Posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Who Are The Bhutanese Refugees ?
THE ORIGIN OF BHUTANESE REFUGEES AND BHUTAN'S POLITICAL CRISIS
Various ethnic groups and peoples have lived in perfect communal, religious and ethnic harmony for centuries in Bhutan. Never before, any instance of ethnic conflict, communal or religious clash at the peoples level has occurred in Bhutan, which has become the hallmark of many South Asian nations and destroyed the very basic fabric of democracy in these countries. Tolerance, co-operation and compromise, had been the basic values of Bhutanese society. But since the 1980s the present Government has started sowing the racial seeds among its people. It has formulated and implemented a number of racist policies and programmes to depopulate and evict the Lhotshampa citizens of southern Bhutan. It is the present medieval, autocratic and despotic Government that has nurtured racist and discriminatory practices and attitudes to perpetuate in power. This has destroyed the very basis of existence of Bhutan as a peaceful nation.
More than 125,000 Nepali-speaking Lhotshampas of Southern Bhutan, nearly a sixth of the kingdom's total population of approximately 782,548 have been forced to leave or forcibly evicted from the country by the Government. This has made Bhutan as one of the highest per capita refugee generators in the world. As on March 2001, 98,886 Bhutanese refugees are living in seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal managed by the UNHCR. Rest live scattered in other parts of Nepal. About 25,000 Bhutanese refugees are living in Indian territories with out any help.
The roots of the current political crisis in Bhutan and the refugees lie in Bhutan's geopolitics and population politics. A study of various policies of the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) in the last two decades reflects the Ngalung/Drukpa dominated government's motive to uproot Nepali speaking Lhotshampa population from Bhutan and reduce their number by all means. Be it Drukpanization or Bhutanization programmes, Citizenship and Marriage Acts or NOCs/PCCs, all are directed against Lhotshampas of the south. It was a long standing and intrinsic ruling elites' security perception that the domestic demand for political change (democracy) would come from the Lhotshampas in the south. The south is bordered by the democratic India. Moreover, the Lhotshampas are economically well-off and more educated than their brethren in the north and east. The northern borders with China is closed. In order to pre-empt the demand for democracy, the government devised a clever strategy to depopulate the Lhotshampas from southern Bhutan. Hence, the Lhotshampas suddenly became the geopolitical scapegoats and security threat to the absolute monarchy.
Thus, the government devised various strategies to bring about a favourable demographic balance favouring a Drukpa/Ngalung nation by reducing the number of Lhotshampas to around 25% and to prevent the demand for democracy from southern Bhutan. The failed implementation of the forced assimilation policies reinforced this insecurity. This resulted in denationalization, deprivation and virtual confiscation. of Lhotshampa citizenship rights through manipulation of the Citizenship Act and through changing the definition of citizenship. The current political crisis and the refugee problems owe their origin to the enactment of two racist and discriminatory laws, viz., Citizenship Act of 1985 and Marriage Act of 1977 and implementation of a number of racist and discriminatory policies. These laws and policies were designed to reduce the number of Lhotshampa population and their mass eviction.
Citizenship Act
Question of nationality and methods employed to determine citizenship form a backdrop of all other issues and events in southern Bhutan. Bhutan's first attempt to define its citizenship came with National Law of Bhutan, 1958. The regime enacted a new Citizenship Act, 1985. This Act was given a retrospective implementation of thirty years, that is, from 1958. It declared 31 December, 1958 as the cut-off year for granting citizenship. The Act was forcefully implemented in 1988. The wives of Bhutanese citizens married from outside the country and children born of such parents were not granted citizenship and were deprived of their legitimate citizenship status. This Act defined three criteria for granting of citizenship: by birth, by registration, and through naturalisation.
This Act is the origin of the refugee problems and the looming danger of statelessness for Lhotshampas. The National Law, 1958 prescribed 'fatherhood' as the criteria for granting citizenship-which is normal. But the new Act repealed the previous citizenship law and prescribed 'parenthood' as the sole criteria for grant of citizenship by birth, thus denying citizenship to anyone whose mother was married from outside the country, even if the mother was granted citizenship according to previous law. Since the Act was given a retrospective implementation of 1958, all children born of a marriage between a Bhutanese father and a non-Bhutanese mother, between 1958 to 1988 were declared non-citizens and so-called 'illegal' and 'economic migrants'. The National Assembly in1988 confirmed 14,442 marriages between a Bhutanese citizen and a non-citizen during last twenty years. The number was too insignificant for the government to grant citizenship rights.
Article 3 of the Act codified a new basis for granting citizenship - a proof of residence in Bhutan since before December 31, 1958 was required. It says that " A person permanently domiciled in Bhutan on or before 31st December, 1958, and, whose name is registered in the census register maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs shall be deemed to be a citizen of Bhutan by registration". The government subsequently brought all Lhotshampas under the purview of citizenship by registration only. They were considered citizens by registration and not by birth, even though they were born and reared in Bhutan since the 17th century much before the establishment of the current ruling Wangchuchk dynasty in 1907 and granted citizenship by previous laws.
De-nationalization
The Act arbitrarily imposes an impossible burden upon the Lhotshampas of providing the documentary evidence of their presence in Bhutan on 31 December, 1958, while the other ethnic groups did not have to prove anything to retain their citizenship. The government insisted on production of documents such as land tax receipts only of 1958. Documents of earlier years including the citizenship certificates issued on the basis of previous laws were arbitrarily rejected. The proper census record maintained by Chief District Officer were arbitrarily rejected. The government was fully aware that the requirements of the new Act just did not exist then in Bhutan and that most of the Lhotshampas would not be able to fulfil them. The Act demands that the person concerned must prove that his name was registered in the census register, though the register was maintained by the government. The government demand is not only ridiculous but totally unjustified since, the Council of Ministers including the Ministry of Home responsible for maintaining the census register was itself created in 1968. The enumeration in the census record was started only in 1972.
Following the first census of 1981, all citizens were issued with citizenship identity cards. The Foreigners were issued with alien cards and the non-national labours were issued with contract permits. By 1982 all people in Bhutan were registered. Bhutanese government initially claimed that any documentary evidence whatsoever, land ownership deeds or documents showing sale, gift, and inheritance of land, tax receipts of any kind etc., showing that the person concerned was resident in Bhutan in 1958 is taken as conclusive proof of citizenship. But later the government contended that payment of property tax in itself is hardly a proof of Bhutanese citizenship. This is especially unfair since some of the documentary proof required by the census team just did not exist in the year 1958, i.e., enumeration in the census records.
Those who could not produce the documentary evidence of their presence on 31 December, 1958 were declared illegal immigrants. How is it possible for illiterate villagers to keep documents that will be demanded by the government after 30 years. Moreover, government had already issued citizenship certificates to all Lhotshampas making the safe keeping of the documents unimportant. The Act was also discriminatorily enforced against the Lhotshampas and not at all against other ethnic groups. Many Ngalungs have Italian, English, Chinese and Singaporean wives, but they do not have to prove anything. However, the law prescribes a number of discriminatory criteria against the wives of Lhotshampas from Nepal or India and their children. They are treated at par with aliens seeking for naturalisation.. Under the naturalisation process, these wives must prove their prior residence of 15-20 years in Bhutan. A child born of such mothers needs to reach the age of fifteen when he/she may apply for naturalisation. Naturalization again, is not a matter of law but subject to government approval.
