 |
|
| Kathmandu, Wednesday August 06, 2003 Shrawan 21, 2060. |
|
India’s role in refugee
issue
SAVITREE THAPA GURUNG
Different analysts observe that India is part of
the Bhutanese refugee problem since it allowed the refugees to use its route while coming
to Nepal. However, when the refugees wanted to return to Bhutan, holding a protest march
before handing a petition over to the Bhutanese king, Delhi did not allow them to pass
through India. This shows India’s dual role. Another view supporting India’s
essential involvement in this issue is that India has a dominant role in Bhutan’s
foreign policy, according to the 1949 Peace and Friendship Treaty between India and
Bhutan. So, in any issues related to India, Bhutan must seek advice from India. If India
really wants to see the problem to be solved, it could use her good offices with Bhutan
and make a contribution to solve this impasse.
It is a well-known fact that the state cannot
expel its citizens either by the administration or judicial procedure, depending on their
dissimilarities in religion, race or origin. Those acts comprise a serious violation of
the international law, when its international results are to cast upon other territories,
individuals suffering from such a condemnation or even placed merely under the pressure of
judicial proscription.
It is morally wrong when a country imposes a
large number of refugees on another country without ‘the letter of consent’. No
country should force the population to flee their land either directly or indirectly. It
is against the international law. ‘If such activities create distress unpleasant to
another state, the state has right to claim compensation even if the refugees retain the
formal nationality of the country of origin’, one well- known journalist claims. A
relevant example would be India’s protest against Pakistan’s military action in
East Pakistan, which resulted in the exodus of nearly two million East Pakistanis into
India (Keesing’s Contemporary Archive, July 3-10, 1971).
India holds the key to this trouble because
India has taken responsibility to guide Bhutan’s foreign relations. Furthermore,
India was also the first refuge for the Bhutanese fleeing their country. But, India as
usual maintains that ‘the matter is a purely bilateral’ issue and it cannot do
anything to solve it and it is remaining neutral to this date. It even adopted a stance
when the peace marchers entered into its territory which was obviously supportive for the
Royal Government of Bhutan, and not for Nepali speaking Bhutanese refugees.
Although India does not recognise that more than
125,000 Bhutanese are languishing in different parts of Nepal and India, Nepal wishes
India’s involvement to decide in this issue as the refugees had used Indian Territory
on their way to Nepal. Nepal believes that India’s role is crucial to resolve this
issue because of former ‘leverage’ on Bhutan’s foreign affairs. They ask,
"why did India prevent the Bhutanese to go back to their country but "allowed
them" to go to Nepal via the Siliguri corridor?" However, India says that while
going to Nepal, they went as individuals and returning as a group is not acceptable to
India. "Although India might have its own compulsions for not allowing the refugees
through the Indian corridor, the rationale advanced by India is untenable", one
renowned academician adds.
Furthermore, the attitude of Indian bureaucrats
and defence strategists is also not favourable to Nepal. They are more sympathetic to
Bhutan than Nepal. These bureaucrats do not like to irritate Bhutan in order to advance
their national interests mainly, their problem of ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam)
and Bodo tribal insurgents who have lodged camps in southern and eastern Bhutan. These
rebellion groups based in Bhutan are threat to India. They need help from Bhutan to
control their rebellion activities. India even has proposed joint military action against
the ULFA and Bodo insurgents. These groups represent a serious threat to the kingdom’s
security. According to Indian sources, the ULFA and the Bodo militants include more than
4,000 armed rebels. The dialogue between the royal government and the ULFA leaders has not
been successful in making the militants leave the country peacefully. India is suspicious
of Bhutan being a safe haven for insurgents. However, some in Bhutan, including
representatives within the National Assembly are unsatisfied for India not doing
sufficient to solve the problem.
India can utilise the large hydropower of Bhutan
at a low cost. Bhutan has large hydro- power from which India benefits greatly. India is
buying the hydropower from Bhutan at a cheaper rate. If Bhutan is irritated by India’s
activities, they will have a problem in this joint scheme. Moreover, India does not gain
much by solving this problem, but may lose Bhutan’s goodwill. Whereas even if it does
not mediate in this issue, Nepal is no longer in a position to bargain with India as
Bhutan is, as mentioned earlier. India does not lose its leverage from Nepal, since Nepal
is largely dependent on India in many ways. Besides, Nepal also needs sea route for trade
on a day-to-day basis.
Besides the refugee problem, Nepal has also been
facing other problems such as the Maoist insurgency. To address the Maoist problem, Nepal
needs India’s help because the Maoists are based in India and they get weapons mainly
from India. So, without India’s help, Nepal cannot address this problem. Moreover, as
in the case of Bhutan, India is one of the main donors of Nepal.
The most well-known Bhutanese refugee leader and
human rights activist Tek Nath Rizal felt India would understand the plight of the
refugees languishing in Nepal and India and take up their cause with the Bhutanese
government. He stated "I will try to meet the top Indian leaders and after convincing
them of our plight, we will get their co-operation," Rizal told The Kathmandu Post
(2002) in New Delhi. However, the long-suffering Bhutanese refugee leader was disappointed
with the Indian powers that be for their response or rather lack of it. He further stated,
"India does not know how we were evicted from our own homeland. I am waiting for
their positive response." He also called upon the international community to exert
pressure on Bhutan to take back the refugees.
In short, India’s response to the Bhutanese
refugee issue is not positive. This relation can be taken as a case study of ‘big
power small power relations’. It has been watching the issue for about thirteen
years. Since on many occasions in South Asia, India has established an example of a
regional policeman, it should have been able to solve this issue. Hence, it neither wants
an outsider to intervene and solve the issue, nor does it want to intervene itself and
solve the issue. It has kept out of the situation in the name of bilateralism, despite
having leverage on Bhutan’s external affairs. However, it should be able to finalise
the issue because it is also engaged in this issue along with Nepal and Bhutan. Some
analysts observe that India is not willing to see the problem solved as it has an interest
in its neighbors being dependent on it. This dependency may have certain strategic
advantages.
(The author is a lecturer of political
science at RRL Campus, TU, Nepal)
Other Stories
|
