BHUTANSES REFUGEES THE TRAGIC TALE OF THE DISPLACEMENT
Item
- Title
- BHUTANSES REFUGEES THE TRAGIC TALE OF THE DISPLACEMENT
- extracted text
-
Bhutanese Refugees
Bhutan Solidarity
The Bhutan Solidarity was founded in a convention held in New Delhi on 27th
September 1997 over the issue of Bhutanese refugees, with Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer
as its patron and Shri Anand Swaroop Verma as the Convenor. Shri Verma shouldered
this responsibility till August 2006. when he handed it over to the young peasant leader
and the Member of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly - Dr. Sunilam. The aim of
the organization is to highlight the ongoing democratic struggles of the Bhutanese people
against the despotism of the monarchy and their brutal repression by the Government
forces; to create a public opinion in favor of democratic forces facing the ire of the
king; to provide a platform for raising the voice against the human rights violations in
Bhutan; and to work towards the resolution of the issue of Bhutanese refugees.
The September 1991 foundation convention of the Bhutan Solidarity was
convened by Teesari Duniya Adhyayan Kendra and was attended by the delegates
from Bhutan and many noted jurists, intellectuals, human rights activists and the
representatives of the social organizations from India. Prior to the convention, in order
to acquaint the people with and to draw their attention to the conditions in the Bhutan,
Teesari Duniya Adhyayan Kendra published and circulated a booklet - ’Violations
of Human Rights in Bhutan’. Another booklet - ‘Agony of Bhutan’ - was published
after the convention. This booklet containing the historic speech of Justice Krishna Iyer
and the views of Justice Ajit Singh Bains, noted Nepalese Human Rights activist - late
Shri Prakash Kafle and others, was well received in the activist circles. In 1992, on the
initiative of the Bhutan Solidarity, a team of the jurists from the SA ARC countries
was sent to Bhutan and in 1995 it organized a study trip by a team of journalists to
Bhutanese refugee camps in Jhapa. The report of the team published with the title,
‘Tyranny In Bhutan’published in Hindi and English was very well received and debated
in India and abroad. Bhutan Solidarity waged a protracted struggle for the release
of Bhutanese Human Rights leader, Tek Nath Rizal. In 1997 when another Bhutanese
leader, Rong Thong Kunle Doiji was arrested in India, it filed a Habeas Corpus petition
against his arrest and launched a movement for his release. In collaboration with
GRINSO-Nepal, it organized a South Asian Conference on Bhutan, which was
attended by the delegates from the S AARC countries.
Bhutan Solidarity seeks to create a public opinion on the issue of the Bhutanese
refugees in order to pressurize the Indian Government into taking initiatives for its
resolution. As India and Bhutan have special ties under the Peace and Friendship
Treaty, without interfering into the internal affairs, India can help in solving the problem.
I----
Bhutanese
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement
Report by a fact-finding team on the
conditions of Bhutanese refugees
jointly sponsored
by INSAF and GRINSO-Nepal
Bhutan Solidarity
N-l/2 MLA Rest House, Bhopal - 462003
Phone: 0755 - 2440728, Mobile: 09425109770
A-124/6 Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi - 110016
Phone: 011-26517814
The issue of the Bhutanese refugees is over 16 years old. During these years, the governments of Nepal and Bhutan have
held 15 rounds of talks to no avail for over one hundred thousand Bhutanese living into a forced exile on the Himalayan
foothills. These people have been banished from their homeland by the autocratic royal government for their “offence"
of demanding minimum democratic and human rights. Their plight could be known to the world at large only after the
publication of a report by the fact-finding team of Bhutan Solidarity. The team consisting of noted journalists and
activists visited the refugee camps, held extensive interviews with the refugees and their leaders; the representatives of
the organizations supporting their cause; and the concerned representatives of the Government. The report was well
received in India and abroad and the people came to know about the agony of over one hundred thousand human beings
from the little Himalayan kingdom. Bhutan.
The democratic rights movement took off in Bhutan at a time when the Nepalese peoples’ movement for democracy
was on the verge of victory and the abolition of the existing retrogressive Panchayati system and the establishment
of multi-party system had become certainties. During these 16 years, the movement in Nepal has traveled a long
distance and now the end of the monarchy and the establishments of a republic have become certainties. 90% of
the refugees are Bhutanese citizens with Nepalese origin (Lhotsompas) and most of them live in the refugee camps
situated in two districts of Nepal - Jhapa and Morang. The influence of the events of Nepal on these people is but
natural.
A meeting of the Working Committee of Bhutan Solidarity held in June 2006 in New Delhi decided that with the help of
friends in India and Nepal, a team should be sent to the refugee camps for studying the fresh developments. Accordingly,
two organizations - 1NSAF from India and GR1NSO (Group for International Solidarity) from Nepal - were contacted
and a team constituted.
The team constituted under the leadership of Dr. Sunilam, the new Convenor of the Bhutan Solidarity, consisted of the
out going Convenor. Anand Swaroop Verma, Vinod Agnihotri, Virendra Sengor (journalists), Utkarsh Sinha (social
Activist) and Pramod Kaphley (GRINSO). The team met the noted Human Rights leader of Nepal, Tek Nath Rizal in
Kathmandu before visiting the refugee camps in the last week of August. Shri Rizal was interned for 11 years and
tortured by the King. Apart from meeting Rizal, the team members also talked to the leaders of various social organizations
there.
After the study trip to the refugee camps, the team held Press Conferences at Jhapa, Kathmandu and Delhi and acquainted
people with the problems of the refugees.
This report contains the major findings of the study and is aimed at seeking popular attention
to this humane problem needing urgent attention.
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 5
The Refugees can endure it No More
The brutal and inhuman treatment of its citizens by the monarch of Bhutan is unprecedented.
More than one hundred thousand Bhutanese citizens are languishing in the refugee camps for
over sixteen years, crying for help from, and trying to penetrate the deaf ears of the governments
of India and Nepal and the international agencies, to no avail as yet. The repression of
democratic forces by a despotic monarchy is not as surprising as the India’s governmental
indifference towards it, notwithstanding its claim of being the biggest democracy of the world. The
imperialist forces of the West and US are working on the plans to transport these refugees, like
commodities to their respective countries. It is high time that India should break its “neutrality”
under the excuse of its being a bilateral issue between Nepal and Bhutan and act positively to
resolve this issue and pave the way of home-returning of these helpless humans. Following are
the excerpts of the study report by the team that visited the refugee camps
The atmosphere of the refugee camps in Nepal inhabited
by displaced Bhutanese citizens has gone through
qualitative changes. In 1995. when a group of journalists
visited these camps, the anger of more than one and a half
lakhs of the refugees was directed against the King of
Bhutan and his lackey officials, whose repression had
forced them to live in the refugee camps in Jhapa district
in east Nepal, hundreds of miles away from their home
and land. Ten years ago they were quite hopeful about the
end of their miseries in few months or years. The displaced
had enormous faith in the intentions of the Indian and
Nepalese governments. They had hoped that these
governments would exercise their influence in pressurizing
the Bhutanese royal administration to allow their return
to their homes. It should be noted that most of the refugees
are Hindus of the Nepalese origin. But their religious and
cultural identity separate from the ruling clan, which is
one of the major reasons for their misery, did not come to
their rescue. In the last ten years there have been 16 rounds
of fruitless negotiations between Nepal and Bhutan and
India has not only maintained “neutrality" but also is not
ready to allow them passage through its territory. A portion
of West Bengal separates the borders of Bhutan and Nepal.
Once, when they tried to cross the border and go back
home in huge groups. Indian Police and the Security Forces
stopped them at the bridge of Mechi River that divides
India and Nepal, lathicharged and chased them away into
Nepal. In the past 10 years of wretched, nomadic existence,
their way of thinking has changed. The then five years
old ones have grown into young men and women of 15
years. Their experiences of unfortunate existence have
expedited their maturity. Their fists are tightening. They
want no more charity but their right to go back home.
