Joint agitation

Two weeks after the deadlocked secretary level talks between Nepal and Bhutan, Bhutanese refugee leaders have decided to launch a joint agitation for refugee repatriation. Such an agitation may eventually lead Bhutan towards the establishment of democracy. The announcement of the joint agitation came to light after a group of Bhutanese leaders in exile met secretly with Tek Nath Rizal. Rizal has been living in Bhutan since he was released by the Druk regime on health grounds. The Druk regime had imprisoned Rizal for almost a decade on the charge of propagating anti-social views. In the face of Druk atrocities, Rizal has been fighting against the draconian law imposed on the Lhotshampa minority. The Druk regime forcefully evicted over one hundred thousand Lhotshampas
when they opposed that law imposed against democratic values. These Lhotshampas have been languishing as refugees at seven different camps in eastern Nepal since 1992. Had not the USA and the EU intervened in the refugee imbroglio, the Druk regime would not have agreed to differentiate the Bhutanese refugees from non-Bhutanese. So far the Joint Verification Team (JVT) formed last April has verified the refugees at Khudunabari camp. However, the Bhutanese regime has also proposed categorization of the refugees into four groups before the repatriation process actually begins. The Nepali side has proposed that the refugees be classified in just two categories: Bhutanese and non-Bhutanese.

The secretary level meeting early this month was held in Kathmandu on ways to verify the refugees and categorize those verified. Soon the two countries will have a ministerial level meeting on the process of categorization as agreed between Nepal and Bhutan last March. However, the Bhutanese foreign minister has said in the Indian media that his government would not take back refugees with criminal records. Here, the questions that arise are: Who are those people whom the Thimphu regime calls criminals? What kinds of crimes did they commit in Bhutan before they fled their country? Are the people who fought or are fighting for justice criminals? If Bhutan calls such people criminals, it should be able to try them under its own law as their crimes have presumably been committed in Bhutan. The Thimphu regime cannot consider political demonstrations organized by a few democratic leaders in 1991 against the draconian law imposed on a minority as anti-national and categorize such people as criminals. It took six months for the JVT to verify 12,000 refugees. If the JVT does not speed up the pace of verification, it will take at least seven years just to complete the verification process, leave aside the categorization. The joint decision taken by the refugee leaders to launch an agitation for repatriation of the refugees would not have come, had the Druk regime agreed to differentiate the Bhutanese refugees from non-Bhutanese. Bhutan must recognize the fact that ninety-five percent of those who have been verified so far had documents to prove their nationality. Bhutan cannot brush aside such hard evidence citing its archaic laws.

Give peace a chance

The abrupt and unilateral statement issued by the Maoist strongman, Prachanda, Wednesday evening was as unexpected as it was inexplicable. The statement came just about two weeks after the third inconclusive round of government-Maoist talks and when all eyes were focussed on the expected fourth round. The Prime Minister himself was exuding confidence that the fourth round would yield some results. On top of that Speaker Taranath Ranabhat was all for dissolving the present parliament and holding fresh elections. Coming as it did at the time it did, the Maoist strongman’s statement could be nothing more than the "anger" shown by an over-indulged wife to her ever doting husband. This especially as a broad based group including not only the ruling party and the main opposition but also other parties and the majority of the leftists have ruled out the possibility of elections to a constituent assembly. They see no logic in the "minimum" Maoist demand for a constituent assembly after they have already given up their demand for a republic. This was major concession for the Maoists and despite excuses by Maoist apologists that a constituent assembly is a forerunner to a republican system, the sense of a Maoist volte face could not escape even a lay observer.

Under the circumstances it would have been difficult for the present crop of Maoist leaders to justify to their activists and armed workers that their move had been a right one. This when the Maoists have been indoctrinating their workers all along that the end of monarchy in Nepal is a panacea for all ill that has beset this country. Recent reports from the hills of western Nepal speak of Pranchada being displaced as the extremist leader by an obviously militant figure like Ram Bahadur Thapa said to be the brain behind the Maoist armed forays. The fact that the Maoists continue to resort to extortion, looting and abductions, despite the cessation of hostilities could be an indicator of the ever loosening grip of the top political leadership over the cadres. The Prachanda statement, thus, could have been issued under compulsion rather than by deliberate choice or out of strategy considerations. But whatever the reason, the government must not be found wanting in preparations should worse come to worst and should be able to successfully face and repulse any Maoist challenge in the field. However, prudence demands that both the government and the Maoists come back to the table and give peace more than a fighting chance.