 |
|
| Kathmandu, Wednesday May 15, 2002 Jestha 01, 2059. |
|
Stalemate on refugee issue
By DR S CHANDRASEKHARAN
For the past three years the South Asia Analysis
Group has been following the vexed question of the hundred and odd thousand Bhutanese
refugees in Nepal who have been abandoned both by the governments of Bhutan and Nepal with
India keeping its distance. There has been an accusation that the Group, besides
criticizing the governments concerned, has made no effort to suggest some viable solution
on this complex issue. It was in this context that in the last update certain suggestions
were made.
(1) It is better to have informal talks between
the two countries to prepare the ground rather than continue with another formal round.
(2) Categories I & II, namely those
unlawfully evicted and those who were said to have voluntarily migrated should be clubbed
and their cases examined afresh in the light of the 1958 Nationality law and subsequent
Acts of 1977 and 1985.
(3) The case of non-Bhutanese under category III
would be few and could be considered separately regarding their repatriation.
(4) Those under category IV will again be a
small number; other countries should be able to help them if they prefer not to return
(5) It is still not too late for the Government
of India to step in and solve the problem to the satisfaction of all concerned, and the
UNHCR which is fully aware of this problem could take up the question of restitution of
the returning refugees.
The Group emphasizes again that any solution of
the refugee problem should address the issue of those innocent Bhutanese who were forced
to sign the so-called voluntary migration forms. Th bulk of the refugees in the camps in
Nepal belong to this category. The eviction was a reaction to Bhutan’s security
concern; the innocent people should not be made to suffer as consequent to irresponsible
action of a few, who anyway who fall under category IV.
The present deadlock is over the issue of
Category II. As we have stated earlier Bhutan had been playing number game keeping in mind
the ethnic composition of its population. The 1990 demonstration is being used as an
excuse to reduce the population of Nepali Bhutanese from 43.5 percent in 1990 to about 30
-35 percent after the repatriation. The present strength of Lhotsamp population inside the
country is little 25 percent. If possible Bhutan wants to take some 60,000 people, thus
leveling off the percentage of the Nepali Bhutanese at around 35 percent.
Here, the issue is of fairness and justice. At
the Khudunabari camp, over 60 percent of the population has furnished photocopies of
Bhutanese citizenship cards or land records as documentary evidences of their residences
in Bhutan. Others whose such documents were lost or confiscated, have furnished school
certificates, health cards or travel papers issued by the Royal Bhutan Police at the time
of eviction. More than 95 percent of Khudunabari population has some sort of documentary
evidences to prove that they have come from Bhutan. The percentage of population with
citizenship cards or land records could increase substantially in other camps.
So what would be the basis for Bhutan to disown
its population in order to reduce the population size to so-called desirable level? How
can Nepal approve of such a policy since it is going to set precedence in the region? What
would be the implication for India itself when population of Indian origin are spread over
152 countries, and are a critical population to form governments in a half dozen
countries? Bhutan cannot be treated as a special case; the basis of resolution must have
some sound groundings.
Everyone, who writes to South Asia Analysis
Group, says that India is not doing enough to solve this problem. There is a need for all
options to be exhausted before India could intervene. The past experience in handling such
issues in the sub-continent had not been rewarding. The European countries have begun to
express concerns at human rights violation of Bhutanese refugees only from the year 2000
despite providing them with relief assistance through the UNHCR since the early 1990s.
There is a need to build unilateral voices of all concerns so that there will not be any
differences of opinions once India makes move to make Bhutan to accept the fair solution.
The South Asia Analysis Group has said time and
again that political stability is of utmost concern of India and it is in the interest of
the region. The monarchy is the stabilizing factor, and the different ethnic groups must
rally around the King to work towards a system that will be good for the Bhutanese people.
In this regards there has been a move: the proposed constitution must be completed taking
into accounts the viewpoints of the refugee communities, and there will have to be
constitutional provisions to safeguard the interests of the minorities.
Therefore, the gamuts of issues involved in
Bhutan are multifaceted. Nepal will have to de-link the refugee issue with other bilateral
relationships. In this context, Nepal’s track-II effort through the visit of former
foreign minister Chakra Prasad Bastola and the delegation under the leadership of Madav
Kumar Nepal, General Secretary of UML and the leader of opposition in the Nepalese
Parliament, must be viewed with caution. Bhutan’s traditional hospitability could be
as alluring as Eve’s apple to Adam. In Nepal’s case, that also with the leftist
group, emotional blackmail against the backdrop of a powerful India could be saleable
easily.
Be that as it may, Bhutan’s effort to
dilute the legitimate rights of the refugees to return Bhutan with a provision for
reapplication to Bhutanese citizenship must not be taken lightly. Reportedly, Bhutan has
offered to reconsider their application for Bhutanese citizenship for those people falling
in category II is mischievous. According to the latest Bhutanese laws, the process of
finalizing citizenship application could take as long as 15 years, and it remains at the
discretion of His Majesty the King. In addition, it requires the applicants to have a
sound knowledge of Bhutanese history, language and tradition, which could always be handy
to reject such application! This can easily create statelessness for more than 60000
should Nepal agree to such a proposition.
This is already six months since the
verification of Khudunabari camp is completed. It was thought that the harmonization
process would be expedited so that the laborious process of verification of the refugees
of the other camps numbering more than 88,000 could be avoided. It is now learnt that the
two governments have not been able to reach any decision and the deadlock continues.
Despite guarded diplomatic utterances from both sides, it is seen that the Nepalese side
is totally frustrated. Nepal should come out clean and say that their patience is
exhausted.
The Bhutanese refugee issue is a reality and it
could not be ignored. It is not only a humanitarian problem involving lives of more than
1000,000 people but it will have a long-term impact on India’s interest as well.
Bhutanese refugee issue can easily take emotive outburst since it was a process of ethnic
cleansing designed by the people around the King. A large number of ethnic Nepali people
are in Sikkim, North Bengal, Assam and other northeastern states. Their contributions to
India’s security and other important areas of national development are not easy to
ignore. India will be compelled to make a difficult choice if this issue is not resolved
amicably through the bilateral process.
Other Stories
|