The Act was applied in an arbitrary manner to create mass statelessness. The dissidents accused of speaking or criticising the king's government was stripped of citizenship. Many Lhotshampas were deprived of their nationality for having fled Bhutan to escape suppression, because their fleeing amounts to disloyalty to the state according to the regime. The Act enabled the government to claim that the refugees are not Bhutanese citizens. The authorities confiscated the documentary evidences, particularly the citizenship identification card and land documents issued to them by the government. It was a well planned strategy and conspiracy of the government to depopulate and reduce the number of Lhotshampas. No appeal on the subject was allowed. The Act also forbids the return of citizens leaving the country. Since the government alleges that refugees have voluntarily emigrated to Nepal, their return will not be possible until this Act is repealed. Even, the European Parliament's resolution has urged Bhutan to amend this Act for the return of refugees.
Marriage Laws
After enacting a draconian Citizenship Act in 1985 to reduce the Lhotshampa population, the government simultaneously introduced the new Marriage Act which had an even larger content of discrimination against Lhotshampa women and their children. The Act declared all foreign wives of the Bhutanese citizens as non-citizens, even though most of them were granted citizenship under previous citizenship laws. In contravention of all international norms and civilised behaviour, the Royal Government denied several thousand children (born out of marriages between Lhotshampa husbands and Nepali speaking wives from Nepal or India) of their right to nationality. They were evicted along with their parents. This Act was only enforced against the Lhotshampas.
The Marriage Act was enacted in 1980 and was forcefully implemented in 1988 to especially target the wives of Lhotshampas. This discriminatory law imposes a number of denial of benefits to those who married non-Bhutanese wives. The Lhotshampas who married non-Bhutanese wife did not have the right to vote in (became ineligible for election to) the National Assembly (Parliament) elections, they were to be denied promotion in civil services, denied training and fellowships and medical treatment abroad, they were also denied business and agricultural grants and loans given by the government and could not avail of government supplied fertilisers, seeds and farm machineries on subsidies. They could not get jobs in the Foreign Service and Armed Forces. This posed enormous problems for the Lhotshampas.
There are many reasons as to why the Lhotshampa chose foreign wives of their own ethnic groups from Nepal and India. Some reasons are enumerated as follows: Bhutan stepped out of its isolation in the mid-sixties. The government did not encourage cultural socialization of various ethnic groups. Some ethnic groups were not allowed to own properties in the Ngalung dominated areas. Even in-country migration and in-country travel were restricted for some ethnic groups. The transport and communications were also not developed. This led to the cultural isolation of various ethnic groups. Thus, each ethnic group developed their own intra-ethnic group matrimonial alliances.
Lhotshampas had a wide ethnic area in Darjeeling, Sikkim and Nepal to choose their spouse from. As a result many Lhotshampas got their spouses from their own ethnic groups from these places. The most important factor that prevented the encouragement of inter-ethnic group matrimonial alliances is culture. The Lhotshampas are by and large Hindus. Culturally and traditionally, they are entirely different from ruling Ngalungs. Their language is a dialect of or is derived from Sanskrit, the oldest language. They prefer to live in the hot climate of the southern foot hills. The Ngalungs are nurtured in Drukpa Kargyupa Buddhist culture. They speak Tibetan stock Dzonkha language which is entirely different from Nepali. They wear robe like dresses and prefer to live in cool climate of the north.
While strict cultural values of the Lhotshampas triggered the search for wives from outside Bhutan, limited domestic society and geography also facilitated such marriages. The lack of communication and infrastructure within Bhutan were also factors which made Lhotshampas get their wives from neighbouring Indian states and Nepal as it was easier to travel to neighbouring countries than to visit other districts of Bhutan. Because of the lack of roads, Bhutanese are still required to travel through India to reach from east to west in the south and south to north. Darjeeling district had excelled as a centre of education during the British rule in India. It is still regarded as the best place for education in the entire region of Bhutan, Nepal and Northeast India.
Jesuit fathers and Christian missionaries established the best schools in Darjeeling. Due to the absence of good schools and colleges throughout the sixties, seventies and the eighties in Bhutan, the government used to send young Bhutanese for studies to Darjeeling on Indian government scholarships. Most Lhotshampa students married with their schoolmates of their own ethnic community from Darjeeling, Sikkim and Nepal.. Bhutan does not have enough colleges to cater to the need of students. Its only college is affiliated with Delhi University. Bhutanese students had to go to Darjeeling as it is less expensive to study in neighbouring Darjeeling than in Delhi or Calcutta.
As a consequence of increasing developmental activities after 1960 more opportunities were being created for educated people in the government services and in the private sector. Bhutan had a very low female literacy rate. The available manpower was not sufficient to meet the demand. As a result, educated Lhotshampa took educated and conscious wives of their own ethnicity from neighbouring countries, who could work in the offices or do businesses and earn money.
In 1988, the government reported of 11,442 marriages between Bhutanese and non-Bhutanese during the preceding 20 years. There was neither a Marriage Act or Citizenship Laws forbidding a Bhutanese marrying a foreign wife then. The laws were enacted later with retroactive effect. Had there been such laws, probably no Bhutanese would have married a foreign spouse. The Royal Government's senseless action of implementing these laws shows its irresponsibility and indifference towards its citizens' difficulties. It is a well-planned conspiracy to depopulate southern Bhutan. In any case, marriage is too personal a matter for the state to intervene.
Both the Citizenship Act and the Marriage Act are racist, biased and discriminatory against Lhotshampa of southern Bhutan. Moreover, the law is also implemented in a discriminatory manner; very rigidly against the Lhotshampas and not at all against Drukpas, who for example have a Chinese, English, Italian or American wives. For example, Mr. Ugen Tshering, a Drukpa married to an Italian wife in the early eighties has today been promoted as Foreign Secretary. Similarly, the then Chief Justice of the High Court was promoted even though he had an English wife. Today, of course, aside from bringing about a denial of benefits, marriage to non-Bhutanese wife has resulted in the very denial of citizenship rights to the Lhotshampa husbands.
Both the Citizenship Law, 1985 and the Marriage Acts have stripped several thousand Lhotshampas of their nationality. As a consequences of not granting citizenship to the foreign wives of Lhotshampa husbands, more than 60,000 children were deprived of their rightful claim to Bhutanese citizenship. This is more than 20 percent of the total children population of Bhutan. Refugee children constitute about 10 percent of the country's total population of around 700,000 of Bhutan.