They look serious about their determination. Their
endurance is giving away. They - particularly the youth are fed up with miserable refugee existence dependent on
donations and charities. Instead of languishing in the
refugee camps they would prefer a dignified death martyrdom -fighting for their right to homeland. But the
biggest hurdle is India. Earlier they looked up at India
with lots of hope but now for them. Indian Government is
equally big villain as the Bhutan king, if not bigger. In
retrospection, they find that their peaceful appeals and
struggles have not been able to change their miserable
and humiliating, dependent existence. They have received
only batons of Bhutanese and Indian Security Forces,
whenever they peacefully attempted to cross the borders.
During the same ten years, Maoists of Nepal, who chose
the path of armed struggle to end the despotism of
Nepalese king, are not far from seizing the royal palace.
The difference in the consequences of the armed and
peaceful struggles is making them restless. They are
debating the change in the strategy of the struggle - from
peaceful to armed. This feeling and thinking pervades all
the camps in Jhapa district being run under the auspices
of the United Nations. Nearly 40% of the refugees consist
of those young men and women who have been born and/
or brought up in these camps during the last 15 years.
And hence they do not have any traditional reverence
towards royalty, which was a common thing, in the
Himalayan countries of Nepal and Bhutan till a decade
ago.
There are seven big refugee camps in Morang and
Jhapa district of Nepal adjacent to India’s West Bengal
since 1991-92. These camps are inhabited by over 125
thousands of people. Apart from this, there are around 3040 thousand Bhutanese refugees, who are living at different
parts in the Indo-Nepal border areas. About 40% of them
are in the age group 16-26, who are getting restless and
impatient with the on-going conditions. Elders have neither
strength nor logic to dissuade them. They also have lost
the faith in God’s providence and fate’s mercy. This youth
is bewildered with the apathetic attitude of India, “the
The Tragic Talc of the Displacement / 6
biggest democracy” of the world. Human rights leader
Teknath Rizal spent 10 long years in the Bhutanese jails
and is now living the exiled life. According to him, “ We
always looked at India as our protector. In 1962, at the
time of war with China, when Nehru urged the
representatives of south Bhutanese citizen of Nepalese
origin to stand only one liter of Kerosene in a month that
they use to have some light in their huts only for very
limited hours. Darkness of their huts has crept into their
lives. The school going children have to finish their home
works before sun set. The inferior quality of rice given to
them is not fit even for feeding the animals. Quota of rice
per head for 14 days is little over 5 Kg one fourth of which
is trash consisting of stone particles. For cooking, a family
of 6 members gets 25 Kg of coal, 30 Kg for a family of 10
and 35 Kg for bigger families. The coal is of so inferior
quality that it generates more smoke and less fire. Most
of the refugees suffer from diseases caused by the excess
smoke. It takes so long to burn that most of the children
leave for school without having the breakfast. The
explanation of the executives of aid agencies is that the
budget of the aid has not increased in the same proportion
as the increase in the population. Another reason they cite
is that the camps were established temporarily with the
expectation that the problem would be resolved in a couple
of years but that did not happen and the camp life is
prolonging indefinitely.
p V
""
f
is causing widely spreading thought of armed struggle
among the youth of the camps, on the pattern of Nepalese
Maoists, particularly after the unprecedented success in
their anti-monarchy campaign. Though there are schools
for the children of the camps but by the time they reach
high school stage they start getting dismayed with their
pathetic existence and start articulating their rebellious
instincts. The young men and women are getting impatient
and angry. An intensive participatory interaction with them
revealed that though they don’t want to be termed as
terrorists by India, US or any other country, yet they don’t
see any other way out but to take up arms. It is well known
that the US had declared CPN (Maoist) as a terrorist
organization much before anyone else. They are quite
enthused and thrilled with the victory of the CPN (Maoist)
against the wishes, and despite all the imperialist tricks
and the efforts of the US. Due to insufficient supply and
truncated aid, the refugees have to go out for the wage
work that brings them in conflict with local people at times.
The refugees being in a helpless state agree to work for
fewer wages that adversely affects the employment of local
workers. K. Bhandari’s subtle remark, “ our only request
to the Government of India is that it should just allow us
passage through its territory” reflects the general sentiment
of the refugees about Indian attitude to the issue.
“Whenever we try to go back our homeland, Indian Forces
chase us back into Nepal from West Bengal border". Yam
-•■BP.
A refugee camp in Jhapa
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 7
Kuldip Nayar’s opinion:
1 can not comprehend why is Indian Government not exerting pressure on the Government of Bhutan
to take back its banished citizens. Most of the exiled were bom in Bhutan. They are Bhutanese citizens...
the only offense they committed is that they supported the ongoing democratic movements. Bhutan
government banished them from the country on the false "Illegal Economic immigration” principle but a
fact finding visit by a team of journalists in 1995 confirmed the news of their repression.... Government of
India does not even want to raise this matter with the king of Bhutan fearing his annoyance. Presently they
are friends. As long as India government does not object to the cynicism of Bhutanese royalty, the king
would have no complaints against India. But if India takes any such step which not in accordance with the
royal liking, Bhutan may make a tilt towards China. This is India's biggest apprehension.
Published in The Hindu. 18 January. 1997^,
against whom? But they are getting more-and-more
convinced that without the thunders of guns their voices
shall remain unheard". Many of the young people brought
up and bom in the camps and have never seen Bhutan but
know about their homeland through the stories,
reminiscences and fables told by the elders. By hearing
about the stories of happy and dignified life back home.
they have developed a strong desire to see their homeland
and settle there. They also lament about their treatment as
refugees and inferior humans despite their Nepalese origin.
The wide spread feeling among these young men and
women is that they are made to suffer for no offence. They
were not part of protests against the king in 1990 as they
were not yet born or were little children. Indifference to
their miseries of world at large also disturbs and pains
them.
Not only the youth is getting impatient with the
stalemate but also even the endurance of the elders is
cracking. They are quite nostalgic in memories of their
homeland in Bhutan - their farms, their orchards, their
forest and their rivers. Now they feel that they have only
few years of the life and they don’t want to die in an alien
land. They too are getting extremely restless for returning
to their homes and want to do that at any cost, even at the
cost of their lives. Many of them support the youth thinking
on the strategies of the armed struggle. According to an
elderly member of the camp, Dal Bahadur Bhattarai, “
India keeps eulogizing the peace- ful and democratic
movements but it has turned the deaf ear to the peaceful
voices of Bhutanese refugees for the past 16 years. Not
only the Indian Government is maintaining a dubious
indifference to our agonizing miseries caused by the
whimsical despotism of Bhutan’s monarchy but also is
standing on the side of the perpetrator. So our anger is no
more directed only against the king of Bhutan but also
against the Government of India. Nevertheless, we have
great faith in the concerns and the good will of India’s
freedom-loving public at large and hope that they would
seriously take up the issue and pressurize the government
to act in the direction of resolving it. If India can take a
tuff stand the issue of Bhutanese refugees’ right to return
to their homeland, would be resolved within a month. The
time is running short and it is high time that the
Government of India changes its attitude and acts
positively, otherwise the cracking endurance of the
refugees might prove to be pain in its neck. It is not a
threat but warning. Therefore the issue needs urgent
attention and solution".
We met Kapila in a refugee camp. At the age of ten
she was forced to leave Bhutan with her parents in 1990.
16 years of human life in the wretched camps have eaten
on her endurance. She is completely fed up and does not
want to continue with her humiliating existence anymore.
Instead of languishing in the camps she would prefer to
die fighting for her rights. Her anger in her verbal reactions
could be read on her face that had turned red and tears
rolled down over it as if trying to calm the fire within.
Kaushalya Bhandari. living in the camp for the last 14
years, also echoed Kapila’s sentiments. Kaushalya is
associated with the Bhutanese Refugees' Women’s Forum.
She is unable to comprehend the apprehensions of the
Indian Government and wonders why India is unwilling
to provide us just passage, she pleads, “ We don’t want
any other help from India except the passage through its
territory, we shall fight rest of our battle ourselves.”
