed that a nationwide survey of suitable land for resettlement of landless people was then in progress,[118] indicates that the Government plans to increase the rate of resettlement.
5.3 Denial of Public Services
A number of other government initiatives that discriminate against ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese have created additional hardship for them since the 1990 demonstrations. Many of these are still in operation today.
One of the most controversial of these initiatives was the introduction of "No Objection Certificates" (NOCs), documents issued by the police which confirm that the bearer has no involvement in "anti-national activity". Following the unrest in the south of the country prompted by the census operation and the Government's "Bhutanization" policies, possession of an NOC became mandatory for ethnic Nepalis who wished to gain admission to schools, be eligible for scholarships to study outside Bhutan, get jobs in the civil service and places on training courses, as well as in order to obtain business and trading licenses and travel documents. Farmers also required an NOC in order to access their earnings from cash crops, the sale of which is government controlled.[119] Refugees report that it was virtually impossible for ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese to obtain NOCs.[120]
The Government claims that, on command of the King, the NOC requirement for school admissions was dropped in 1992.[121] However the NOC is still reported to be required for ethnic Nepalis seeking government employment and training, or to travel abroad.[122] Ethnic Nepalis are also said to be denied the necessary documents to enable them to travel within the country, thereby denying them educational and employment opportunities.[123]
It is unclear to what extent public services in the south of the country, many of which were suspended in the wake of the 1990 demonstrations, have been restored as Government statistics on this are challenged by refugee groups. For example, as of mid-1993 the Government claimed that sixty-four schools had been reopened,[124] but refugee sources claim that only twenty-four schools were then in operation. According to these sources, of the twenty-four, nine are in parts of the south without ethnic Nepali populations, while admission to the remainder is said to be restricted to children of members of the security forces, government officials, etc.[125]
6. NEPAL-BHUTAN TALKS
Talks between the governments of Bhutan and Nepal on the refugee issue have been continuing since November 1992, although progress has been slow and the signs are that it has by and large been Nepal that has made the concessions necessary to keep the talks going. The first major breakthrough in the talks occurred in July 1993 when a joint statement was signed announcing the formation of a six-member Joint Ministerial Level Committee. The joint statement gave the Committee the mandate to "determine the different categories of people in the refugee camps who are claiming to have come from Bhutan" and "to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement on each category, which will provide a basis for the resolution of the problem".[126] It took a further two months before the committee members were announced.
Progress since then has been disappointing. The first meeting of the Bhutan-Nepal Joint Ministerial Level Committee, headed by the home ministers from both countries, took place in Kathmandu in October 1993. At the meeting the two sides agreed that all the people in the refugee camps in Nepal would be grouped into one of four categories. Since then there have been three more joint ministerial meetings (in February, April and June 1994) but little concrete progress has been made. The Government of Bhutan has refused to agree to Nepal's proposal that an independent panel be set up to categorise the refugees, and instead a bilateral joint verification team is to be established. As yet, however, no agreement has been reached about the criteria that will be used to categorise the refugees, and the fifth meeting, scheduled for September 1994, was postponed because of general elections in Nepal held in November.
A sixth meeting of bilateral talks which was held in April 1995 concluded without an agreed date for the next meeting.
The four categories of refugees that have been agreed are:
1. Bonafide Bhutanese, if they have been evicted forcefully
2. Bhutanese who emigrated
3. Non-Bhutanese
4. Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts
Refugee groups and human rights organizations have expressed serious reservations about the agreement on categorization that has been reached between the two governments and about the methods that appear likely to be used to implement it.[127] If eligibility for return is based on Bhutanese citizenship laws (and the nature of the four categories clearly implies that this is so) this will certainly raise serious problems, not least because some of the provisions contained in Bhutan's citizenship laws conflict with international law. Therefore, if Bhutan's domestic laws are used to define eligibility, they are likely to result in people who are entitled under international law to return to their own country (for example, those who signed "voluntary migration forms" and so-called "anti-nationals", who would presumably be placed in category 2 and category 4, respectively) finding themselves denied citizenship and therefore the right to return. Clarification of the criteria to be used to classify refugees into the four groups must therefore be sought at the earliest opportunity.