More than 10,000 Lhotshampa wives are deprived of their right to nationality. The government must repeal the discriminatory Citizenship Act, 1985 and the Marriage Act. It must enact new citizenship and marriage laws conforming to the international standards, and protect the right to nationality of all its citizens. "The 1985 Citizenship Act of Bhutan contains a number of vague provisions, and appears to have been applied in an arbitrary manner. It also contains provisions which could be used to exclude from citizenship many people who are not members of the dominant ethnic group, as well as those who oppose Government policy by peaceful means" according to Amnesty International's report, "Bhutan : Forcible Exile", August, 1994.
CENSUS OR EVICTION
The Citizenship Act 1985 came into force in 1988, when the government initiated a population census in southern Bhutan in that year. Both the Citizenship Act and Marriage Act, while being racist and discriminatory against Lhotshampa women, were made all the more unpalatable due to the high handed manner of its implementation and explicit expression of the Government desire to eliminate as many Lhotshampa citizens as possible, during the census of 1988. In conformity with the Acts, a totally biased and manipulative population census was carried out in all the districts of southern Bhutan to deliberately evict the Lhotshampas. To further compound the problem, however, despite the provision in the Act for regularising marriages with non-Bhutanese wives prior to 1977, upon Government instruction the official of census teams declared all non-Bhutanese wives of the Lhotshampas married after 1958 as illegal immigrants.
The census teams started questioning the people with undue threat and classifying them into various categories. The teams were ordering even the old people with grandchildren born in Bhutan to produce evidence of their arrival in Bhutan before 1958. They insisted on the production of evidence particularly of 1958 even though many had the evidence 1954 or even the preceding years, but they were rejected outright.
The Census team armed with the totally discriminatory and biased mandate set out to determine the citizenship status of all Lhotshampas by randomly categorising them into seven category, i.e., F1 to F7, which affected status of many citizens, though the law itself is silent on categorization.
F1. Genuine Bhutanese.
F2. Returned migrants, i. e., people who had left Bhutan and then returned.
F3. Drop-out cases, i. e, people who were not around at the time of the census.
F4. A non- national woman married to a Bhutanese man.
F5. A non-national man married to a Bhutanese woman.
F6. Adoption cases. This clause was massively misused by the government to include
Indian citizen of Ngalung ethnicity. Many Ngalungs having Indian nationality were enlisted as adoption case by the government.
F7. Non -national, i. e, migrants and illegal immigrants.
Only F1 was declared genuine Bhutanese. Widespread panic and confusion among the Lhotshampa women followed as Census officials began to threaten deportation of anyone not categorised as F1.
During the 1988 census, the census team categorised one Mrs. Sita Mothey as F4 [an Indian citizen married to a Bhutanese citizen] and was threatened with deportation from Bhutan. Out of the agony at the thought of family separation, she committed suicide.
Officially, the 1988 census implemented the Citizenship Law, 1985, with its three methods of attaining citizenship: by having two Bhutanese parents, by registration of residence since 1958 and by naturalization. In practice, however, naturalization has not been accepted. The census exercise provided justification to expel people who no longer met government criteria on citizenship.
In many cases, citizenship cards already issued were withdrawn. The village Headmen and the Member of National Assembly (MPs) formerly considered knowledgeable and authoritative were never consulted. Some of them were even reprimanded when they raised their voices. The illiterate and innocent villagers were coerced into signing documents, the contents of which were not known to them. The whole census exercise were planned to harass and eliminate the actual and true ethnic Lhotshampa citizens of southern Bhutan to reduce their numbers.
The census rules required that the Lhotshampas must provide proof of residence in the country during 1958 , the cut- off year. The only valid document acceptable to the census team was the land tax paid receipts for the particular year 1958. The receipts issued before 1958 were not accepted. On these grounds several thousand Lhotshampas were declared as ' illegal immigrants' and 'stateless'. For in- country migration , people were asked to produce certificate of origin (C.O) from the district authorities which created more obstacles. Those who lost their documents due to natural calamities were simply tested as illegal immigrants. Those declared illegal immigrants were forcefully evicted, even though they were born and reared in Bhutan through several generations.
Government bogey of illegal immigrants
The government claimed that there were around 120,000 illegal population (20% of the total population) in southern Bhutan. This was a well thought-out strategy of the government to reduce the population of Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa by 100,000. If the level of illegal immigrants into southern Bhutan after 1958 had been as high as 20% of the total population of around 600,000, as claimed by the government, it was understandable that some actions were required to be taken, but this was not the case. Normally, illegal immigrants are those who live in a country without the notice and knowledge of authorities. The so-called Bhutanese illegal immigrants have lived in Bhutan for years, owned houses and properties, paid taxes to the government and contributed to the nation-building of Bhutan. Some of them had served in high government offices, armed forces and police and studied abroad under government scholarship. They were genuine citizens until 1987, but were made illegal immigrants in 1988 because southern Bhutan had to be depopulated to pre-empt any dissidence and demand for democratic reforms.
How could illegal immigrants acquire landed properties in a small country like Bhutan and remain undetected for thirty or forty years? Bhutan is not an oil-rich country like some of the middle-east nations, it is not industrialised like the western countries, where employment opportunities are abundant and it is neither an agriculturally prosperous, then how could the illegal immigrants enter into Bhutan with the prospect of better opportunities? The whole motive of the government was to prevent the demand for democratic rights from the southern districts, which have open borders with democratic India and to bring about a favourable demographic pattern by reducing the population of Lhotshampas. This was criminal in intent and was designed to deprive the Lhotshampa and their children of their fundamental right to nationality.
In any case, all the Lhotshampa of southern Bhutanese were in Bhutan much before 1958. The history of the Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa dates back to around 1625 A.D., much older than the present ruling Wangchuck Dynasty (1907), which is just 84 years old. In the name of eviction of illegal immigrants the government started deporting even the genuine southern Bhutanese.
Bhutanese Refugees Categories
The following is the position of the MJC on the four categories of refugees.
FIRST CATEGORY:
The first category is that of “bona fide Bhutanese” if [they] have been evicted forcefully. The statement says, “The Royal Government of Bhutan will take full responsibility for any Bhutanese found to have been forcefully evicted from Bhutan. People under this category shall be repatriated to Bhutan”. According to reports in the Nepali media quoting unnamed official sources (The Kathmandu Post, 22 May 2003), only three percent (360) of 12,000 refugees at Khudunabari are deemed to have the papers that allow them to fall under this category and return home as ‘bona fide Bhutanese citizens’.
The very basis for de-categorizing from this category is called into question by refugee leaders who are deeply dissatisfied with process for its opacity, secrecy and for not involving either them or international monitors. The international human rights and refugee rights communities are aware that officials of the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) confiscated original documents of the fleeing or forcefully evicted refugees. In any case, the negligible number of people that has been categorized as bona fide Bhutanese would indicate that the JVT did not recognise even those documents, such as the citizenship card and other documents issued by the RGOB, which the RGOB has since disowned on the grounds that they are easily duplicable.
The Nepali government, the only hope for the refugees in this strictly bilateral agreement, it seems, was bent on achieving a breakthrough at any cost to cater to a domestic constituency disappointed by its dismal performance on various fronts.
