Bhutanese refugees and security

By Dr S Chandrasekharan

Bhutan’s perception of its national identity revolves around mongoloid race, practising Drukpa Khagyu Mahayana Buddhism and wearing gho and kira, ethnic dress of Drukpa majority, by all Bhutanese ethnic groups irrespective of their culture and religion. Over 40 percent of the total population, who are ethnic Nepalis and overwhelming Hindus, had been relegated to footnotes description in Bhutan. For this, the blame should go not only to the ruling elites in Thimphu but also to visiting international dignitaries and scholars who have helped to portray Bhutan that way. Almost all prominent scholars, including Leo Rose, Michael Aries and Bhawanisen Gupta, have written profusely on Buddhist Bhutan, giving lesser importance to other ethnic groups, their culture, tradition and soci-economic condition. This has encouraged Bhutan to become more protectionist on its core concepts of national identity, which has enormously influenced its attitude towards over 100,000 Bhutanese refugees, who are all ethnic Nepalis taking refuge in the UNHCR-organised camps in eastern Nepal.

Karma Ura, in his six parts writing on security in Kuensel, asserts that Bhutan chose non-military alternatives, such as cultural cohesion and neutrality for its long-term security, given its strategic position between the two mighty Asian nations and lack of technology and military strength. Further, he adds that any attempt to resolve the refugee crisis in Nepal will have to address Bhutan’s security concern, for which the people of Nepali ethnicity, who immigrated in the late 19th century, are considered volatile for political stability. He blames ‘opportunistic’ individuals, primarily who had citizenship problem because of marriages or otherwise, responsible for fomenting the protest movement of 1990, rallying around the issue of compulsory use of national dress for common people and omission of Nepali language from school curriculum in 1989. Also, Gorkha activism across the border in Bengal and spread of Nepali population in Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur and Mizoram are Ura’s concern for Bhutan’s security, indicating therein Bhutan’s institutional in-built suspicion towards the Nepali population, they have no control over. Clearly, the perceived security concern was one of the many reasons to drive out thousands of Nepali Bhutanese in the aftermath of the pro-democracy protest movement. Stories of the victims narrated to the Joint Verification Team at Khudunabari camp confirm that the Royal Government had a pre-conceived design to achieve ethnic cleansing. In one narration, Dasho Dzongrab (gazetted officer) threatened Bom Bahadur Magar, Buddha Maya Magar, Harka Bahadur Magar and Bir Bahadur Thapa of Leopani Block from Sarbhang District for life on February 29, 1992, displaying his pistol at hand, and saying: ‘ if the forms are not signed, I will come back with the army and you will face the dire consequences’. In another narration, San Bahadur Biswa of Jinchula Village, Changkha Block in Dagana District had no money even to go to the border, and the Royal Bhutan Police took him in their vehicle 60 Km down to the border town Sarbhang on January 21,1993. Could such people have volunteered to go to a far away place like Khudunabari without coercion? The design of eviction process varies from place to place, but in all incidents the Royal Government was behind it. Reportedly, in 1991, the Royal Government had diverted fund from its development budget to make payment for so-called land compensation to the evictees, exchanging in one time 2.5 million ngultrums into equivalent Indian rupee exclusively for Chirang and Dagana Districts.

Therefore, it is surprising that Bhutan has not budged from its 1993’s position on the four categories, ignoring Nepal’s plea, and pledged only ‘to take back the bonafide Bhutanese irrespective of the circumstances in which they left the country’. Upon return to Bhutan Ugyen Tshering, head of Bhutanese delegation, made two curious remarks. He stated that ‘both sides have an agreement to complete the harmonization and verification process simultaneously’ and ‘both countries expressed their firm resolve and commitment to arriving at a lasting solution to the issue of the people in the camps in Nepal through bilateral process’.

If Nepal had agreed to these issues it would have helped Bhutan to get rid of those refugees who were coerced to leave their homes. In our view, the problem of those who were coerced to sign the so-called voluntary migration form should be solved first before any talk in harmonization is thought of. Earlier Nepal had requested India to intervene and settle the refugee issue, and visiting Nepalese Prime Minister Girija Prassad Koirala had said in Delhi that ‘it is a trilateral problem and not a bilateral one’. The refugees on their part have sought now international intervention after having given up any hope of India’s involvement. Also, UNHCR has expressed its willingness to play a meaningful role in solving the refugee impasse particularly after the official visit of Madame Ogata to Thimphu and Kathmandu if the two countries sought its cooperation.

