Bhutanese Refugees
Repatriation Still Elusive

By Uttam Maharjan

THE diplomatic relations between Nepal and Bhutan formally took shape in 1983. The two Himalayan Kingdom have their relations, both at official and popular levels, dating back to the 15th century. At that time, some Nepalese went to the Druk Yul at the behest of the Bhutanese government to promote arts, to help in administration and for religious advancement. The contributions of Rana Prime Minister Chandra Shumsher and other Nepalese to the establishment of the hereditary kingship in Bhutan assume great prominence. Thus, the Nepalese contributions to Bhutan at social, cultural, economic and political levels are really something to be backoned with.

The cordial relations between Nepal and Bhutan have, however, shown signs of decadence since the early 1990s, when the mass exodus of the Bhutanese of Nepalese origin, known as the Lhotsampas, to eastern Nepal was precipitated by Bhutan. It may be noted that India facilitated the settlement of these refugees in our land since they came here via India.

Way back in 1993, Nepal and Bhutan held the first round of talks and agreed to categorise the refugees into four groups: bona fide Bhutanese, Bhutanese who emigrated, Bhutanese with criminal records and non-Bhutanese. This categorisation has since been used by Bhutan as a trump card. It has been insisting that it will take back only bona fide Bhutanese in sharp contrast to Nepal’s stand that Bhutan must take back all the refugees except the non-Bhutanese. The nine rounds of talks between the two countries unfortunately stonewalling was attributed to such a bone of contention between them.

The tenth round of talks held in Kathmandu in December 2000, however, struck a positive note that with burgeoning international pressure on Bhutan and what with somewhat thawing Nepal-Bhutan relations. As per the verification scheme mutually agreed to at the meeting, the verification of about 13,000 refugees sheltering in the Khudunabari camp was completed in January. But now, clouds of uncertainly have hovered above the refugees. When the varified Khudunabari refugees will be repatriated and when verification will kick off in other camps still lie in the womb of time. The growing desperation of the refugees may be judged by their request to the USA Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, to take the initiative in breaking the impasse, when he was on his Nepal visit (January 18-19). At a time when some refugees have been verified and just a modus operandi of repatriation is needed, such a request to the USA assumes greater importance.

Yes, the refugees’ frustration is not without any grounds. It is reported—and also confirmed by the findings of Habitat International Coalition, an international human rights organisation-that the land and houses belonging to the refugees have been distributed among the Bhutanese from the north and east. Although the Bhutanese government purports that such a move is meant for agricultural development and has nothing to do with the refugee imbroglio, what will happen if the refugees are repatriated to their homeland and claim their properties is really serious. If the refugees cannot responses their properties, which is most likely as they are bete noires in the eyes of the Bhutanese government, they will definitely end up as internally displaced people (IDPs). In such a situation, their fate will be no better than what it is now.

The so-called ethnic cleansing policy adopted by Bhutan is aimed at purging those who have non-Bhutanese languages, customs and religion. As such, the Lhotsampas were accused by the Bhutanese government of taking part in pro-democracy demonstrations in the 1990s.

Discrimination on the basis of ethnicity is a serious human rights violation and against international law. The apartheid policy of South Africa, under which whites used to dominate blacks, was officially renounced just a couple of years after the Lhotsampas were forcibly banished, that is in 1992, giving way to racial integration. Bhutan should have taken its cue from South Africa and assimilated the refugees into the mainstream of national development. A refugee population of around 100,000, which represents about 5 per cent of the total Bhutanese population, should have been optimally mobilised for development activities.

Bhutan should keep it in its mind that this is the age of democracy and such racial policy towards the Lhotsampas is not only undemocratic but also inhuman. The most dangerous outcome of the failure of the refugee problem will be the creation of a state of statelessness among the refugees. Rendering the refugees stateless cuts across international law and Bhutan will be solely responsible for it.

That Bhutan does not want any third party involvement in the solution to the refugee problem is corroborated by the formation of the Joint Verification Team without the involvement of even representatives from the UNHCR. A meeting between Nepal and Bhutan is being held sometime this month. In the context of India, which controls Bhutan’s external affairs as per the Indo-Bhutanese Treaty of 1949, washing its hands of the refugee problem and Nepal being faced with difficulties in solving the problem bilaterally, it will be judicious to solve the problem at international level in case the forthcoming meeting cannot break the impasse.

Other Stories

• Poverty Affects Society
• The Cherished Dream