Beldangi camp is bigger than the Khudnabari camp.
Here we interacted with thousands of the refugees of this
camp from dawn to dusk and even after the sunset in the
flickering lights of the kerosene lamps. Gathered in a
ground, refugees unhesitantly and clearly expressed their
feelings and views. They complained that many people
and groups from India, Nepal and elsewhere in the world,
show sympathies, give assurances and go back. But things
remain as they were and are. The Secretary of the camp,
Hari Bangale is convinced that there could be no end to
their miseries without the helping hand of India. “ We have
no hopes from the progenitor of our woes - the Bhutanese
monarchy. Our only hope is the goodwill of the Indian
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 8
people and the Government.” Keshu is an Intermediate
student. He tells, "We know that we can not wage an
armed war with India, but what is the other way out? But
we also know that Indian government does not pay
attention or heed to peoples’ demand as long as they raise
it peacefully, but pay attention to the demands raised
violently. So if some of us take up arms and raise our
voices with the thunder of guns, may be the Government
of India would listen to our voices of a humanitarian and
just plea”.
In India, the issue of Bhutanese refugees is
generally treated as a bilateral issue between Nepal and
Bhutan that by implication justifies the “neutrality” of
Indian Stale. The Bhutanese refugees reject this perception
and consider it as a tripartite issue. In support of the
tripartite argument, the General secretary of the Druk
National Congress. Rin Zin Dorji said that Bhutan borders
India and not Nepal. Moreover, the refugees first came to
India and were subsequently sent to Nepal with active
collaboration of Indian Security Forces. So, according to
him, India can not wash its hands by declaring it a bilateral
issue. It must perform its role of not only a third party, but
also a dominant one. India must take a clear and just stand.
without that there is no solution in sight. Indra Binasim
sounds more restless, "we all are Bhutanese and if we are
not sent back to our homelands, there may be revolutionary
upsurge”. M.P. Kafle argues the need of India’s
intervention not on humanitarian but also on political
grounds. “If we take up arms, a Palestine like situation
shall be created in South Asia”.
The President of Bhutan Peoples Party, Balram
Paudel lays the blame for their problem getting worst from
bad at the doors of the apathy of the powers that be particularly India. According to him, “in the beginning
we were quite hopeful that king would bow down to
international pressure, but that pressure did not build up.
Any further delay would aggravate the intensity of
volcanic discontent and distress lying underneath the
apparent calm. The young men and women are no more
prepared to heed our advice". Paudel claims that
resentment against the royal rule but discontent is gaining
ground even within the country - not only among the South
Bhutanese of Nepalese origin but also among the Stirchop
and other communities of the north also. Discontent is
brewing even among the Ngalong community to which
belongs the king. Sarchops of the east Bhutan are angry
over refusal to recognize the reincarnation of their religious
head, the Lama, by the king. According to Rin Zin around
25 thousand members of Sarchop community have fled
Bhutan and arc living in Arunachal Pradesh in India.
Teknath Rizal is most widely accepted and
respected leader of Bhutanese refugees. He was released
from 10 years of tortuous imprisonment in Bhutanese jail
consequent to the intervention by Amnesty International,
UN Human Rights Commission and other international
Agencies. For a long time Rizal occupied important
positions in the Bhutan’s royal administration and even
had been advisor to the king. He had been the elected
member of the Bhutanese legislative assembly. He aiso
had good relations with the governmental establishment
in New Delhi. In 1989-90. when the royal government
unleashed the waves of repression and banishment against
the South Bhutanese people. Rizal opposed it that led to
his arrest and imprisonment. In the jail, according to him.
he was subjected to various kinds of torture including
forcing to eat from a pot like animals after tying his hands
and the feet. He is living in exile in Nepal since his release.
He has also been to New Delhi for the treatment.
Issue of Refugees is a
matter of Serious Concern - Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
I don't think that there is any need of going into details of Human Rights violations, particularly in the
South Bhutan. I have learnt from reliable sources about the way people have been forcibly evicted from their
houses and banished from the country and they were subjected to various kinds of injustices. Amnesty International
has also criticized the human rights violations in Bhutan. There have been many rounds of talks between Nepal
and Bhutan without any conclusion as yet. Human aspect of the issue remains the subject of concern and anxiety
for the people inside and outside Bhutan. Today there is urgent need of creating conducive conditions for the
restoration of basic human rights and resettlement of the displaced in Bhutan. Pushing people in the realm of
distress amounts to the giving air to terrorist activities, which is not beneficial for everybody.
As an individual concerned with the human rights, a friend of the Bhutanese people, a well-wisher of your
country, and as the President of the “International Center for Humanitarian Laws and research" I appeal to your
majesty to seriously consider the issue of democracy in Bhutan, use the influences of people active on the issue
inside and outside the country so that the existing bitterness could be ended so that a common man equipped with
democratic rights can peacefully live in his country as a Bhutanese citizen.
(From the letter to Bhutanese King Jigme Singye Wangchuk written on 19 December 1995)
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 9
Rizal told us about the plans of various world
powers at the instance of the US to divide the refugees in
groups and settle them in US, Canada and other countries
instead of sending them to their homes in Bhutan. Rizal
considers this settlement plan as a conspiracy against the
refugees and also against the Bhutanese people in general.
According to him, “in Bhutan the people of Nepalese
origin— 250-300 thousands — constitute 45% of the total
Bhutanese population of approximately 600 thousands.
Out of 250-300 thousands Bhutanese citizens of Nepalese
origin, around 150 thousand are displaced and living in
exile. If these people are settled abroad, then remaining
Bhutanese of Nepalese origin shall also be ousted
gradually and the whole cultural ambience of the South
Bhutan shall be fundamentally transformed. And the next
victims shall be Sharchop and other communities. So we
reject the idea of being settled in other countries at its
very outset itself'. The plan is being outrightly and strongly
opposed in various camps also. Indra Binsima of the
Beldangi camp outrageously reacts to the proposed plan
and says, “We are Bhutanese and were banished from
Bhutan. And we must be sent back there only. If we are
settled elsewhere, remaining Bhutanese shall also meet
the same fate." As their struggle is eventually for the human
rights, so Tcknath Rizal and other representatives of
refugees want that they be allowed to live and peacefully
create public opinion in India on the issue of the Bhutanese
refugees in same way as was done with the Nepalese pro
Democracy leaders.
Rizal told that whenever he went to Delhi, was
always unnecessary harassed by the Indian intelligence
agencies and consequently he came back to Nepal. But
Rizal feels that there is no other way out. All the roads to
the solution of their problem lead to New Delhi. Jasoda
Budathoki, President of the Women's Organization of
Bhutan, which is conducting awareness campaign for
rights, tells that women are the worst victims of the royal
repression and even now they are the worst sufferers. She
appeals to the Indian women and Women's Organization
for supporting their cause by way of building pressure on
the Government of India to recognize the gravity of the
situation and act favorably.
In our 200 Km long journey along the Bhutan
border from Jhapa through the areas of Siliguri and
Darjeeling district to at many places we found Bhutanese
refugees working as wage laborers. There is just one gate
dividing theJaygaon town of West Bengal and Phuntsoling
town of Bhutan. This gate witnesses everyday the passage
of hundreds of residents of South Bhutan and West Bengal
to and from either side. Interaction with such people
vindicated the opinion of the leaders at refugee camps
regarding growing discontentment with and resistance
against the despotic monarchy.
The floating of the proposal of a constitutional
monarchy and a new constitution by the king. Jigme
Singye Wangchuk. shows the desperation and fear. Fear
of the volcanic eruption of the popular discontentment.
And the events in Nepal must have intensified his fears.
