Refugee Issue: Bhutanese perspective vs. Nepali Perspective

At the heart of the ongoing refugee problem lie the two different perspectives of Nepal and Bhutan. Each side is steadfast in its belief. And each side, especially the Nepali side, is trying hard to convince the world to believe its version of the story. Let’s compare the differing perspectives one by one.

1. When did the people of Nepalese origin come to Bhutan?

The two sides tell quite different stories. Nepalese are all out to rewrite the history of Bhutan to show that their ancestors settled in Bhutan much earlier than they actually did. But historical facts, recorded much earlier than the current regime in Bhutan came into being, do not lie.

According to the paper “Bhutan: A kingdom besieged”, “The first sightings of Nepalese in the southern foothills are reported by Charles Bell in 1904 followed closely by John Claude White in 1905. All Bhutanese records confirm that no Nepalese settled in any part of Bhutan until then.
…The claim that the Nepalese had a role in safeguarding the sovereignty of the country, is clearly baseless since they did not enter southern Bhutan or any part of the duars area of West Bengal or Assam until long after the Sinchula Treaty with the British was signed. This is corroborated by Eden's report which states that his Nepalese porters, "were unwilling to enter Bhutan, the inhabitants of which were not looked upon with favour ... there the coolies left in considerable numbers being afraid to cross the frontier" (Teesta Bridge). Arthur Foning, a Kalimpong Lepcha, writes that this bore testimony to how effectively the Bhutanese territorial interests were guarded.”

However, most of the Nepalese came much later after the first five year plan of Bhutan was initiated in 1961. “Once the 5-year development programmes began to yield results, government effort to control immigration was thwarted by the earlier settlers who colluded with their ethnic kith and kin to prevent detection, falsify records and facilitate infiltration. Free education, free health services, employment opportunities, highly subsidized agriculture inputs, generous rural credit schemes, the security of a politically stable country were the main inducements that led to the influx of Nepalese immigrants in the 1960's and 1970's. In addition to the new arrivals, those who had come in legally as labourers for the many development schemes also began to infiltrate into the villages.”

2. Is Bhutan really a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic country as the Nepalese claim?

Nepal Govt. and Bhutanese refugees assert that Bhutan is a “multi-cultural and multi-ethnic” country. And they try to play the old colonists’ trick of “divide-and-rule” by trying to play Sharchops against the Ngalungs.

But so far it has failed. Why?

Because Bhutan really isn’t multicultural or multi-ethnic per se, though we do have different linguistic groups. Bhutanese people in different regions speak different languages (or sometimes closely related dialects), but they look physically quite the same, and their beliefs, customs, festivals, and religious faiths are almost same and uniform throughout. So, excluding the Nepalese, Bhutanese form a cohesive homogenous society.

Now, since we have Lhotshampas who are genuine Bhutanese, Bhutan may be said to be bi-cultural or bi-ethnic country, but not really multi-cultural or multi-ethnic as the Nepali Govt. and the Bhutanese refugees like to believe.

The following is an official statement found on the website of the Foreign Ministry of Nepal:
“Bhutan is a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic country. Sarchops, Ngalumgs and Lhostsampas are the three main ethnic groups. Bhutan has a significant number of people of Nepalese origin, particularly in the southern part of the country. The Nepalese of southern Bhutan are called Lhotshampas.”

Yet, we are not against multiculturalism per se. What we are against is how it is interpreted as Ruth Lea, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies in the UK says:

“ There are two ways in which people interpret multiculturalism.

The first one is the more common way and that is every culture has the right to exist and there is no over-arching thread that holds them together.

That is the multiculturalism we think is so destructive because there's no thread to hold society together. It is that multiculturalism that Trevor Phillips has condemned and, of course, we are totally supportive.