SECOND CATEGORY:
The second category of “Bhutanese who emigrated” is a contentious section of four subcategories. The APFC statement envisages that “… people falling under this category and desiring to return, will be given the option to re-apply for citizenship”. This means that the refugees that have been deemed as having “emigrated”, a term which implies a departure from the home country through an exercise of choice, will have to reapply for citizenship as per the naturalization procedures in Article 4 of the draconian Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1985, as fresh immigrants like aliens. This act envisages, inter alia, that “A person desiring to apply for Bhutanese citizenship to the Ministry of Home Affairs must fulfill all the following conditions to be eligible for naturalization: The applicant must have resided in Bhutan for 15 years in the case of Government employees and also in the case of applicants, either of whose parents are the citizens of Bhutan, and 20 years in all other cases, and this period of residence must be registered in the records of the Department of Immigration and Census; the applicant must be able to speak, read and write Dzongkha proficiently; the applicant must have good knowledge of the culture, customs, traditions and history of Bhutan; the applicant must have no record of having spoken or acted against the King, Country and People of Bhutan in any manner whatsoever”. The implication of this refers that the Bhutanese refugees will be in a state of statelessness for 20 years before they can claim citizenship; at the same time, there are some reports that the RGOB will re-assimilate people in this category by special arrangement in two years.
75 percent of the verified refugees (9000) reportedly fall under this category. The refugees contend that once they are inside Bhutan, the RGOB will apply its discriminatory citizenship laws, and they will have no legal citizenship rights. They will not be able to claim naturalization – the documents that prove their citizenship have already been rejected by the JVT. Going by the experience of how the RGOB summarily and without just cause evicted the Lhotshampas, there is no guarantee that they will be given citizenship after 20 years either. The majority of refugees cannot speak Dzongkha anymore as a result of the exile, and most refugees have spoken against the king and his government, participated in public demonstrations for their human rights inside and out of Bhutan.
The agreed position on this category is not a realistic resolution of the refugee issue. The criteria used to bring 75 percent of the verified refugees under this category is questionable and unacceptable to the refugees. They were forcefully driven away from their homes and as such should be placed under category one. Refugees ask the basic question: why should Bhutanese people migrate voluntarily to a relatively poor country like Nepal when Bhutan had or has better living conditions and better economic opportunities? Normally emigration is towards rich countries from the poor.
Point (d) in the second category is perhaps the most insidious part of the agreement. It states that “… people under this category, who do not wish to return to Bhutan, will be given the option to apply for Nepalese citizenship in accordance with laws of the Kingdom of Nepal”. This provision has been included at the insistence of Bhutan to discourage the return of refugees. The Lhotshampas were driven from their homes by human rights abuses. The history behind the refugee situation is of persecution, indiscriminate arrest, torture, killings, discrimination, amounting to what was practically ‘ethnic cleansing’. The political conditions back in Bhutan have not improved and the northern Bhutanese elite is still hostile to Lhotshampas, as is apparent from reports of debates in the national assembly over the construction of camps for returning refugees in Bhutan. Lhotshampa homes and lands have been resettled. Several thousand Lhotshampas in Bhutan, who have relatives in the camps have been denationalized by the RGOB recently.
The majority of refugees, if given the option of Nepali citizenship will not return to Bhutan under present conditions and terms of reference for repatriation and their settlement in Bhutan. Few will choose to remain stateless for another 20 years and uproot themselves again not to return to their homes and society but to live in transit camps inside Bhutan. The legal responsibility of granting citizenship to Bhutanese refugees has now shifted to Nepal from Bhutan. This will create enormous legal problems for the host country. Can Nepal afford to grant the citizenship to 100,000-odd Bhutanese refugees without any national or regional consequences – especially when the citizenship of tens of thousands of inhabitants in southern Nepal is still unresolved?
THIRD CATEGORY:
The third category applies to “non-Bhutanese people”. The APFC states, “Those persons found to be citizens of countries other than Bhutan and found to have come from other countries must return to their respective countries”. What criteria was applied to denationalize such a high – 20 percent – of the refugee population and place them under the category of non-Bhutanese, no one outside the establishment can be certain of. These refugees originated from Bhutan and were genuine citizens inside Bhutan prior to their exodus. They are now arbitrarily deprived of their nationality because the RGOB has an interest in reducing the number of those it is willing to recognize as refugees. These so-called non-Bhutanese lived in Bhutan for years, owned houses and property, paid taxes to the government and contributed to the nation building of Bhutan. Some of them served in high government offices, armed forces and the police and studied abroad under government sponsorship. The question begs to be asked: how could illegal immigrants acquire land in a small country like Bhutan and remain undetected for 30-40 years?
FORTH CATEGORY:
The fourth category refers to “Bhutanese, who have committed criminal acts”, and states, “Repatriation of people under this category shall be in keeping with the laws of the two countries. These people will have full opportunity to prove their innocence in the court of law in Bhutan”. This is the same law that by inter-national standards would be judged, at the least, as regressive. Bhutan’s National Security Act (NSA) and the Law of Thrimsung (penal code) severely restrict the rights of the Bhutanese people. The penal code declares any act of “making conversation and correspondence” criticising the king and his government by Bhutanese citizens as tantamount to treason. The NSA imprisons any person whose “words, either spoken or written, or by any means, create misunderstanding between the government and people of Bhutan”.
Dissident activism and literature (articles, reports etc) exposing the abuses of human rights by the RGOB are deemed as “waging a war against the Royal Government of Bhutan”, inviting imprisonment of at least five years. These acts are regarded as legitimate conduct in democratic countries such as India and Nepal. Tek Nath Rizal, once a member of the national assembly and a Royal Advisory Councillor who even went abroad to study on a government scholarship, was arrested and given life sentence for his criticism of government policies, which he was invited to present to the king. He served 10 years of his sentence before he was allowed to leave prison and had to leave Bhutan. Given contexts such as this, the criminality of Bhutanese refugees must be established in an international tribunal. Of the categorized Khudunabari refugees, a reported two percent fall under this category.
If the Khudunabari results are any indication, it is evident that Bhutan is looking at absolute numbers; it wants to take back less than 5000 refugees. As per the APFC, only five percent of the refugees are bona fide Bhutanese citizens. (Those that fall under the fourth category are evidently Bhutanese citizens since they have been deemed fit to be tried under Bhutanese law.)
The APFC has also created a dangerous precedence for the host country, which is now forced to grant citizenship to asylum seekers who were forced out of their homes. This example will discourage other countries from granting asylum to refugees, leaving them at the mercy of perpetrator states.
The situation needs to be reversed. There is a need for reworking the entire process of verification and categorization. The Lhotshampa refugees want verification against the categories ‘Bhutanese’ and ‘non- Bhutanese’; other categories are not acceptable to them. There must be an international tribunal for the appeal, which is neither the JVT nor the MJC. The UNHCR and the international community, kept out of the talks so far, must play an active role in helping the statelessness of Bhutanese citizens in and outside Bhutan.