(Continued on Pagel6)
Dr Sunilam addressing refugees in Beldangi
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / III
Bhutanese Refugees
and the American Plan
by Anand Swaroop Verma
On October 3, 2006, in a Convention in Geneva organized
on issue of the Refugees, Deputy Foreign Secretary Ellen
Sauerbrcy declared that America would rehabilitate in its
country a major chunk of Bhutanese refugees living in
Nepal. She told the journalists in convention that in the
next 3-4 years the Washington plans to settle around 5060 thousands Bhutanese refugees in various parts of the
US. She also told that Australia and the Canada too are
showing their readiness to do the same. Bhutanese refugees
have outrightly rejected the American “generosity” and
have reiterated their demand of right to their homeland.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has welcomed
the US offer that has caused considerable resentment
among the Bhutanese refugees. The spokesperson for
UNHCR, Jennifer Pagonis has also welcomed the
willingness of Australia and Canada for taking some of
the refugees.
Refugees are adamantly opposed to any such
proposal. They believe that these countries could have
easily pressurized the Bhutan Government to amicably
resolve the problem instead of showing the hippocratic
generosity to settle them in their lands in such a large
number. They apprehend, and quite rightly, a conspiracy
in such proposals not only to destroy their cultural identity
but also to revive the slavery of feudal era. Once again
the silence of the India is quite bewildering for these
hapless people. Il is true that few such refugees who have
never seen Bhutan or they were too small at the time of
their displacement that Bhutan is not part of their memory
but by and large the wider community is opposed to it.
Teknath Rizal, the most popular leader amongst the
refugees, is firmly opposed to the American proposal,
which according to him is a new style of the American
conspiracy against the oppressed of the world. He asserted
in no uncertain terms that they would not accept this
proposal of slavery at any cost.
These Bhutanese people living, as refugees in these
camps needs a healing touch on their 16 year old wounds
of misery and humiliation. Just outside the gales of the
“biggest democracy of the world” more than 100 thousand
people are suffering for committing the “offense” of
demanding democracy. Even the political parties including
the Left ones have maintained conspicuous silence on the
issue.
To highlight the plight of the refugees, 'Bhutan
Solidarity' organized a seminar in 1996 in New Delhi and
launched many programs of action to demand the release
of their leader Rong Thong Kinley Dorji locked in Tihar
Jail ot Delhi. George Femandese then an opposition leader
participated in these programs with all the pomp and show.
And when Parliament was in session to celebrate the
golden jubilee of the Independence on 15th August 1997,
he along with his friend Nitish Kumar, in a unique
expression of solidarity with the Bhutanese refugees, sat
on dharna outside the Tihar jail for the whole night. But
his acts of the solidarity were merely rhetoric and the issue
of the Bhutanese refugees stopped bothering him soon after
becoming a minister and the convenor of the ruling
alliance. NDA. Had he been serious about the issue, he
could well have used his position in the NDA government
to use diplomatic channels and pressurized the Bhutan
Government for a fair and just solution. He could have
reminded the Bhutanese royal government and his own
that in 1990 when the Bhutanese citizens were being
haunted and driven out of the country by the Bhutanese
Royal Army for their “offence" of demanding democracy,
they came to India, as Bhutan borders India and not the
Nepal. From the West Bengal in India, Indian security
forces forcibly transported them into Nepal. As over 90%
of the refugees are of Nepalese origin known as Lhotsompa
in Bhutan. Nepalese government allowed them in its
territory on humanitarian grounds.
The UNHCR gave them refugee status and stepped
in to organize refugee camps for them. Ever since they
are living there - since the last 16 years.
The last 15 years have witnessed 15 rounds of talks
on the issue between the governments of Nepal and Bhutan
without any result. The Nepalese government and the
refugee leaders were already apprehensive of the talks as
Indian territory separates the borders of Nepal and Bhutan
and the Bhutanese king enjoys full support of the Indian
Government. That is why they emphasize the need of a
tripartite summit. But India has been continually shunning
off its responsibilities with the untenable argument that it
is a bilateral issue and that it should be resolved through
negotiations between Bhutan and Nepal.
In 1995, a team of journalists under the leadership
of the Bhutan Solidarity visited these camps and published
in English and Hindi a detailed report "Bhutan: The tale
of Repression’, the first detailed report on the life and the
conditions of Bhutanese refugees. The report was wellreceived world over and generated considerable debate
on the issue. After 11 years another Bhutan Solidarity team
under the leadership of the Peasants' leader and a Member
of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Dr. Sunilam,
went to reassess the situation.
I had the opportunity of being part of both the visits.
And in the interval of 11 years between 1995-2006, these
camps have produced a new generation of young men and
women with a new consciousness and new sell -belief. This
Bhutan Version of Gujral Doctrin
Thousands of Bhutanese, banished from their homeland are living in miserable conditions in Assam, West
Bengal and Arunaehal Pradesh, in regions adjacent to Bhutan border. The government of India has not given the
status of refugee so they don’t get any help from international agencies like the UN. The argument put forth by the
Indian Government is that according to the bilateral treaty of 1949, the citizens of either country can freely cross each
other's borders and move in each other’s territory freely and hence no need of giving them refugee status. Also
according to the treaty they would not interfere in each other's internal affairs. But is the issue of Bhutanese refugees
Bhutan's internal affair? In 1970s the Organization of African Unity has passed a resolution that if a substantial
portion of the population is forced to lake shelter in another country then it is no more the internal matter of the
country concerned. On the basis of this reasonable resolution the UN passed its own resolutions aftd India is amongst
the signatories to these resolutions.
Despite this the Government of India has been maintaining indifference against its own commitment. Is the
government really neutral to the issue? No. it is not so. The Indian P.M., Shri Indra Kumar Gujral is keenly interested
in Bhutanese affairs and is wholehearted supporter of the Bhutanese monarch. The whole country is passing through
such chaotic situations that nobody has time to ponder over the policy prepared by Indra Kumar Gujral as India's
Foreign Minister on Bhutan, and particularly on the on-going democratic movements there. Feeling free from any
accountability he gave full support to the king for the repression of the democratic forces in his country and in return
secured of Bhutan’s support in India’s favor on the issue of CTBT.
After becoming the Prime Minister, Gujral made the declaration of the appointment of Bhabani Sengupta as
advisor on Bhutan Affairs but Sengupta has been his advisor for a long time. And also for a long lime he is doing
research on the ’Participatory democracy’ in Bhutan and in this connection he often meets the king of Bhutan. He is
doing research on “Participatory” democracy whereas it is very well known to the entire world and even the king
Jigme Singye Wangchuk confesses that there is no democracy at all in Bhutan. There are no political Parties. Studies
of Law and Political Science are proscribed from educational curricula. Till last year watching television was restricted.
According to a UN study, there is not a single jurist in the country. In the so-called courts of law there is no judge who
has studied law. So Bhabani Sengupta's research on participatory democracy is astonishing.
In August 1996, Indra Kumar Gujaral went to Bhutan on a state visit. This was the first visit of an Indian
Foreign Minister in 14 years. Just months before his visit, many groups of refugees from the Jhapa camp had made
several attempts to cross over the border through Indian territory to return to their homes that had created considerable
tension in the West Bengal. The Nepal and Bhutan had held seven rounds of negotiation to resolve the issue of
Bhutanese refugees. But the issue of refugees did not bother the conscience of the Indian Foreign Minister. Gujral did
not feel the need of even raising it with the Bhutanese Royal government!
In fact, the government of India has been shrewdly able to maintain its 'neutrality' toward this burning problem
so that the Bhutanese king is not put into any inconvenient situation. India treats it as a bilateral issue between Nepal
and Bhutan whereas Bhutan borders India and not the Nepal. The Bhutanese citizens, persecuted by the government
came to India and from here they were beaten up, bundled into trucks and thrown into Nepalese territory. Thus India
used coercion to transfer its problem to Nepal. As the repression started from southern Bhutan populated mainly by
the Nepalese-speaking Bhutanese (Lhotsompa) so India found it convenient to shift the tension to Nepal and adopt
the posture of “neutrality”.
On October 12, 1996, a memorandum signed by many noted Indian citizens including Justice V.R. Krishna
Iyer and Swami Agnivesh was submitted to Mr. Gujral, in which among other things, the demand of Indian participation
in the negotiations on the refugee issue was emphasized. The members of the delegation were shocked and surprised
by the Gujral’s response that he would not do any such thing which might create problems for the Bhutanese monarch.