Even as far as category 1 is concerned, there is no clarity about the criteria that will be used to determine who will be defined as belonging to this category. If the criteria are the same as those used during the census operation to define citizenship then all the problems associated with that will arise again. Indeed the difficulties will be compounded for refugees, many of whom have had what documentation they possessed confiscated prior to leaving the country.
Finally, if Bhutanese law is used to determine eligibility for return to Bhutan a crucial question that needs to be addressed is what will happen to ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese who are denied the right to return and who will have no claim to nationality or right to live in any other country. There is thus a very real danger that the process as it now stands is likely to result in a large number of refugees being rendered stateless.
7. CONCLUSION
The slow pace of progress of the Nepal-Bhutan government talks means that there is still some way to go before an end to the refugee crisis will be in sight. However, the situation as it stands leaves considerable room for an unsatisfactory resolution to the crisis unless certain key issues are addressed.
First, as far as the refugees in Nepal are concerned, the priority must be to clarify the categorization process agreed by the Bhutan and Nepal governments before any screening of refugees begins, and to ensure that eligibility will be defined according to international law and not simply in accordance with Bhutanese domestic legislation. However, for as long as talks continue on a bilateral basis only, it is questionable whether this will be achieved. Bhutan seems to be under no great pressure, and is therefore in no great rush, to resolve the matter, while Nepal would no doubt like to see the refugee crisis resolved as soon as possible.
If a third party were introduced into the equation, there is a chance that further backsliding could be avoided and a fair and safe resolution to the crisis could be achieved. The Government of Nepal has, since talks with Bhutan on the matter began, indicated that it would seek India's good offices to resolve the issue in the event that Nepal and Bhutan were unable to resolve the matter bilaterally, and this was reiterated in October 1994 by the then- prime minister (of Nepal) Girija Prasad Koirala. Most observers argue that India holds the key to the solution of the crisis and that its considerable influence over both Bhutan and Nepal can be used to press for progress to be made. However, it does not appear that India is prepared to get involved, and indeed it has repeatedly stressed that it regards the issue as a bilateral one, to be sorted out by the governments of Bhutan and Nepal. A solution to the issue at hand may thus be to engage the involvement of either a third government to act as arbiter, or an independent third party to act as intermediary.
Even if this were to occur, and in the event that a determination process gets under way that accords with international law, the matter of the human rights situation in Bhutan still needs to be resolved. From the evidence of refugees arriving in the camps it is clear that the persecution of ethnic Nepalis by the Bhutanese authorities continues. Before any of the refugees are repatriated it seems imperative that the Government of Bhutan undertakes to end state-sanctioned persecution and to offer guarantees for the safety and security of returning refugees and of ethnic Nepalis who remain in the country. Before repatriation begins the problems associated with the on-going census operation should also be addressed, and there should be an immediate halt to continuing forcible eviction of ethnic Nepalis. The resettlement of northern Bhutanese in areas formerly inhabited by the refugees should also cease.
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
AHURA (Association of Human Rights Activists, Bhutan).
Bhutan: A Shangri-la Without Human Rights. Jhapa [Nepal], June 1993
Amnesty International.
Bhutan: Human Rights Violations against the Nepali-speaking Population in the South. AI Index: ASA 14/04/92. London, December 1992
Amnesty International.
Bhutan: Appeal for the Release of Tek Nath Rizal. AI Index: ASA 14/02/94. London,
March 1994
Amnesty International.
Report 1994. London, 1994
Amnesty International.
Bhutan: Forcible Exile. AI Index: ASA 14/04/94. London, August 1994
Aziz-al Ahsan, Syed and Chakma, Bhumitra.
"Bhutan's Foreign Policy: Cautious Self-Assertion, Asian Survey, vol. XXXIII, no. 11 (November 1993)
Bhutan Department of Information.