Various ethnic groups and peoples have lived in perfect communal, religious and ethnic harmony for centuries in Bhutan. Never before, any instance of ethnic conflict, communal or religious clash at the peoples level has occurred in Bhutan, which has become the hallmark of many South Asian nations and destroyed the very basic fabric of democracy in these countries. Tolerance, co-operation and compromise, had been the basic values of Bhutanese society. But since the 1980s the present Government has started sowing the racial seeds among its people. It has formulated and implemented a number of racist policies and programmes to depopulate and evict the Lhotshampa citizens of southern Bhutan. It is the present medieval, autocratic and despotic Government that has nurtured racist and discriminatory practices and attitudes to perpetuate in power. This has destroyed the very basis of existence of Bhutan as a peaceful nation.
More than 125,000 Nepali-speaking Lhotshampas of Southern Bhutan, nearly a sixth of the kingdom's total population of approximately 782,548 have been forced to leave or forcibly evicted from the country by the Government. This has made Bhutan as one of the highest per capita refugee generators in the world. As on March 2001, 98,886 Bhutanese refugees are living in seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal managed by the UNHCR. Rest live scattered in other parts of Nepal. About 25,000 Bhutanese refugees are living in Indian territories with out any help.
The roots of the current political crisis in Bhutan and the refugees lie in Bhutan's geopolitics and population politics. A study of various policies of the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) in the last two decades reflects the Ngalung/Drukpa dominated government's motive to uproot Nepali speaking Lhotshampa population from Bhutan and reduce their number by all means. Be it Drukpanization or Bhutanization programmes, Citizenship and Marriage Acts or NOCs/PCCs, all are directed against Lhotshampas of the south. It was a long standing and intrinsic ruling elites' security perception that the domestic demand for political change (democracy) would come from the Lhotshampas in the south. The south is bordered by the democratic India. Moreover, the Lhotshampas are economically well-off and more educated than their brethren in the north and east. The northern borders with China is closed. In order to pre-empt the demand for democracy, the government devised a clever strategy to depopulate the Lhotshampas from southern Bhutan. Hence, the Lhotshampas suddenly became the geopolitical scapegoats and security threat to the absolute monarchy.
Thus, the government devised various strategies to bring about a favourable demographic balance favouring a Drukpa/Ngalung nation by reducing the number of Lhotshampas to around 25% and to prevent the demand for democracy from southern Bhutan. The failed implementation of the forced assimilation policies reinforced this insecurity. This resulted in denationalization, deprivation and virtual confiscation. of Lhotshampa citizenship rights through manipulation of the Citizenship Act and through changing the definition of citizenship. The current political crisis and the refugee problems owe their origin to the enactment of two racist and discriminatory laws, viz., Citizenship Act of 1985 and Marriage Act of 1977 and implementation of a number of racist and discriminatory policies. These laws and policies were designed to reduce the number of Lhotshampa population and their mass eviction.
Citizenship Act
Question of nationality and methods employed to determine citizenship form a backdrop of all other issues and events in southern Bhutan. Bhutan's first attempt to define its citizenship came with National Law of Bhutan, 1958. The regime enacted a new Citizenship Act, 1985. This Act was given a retrospective implementation of thirty years, that is, from 1958. It declared 31 December, 1958 as the cut-off year for granting citizenship. The Act was forcefully implemented in 1988. The wives of Bhutanese citizens married from outside the country and children born of such parents were not granted citizenship and were deprived of their legitimate citizenship status. This Act defined three criteria for granting of citizenship: by birth, by registration, and through naturalisation.
This Act is the origin of the refugee problems and the looming danger of statelessness for Lhotshampas. The National Law, 1958 prescribed 'fatherhood' as the criteria for granting citizenship-which is normal. But the new Act repealed the previous citizenship law and prescribed 'parenthood' as the sole criteria for grant of citizenship by birth, thus denying citizenship to anyone whose mother was married from outside the country, even if the mother was granted citizenship according to previous law. Since the Act was given a retrospective implementation of 1958, all children born of a marriage between a Bhutanese father and a non-Bhutanese mother, between 1958 to 1988 were declared non-citizens and so-called 'illegal' and 'economic migrants'. The National Assembly in1988 confirmed 14,442 marriages between a Bhutanese citizen and a non-citizen during last twenty years. The number was too insignificant for the government to grant citizenship rights.
Article 3 of the Act codified a new basis for granting citizenship - a proof of residence in Bhutan since before December 31, 1958 was required. It says that " A person permanently domiciled in Bhutan on or before 31st December, 1958, and, whose name is registered in the census register maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs shall be deemed to be a citizen of Bhutan by registration". The government subsequently brought all Lhotshampas under the purview of citizenship by registration only. They were considered citizens by registration and not by birth, even though they were born and reared in Bhutan since the 17th century much before the establishment of the current ruling Wangchuchk dynasty in 1907 and granted citizenship by previous laws.
De-nationalization
The Act arbitrarily imposes an impossible burden upon the Lhotshampas of providing the documentary evidence of their presence in Bhutan on 31 December, 1958, while the other ethnic groups did not have to prove anything to retain their citizenship. The government insisted on production of documents such as land tax receipts only of 1958. Documents of earlier years including the citizenship certificates issued on the basis of previous laws were arbitrarily rejected. The proper census record maintained by Chief District Officer were arbitrarily rejected. The government was fully aware that the requirements of the new Act just did not exist then in Bhutan and that most of the Lhotshampas would not be able to fulfil them. The Act demands that the person concerned must prove that his name was registered in the census register, though the register was maintained by the government. The government demand is not only ridiculous but totally unjustified since, the Council of Ministers including the Ministry of Home responsible for maintaining the census register was itself created in 1968. The enumeration in the census record was started only in 1972.
Following the first census of 1981, all citizens were issued with citizenship identity cards. The Foreigners were issued with alien cards and the non-national labours were issued with contract permits. By 1982 all people in Bhutan were registered. Bhutanese government initially claimed that any documentary evidence whatsoever, land ownership deeds or documents showing sale, gift, and inheritance of land, tax receipts of any kind etc., showing that the person concerned was resident in Bhutan in 1958 is taken as conclusive proof of citizenship. But later the government contended that payment of property tax in itself is hardly a proof of Bhutanese citizenship. This is especially unfair since some of the documentary proof required by the census team just did not exist in the year 1958, i.e., enumeration in the census records.
Those who could not produce the documentary evidence of their presence on 31 December, 1958 were declared illegal immigrants. How is it possible for illiterate villagers to keep documents that will be demanded by the government after 30 years. Moreover, government had already issued citizenship certificates to all Lhotshampas making the safe keeping of the documents unimportant. The Act was also discriminatorily enforced against the Lhotshampas and not at all against other ethnic groups. Many Ngalungs have Italian, English, Chinese and Singaporean wives, but they do not have to prove anything. However, the law prescribes a number of discriminatory criteria against the wives of Lhotshampas from Nepal or India and their children. They are treated at par with aliens seeking for naturalisation.. Under the naturalisation process, these wives must prove their prior residence of 15-20 years in Bhutan. A child born of such mothers needs to reach the age of fifteen when he/she may apply for naturalisation. Naturalization again, is not a matter of law but subject to government approval.