Earlier he had refused even to talk about Bhutan under the pretext of the national interest. Is it not the responsibility
of India to support the democratic movements in the neighboring country? His response was that his government
would not support democracy on the cost of the national interests. When he was reminded about the possibility of
explosive situations on the India-Bhutan borders, he told the delegation that the government would deal with it. The
foreign Minister of the “biggest democracy” was talking in the tone of a monarch. The delegation was amazed and the
talks ended in a tense atmosphere...
(From Anand Swaroop Verma’s article published in Jansatta, 15 May 1997)
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement 712
new generation finds the camp-life appalling and is not
ready to live on the "mercy’ and ‘donations’. This
generation of youth is able to well-comprehcnd the
situation in the context of the international politics and
has witnessed the origin and growth of the armed struggle
in Nepal under the leadership of the Maoists. In 1995, the
main villain for these refugees was the Bhutan-king but
now, in 2006 their perception has changed. The Indian
government has become the main villain. The main reason
of this change of perception is the attitude of the Indian
State in the past 11 years towards their peaceful attempts
to cross over to their homeland. Whenever they tried to
cross the borders in the form of a peaceful procession,
they were arrested at India-Nepal borders and put behind
the bars.
The youth in the refugee camps is bewildered with
the stand and actions of India. It readily “helped” the
displaced Bhutanese chased by Bhutanese army to allow
them cross over into its territory and then forcibly
transporting them into Nepalese territory. But when they
are ready to face any consequences for their right to
homeland, India steps in as an obstructing block. The youth
feels that owing to the vested interests of the Indian ruling
classes, the Government of India is supporting the
repressive tyranny of the Bhutanese king. It is beyond their
comprehension that why should India, “the biggest
democracy" is unashamedly supporting the only monarchy
of the South Asia! The new thinking about appealing to
the governments among the youth is a matter of great
concern. With their own experiences and of other
contemporary movements, they have arrived at an
understanding that the governments do not hear the
peaceful cries but the thunders of the gun. It is to be noted
that over 40% of the refugees in the camps belong to the
age group of 17-40 years.
The prominent Human Rights activist and the leader
of Bhutanese refugees Tek Nath Rizal is currently living
in exile in Nepal. Before 1990, he was advisor to and the
member of the Royal Council. In 1990 he was arrested
and put behind the bars for the “offence” of submitting a
memorandum of certain demands of the people of south
Bhutan. The matter was raised and discussed at various
international forums that forced the Bhutanese government
to release him after 11 years in 2001. When I met him in
Nepal, I was shocked and surprised to know that whenever
he tried to live in India, Indian Intelligence agents always
harassed him. He apprehends more danger in the Indian
Territory than in Bhutan. Around two years ago when he
was in New Delhi, two “dangerous looking” home ministry
personnel threatened him to leave the country within 24
hours otherwise they will implicate him in some forged
case and put behind the bars. Bhutanese people were also
surprised and shocked to see the king of Bhutan - a
monarch — being made the chief guest at the last year’s
Indian Republic Day celebrations, a contradiction in terms.
They feel that al a time when the royal repression has
forced over 100 thousand people of Bhutan out of its total
population of around 700 thousand into the displaced life
of the refugee camps, honoring the despotic king defies
the meaning of biggest democracy.
Day-by-day the situation is becoming more-andmore explosive. If India keeps its stance of “neutrality”,
there is every likelihood of the emergence of another
disturbed zone in this part of the South Asia. The youth in
the camps arc conscious about American design of
intervention in South Asia in the name of fighting
terrorism, and they do not wish to provide this opportunity.
Recently the government of Nepal sent a
parliamentary delegation to the camps to assess the mood
of the people to the informal American proposal. This
delegation also discussed the issue of American proposal
with many notable intellectuals and activists of Nepal.
After this exercise the delegation decided that it would
request the Government of India to take initiative in the
matter. It is well known that the Bhutanese royalty can
not easily ignore the advice of the Indian Government to
consider the matter seriously and take the steps towards
the amicable resolution of the issue. As yet. for the last 16
years Indian government has not taken any initiative in
this direction. Instead of showing any concern with the
pathetic condition of people living in the refugee camps it
invited the King as chief guest of its Republic day
celebrations at a time when the refugees were most agitated
for their right to homeland.
The way the government of the Bhutan king used
the ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam) against its
citizens agitating for democratic rights, is intriguing and
subject matter of a separate study. First it allowed the
ULFA to camp in its territory and used it to chase away
the South Bhutanese. Seeing the mounting international
pressure for taking back the refugees, in order to please
the New Delhi, it allowed the Indian military action against
ULFA in its territory. Thus it used ULFA for expropriation
of anti-monarchy forces and again to stop their attempts
of returning to their homeland.
Few planted agents are conducting a signature
campaign in the camps in favor of the American proposal.
but the general mood is against it and the situation is quite
tense and volatile. The home minister of Nepal. K.P.Oli
some time ago had stated that the representatives of
Nepalese and Bhutanese governments would hold talks
in November 2006 to arrive at some concrete results.
In the meanwhile when people were discussing this
statement with some elements of hope. America floated
its proposal of "generosity” that has increased the
restlessness of the refugees and forced them to expedite
their search for new methods to secure their homeland
rights. For the time being they seem to be in the mood of
waiting for some more time in the hope of India’s
acceptance of Nepal Government’s request to take
initiative for the resolution of the problem. If their hopes
arc belied, future course of their struggle would
unpredictable and can take any path, including that of
armed struggle.
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 13
The Bhutan Refugee Repatriation: Hurry to Bury
Pramod Kafle, GRINSO-Nepal
Bhutanese King Jigme started "demographic
management" immediately after the assassination of the
Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984. His mind
had been occupied with the retrogressive medieval
dream of “one nation one people" for a long time and
to materialize it he introduced 'Citizenship Act-1985 '.
It all began with the Sikkim's annexation in 1975 by
India and King Jigme waited for a right time to begin a
systematic mass exodus of Southern Bhutanese known
as Lhotsampas. The Bhutanese regime of King Jigme
didn't only want to banish the Nepalese speaking people
(Lhotsampas) but wanted to continue the autocratic
dynastic rule for long.
Nepalese peoples' movement in Nepal with the
democratic waves of late 80s and early 90s" encouraged
the Bhutanese people to resist the autocratic regime in
Bhutan. Sensing the popular mood the King Jigme
began massive repression in Bhutan. Banishment of
people of Nepalese origin was single agenda of his
foreign policy. Taking advantage of bitterness in the
relations between Nepal and India during 1989-90, he
fooled every one from Rajiv Gandhi to Nepalese King
Birendra.
Indian government unable to comprehend the new
international order after the collapse of the Soviet Union
and the eastern European block got trapped into King
Jigme’s designs. On the other hand King Birendra
helped to abduct human rights activist Mr. T.N.Rizal in
Nepal in 1989. King Jigme smoothly mobilized the
support of its neighbors - India and Nepal — and
suppressing the democratic movement of 1990
forcefully evicted one-sixth population of the Bhutan
and chased them into Indian territory across the border.
India not only did not oppose these expulsions but also
cooperated with the King by forcibly transporting these
stateless people into Nepalese territory and distanced
itself from the issue on the pretext that it was a bilateral
issue between Nepal and Bhutan.
In the mean time Nepal entered the arena of a
“multiparty” system. The democratically elected new
government provided these banished citizens of Bhutan,
the refugee status in its country and pleaded with the
international community for humanitarian aid. As the
cold war was over the “left over” resources of the
UNHCR - an organization established to look after
refugees, was used to help the Bhutanese Refugees
living in eastern Nepal since 1990. The USA being the
largest contributor to the UNHCR funds, it treated it as
a future investment to expand its influence in South Asia.
That is why the USA is in such a hurry to bury the
prolonged crisis of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal.
Is the issue a bilateral or trilateral?