Anti-National Activities in Southern Bhutan: An Update on the Terrorist Movement. Thimphu [Bhutan], 12 August 1992
Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Southern Bhutan Problem: Threat to a Nation's Survival. Thimphu [Bhutan], May 1993
The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, Nepal],
"Schools Reopened in Southern Bhutan?". May 1993
The Bhutan Review Monthly,
"Build-Up to the 73rd Session of the National Assembly". August 1994
The Bhutan Review Monthly,
"'Amnesty' to Prisoners". September 1994
Dhakal, D.N.S., and Strawn, C.
Bhutan: A Movement in Exile. Jaipur: Nirala Publications, 1994
Dubble, C.
Survey of Victims of Violence in the Bhutanese Refugee Camps in Eastern Nepal (May-July 1993). N.p., July 1993
Far East and Australasia 1994,
Europa Publications Ltd
HUROB (Human Rights Organization of Bhutan).
Annual Report 1992. Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December 1992
HUROB.
Annual Report 1993. Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December 1993
HUROB.
Letters to the author, 27 August 1994 and 5 October 1994
Hutt, M.
"Bhutan's Crisis of Identity" in The World Book Year Book. London. 1994
Hutt, M.
"Refugees from Shangri-la" in Index on Censorship, vol. 22, no. 4, (April 1993)
INHURED (International Institute for Human Rights Environment and Development).
Bhutan: An Iron Path to Democracy. Kathmandu, January 1992
INHURED.
Bhutanese Refugees: Destitutes without Destination. A Documentation of Human Rights Violations in the Kingdom of Bhutan. Kathmandu, February 1993
The Kathmandu Post.
"Bhutanese Refugees: One Year of Talks". 30 April 1994
Kuensel [Thimpu],
National Assembly Supplement, "The Proceedings and Resolutions of the 72nd Session of the National Assembly (8-30 July 1993), 7 August 1993
Parmanand.
The Politics of Bhutan: Retrospect and Prospect. Delhi: Pragati Publications, 1992
SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation).
The Bhutan Tragedy When Will It End?. Kathmandu, May 1992
Thronson, D. B.
Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan. Kathmandu: INHURED, August 1993
UN Commission on Human Rights.
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994
U.S. Department of State.
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993: Bhutan. Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic format].
The views expressed in the papers are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of UNHCR.
[1]Although the flow of refugees has diminished considerably since 1993, the slow but steady trickle of ethnic Nepalis into Nepal, and the testimonies they provide, are evidence that they continue to face persecution in Bhutan, albeit the methods have changed.
[2]Far East and Australasia 1994, Europa Publications Ltd, p. 134.
[3]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, (New Delhi, 1994), p. 88
[4]According to the Bhutanese newspaper, Kuensel, 28 September 1991, quoted in D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 88
[5]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 93
[6]U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993, Bhutan. Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic format]
[7]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la' in Index on Censorship [London] (April 1994), p. 11
[8]Parmanand, The Politics of Bhutan: Retrospect and Prospect, (Delhi: Pragati Publications, 1992), pp. 60-61, citing Sunday [Calcutta], 'The People will Decide: King Jigme Singye Wangchuck on the future of Bhutan', 28 October 1990
[9]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 99, citing Dorji, Rigzin. 1989. A Brief Religious, Cultural and Secular History of Bhutan. Asia Society Galleries: New York, p. 13
[10]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 98
[11]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 100 quoting Parmanand, p. 54
[12]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, paragraph 10
[13]Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs, The Southern Bhutan Problem: Threat to a Nation's Survival, (Thimphu [Bhutan], May 1993), p. 20
[14]Ibid.
[15]Parmanand, The Politics of Bhutan: Retrospect and Prospect, p. 60
[16]UNHCR/CDR Legal Databases, April 1995
[17]UNHCR/CDR Legal Databases, April 1995
[18]U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993, Bhutan. Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic format]
[19]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, paragraph 14(a)
[20]Ibid, paragraph 14(b)
[21]Bhutan Department of Information, Anti-National Activities in Southern Bhutan: An Update on the Terrorist Movement, p. 43. These figures do not tally with those given in the report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention which states that the high court consists of six judges. See UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, paragraph 14(c)
[22]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, paragraph 14(c)
[23]ibid., paragraph 27
[24]Ibid, paragraph 8
[25]The text of the Nationality Law of Bhutan, 1958, is reproduced from the text as it appears in Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs. The Southern Bhutan Problem, Appendix Two. References are to numbered paragraphs (articles) in this text.