The Act was applied in an arbitrary manner to create mass statelessness. The dissidents accused of speaking or criticising the king's government was stripped of citizenship. Many Lhotshampas were deprived of their nationality for having fled Bhutan to escape suppression, because their fleeing amounts to disloyalty to the state according to the regime. The Act enabled the government to claim that the refugees are not Bhutanese citizens. The authorities confiscated the documentary evidences, particularly the citizenship identification card and land documents issued to them by the government. It was a well planned strategy and conspiracy of the government to depopulate and reduce the number of Lhotshampas. No appeal on the subject was allowed. The Act also forbids the return of citizens leaving the country. Since the government alleges that refugees have voluntarily emigrated to Nepal, their return will not be possible until this Act is repealed. Even, the European Parliament's resolution has urged Bhutan to amend this Act for the return of refugees.
Marriage Laws
After enacting a draconian Citizenship Act in 1985 to reduce the Lhotshampa population, the government simultaneously introduced the new Marriage Act which had an even larger content of discrimination against Lhotshampa women and their children. The Act declared all foreign wives of the Bhutanese citizens as non-citizens, even though most of them were granted citizenship under previous citizenship laws. In contravention of all international norms and civilised behaviour, the Royal Government denied several thousand children (born out of marriages between Lhotshampa husbands and Nepali speaking wives from Nepal or India) of their right to nationality. They were evicted along with their parents. This Act was only enforced against the Lhotshampas.
The Marriage Act was enacted in 1980 and was forcefully implemented in 1988 to especially target the wives of Lhotshampas. This discriminatory law imposes a number of denial of benefits to those who married non-Bhutanese wives. The Lhotshampas who married non-Bhutanese wife did not have the right to vote in (became ineligible for election to) the National Assembly (Parliament) elections, they were to be denied promotion in civil services, denied training and fellowships and medical treatment abroad, they were also denied business and agricultural grants and loans given by the government and could not avail of government supplied fertilisers, seeds and farm machineries on subsidies. They could not get jobs in the Foreign Service and Armed Forces. This posed enormous problems for the Lhotshampas.
There are many reasons as to why the Lhotshampa chose foreign wives of their own ethnic groups from Nepal and India. Some reasons are enumerated as follows: Bhutan stepped out of its isolation in the mid-sixties. The government did not encourage cultural socialization of various ethnic groups. Some ethnic groups were not allowed to own properties in the Ngalung dominated areas. Even in-country migration and in-country travel were restricted for some ethnic groups. The transport and communications were also not developed. This led to the cultural isolation of various ethnic groups. Thus, each ethnic group developed their own intra-ethnic group matrimonial alliances.
Lhotshampas had a wide ethnic area in Darjeeling, Sikkim and Nepal to choose their spouse from. As a result many Lhotshampas got their spouses from their own ethnic groups from these places. The most important factor that prevented the encouragement of inter-ethnic group matrimonial alliances is culture. The Lhotshampas are by and large Hindus. Culturally and traditionally, they are entirely different from ruling Ngalungs. Their language is a dialect of or is derived from Sanskrit, the oldest language. They prefer to live in the hot climate of the southern foot hills. The Ngalungs are nurtured in Drukpa Kargyupa Buddhist culture. They speak Tibetan stock Dzonkha language which is entirely different from Nepali. They wear robe like dresses and prefer to live in cool climate of the north.
While strict cultural values of the Lhotshampas triggered the search for wives from outside Bhutan, limited domestic society and geography also facilitated such marriages. The lack of communication and infrastructure within Bhutan were also factors which made Lhotshampas get their wives from neighbouring Indian states and Nepal as it was easier to travel to neighbouring countries than to visit other districts of Bhutan. Because of the lack of roads, Bhutanese are still required to travel through India to reach from east to west in the south and south to north. Darjeeling district had excelled as a centre of education during the British rule in India. It is still regarded as the best place for education in the entire region of Bhutan, Nepal and Northeast India.
Jesuit fathers and Christian missionaries established the best schools in Darjeeling. Due to the absence of good schools and colleges throughout the sixties, seventies and the eighties in Bhutan, the government used to send young Bhutanese for studies to Darjeeling on Indian government scholarships. Most Lhotshampa students married with their schoolmates of their own ethnic community from Darjeeling, Sikkim and Nepal.. Bhutan does not have enough colleges to cater to the need of students. Its only college is affiliated with Delhi University. Bhutanese students had to go to Darjeeling as it is less expensive to study in neighbouring Darjeeling than in Delhi or Calcutta.
As a consequence of increasing developmental activities after 1960 more opportunities were being created for educated people in the government services and in the private sector. Bhutan had a very low female literacy rate. The available manpower was not sufficient to meet the demand. As a result, educated Lhotshampa took educated and conscious wives of their own ethnicity from neighbouring countries, who could work in the offices or do businesses and earn money.
In 1988, the government reported of 11,442 marriages between Bhutanese and non-Bhutanese during the preceding 20 years. There was neither a Marriage Act or Citizenship Laws forbidding a Bhutanese marrying a foreign wife then. The laws were enacted later with retroactive effect. Had there been such laws, probably no Bhutanese would have married a foreign spouse. The Royal Government's senseless action of implementing these laws shows its irresponsibility and indifference towards its citizens' difficulties. It is a well-planned conspiracy to depopulate southern Bhutan. In any case, marriage is too personal a matter for the state to intervene.
Both the Citizenship Act and the Marriage Act are racist, biased and discriminatory against Lhotshampa of southern Bhutan. Moreover, the law is also implemented in a discriminatory manner; very rigidly against the Lhotshampas and not at all against Drukpas, who for example have a Chinese, English, Italian or American wives. For example, Mr. Ugen Tshering, a Drukpa married to an Italian wife in the early eighties has today been promoted as Foreign Secretary. Similarly, the then Chief Justice of the High Court was promoted even though he had an English wife. Today, of course, aside from bringing about a denial of benefits, marriage to non-Bhutanese wife has resulted in the very denial of citizenship rights to the Lhotshampa husbands.
Both the Citizenship Law, 1985 and the Marriage Acts have stripped several thousand Lhotshampas of their nationality. As a consequences of not granting citizenship to the foreign wives of Lhotshampa husbands, more than 60,000 children were deprived of their rightful claim to Bhutanese citizenship. This is more than 20 percent of the total children population of Bhutan. Refugee children constitute about 10 percent of the country's total population of around 700,000 of Bhutan.
More than 10,000 Lhotshampa wives are deprived of their right to nationality. The government must repeal the discriminatory Citizenship Act, 1985 and the Marriage Act. It must enact new citizenship and marriage laws conforming to the international standards, and protect the right to nationality of all its citizens. "The 1985 Citizenship Act of Bhutan contains a number of vague provisions, and appears to have been applied in an arbitrary manner. It also contains provisions which could be used to exclude from citizenship many people who are not members of the dominant ethnic group, as well as those who oppose Government policy by peaceful means" according to Amnesty International's report, "Bhutan : Forcible Exile", August, 1994.