Undoubtedly, the Bhutanese refugee problem needs to be solved urgently both for Bhutan’s security and political stability in the region. Bhutan cannot address its long-term security problem by embarking upon ethnic cleansing, which are a well-established population in the region. When the controversy over dress, language and culture started, only a few Bhutanese were willing participants in the demonstrations. Most of the refugees now languishing in the camps had nothing to do with such controversies. Many of them were ordinary farmers who depended on the land for their survival and had no time for politics. In ten years time the demand for political change has shifted from South to East Bhutan, opening up other spots for social unrest. Will Bhutan be assured of its long-term security by keeping away over hundred thousand refugees, of whom many would be young and restless youths in a couple of years time?

Given the attitude of the Thimphu Regime, there is a need for coordinated effort in resolving the refugee problem between the refugee community and the HMG Nepal. First, all the social and human rights organizations in the camps must come together under one leadership and make it focus on basic human rights and dignified return of all the Bhutanese refugees to their places in Bhutan. Tek Nath Rizal’s role is critical in the consolidation process. Second, HMG Nepal must push the issue of those who were compelled to sign the voluntary migration form first, making the international community and the Government of India speak out their conscience. Once the category two is taken care of, the solution to other categories would automatically fall in line. Or else it will be a fatal error.

Hail the trade king !

By Rudra Sharma

Dear!

Yes.

Come at 2 pm sharp tomorrow. There is a good programme on WTO, invited my friend.

What’s the topic? I inquired.

The WTO (World Trade Organisation) and Agriculture, he replied. I could not believe my ears. I shovelled both of my fingers with a finger and asked again, Pardon? "WTO and Agriculture" he rendered the answer with smile but perplexing eyes. I thought he was cracking jokes but his perplexing eyes said I was wrong.

However, I broke the ice again.

What a nonsense! Is there any relations between the WTO and agriculture which are unrelated things entirely. Does agriculture have to do anything with the WTO? So on and so forth. I poured a series of questions upon him.

My friend glared from my head to toe. What a slumber you are in dear! quipped he.

The world is already heading towards e-commerce. Do you know about the WTO agreement, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS)? He retaliated with similar numbers of questions.

I surrendered. With my hands up, I requested him to make me understand about these all. Anyway, friend was mine, isn’t it? So, he agreed. At first, he asked me what I knew about the WTO and the recently concluded Doha ministerial conference. Prudent me quickly responded, "It was a big meet where China and Taiwan acquired accession and..."

"Well" He interrupted and began to preach me. In 1947, 23 countries concluded an agreement called
General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT) with the objectives of promoting trade on the basis of comparative cost advantage. The efforts to promote trade continued in several rounds of talks. The eight round of talks baptised the GATT as the WTO and included trade in service and Intellectual property rights too into the WTO regime.

Under the WTO, the TRIPS includes wide range of things like copyright, patent, breeders’ right, etc.

Still confused, I could not trace any relations of the WTO with agriculture and submitted query once again. He resumed his preaching. Breeders’ right and patent rights under the TRIPS have more to do with agriculture and farmers. If some plant varieties or seeds are patented farmers have to buy them by paying higher prices. Sometimes, this may be detrimental to the interest of the farmers.

I was stunned. Oh! My God. Even seeds fall under the WTO? Does it matter for trade? I quipped but in vain. In a strong vent, I asked whether everything fall under the WTO. My friend did not speak but nodded in affirmative. I had then nothing to ask him but ponder myself. If everything under the sun falls under the WTO, it must be a king or an emperor stronger than ever noticed in the history.

So, there is no power in the world but the WTO, the one and only superpower. After a deep sigh, I whispered to myself, "Hail the WTO, Hail the king". Then, I assured my friend that I would go to attend the programme on time. Would you also like to go to the programme?

Koirala’s tactical retreat

By S Gautam

As a Nepali citizen I feel proud of several things, of which the name of a former Prime Minister tops the list. He has been on the seat of the Prime Minister four times since restoration of the multiparty system, and is now again a topic of conversation as there is speculation of his coming back as PM before the end of this year. I don’t know how many people take this speculative talk seriously, but I am fully confident that he will very soon become Prime Minister again and make me proud of him. And my belief is based not on what others say about him, but on how he has handled the situation after relinquishing the post some time ago under tremendous pressure from several quarters.