Since the beginning of the exodus all the Bhutanese
citizens who had to flee their homeland oppressed and
hunted by the King Jigme’s systematic atrocities,
crossed the boarder into India, the largest democracy
in the world. In fact it should have been the bilateral
issue between India and Bhutan from the very
beginning. All the Bhutanese who were coerced into
signing the “Voluntary Migration Certificates” and
chased away into Indian territory by Bhutan's despotic
regime were caught, bundled into police trucks and
dumped into Nepal by Indian Security Forces. This was
one of the largest ethnic expulsions in the modern
history.
There are over one hundred ten thousands Bhutanese
in the UNHCR camps in Nepal and the process of
evictions is continuing. The Indian Government is well
aware with the happenings in Bhutan and the miserable
existence of the Bhutanese refugees into camps. But
India is looking at the problem by the king Jigme’s eye
and maintaining “neutrality” on the pretence of its being
a Nepal-Bhutan bilateral issue. Over one and half decade
impasse of refugees is spent in waiting to return home
with honor and dignity.
Refugees' this dream could have been exploited by any
one. The time has come to take the issue to its logical
conclusion. Now it is high time that India must involve
itself and initiate the process of trilateral talks. If the
situation of conflict and instability continues in the
Himalayan kingdom at its north frontiers, India shall
not remain unaffected. Its prosperity depends on the
peace and stability in the neighboring countries.
However India's foreign policy since independence has
been inconvenient to its neighbors as it has always
wanted to keep them under its thumb. Ideally it should
have been imperative on India to take care of the
interests of not only its own citizens but that of the
citizens of the neighboring countries also. The
Bhutanese people launched a forceful democratic
movement in 1990 and expected that India would
support their struggle for democratic and human rights.
But on the contrary India owing to its vested interests,
instead of supporting the movement aligned itself with
the Bhutanese monarchy and the Bhutanese people paid
a heavy price. So the people of Bhutan living in and
away from expected justice and democratic treatment
from its neighbor the “largest democracy” of the world,
India.
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 14
International concern on Bhutan Refugees
The rallies organized on 17 August 1990 demanding
the democratic rights in southern Bhutan were the First
ever human rights rallies in the history of Bhutan. Dago
Tshering, the present Ambassador of Bhutan in India,
was at that time Bhutan’s deputy Home Minister. He
had issued a circular of “forfeiture of the citizenship of
all the relatives” of those who participated in the rallies.
Eviction orders were issued against them. This event
shocked and stirred all the democratic and human rights
groups active in Nepal, other countries of South Asia
and at international level and put the European Union,
donor countries and the USA in a fix. However all these
concerns were partially diffused with the Indian stand
of “neutrality”. Nepalese government through all these
years had been trying a respectful solution of the
refugee’s repatriation. But the process was shattered by
a stubborn monarchy of Nepal after 2001 and the anti
people stances of the India and the USA.
The US Proposal was summarily rejected by the
Bhutanese refugees. The king of Bhutan welcomed the
proposal and expressed its gratitude to the USA.
Henceforth the US officials have been regularly visiting
Bhutan, notwithstanding the absence of formal
diplomatic relations between the two countries. The
agreement on categorization and verification came as a
boon to the Bhutanese despotic regime as it got some
more time for designing newer plots and plans against
its ousted citizens. It agreed to constitute the Joint
Verification Team (JVT) on March 26, 2001 but did not
give any time frame. The year 2001 was a turning point
in the Nepalese history. Nepal entered into an era of the
autocratic rule of the king Gyanedra.
The verification process lacked transparency and any
provision of deadline yet the verification in one camp
— Khudanabari —compelled Bhutan to recognize 3/
4th of people living there as the bonafied Bhutanese
citizens. The unexpected outcome once again
embarrassed the Bhutan and the embarrassed Bhutanese
officials of Nepal-Bhutan Joint Verification Team (JVT)
walked out of the meeting being held at Damak in Jhapa
District of Nepal and left for Bhutan on December 22,
2003 without informing the Government of Nepal. This
shows Bhutan's attitude of absolving itself from any
responsibility towards its people and of looking for an
excuse to run away from its own created crisis.
Nepalese Peoples’ upsurge of 2006:
The April Revolution
The unprecedented Nepalese people’s upsurge in April
2006 and the shift of power to the people put the
Bhutanese regime in difficult situation. It had
unilaterally boycotted in December 2003 the verification
process and hence it had to find some other way to carry
forward its ill intentions and anti-people designs. On
the other hand the human rights and civil society
movements in Nepal and India accelerated their
advocacy for the repatriation of refugees with dignity
and honor. The western nations led by the USA formed
a “core group” without any consultation with the
refugees.
American Strategy on Bhutanese Refugees
The Official news Paper of Bhutan government, Quensel published a news item on 2 September
2006 detailing the visit to Bhutan of a delegation of American Parliamentarians under the leadership
of Republican Senator Jim Kolbe. A perusal of this news item makes it very clear that the USA has
been working on the strategy of settling the refugees for quite some time. Jim Kolbe said, “I know
that Bhutan does not like the term refugee and claims that the people living in the camps were illegal
intruders in Bhutan and hence can not be called refugees. Despite the claim, it is a fact that these
people are still living in the camps and possibly few of them might have been Bhutanese citizens”.
Therefore Bhutan government should accept few of them
“even a very small number as its
citizens.” Then he added that the US would settle 50-70 thousand of remaining refugees in its territory
and Australia and Canada would also take some of them.
According to a news report published on 14 May 2005 in Kathmandu Post, most of the western
countries are interested in settling the refugees in their countries. UNHCR's representative, Abraham
asserts that the international community wants the solution of the problem but for this it is important
that the Nepal Government gives “exit permit” to settle them in a third country. The U.N.H.C.R.
spends about $ 5 million on the refugees’ world over and America is the biggest contributor (25%) to
its funds. The other major contributors to it are Britain, Japan, Germany and the EU
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 15
The leaders of the refugees once again started
impressing upon Nepalese government to
sympathetically consider their problems and expedite
the process. Finally, though in a slow process the Nepal
Government has taken correct initiative and stands that
the issue of the Bhutanese refugee is the matter between.
and has to be resolved by “the Bhutanese Government
and the Bhutanese people”. In this changed situation
Bhutan is facing tremendous pressure from every corner
and searching a strong back up to continue its draconian
rule.
The recent US proposal to settle 60.000 Bhutanese
refugees in its territory and other members of "Core
Group” willing to resettle some more of the 106.000
estimated Bhutanese living in UNHCR run camps has
come as a great relief to King Jigme. It gives Bhutan a
clean chit to make more refugees in future.
This kind of recent unilateral declaration in Geneva by
Ms. Ellen Sauerbrey. the US Assistant Secretary, has
created a situation conducive for the continuation of
the unending cycle of atrocities by the King Jigme's
autocratic rule. The recent visit to the refugee camps
(August 20-25, 2006) of a joint team of Nepalese and
Indian human rights and civil society activists has rightly
emphasised the miseries of the refugees and has urged
the Indian government to involve itself to amicably
resolve this crisis as early as possible. This would bring
about a just and durable solution to this burning problem.
Conclusion: Hurry to bury
Before the 16th round of talks in November 2006,
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Nepal,
K.P. Shanna Oli in his recent meeting with Bhutanese
counterpart Lyonpo Jigme Yoeser Thinley had said, “if
Bhutan tries to create hindrances ... Nepal can still think
of an alternative means to resolve the crisis"..
Now, it is clear that it may be the last chance for India
to step in with honest involvement and resolve the crisis
if Nepal and Bhutan fail to do it. India should extend its
solidarity to the refugees and try to find durable solution
of their repatriation even with informal consultations
and discussions with the Bhutanese government and
peoples' representatives.
The latest offer from the USA government is to
strengthen on going repression of the king of Bhutan.