CENSUS OR EVICTION
The Citizenship Act 1985 came into force in 1988, when the government initiated a population census in southern Bhutan in that year. Both the Citizenship Act and Marriage Act, while being racist and discriminatory against Lhotshampa women, were made all the more unpalatable due to the high handed manner of its implementation and explicit expression of the Government desire to eliminate as many Lhotshampa citizens as possible, during the census of 1988. In conformity with the Acts, a totally biased and manipulative population census was carried out in all the districts of southern Bhutan to deliberately evict the Lhotshampas. To further compound the problem, however, despite the provision in the Act for regularising marriages with non-Bhutanese wives prior to 1977, upon Government instruction the official of census teams declared all non-Bhutanese wives of the Lhotshampas married after 1958 as illegal immigrants.
The census teams started questioning the people with undue threat and classifying them into various categories. The teams were ordering even the old people with grandchildren born in Bhutan to produce evidence of their arrival in Bhutan before 1958. They insisted on the production of evidence particularly of 1958 even though many had the evidence 1954 or even the preceding years, but they were rejected outright.
The Census team armed with the totally discriminatory and biased mandate set out to determine the citizenship status of all Lhotshampas by randomly categorising them into seven category, i.e., F1 to F7, which affected status of many citizens, though the law itself is silent on categorization.
F1. Genuine Bhutanese.
F2. Returned migrants, i. e., people who had left Bhutan and then returned.
F3. Drop-out cases, i. e, people who were not around at the time of the census.
F4. A non- national woman married to a Bhutanese man.
F5. A non-national man married to a Bhutanese woman.
F6. Adoption cases. This clause was massively misused by the government to include
Indian citizen of Ngalung ethnicity. Many Ngalungs having Indian nationality were enlisted as adoption case by the government.
F7. Non -national, i. e, migrants and illegal immigrants.
Only F1 was declared genuine Bhutanese. Widespread panic and confusion among the Lhotshampa women followed as Census officials began to threaten deportation of anyone not categorised as F1.
During the 1988 census, the census team categorised one Mrs. Sita Mothey as F4 [an Indian citizen married to a Bhutanese citizen] and was threatened with deportation from Bhutan. Out of the agony at the thought of family separation, she committed suicide.
Officially, the 1988 census implemented the Citizenship Law, 1985, with its three methods of attaining citizenship: by having two Bhutanese parents, by registration of residence since 1958 and by naturalization. In practice, however, naturalization has not been accepted. The census exercise provided justification to expel people who no longer met government criteria on citizenship.
In many cases, citizenship cards already issued were withdrawn. The village Headmen and the Member of National Assembly (MPs) formerly considered knowledgeable and authoritative were never consulted. Some of them were even reprimanded when they raised their voices. The illiterate and innocent villagers were coerced into signing documents, the contents of which were not known to them. The whole census exercise were planned to harass and eliminate the actual and true ethnic Lhotshampa citizens of southern Bhutan to reduce their numbers.
The census rules required that the Lhotshampas must provide proof of residence in the country during 1958 , the cut- off year. The only valid document acceptable to the census team was the land tax paid receipts for the particular year 1958. The receipts issued before 1958 were not accepted. On these grounds several thousand Lhotshampas were declared as ' illegal immigrants' and 'stateless'. For in- country migration , people were asked to produce certificate of origin (C.O) from the district authorities which created more obstacles. Those who lost their documents due to natural calamities were simply tested as illegal immigrants. Those declared illegal immigrants were forcefully evicted, even though they were born and reared in Bhutan through several generations.
Government bogey of illegal immigrants
The government claimed that there were around 120,000 illegal population (20% of the total population) in southern Bhutan. This was a well thought-out strategy of the government to reduce the population of Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa by 100,000. If the level of illegal immigrants into southern Bhutan after 1958 had been as high as 20% of the total population of around 600,000, as claimed by the government, it was understandable that some actions were required to be taken, but this was not the case. Normally, illegal immigrants are those who live in a country without the notice and knowledge of authorities. The so-called Bhutanese illegal immigrants have lived in Bhutan for years, owned houses and properties, paid taxes to the government and contributed to the nation-building of Bhutan. Some of them had served in high government offices, armed forces and police and studied abroad under government scholarship. They were genuine citizens until 1987, but were made illegal immigrants in 1988 because southern Bhutan had to be depopulated to pre-empt any dissidence and demand for democratic reforms.
How could illegal immigrants acquire landed properties in a small country like Bhutan and remain undetected for thirty or forty years? Bhutan is not an oil-rich country like some of the middle-east nations, it is not industrialised like the western countries, where employment opportunities are abundant and it is neither an agriculturally prosperous, then how could the illegal immigrants enter into Bhutan with the prospect of better opportunities? The whole motive of the government was to prevent the demand for democratic rights from the southern districts, which have open borders with democratic India and to bring about a favourable demographic pattern by reducing the population of Lhotshampas. This was criminal in intent and was designed to deprive the Lhotshampa and their children of their fundamental right to nationality.
In any case, all the Lhotshampa of southern Bhutanese were in Bhutan much before 1958. The history of the Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa dates back to around 1625 A.D., much older than the present ruling Wangchuck Dynasty (1907), which is just 84 years old. In the name of eviction of illegal immigrants the government started deporting even the genuine southern Bhutanese.
Bhutanese Refugees Categories
The following is the position of the MJC on the four categories of refugees.
FIRST CATEGORY:
The first category is that of “bona fide Bhutanese” if [they] have been evicted forcefully. The statement says, “The Royal Government of Bhutan will take full responsibility for any Bhutanese found to have been forcefully evicted from Bhutan. People under this category shall be repatriated to Bhutan”. According to reports in the Nepali media quoting unnamed official sources (The Kathmandu Post, 22 May 2003), only three percent (360) of 12,000 refugees at Khudunabari are deemed to have the papers that allow them to fall under this category and return home as ‘bona fide Bhutanese citizens’.
The very basis for de-categorizing from this category is called into question by refugee leaders who are deeply dissatisfied with process for its opacity, secrecy and for not involving either them or international monitors. The international human rights and refugee rights communities are aware that officials of the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) confiscated original documents of the fleeing or forcefully evicted refugees. In any case, the negligible number of people that has been categorized as bona fide Bhutanese would indicate that the JVT did not recognise even those documents, such as the citizenship card and other documents issued by the RGOB, which the RGOB has since disowned on the grounds that they are easily duplicable.
The Nepali government, the only hope for the refugees in this strictly bilateral agreement, it seems, was bent on achieving a breakthrough at any cost to cater to a domestic constituency disappointed by its dismal performance on various fronts.
