FEATURES NEWS THE RISING NEPAL (DAILY)

Repatriation Of Bhutanese Refugees
Light At The End Of The Tunnel

THE Bhutanese refugee problem is the making of Bhutan itself. It was in the late 1980s that Bhutan adopted a one-country-one-people policy and intensified its ethnic cleansing campaign. Under the campaign, the Nepali-speaking Bhutanese living in southern Bhutan, known as the Lhotsampas, were forcibly evicted. They travelled all the way through India and landed in eastern Nepal. At that time, it was not expected that the first batch of 60 refugees who came to Nepal in Decemeber 1990 would swell to around 100,000. The Bhutanese refugees have since been living in UNHCR-maintained camps in Jhapa and Morang districts.

Being a least developed country facing difficulties in coping with food, clothing and shelter problems, Nepal is not in a position to support the refugees forever. It is on humanitarian grounds that the country has supported the refugees till now.

The first attempt was made by Nepal to solve the problem by holding joint ministerial-level talks with Bhutan way back in 1993. It was during the talks that the two Himalayan Kingdoms agreed to assort the refugees into four categories: bonafide Bhutanese, emigrated Bhutanese, criminal Bhutanese and non-Bhutanese. Nepal’s acceptance of such categorisation has been a sticking point since then.

Bhutan is adamant on taking back only the bonafide Bhutanese, whereas Nepal maintains that Bhutan should take back all the refugees except the non-Bhutanese. Bhutan can under no circumstances be forced to take back the non-Bhutanese refugees as well. These conflicting stands of the two countries stood in the way of successful talks till the 10th round of talks in Kathmandu in December 2000.

However, the 10th round of talks turned out to be a landmark to the astonishment of every one, paving the way for the verification of the refugees. The success of the talks was attributed mainly to two factors: growing international pressure on Bhutan and thawing Nepal-Bhutan relations. But categorisation and harmonisation process have remained on the back burner since then.

In fact, Bhutan had been giving Nepal and the world community the runaround all those years. It had been insisting that it would take back only the bonafide Bhutanese simply because its law would not allow it to take back the other categories. If so, Nepal is not bound to assimilate the other Bhutanese into its land, either.

Any way, as resolved during the 10th round of talks the verification of the refugees has been going on in the Khudunabari camp with 1,200 families as a test case since March 26 2001. (There was a postponement of about four weeks due apparently to the 11th round of talks.) Initially, 10 families were scheduled to be verified per day by the Nepal-Bhutan Joint Verification Team (JVT) with five members from each side. But for one reason or the other, the pace of the verification was found to be very slow. Even a conservative estimate showed that it would take over five years to complete the verification. By that time, new babies would have been born and old people would have passed away. This would certainly make the issue more complicated. So the sooner the completion of the verification, the better.

It was with this in mind that Nepal and Bhutan held the 11th round of talks in Thimpu in August 2001 in order to accelerate the pace of the verification. The talks proved to be fruitful in some respects. It was agreed during the talks to add one member each from Nepal and Bhutan to the JVT, to simplify the verification process and to delegate authority to the team to settle minor issues on their own. Since then, 15 families have been verified per day.

However, Nepal’s demand that the verification be completed in a time-bound manner, ie by fixing a timeframe, harmonisation be maintained on the categorisation of the refugees and the refugees be resettled on their land back home were spurned by Bhutan.

These shortcomings notwithstanding, the kingdom agreed that they would categorise the verified refugees of the Khudunabari camp once they harmonised their stands on the categorisation at a foreign secretary-level meeting slated to be held soon after the completion of the verification. And thereafter, the first batch of the refugees will be repatriated to Bhutan while the other refugees will be verified as usual.

It is at this point that what is Bhutan’s real intention will come out into the open. Bhutan asserts that the Lhotsampas do not have valid documents to prove that they are Bhutanese citixens, whereas the Bhutanese citizens maintain that they do have one document or the other in evidence of their being Bhutanese citizens. They recall how they were forced into signing voluntary migration forms at gunpoint and expelled from their homeland.

Further, Bhutan relentlessly blames Nepal for the protraction of the problem. Nepal’s unstable political environment and frequent change of guards in the government are often cited as responsible for the delay in solving the problem.

The refugees are, on the other hand, anxious to go back home and equally worried about threats to Bhutanese security and sovereignty posed by the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) and the Bodo National Democratic Force (BNDA), Assamese militant groups taking shelter in Bhutan.

The involvement of a mediator from India or any other country designated by the UNHCR would have facilitated the verification process to a great extent. That India has not shown any interest in the settlement of the refugee problem is a matter of great concern. After all, Bhutan’s security and foreign policy and guided by India.

It is obvious that Bhutan will not take back all the refugees. If such were the case, the verification exercise would not have taken place. It may, however, be hoped that the Bhutanese refugee problem will be solved in an amicable manner and that the refugees will have an opportunity to see their homeland again and identify themselves with the mainstream of the development of their country. If this happens, Bhutan will earn laurels from the world community and a good example will be set for other countries with similar problems to follow.

Other Stories