There is another way to define multiculturalism which I would call diversity where people have their own cultural beliefs and they happily coexist - but there is a common thread of Britishness or whatever you want to call it to hold society together." (Source: http://www.bbc.com/)


3. How many people in the refugee camps are actually genuine Bhutanese?

UNHCR confirms around 100,000 refugees in the camps. While the refugee leaders and Nepali Govt. assert that all of them are Bhutanese, Bhutanese in Bhutan believe that many of them are not really refugees from Bhutan.

The Joint Verification Team (JVT) of Bhutan and Nepal presented the following results to the fourteenth meeting of the Ministerial Joint Committee (MJC) in Kathmandu in May 2003 on the verification of the residents of Khudunabari camp:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Category -----------No. of people ------Percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Bonafide Bhutanese ----293------ -------2.5 %
(2) Emigrants -------------8,595------------70.5%
(3) Non-Bhutanese --------2,948------------24.2%
(4) Criminals---------------347--------------2.8%
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ---------------------12,183 ------------100
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note: Emigrants, the largest group, are those Bhutanese nationals who had signed forms for voluntary emigration despite Bhutan Govt. and the King's advice to stay back. Most of them did so either due to fear of terrorizing members from groups like Bhutan People's Party, or for the hope of promised triumphant return to take over of Bhutan - that was an unhidden political agenda of the refugee leaders and it is still is their hope.)

The figures above may be taken only as an indicative figure and not as representative of the whole refugee population. This is because Khudunabari camp is one of the smaller camps established much later.

According the foreign minister’s report to the 82nd National Assembly in 2004, “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.”

Conclusion:

The refugee issue is a festering problem for Bhutan. It is one we cannot avoid indefinitely. Now that we have elected govt. in place, it will be even harder to find leaders who are willing to tackle the problem squarely because of the risks of losing the votes of Southern Bhutanese.

However, this is a problem in which all of us have a stake in. It is important for us to understand the different perspectives the two sides have. Until these fundamental differences in the perspectives are not settled, the refugee issue may be difficult to solve.

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

5 reasons why not to believe Michael Hutt

Michael Hutt writes seemingly scholarly articles on the Bhutanese refugee issue now and then. But his views are completely biased because of his long connection with Nepal, Nepalese and Nepali language, while he has not done any field research inside Bhutan.

According to his official biography at his university's website, "Michael Hutt is Professor of Nepali and Himalayan Studies at School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). He completed a BA in South Asian Studies (Hindi) in 1980 and a Ph.D. on the history of the Nepali language and its literature in 1984, both at SOAS."

Here are 5 big reasons why anyone should not take Michael Hutt's articles at face value:

1. He has not done any research inside Bhutan. So his knowledge of Bhutan is superficial. Probably he has not even been to Bhutan.

2. He has long connection with Nepal and Nepalese. In fact, his whole adult life has been about Nepal - studying about Nepal at university and now working about Nepal. His professional life revolves around studying Nepali language and Nepali culture. He has done his Ph.D. on Nepali language, and now as a professor, he has mainly Nepalese Ph.D. students in his lab. So, he is deeply sympathetic of the Nepalese people everywhere. His views on the Bhutanese refugee issue are naturally biased.

3. He twists facts and figures to suit his twisted views on Bhutan. This is totally unbecoming of a scholar. No doubt that he is not highly regarded among his peers.

4. He quotes literature very selectively, only making references to those studies which conveniently suit his point of view. It is not becoming of a scholarly study to do so. All studies on the subject should be referenced for reaching a balanced conclusion.

5. Other researchers have pointed out that his articles contain factual errors.


Bhutanese writers and researchers out there, I urge you to expose some of Mr. Hutt's lies and set the record straight. We, Bhutanese are a reserved lot by nature. But, in this age of information, remaining silent could be suicidal.