First of all, my memory goes back to the days of the Interim Government headed by a bachelor Prime Minister. In those days the present four-time former Prime Minister was in the news for advocating an Interim constitution for the smooth functioning of government. Many people opined, then, that this gentleman was a visionary who could raise the issue of an Interim constitution when his own party was heading the government without having raised any such issue neither at the tripartite talks at the Royal Palace or at the meeting, of the party’s (NC) Central Committee. Only a few could realize that it was his political ploy to defame and oust the bachelor Prime Minister and pave the way for his taking over the leadership of the party in the first general election. He knew how to play his cards, outsmarting the "diplomat" Prime Minister by taking up issues which were not dear to him.

Once he became the Prime Minister soon after the general election, he forgot all the promises and behaved arrogantly ignoring every rational advice from intellectual, and sincere professionals. He saw no need for reform in the constitution as long as it served his interests. It was during his tenure that some of our national industries, including Bansbari Shoe Factory and Bhrikuti Paper Mills, were sold in to private hands on the pretext of reviving sick industries. It was during his regime that corruption was institutionalized, and no sector of society was left untouched by the virus of anarchy and mismanagement. In the name of privatization and open market, his government decontrolled vital responsibilities and ‘free for all’ became the slogan of the time. But the same former Prime Minister started talking about moral issues once the present Prime Minister replaced him with the support of the RPP during the coalition era in Nepali politics. So much so that he behaved like an opposition leader to defeat his own party's government, with the sole aim of becoming Prime Minister again. I am proud of his manipulative skills in corner, his friend and foe, and seizing the seat of power. His second tenure, as Prime Minister of a coalition government gave an ample proof that he could go to any extent in the cause of power.

I am proud of him also because of his tactics for saving himself from ignominy. His clever act enabled the interim Prime Minister to occupy the PM’s chair a second time. But as soon as his old rival was sworn as Prime Minister, he began using the same old language to topple the government of his own party. He travelled to every nook and corner of the country saying that there was a graveyard like peace in the land and any time there could be a massive explosion of discontent and dissolution.

He lamented that politicians were becoming more and more irresponsible and bereft of moral values. He played all this morality game not because of any genuine concern for the plight of the people but because to score a point over his rival and grab power once again. Many politicians and intellectuals belonging to the ruling as well as opposition parties had anticipated that he would not become Prime Minister once again after handing over charge to the ‘saint’ Prime Minister. But all such speculations and guesses were proved wrong. In fact, he was only making a tactical retreat in not fielding himself as
Prime Ministerial candidate in the last general election. As expected, he finally ousted the ‘saint’ after resorting to a low-level political game.

Now again, the four time former Prime Minister has been in the news for some time for his utterances against the performance of present government, especially in the case of dialogue with the Maoists. He has also expressed the view that no more than 10 percent of the total membership of parliament should be included in the cabinet. People might think that he is more concerned about the problems of country than the incumbent Prime Minister, but there is a deeper meaning behind this U -turn in his political behaviour.

It is not that he wants to reduce unnecessary government expenses by reducing the size of the government; he simply wants to take advantage of the situation by exploiting people’s sentiments. When he is out of power, he behaves not as the leader of the ruling party but as if he is an opposition leader. He is already on the comeback trial and so he has been saying for the couple of weeks that the present Prime Minister is keeping the nation in darkness regarding the outcome of dialogue with Maoists. It would not be any surprise if he becomes Prime Minister again toppling the present government before the end of this year. Once he succeeds in his game plan, the nation will again have to bear with a Prime Minister devoid of any political sincerity and moral authority.

I am proud of our four-time former Prime Minister who considers himself the only candidate fit for Prime Minister as long as he is alive. I have learnt from him that if one wants to succeed, one should speak in accordance with the situation irrespective of moral values or political sincerity. There are very few leaders like him who know how to grab and exploit an opportunity.

Every politician should imitate the style of this experienced politician if he or she wants success in life. In the past we would talk of Bhajan Lal and Bansi Lal in Indian politics as examples of rank opportunism politicians. Now there is no need to name any Indian politician. We should be grateful to our own four-time former Prime Minister who has kindly shown the way of success in life without having to go anywhere else to learn the tactics of manipulation.