The present administration in Washington doesn't want
to spare a single moment to have a good relation with
the present Bhutanese regime. They have seen the fate
of the autocratic regime of King Gyanendra in Nepal
where the Nepalese people rejected the despotic
monarchy and are fast moving towards establishment
of a republic
The aim of the present proposal from Washington is to
dismantle refugee camps in Nepal at the earliest and
oblige the king of Bhutan in long term interest of the
US imperialism. It is aimed at having a foothold in this
“Himalayan nation ' to “ keep a watch on India and
encircle China"’. Had it not been so. the USA would
have taken a firm stand on the questions of democracy
and human rights in Bhutan and the will of the
Bhutanese people and persuaded the government in
Thimpu to resolve the crisis in accordance with the
international norms and conventions. The US proposal
tends to ignore the natural and legal right of the refugees
to return to their country.
A renowned human right activist of Bhutan has
criticized the US proposal as being “in favor of the
Bhutanese king but against the Bhutanese people” and
found UNHCR praise of it “even more objectionable”.
It is time to hurry in Finding a durable solution with the
involvement of and consultation with the Bhutanese
refugees but not bury their rights to return to motherland
and enjoy human rights in Bhutan.
Continued from page 10
Terming the King's declarations as eyewash. D. P. Kafle of Bhutan Peoples Party says that his seriousness towards
democratic reforms could be gauged through his attitude towards the refugee problem. That is why, he says that Indian
Government needs to do some rethinking on its Bhutan policy.
As far as king Wangchuk is concerned, he has even refused to recognize the refugees as Bhutanese citizens.
Four years ago, an Inquiry Committee was constituted to look into the matter. The committee consists of the
representatives of the Nepalese and Bhutanese governments but there is no representative of the refugees. The terms
of the inquiry are based on the assumption that divides the refugees into 4 categories.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Bhutanese citizens displaced due to political reasons;
Those Bhutanese, who left the country voluntarily;
Those who fled the country due to being wanted in some criminal offence; and
Those who are not Bhutanese citizens.
The pace of the inquiry is so slow that as yet it has identified only 74 families in the first category; 2182 in the
second; 814 in the third; and 85 in the fourth categories. Refugees want that there should be their representatives
also in the Committee. Kafle says that even according to this committee, at least three categories are the Bhutanese
citizens, so why so much delay in their return?
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 16
Rizal: Disappointed with India
Once upon a time Teknath Rizal used to be the
Advisor to the Bhutan King. He was the Coordinator of
the Investigation Bureau. His initiatives to unearth the
pervasive corruption led him into trouble. After spending
11 years in the Bhutanese jail, he is living an exiled life
for many years. The fact-finding team had a long interview
with him in Kathmandu. Excerpts of the interview:
"I had been into a hell. Nowhere in the world the
conditions of jails would be as worse as in Bhutan. For
the six months my hands had been tied from behind,
holding the bucket by teeth I had to desecrate there only. I
was the advisor to the king and my offence was that I
advised him to stop ill treatment to his people.
"1 would like to state that the assistance given by
India to Bhutan is not a blessing but a curse for the
Bhutanese people. 1 was the advisor to the King and also
the Coordinator of the Bhutanese Investigation Bureau
and on conducting investigation in the entire country, it
was found that many bridges on many rivers had been
constructed but only on papers. Similarly construction of
many long roads through tunnels has been recorded but
on investigation it was found that there are none. When I
carried forward the investigation, I started getting threats.
Agents of the Donor agencies have a nexus with the king.
In such a situation there was great danger to my life and I
am lucky to be still alive. The army is deeply entrenched
into corruption.
“It is not proper for India to say that the refugees
are not Bhutanese but Nepalese because the census in
Bhutan is conducted by India. Till 1982 the Civil
Administrator endowed with the right to grant citizenship
was an Indian. The people involved in agriculture and
cattle raring are also Indians. Therefore India knows very
well about various castes living in different villages.
“The number of people in Bhutanese jails is not
exactly known. Also there is no record of people killed.
On records Bhutan has just one jail but there are other
jails in the forests, where people are imprisoned and they
have to work in the guava and apple orchards of the royal
clan. Their hands are kept tied. The court tells them that
they shall be released within 2-3 years but they languish
there for 11-12 years. Foreign journalists are not allowed
in these places.
“Jawaharlal Nehru in a speech near Siliguri had said
that these are Gorkhas living here and China would attack
from the Himalayan heights, A man from the crowd had
Tek Nath Rizal
Courtesy Kantipur
told him that we would fight against China. We had told
the Indian Ambassador that Bhutanese king intends (ogive
to China the land adjacent to Sikkim border in exchange
the land on this side. I had said it with documentary proof
but no one listened to me. Now see what has happened? I
had gone to the camp of Indira Gandhi and had contacted
her Liaison Officer but today the Indian Government
instead of helping us is compounding our problems. I can
not live in Delhi for pursuing the cause of the Bhutanese
people. You know what happened with me when I went to
Delhi. My first two visits were for my treatment and
nothing happened. But when I went there for the third
time, a friend from Sikkim offered me his vacant house in
Delhi to stay there instead of my living in Bagdogra. I
started living there. After 4-5 days few people from Indian
Intelligence started visiting and “interrogating" me. My
companion there started getting funny calls such as about
me. But my hopes were belied. Today it is difficult to get
a ‘pass’ for going to Bhutan. Bhutanese family members
face the risk of imprisonment, if he hosts a non-Bhutanese
in his house. I asked them how over 100 thousand people
could be outsiders? Indian Police must know about them
if they have come from India. But Bhutanese government
was interested in ousting the people of southern Bhutan
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 17
under the excuse of Gorkhaland. In fact the Bhutanese
government misguided the Indian Government and gave
misleading informations. The Government of India did
not know that the king wanted to banish the southern
Bhutanese people. It was told that some miscreants from
Gorkhaland had crossed over into Bhutan. Bhutanese King
claims that they are not Bhutanese. They have come from
Assam and Bengal. The people in India need to be told
that we are Bhutanese.
“Few misconceptions have been planted into Indian
mindset that Nepalese dominance in Sikkim has increased
and Subhash Ghising is active in West Bengal with the
Gorkhaland plank and therefore it is apprehended that they
would dominate southern Bhutan also. I don’t apprehend
that much danger in Bhutan as in Siliguri. Most of the
people in Bhutanese jail have been handed over by the
Police in Siliguri and most of them are innocent. We do
not have any safety in India
“Now we have nothing to lose. Most of our relatives
have been killed. The relatives of king and his ministers
have appropriated all our properties. Now we can not even
speak.’’
where from he got the mobile phone and that he
would be arrested in the case of theft. Subsequently I went
to a friend of mine. Chandrashekharan. He assured me
and told that he would speak to the Home Ministry for
help. I told him that 1 should be allowed to stay in Delhi
and work, as I never wanted to stay in Nepal. 1 was under
the impression that 1 have good relations with many people
and that the people over there know me. The ambassador
knew me and no one has bad opinions
Teknath Rizal: A Fighter for the of Bhutanese Peoples’ cause
Teknath Rizal was elected to the Bhutan's national assembly from Lamidara constituency of Chirang district in
south Bhutan. As a member of the National Assembly he made great contributions for his constituency and his
country. He established many Primary schools and health centers in his area, made arrangements for drinking
water, created irrigation facilities and got roads linking Lamidara to major National Highways. Along with
being a Member of the National Assembly, he was also the labor scrutiny officer in the royal government. He
was reelected to the Assembly in 1981 and again in 1984. Seeing his work and ability the King Jigme Singye
Wangchuk sent him to Australia in 1982 for higher studies.
In 1985 he was appointed as a member of Royal advisory Council and was entrusted with the responsibility
of looking after the affairs of the western-southern Bhutan.
In 1987 the king made him the Director of the Royal Audit Commission. This Commission found many
Jongda (District Collector) guilty of bungling the development fund. Not only this he compelled the king to
remove many Jongdas from their posts and even to put some behind the bars. Many of the Jongdas who were
dismissed or arrested were related to some ministers in the royal court and therefore he became quite unpopular
among the King’s courtiers. Some of them became his staunch enemies.