Some articles he has published about Bhutan:

Here is one of the latest in a series of articles bitter on Bhutan he has published:
1. http://www.newstatesman.com/asia/2008/01/bhutan-party-elections

And here are some more:

2. http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/pdsa/pdf/pdsa_01_01_05.pdf

3. It seems he has even written a book about Bhutanese refugee issue without conducting any field research inside Bhutan:
http://www.amazon.com/Unbecoming-Citizens-Culture-Nationhood-Refugees/dp/0195662059

4. This website is also probably supported by him. Most materials there quote his works:
http://www.bhutaneserefugees.com/




The following is excerpted from his official biography at http://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff31153.php:

Michael Hutt is Professor of Nepali and Himalayan Studies at SOAS. He completed a BA in South Asian Studies (Hindi) in 1980 and a Ph.D. on the history of the Nepali language and its literature in 1984, both at SOAS. In 1987 he returned to SOAS as a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, and has been engaged in teaching and research relating to Nepal here ever since. He was Head of the South Asia Department from 1995-9, and has served as both Associate Dean (2002-4) and Dean (2004-10) of the Faculty of Languages and Cultures.

The study of modern and contemporary Nepali literature is Hutt's home ground, and he is well known as a translator. However, he has also published on Nepali politics, Nepali art and architecture, censorship in the Nepali print media, and the Bhutanese refugee issue. His latest completed work is a book length biographical study of the Nepali poet Bhupi Sherchan, which will appear in 2010 or 2011. New articles on the abolition of the Shah monarchy and on the selection of Nepal's new national anthem are forthcoming. In 2010 he will begin a major new research project on the construction of public meaning in Nepal.

His publications include Himalayan Voices: an Introduction to Modern Nepali Literature (1991), Nepal in the Nineties: Versions of the Past, Visions of the Future (1994), Modern Literary Nepali: an Introductory Reader (1997), Unbecoming Citizens: Culture, Nationhood, and the Flight of Refugees from Bhutan (2003) and Himalayan People's War: Nepal's Maoist Rebellion (2004).

The last Ministerial Joint Committee(MJC) Meeting

The 15th MJC meeting between Bhutan and Nepal held in October 2003, was described as a major breakthrough in finding a lasting solution to the refugee issue. However, the decisions could not be followed through because of the attack on Bhutanese of officials of the Joint Verification Team (JVT) at Khudanbari Camp on 22 December, 2003. No such meetings have been held again between Bhutan and Nepal since then as of this writing (21 July 2010), though leaders of both the countries have expressed interest in resuming the stalled talks.

Read the following news report of the optimism raised by the last MJC Meeting.

Title: 15th MJC meeting agree on a number of issues

Posted on: October 23, 2003.
Published by: Kuensel.

The 15th ministerial joint committee (MJC) meeting between Nepal and Bhutan on the refugee issue concluded yesterday in Thimphu.

Described as a ‘historic’ and major breakthrough, the meeting ended on a happy note with both the sides agreeing on a number of issues.

It was agreed that the appeals submitted by the people in Category 3 would be reviewed by the joint verification team (JVT) by the end of January 2004. People falling under Category 3 are non-Bhutanese who are claiming to be Bhutanese

It was also agreed that people falling under category 4 (people who have committed crimes against the people and country of Bhutan) would be allowed to return and given a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. Their family members will not be prosecuted on their return to Bhutan.

It was also agreed that people in category one (people who claim they were forcefully evicted from the country), two (people who emigrated on their own free will), and four who have applied to return to Bhutan will be repatriated as ‘per the harmonized position on these categories.’ Those people in Category 2 who do not want to return to Bhutan will be allowed to apply for the Nepali citizenship.

The terms and procedures for repatriation, reapplication and application for Bhutan and Nepal will be as prescribed by laws of the two countries.

The 15th MJC has agreed to implement the outcome of the meeting with the JVT deciding to meet in Damak, Jhapa, in the last week of November this year.

The MJC has also selected Sanischare as the next camp for verification and directed the JVT to explore ways and means of expediting the verification process in the remaining camps.
Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk said that the meeting came to a fruitful conclusion and that it was a major step forward for both the countries.

The Nepalese foreign minister said that the MJC meeting was the ‘end of talk and the beginning of action.’

