 |
Kathmandu Thursday November 29, 2001 Marga 14, 2058.
|
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.
Other Stories
|
