BHUTANESE REFUGEE
Fresh Movement
Refugees prepare to launch people’s movement to force Druk regime to accept them even as the latter is said to be planning to evict more Nepali-speaking people
By SANJAYA DHAKAL
Having languished in camps for the past seventeen years, the refugees are now preparing to launch people’s movement to force Bhutanese regime to allow their repatriation.
This was revealed by a delegation of refugee leaders during their last week’s (May 18) meeting with the Prime Minister. Their intention to launch fresh agitation comes at a time when they have been accusing that Bhutanese government is planning to evict 80,000 more Nepali-speaking people – as they were not allowed to participate in recent mock elections and constitution-making process in Bhutan.
According to news reports, a delegation of refugee leaders including Teknath Rizal, Balram Poudel and Thinley Penjore met with the PM and handed over their memo regarding the planned people's movement in Bhutan. They have also sent such letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon requesting for UN support in their movement.
During the meeting, PM Koirala said that the government is planning to dispatch a special "Advance Team" to Bhutan to hold decisive talks with the Bhutanese government on the issue of refugee impasse. Reports say that the Advance Team is being dispatched ahead of planned visit by Foreign Minister.
The refugee leaders quoted PM as saying that in recent times India, too, has become concerned with the issue.
Meanwhile, in its recent (May 17) report, the US-based Human Rights Watch has stated that the US offer to resettle Bhutanese refugees has sparked tensions “A US offer to resettle 60,000 Bhutanese refugees has given hope to many of the 106,000 refugees living in Nepal for more than 16 years, but has also heightened tensions in the camps,” HRW said in the report.
“Refugees who insist on repatriation as the only acceptable solution have been threatening and intimidating those who voice support for resettlement in the US,” it said.
Foreign Minister Sahana Pradhan had recently informed that gives top priority to repatriation but would not obstruct in resettlement of willing refugees.
The Bhutanese refugee crisis began in 1991 when Bhutan began to expel ethnic Nepalis, a policy that resulted in the expulsion of one-sixth of the country's population. But since the announcement of the US offer in October 2006, groups of refugees who insist that the only acceptable solution is return to Bhutan have threatened refugees favorable to resettlement.
"Refugees fundamentally have the right to return to a country that expelled them," said Bill Frelick, refugee policy director at HRW. "But all refugees also have the right to make essential choices about their lives without threats and intimidation."
The 86-page report, "Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal and India," discusses the possible solutions to this protracted refugee situation and the choices the refugees now face. It describes conditions of the ethnic Nepali refugees who have languished in exile in Nepal and India, and also documents continuing discrimination against the ethnic Nepalis still living in Bhutan , who live in fear that they too could be stripped of their citizenship and expelled from the country.
"While repatriation would be the best option for most refugees, it can only be viable if Bhutan upholds its duty to guarantee the returnees' human rights," said Frelick. "Until then, repatriation to Bhutan cannot be promoted as a durable solution for the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal." So far, Bhutan has not allowed a single refugee to return.
"We don't want to be dependent on others," a Bhutanese refugee told HRW. "Half our lives have been spent as refugees. We don't want that tag on our children's forehead. We want them to be proud citizens."
Since the announcement of the US resettlement offer, tensions in the camps have
been building. Partly, this is because of rumors and misinformation about the nature of the offer itself. It is also due to intimidation by groups militantly opposed to resettlement who insist that the only acceptable solution is return to Bhutan.
The HRW has called on the Nepalese government to prosecute intimidators who threaten or harm those who exercise their rights to freedom of opinion, expression, and association.
"To be effective, the US resettlement offer cannot operate in isolation," said
Frelick. "The Bhutanese refugees need genuine choices." This, HRW says, requires a three-pronged strategy. First, resettlement should be a real option for as many refugees as want it. Second, Nepal should grant citizenship to those refugees who express a preference for local integration over resettlement or repatriation. Finally, the United States, India and other countries should redouble their efforts to persuade Bhutan to allow refugees who want to repatriate to do so under conditions that are compatible with human rights law.