By Kinley Y Dorji
kins@kuensel.com.bt

Original article can be reached here: http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3399

Attack on Bhutanese JVT in 2003

Breaking news on the attack on Bhutanese JVT officials reported by Kuensel in Bhutan in 2003:

Title: Bhutanese JVT officials attacked in Jhapa

December 23, 2003 - The members of the Joint Verification Team from Bhutan arrived in Phuentsholing in partially damaged vehicles today after a mob attack in Damak, eastern Nepal, during which several members were injured. The Bhutanese foreign ministry described the incident as an "unprovoked act of violence against the officials who were only carrying out the directives of the MJC". "It is even more disturbing because the entire episode was not spontaneous but pre-meditated," according to a statement from the ministry. "The events that took place were well planned and well orchestrated, enabled by other residents of the camp who should never have been there."

The JVT was following instructions of the 15th ministerial joint committee held in Thimphu in October and had begun its work in December, 2003. "The MJC had agreed that the Bhutanese verification team and Nepalese verification team would brief the people on the terms, procedures and facilities applicable in Bhutan and Nepal respectively," according to the press release.

The press release also stated that the Bhutanese team had begun briefing the camp residents of Sector A in Khudunabari camp in a semi permanent bamboo hall. "The MJC considered it important to brief the camp residents for transparency and to enable them to make informed choices in exercising their voluntary option to return to Bhutan or stay in Nepal," according to the statement. "Despite the agreement that only Sector A residents were to be present, the JVT members were surprised to note that the hall was surrounded by the entire residents of the camp."

During the briefing the camp residents reportedly began to abuse the Bhutanese officials and then surrounded them and attacked them. The camp residents broke down the wall and started beating the Bhutanese members of the verification team. One Bhutanese official collapsed on the floor after being struck on the head while the other members were battered with blows and stones, according to the press release.

The camp residents were then reported to have attempted to trap the officials inside the hall and set it on fire. The Bhutanese officials were pelted with stones from all sides. They were abused and stoned until they reached their vehicles which were also damaged by the crowd.
Three or four armed policemen who were present did not intervene, according to the press release.

"Under the terms of reference of the JVT the host country is required to provide full security arrangements," stated the press release. "However, despite requests made by the Bhutanese officials and the risks foreseen by the Nepalese members of the JVT, there were no proper security arrangements and, on the occasion, only one policeman in plain clothes accompanied the Bhutanese members."

The violence broke out on the grounds that the terms and conditions were unacceptable, terms that were already known to the camp residents because copies had already been given to them, the press release stated.

"It is most unfortunate that this should have happened as we approached the last phase of the process leading to a durable solution to the problem of the people in the camps," said the Bhutanese foreign minister, Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk. "Given the serious injuries sustained by our officials and the extreme mental shock and trauma that they have been subjected to, they are no longer in a position to continue their work. Further, they and their families in Bhutan are understandably worried over the serious risk to their lives."

The original news can be reached at this link: http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3572


The following is another update that appeared 4 days after the initial report.

Title: Bhutanese officials attacked by mob in Jhapa

UPDATE December 27, 2003 - Back in Thimphu after a traumatic experience, the Bhutanese members of the Joint Verification Team (JVT) working to verify the people in the camps in eastern Nepal look back on what they all believe was a pre-meditated attack by a large and vicious mob of people.

The team leader, Dasho Sonam Tenzing, explained that, on December 22, the JVT officials from both countries had met in Damak and gone to the camp, about 90 minutes drive from their residence. There were eight Bhutanese nationals including three drivers.

The two teams briefed the people on the terms and conditions for them to remain in Nepal and apply for Nepalese citizenship or to choose to be repatriated to Bhutan. While the violence broke out reportedly on the grounds that the terms and conditions were unacceptable the agreed terms and conditions were not new, said Dasho Sonam Tenzing. “We had already given them in writing to the Nepali government and in fact the Nepali team was carrying it. As agreed by the two governments, both sides were supposed to clarify and explain all doubts that the people might have.”