[26]Ibid.
[27]Ibid.
[28]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), pp. 14-15
[29]The text of the Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1977, is reproduced from the text as it appears in Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs. The Southern Bhutan Problem, Appendix Two. References are to numbered paragraphs within sections identified by letter combinations (KA, KHA etc.). Conditions Required for the Grant of Citizenship, KA 1".
[30]Conditions Required for the Grant of Citizenship, KA 2.
[31]Procedure for Acquisition of Citizenship, CHA 1 and 2.
[32]Procedure for Acquisition of Citizenship, CHA2.
[33]Procedure for Acquisition of Citizenship, CHA 1.
[34]Conditions Required for the Grant of Citizenship, KA 3.
[35]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, pp. 172-173
[36]Penalty for Violation of Rules, TA 1
[37]Penalty for Violation of Rules, TA2
[38]HUROB (Human Rights Organization of Bhutan), Annual Report 1992 (Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December 1992), p. 2
[39]The text of the Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1985, is reproduced from the text as it appears in Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs. The Southern Bhutan Problem, Appendix Two. References are to numbered sections (articles) in this text.
[40]The Bhutan Marriage Act, 1980, Kha 2-10. References in this section are to numbered paragraphs (Kha 2-1 etc.), of the text of the Act as reproduced in D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing, Appendix 2. Thronson notes that this text is reproduced from SAARC, The Bhutan Tragedy. When Will It End? and is not an official translation by the Bhutanese Government.
[41]Ibid.,Kha 2-1
[42]Ibid.,Kha 2-7
[43]Ibid.,Kha 2-4, Kha 2-5
[44]Ibid.,Kha 2-6
[45]Ibid.,Kha 2-8
[46]INHURED (International Institute for Human Rights Environment and Development), Bhutan: An Iron Path to Democracy, (Kathmandu, January 1992), p. 9
[47]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, (New Delhi, 1994), pp. 44 and 49
[48]M. Hutt, 'Bhutan's Crisis of Identity', in The World Book Year Book, (London, 1994), pp. 65-66
[49]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 48
[50]M.Hutt, 'Bhutan's Crisis of Identity', p. 66
[51]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 11
[52] Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs. The Southern Bhutan Problem, p. 3
[53]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 7
[54]Dawa Tsering, Bhutan's Foreign Minister, quoted in Himal, July/August 1994, p. 22
[55]Ibid.
[56]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 143
[57]Ibid, p. 151, citing Sinha, 1991, p. 223
[58]Ibid, p. 152
[59]Syed Aziz-al Ahsan and Bhumitra Chakma, 'Bhutan's Foreign Policy: Cautious Self-Assertion', Asian Survey, vol. XXXIII, no. 11, (November 1993), p. 1050, citing Kuensel, National Assembly Supplement, 2 November 1991, pp. 9-11
[60] Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations Against the Nepali-Speaking Population in the South, According to Amnesty International, this category has been phased out and the people originally placed in this category have been allocated to others, London, December 1992, p. 6
[61]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 193
[62]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 16
[63]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, pp. 193-194
[64] D.B.Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 18
[65]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, pp. 192
[66]INHURED, Bhutan: An Iron Path to Democracy, p. 4
[67]SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation), The Bhutan Tragedy. When Will It End?, p. 9
[68]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 193
[69]SAARC, The Bhutan Tragedy. When Will It End?, p. 9
[70]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la, p. 10
[71]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, London, August 1994, p. 7
[72]AHURA (Association of Human Rights Activists, Bhutan), Bhutan: A Shangri-la Without Human Rights. (Jhapa [Nepal], June 1993), p. 24, citing Petition to the King of Bhutan, 9 April 1988
[73]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 18
[74]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, p. 7
[75]HUROB (Human Rights Organization of Bhutan), Annual Report 1993, (Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December 1993), p. 9
[76]Kuensel [Thimpu], National Assembly Supplement, 'The Proceedings and Resolutions of the 72nd Session of the National Assembly (8-30 July 1993), 7 August 1993, p. 8
[77]M. Hutt, 'Bhutan's Crisis of Identity', p. 69
[78]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 20
[79]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993: Bhutan, Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic format]
[80]Ibid.