SECOND CATEGORY:
The second category of “Bhutanese who emigrated” is a contentious section of four subcategories. The APFC statement envisages that “… people falling under this category and desiring to return, will be given the option to re-apply for citizenship”. This means that the refugees that have been deemed as having “emigrated”, a term which implies a departure from the home country through an exercise of choice, will have to reapply for citizenship as per the naturalization procedures in Article 4 of the draconian Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1985, as fresh immigrants like aliens. This act envisages, inter alia, that “A person desiring to apply for Bhutanese citizenship to the Ministry of Home Affairs must fulfill all the following conditions to be eligible for naturalization: The applicant must have resided in Bhutan for 15 years in the case of Government employees and also in the case of applicants, either of whose parents are the citizens of Bhutan, and 20 years in all other cases, and this period of residence must be registered in the records of the Department of Immigration and Census; the applicant must be able to speak, read and write Dzongkha proficiently; the applicant must have good knowledge of the culture, customs, traditions and history of Bhutan; the applicant must have no record of having spoken or acted against the King, Country and People of Bhutan in any manner whatsoever”. The implication of this refers that the Bhutanese refugees will be in a state of statelessness for 20 years before they can claim citizenship; at the same time, there are some reports that the RGOB will re-assimilate people in this category by special arrangement in two years.
75 percent of the verified refugees (9000) reportedly fall under this category. The refugees contend that once they are inside Bhutan, the RGOB will apply its discriminatory citizenship laws, and they will have no legal citizenship rights. They will not be able to claim naturalization – the documents that prove their citizenship have already been rejected by the JVT. Going by the experience of how the RGOB summarily and without just cause evicted the Lhotshampas, there is no guarantee that they will be given citizenship after 20 years either. The majority of refugees cannot speak Dzongkha anymore as a result of the exile, and most refugees have spoken against the king and his government, participated in public demonstrations for their human rights inside and out of Bhutan.
The agreed position on this category is not a realistic resolution of the refugee issue. The criteria used to bring 75 percent of the verified refugees under this category is questionable and unacceptable to the refugees. They were forcefully driven away from their homes and as such should be placed under category one. Refugees ask the basic question: why should Bhutanese people migrate voluntarily to a relatively poor country like Nepal when Bhutan had or has better living conditions and better economic opportunities? Normally emigration is towards rich countries from the poor.
Point (d) in the second category is perhaps the most insidious part of the agreement. It states that “… people under this category, who do not wish to return to Bhutan, will be given the option to apply for Nepalese citizenship in accordance with laws of the Kingdom of Nepal”. This provision has been included at the insistence of Bhutan to discourage the return of refugees. The Lhotshampas were driven from their homes by human rights abuses. The history behind the refugee situation is of persecution, indiscriminate arrest, torture, killings, discrimination, amounting to what was practically ‘ethnic cleansing’. The political conditions back in Bhutan have not improved and the northern Bhutanese elite is still hostile to Lhotshampas, as is apparent from reports of debates in the national assembly over the construction of camps for returning refugees in Bhutan. Lhotshampa homes and lands have been resettled. Several thousand Lhotshampas in Bhutan, who have relatives in the camps have been denationalized by the RGOB recently.
The majority of refugees, if given the option of Nepali citizenship will not return to Bhutan under present conditions and terms of reference for repatriation and their settlement in Bhutan. Few will choose to remain stateless for another 20 years and uproot themselves again not to return to their homes and society but to live in transit camps inside Bhutan. The legal responsibility of granting citizenship to Bhutanese refugees has now shifted to Nepal from Bhutan. This will create enormous legal problems for the host country. Can Nepal afford to grant the citizenship to 100,000-odd Bhutanese refugees without any national or regional consequences – especially when the citizenship of tens of thousands of inhabitants in southern Nepal is still unresolved?
THIRD CATEGORY:
The third category applies to “non-Bhutanese people”. The APFC states, “Those persons found to be citizens of countries other than Bhutan and found to have come from other countries must return to their respective countries”. What criteria was applied to denationalize such a high – 20 percent – of the refugee population and place them under the category of non-Bhutanese, no one outside the establishment can be certain of. These refugees originated from Bhutan and were genuine citizens inside Bhutan prior to their exodus. They are now arbitrarily deprived of their nationality because the RGOB has an interest in reducing the number of those it is willing to recognize as refugees. These so-called non-Bhutanese lived in Bhutan for years, owned houses and property, paid taxes to the government and contributed to the nation building of Bhutan. Some of them served in high government offices, armed forces and the police and studied abroad under government sponsorship. The question begs to be asked: how could illegal immigrants acquire land in a small country like Bhutan and remain undetected for 30-40 years?
FORTH CATEGORY:
The fourth category refers to “Bhutanese, who have committed criminal acts”, and states, “Repatriation of people under this category shall be in keeping with the laws of the two countries. These people will have full opportunity to prove their innocence in the court of law in Bhutan”. This is the same law that by inter-national standards would be judged, at the least, as regressive. Bhutan’s National Security Act (NSA) and the Law of Thrimsung (penal code) severely restrict the rights of the Bhutanese people. The penal code declares any act of “making conversation and correspondence” criticising the king and his government by Bhutanese citizens as tantamount to treason. The NSA imprisons any person whose “words, either spoken or written, or by any means, create misunderstanding between the government and people of Bhutan”.
Dissident activism and literature (articles, reports etc) exposing the abuses of human rights by the RGOB are deemed as “waging a war against the Royal Government of Bhutan”, inviting imprisonment of at least five years. These acts are regarded as legitimate conduct in democratic countries such as India and Nepal. Tek Nath Rizal, once a member of the national assembly and a Royal Advisory Councillor who even went abroad to study on a government scholarship, was arrested and given life sentence for his criticism of government policies, which he was invited to present to the king. He served 10 years of his sentence before he was allowed to leave prison and had to leave Bhutan. Given contexts such as this, the criminality of Bhutanese refugees must be established in an international tribunal. Of the categorized Khudunabari refugees, a reported two percent fall under this category.
If the Khudunabari results are any indication, it is evident that Bhutan is looking at absolute numbers; it wants to take back less than 5000 refugees. As per the APFC, only five percent of the refugees are bona fide Bhutanese citizens. (Those that fall under the fourth category are evidently Bhutanese citizens since they have been deemed fit to be tried under Bhutanese law.)
The APFC has also created a dangerous precedence for the host country, which is now forced to grant citizenship to asylum seekers who were forced out of their homes. This example will discourage other countries from granting asylum to refugees, leaving them at the mercy of perpetrator states.
The situation needs to be reversed. There is a need for reworking the entire process of verification and categorization. The Lhotshampa refugees want verification against the categories ‘Bhutanese’ and ‘non- Bhutanese’; other categories are not acceptable to them. There must be an international tribunal for the appeal, which is neither the JVT nor the MJC. The UNHCR and the international community, kept out of the talks so far, must play an active role in helping the statelessness of Bhutanese citizens in and outside Bhutan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
FACE OF THE WEEK
SEND ME YOUR PHOTO IN RSOCIETYOFBHUTANESE@YAHOO.COM TO HAVE YOUR PHOTO WITH INFORMATION BELOW !
NAME=BALKRISHNA
AGE=10
SEX=MALE
BLOG(WEBSITE)=WWW.SOCIETYOFBHUTANESEREFUGEESBAL.BLOGSPOT.COM