“The briefing was meant only for those people who were in sector A so we had requested that the briefing would focus only on the people of sector A and also that we would like to do the briefing near the huts belonging to the sector A people,” he said. “But they had arranged a hall made of bamboo which was transparent. The Sector A people were inside the hall, cramped and sitting down. The rest of the people from the camp, about 12,000, were all outside.”
Another official hurt in the attack

Dasho Sonam Tenzing said that, after the briefing all the elders stood up and left the hall. Those waiting outside came in and everyone started abusing the Bhutanese officials. Then they attacked them. “The NVT (Nepali Verification Team) had already left the scene, leaving us there on our own,” he said. “The assault went on for about 30-40 minutes. We tried to go out of the hut but they did not allow us. They were shouting that we shouldn’t be let out and that we should be burned alive. However, we pushed our way through, receiving many blows and stones. Our ghos were torn. We managed to run out of the hut but, outside, we were hit with bamboo sticks and stones.”

One of the team members was knocked unconscious in the hall and was carried out. Another received a head injury after being hit with a stone. Another was hit on his forehead and was badly hurt on his right knee. The Bhutanese officials were continuously attacked all the way to the vehicles that were parked about 75 metres away from the hut. “We ran and got inside the vehicles but they broke the windows and stones landed inside the vehicles. Twelve of these big stones are still with us.”

The Bhutanese foreign ministry described the incident as an “unprovoked act of violence against the officials who were only carrying out the directives of the MJC”. “It is even more disturbing because the entire episode was not spontaneous but pre-meditated,” according to a statement from the ministry. “The events that took place were well planned and well orchestrated, enabled by other residents of the camp who should never have been there.”

The JVT, on the instructions of the 15th ministerial joint committee held in Thimphu in October, had begun its work in December, 2003. “The MJC considered it important to brief the camp residents for transparency and to enable them to make informed choices in exercising their voluntary option to return to Bhutan or stay in Nepal,” according to the statement.

“Under the terms of reference of the JVT the host country is required to provide full security arrangements,” stated the press release. “However, despite requests made by the Bhutanese officials and the risks foreseen by the Nepalese members of the JVT, there were no proper security arrangements on the occasion.”

“I want to make it clear, that it was a pre-meditated attack by the people in the camps,” said Dasho Sonam Tenzing. “I know this because the briefing was not done in seclusion as we had requested, all the elderly people got out before the violence, and the NVT literally abandoned us.”

Dasho Sonam Tenzing pointed out that the terms and conditions read out by the Nepali team was beyond the agreement but the Bhutanese team could not fully understand it because it was in difficult Nepali. “We did not object because they have a right to explain it their way. Our mandate was to explain our terms and conditions. Each country is supposed to make its own position clear to the people. The people have to understand, they have to make their own choice.”

“We were completely shocked,” he added. “We were there to implement the last stage of the agreement. We were there to facilitate the repatriation and re-application and to resolve the problem so we thought it would go smoothly. But we were taken completely off guard by this brutal attack.”

Sonam Tshong of the foreign ministry, who was knocked unconscious in the hall, said that the atmosphere in the hall was terrifying, with even the women shouting abuses and attacking the Bhutanese officials. “They were out to kill us,” he said. The people were reportedly shouting “these bhoteys must be killed… today they should not be allowed to escape.”

Another member of the team said that security was completely inadequate. “We reminded them time and again about security but it was not arranged,” he said. “We only had one person in civil clothes accompanying us. There were four or five security personnel but they were nowhere in the scene during the attack. They came only after it was all over.”

“It is most unfortunate that this should have happened as we approached the last phase of the process leading to a durable solution to the problem of the people in the camps,” said the Bhutanese foreign minister, Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk. “Given the serious injuries sustained by our officials and the extreme mental shock and trauma that they have been subjected to, they are no longer in a position to continue their work. Further, they and their families in Bhutan are understandably worried over the serious risk to their lives.”

By Kinley Dorji & Karma Choden

Original news at this link: http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3589

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

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.