[81]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 10
[82]Amnesty International believes Tek Nath Rizal to be a prisoner of conscience held for the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression and association. For further information see Amnesty International, Bhutan: Appeal for the Release of Tek Nath Rizal, London, March 1994
[83]The formation of the PFHR was followed in June 1990 by the establishment of the Bhutan People's Party (BPP) and, in February 1992, the Bhutan National Democratic Party (BNDP), which was led by former government officials. Both the BPP and the BNDP have been labelled by the Government as "anti-national organizations" aimed at achieving the political domination of the country by ethnic Nepalis, and they are not allowed to function in Bhutan. Both parties advocate a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy and claim wide support in the south of the country. The most recently formed political party, the Druk National Congress, was founded in Nepal in June 1994. It is unusual in that its membership is made up of northern Bhutanese.
[84]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations, pp. 10-11
[85]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED International, August 1993), p. 26
[86]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 12
[87]Ibid, p. 13
[88]U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993, Bhutan. Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic format]
[89]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations, pp. 10-11
[90]A "Summary of Terrorist Activities" updated as of 17 October 1994, was given to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention by the Government of Bhutan. See UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, Annex 1
[91]Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs, The Southern Bhutan Problem, p. 10
[92]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993, Bhutan, [electronic format]
[93]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations, pp. 13-14
[94]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement in Exile, p. 259
[95]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations, p. 21
[96]C. Dubble, Survey of Victims of Violence in the Bhutanese Refugee Camps in Eastern Nepal (May-July 1993), (n.p., July 1993), pp. 7-12
[97]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, p. 3
[98]C. Dubble, Survey of Victims of Violence, pp. 7-12
[99]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights Violations, p. 19
[100]Amnesty International, Report 1994, London, 1994, p. 74
[101]The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, Nepal], '"Amnesty" to Prisoners', September 1994, p. 1
[102]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993: Bhutan, [electronic format].
[103]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, paragraph 20
[104]Ibid., paragraph 21
[105]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 14, citing Kuensel [Thimpu], 30 November 1992
[106]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, pp. 9-11
[107]HUROB, Annual Report 1993, p. 9
[108]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993: Bhutan, [electronic format]
[109]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, p. 3
[110]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing, p. 33
[111]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, p. 15
[112] Ibid., p. 13
[113]Ibid., p. 15 and HUROB, Letter to the author, 27 August 1994
[114]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible Exile, p. 7
[115]HUROB, Annual Report 1993, p. 9
[116]HUROB, Letter to the author, 27 August 1994
[117]HUROB, Letter to the author, 5 October 1994
[118]Kuensel [Thimpu, Bhutan], National Assembly Supplement, 7 August 1993, pp. 17-18
[119]HUROB, Annual Report 1992, p. 14
[120]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing, p. 24
[121]Kuensel [Thimpu, Bhutan], National Assembly Supplement, 7 August 1993, p. 7
[122]HUROB, Letter to author, 27 August, 1994
[123]The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, Nepal], 'Build-Up to the 73rd Session of the National Assembly', August 1994, p. 4
[124]Kuensel [Thimpu, Bhutan], National Assembly Supplement, 7 August 1993, p. 7
[125]The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, Nepal] 'Schools Reopened in Southern Bhutan?', p. 4
[126]The Kathmandu Post, 'Bhutanese Refugees: One Year of Talks', 30 April 1994
[127]
Topics: Nepalis, Ethnic persecution, Ethnic discrimination, Mass exodus,
登録:
投稿 (Atom)