During the 1988 census few officials started the process of depriving the people of south Bhutan from
their citizenship. People approached Rizal. On 9,h April 1988 he submitted a memorandum saying that many of
his officials were misusing their powers in the name of census. He also pleaded with the king to amend the
1985 Citizenship Act.
The Government branded the memorandum as anti-national and the act of submitting the memorandum
was termed as the sedition. Consequently he was charged with sedition and put behind the bars. After keeping
him in jail for three days, he was coerced to sign a paper that said that he had no right to participate in any
public function and that he can not talk to more than three people at a time. He was unceremoniously removed
from his post, released from the jail and was ordered to leave the capital town with immediate effect.
On 16 January 1989 the king through a royal decree declared the policy of ‘one-nation, one-people
meant to curb the cultural diversity. The culture, language and the dressing style of the ruling clan — the Nolang
caste —were made compulsory for all the Bhutanese. After this royal decree started the severe repression of
the human rights in the South Bhutan. Rizal left the country and established Peoples’ Forum for Human Rights,
Bhutan at Kakarbitta in Nepal on 7,h July 1989. He was arrested on 16 November 1989 and released on 17
December 1999. He wrote his autobiography The Exile, which is very popular in Nepal and Bhutan.
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 18
Malinowski kills several birds with one stone
American design over the issue of Bhutanese refugees is not a new phenomenon. A letter written by
American Ambassador in Nepal, Michel Malinowski around three years ago makes it very clear that the US
has never been interested in the repatriation of the refugees. A report regarding this appeared on 16 July 2003
in The Telegraph, Kathmandu. Here are the excerpts from the report:
Killing two birds with one stone is no news. However, what is news is when one stone kills several
birds at a time.
The United States Ambassador Michael E. Malinowski falls under the second category for obvious
reasons.
A letter signed by Ambassador Malinowski last week created ripples both in Katmandu and Thimpu
when it appeared in a broad sheet daily hinting both the countries, Nepal and Bhutan, that the United States
was not that happy with the conclusions arrived at by the Joint Verification Team (JVT), as it had so many
“inconsistencies”. The relatively small letter has serious repercussions as it has touched all the possible aspects
of the refugees from their safe return to Bhutan and their possible assimilation in the Bhutanese society albeit
in a changed context. Following “inconsistencies in the JVT report on the Khudnabari refugee camp are
pointed out in the letter.
• The Ambassador tries to prove the “inconsistencies” by citing one example that while the parents
have been categorized as non-Bhutanese and therefore not eligible to return to Bhutan, whereas their children
have been categorized as Bhutanese and eligible to return and reapply for citizenship.
• The letter expresses its apprehensions as to how the Bhutanese could appeal now to the same authority
that denied them their right to return to Bhutan earlier? Pertinent question indeed! This means that the
Ambassador is skeptical about the body reversing its own previous unjust verdict, which means that the
Bhutanese will be allowed to appeal but the result will be a foregone conclusion.
• Malinowski feels that the conclusions of the report lack “transparency" urges the countries concerned
to “reexamine” and possible “review” them entirely “in the larger interest” of the refugees.
■ He suspects that the Bhutanese returning to Bhutan legally might not be treated in a fair manner and
hence talks of the “absence of guarantees” to the refugees. This means that he would like to get a "proper and
genuine guarantee” from the Bhutanese side that the refugees would not be ill-treated and “terrorized” by the
state security apparatus which forced them flee to Nepal some twelve years ago. The fact is that the Bhutanese
side has yet to guarantee the safe and sound return of its own forcedly evacuated citizens.
■ The US has indirectly hinted to the Royal government of Bhutan to allow the refugees to return to
their own places from where they were forced to leave the country. The letter also expresses concern for the
problem of employment upon their return to Bhutan.
■ The Ambassador expressed apprehensions about the safe return of the refugees and their problem of
employment in their original place of residence and says, “with so many uncertainties facing the refugees’
future in Bhutan, I fear that many will be hesitant to return”. This means that a considerable chunk of the
Bhutanese refugees even if allowed to return to Bhutan will not do so unless they conclude that the
“uncertainties” as mentioned by the United States are removed.
■ In the letter Malinowski has expressed his unhappiness over the total neglect of the UNHCR by the
Nepalese side. The gist is that the United States is not happy with the outcome of the latest report that had so
many “inconsistencies”.
At the fag end of the Clinton Administration, Assistant Secretary of State, Carl Inderfurth, in conversation
with a select group of Nepalese media, had warned Bhutan that if they did not take back their own nationals
residing in Nepalese camps, the US will be forced to convince international consortium assisting Bhutan to
suspend their pledges until it heeded to the US suggestions.
Since then the US has been reluctant in pressurizing Bhutan to take back its refugees. However, it’s
fresh overture shows that the US is not only watching the event here but is also keeping an eye over the
procedures and the methods of verification and the repatriation of the refugees.
The Ambassador’s letter was issued at a time when Indian foreign secretary was in the Nepalese capital
in connection with the SAARC standing committee meeting.
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 19
rr
'ffRTRt
KT
S'ld
R> TR8! ddld g'ldl SR* I
<5*-hR| RR IRIdl R ddd cJiq-1 | d<* 1
g< ddi RT Ri Si id cl RR did qicll Rldl
fen fern nt Riat rrptr rkt nfer
Si did RRiq-nsfl at gR TRTcl TgcR jUIMHH
H6isl RR fefea, RR d'lcl, RRT RT qTRTR
K<di RR <+>01 rci, -ifXdi Rtt ecinci,
fdid-ll <^d<j<R K <HHdl
KR KRR RTKT fea R ddldl, tRTT fdidl
KRR glia I RR d*-fl-l, KRTTT R?TR,
KRR RKT <TRR Rl <41
RKT RR KT RRK TgfeRl' R RR fefet eft,
KT VTTR RT at STTRcI RR RRK KR T5RT c-Idl at
3TRRt RKRR 3TR ferTT’d R
I'd n R> KT RRR RR KRR RdRI
safer RRT RRT RTRRT R KR RR ffel RRT RRKRT
KRR oft 3TRR <l<il RR RRRTR RR die HI-11
RT RRT R'ldld R KR RRT
dRidld'l RfRRT 3RT RTRT RTRRTR
IrRI d'lHI
3TR oft KRTT R^R Rt KI TK K dqi-l
KRR RT RKT RT d'lldd RR 4iHc1 lldl
RR RRT KRTT "3RR <TRTR RfeRT nidifd *l4l RTRT
RJ K rit 4JRRT RT RTsJT RKT d-6ld 3TRRT ^dl-l
safer RTR RRT RK RTK RR KR d-K q6e1ldi*l
RRT KT RT KRR RR KR RRT cJRT
R3 RRT KR dcRI Kt 37RH fel did * I
RRT RTRRT 3JTT R>ld RR RTKT KR KT RRT
KRR RT KRTTt 3Tfef Rt RTRR KRK
KRTTT cttn RT-R-RT KTRTT 3TRRT R fas^
<fe dllH fTR dl*lld TJRRTR gR
fe did dild cl*II K Hid 3TIT RTRT RR
JfllTd RR Sl-lfel R Sufd'd KIRTT KfRRR ddH RR
'IId RTRRTTR KR cttn RRTR KR
Rji'l
d-ldi RRTcff °FT RR RKT K KRR RTR afe ddld
K3T1 RR 3TTT KR sqtfd T^R RTT KR 4><1 R redid
RcfRTRTTf TIRR KR KRcTR T^H RR
SrfKRT 3TTT Rlffd
fRT cirat oiqi-lT RR fdclT <io1
RTR 3TTT KRTRT id'l-S §RRi RKcT RTR cH KR d.1'1 RR
q^T RR TRT RRT TalRi
KR cTTR Rt KRRI RRTd KRTTT qd-1
Jlf^e1l3TT RTt K’RTcT R TRcTT RRT T3cl
fRoTRI RR RKfecT 3TR RKRf RR RRR
3RH Kt RRT R KR 1R RTTR
RKT KR RR R RR RRT STR *diTd R RT Udi
RdKl Rit TTRK R <TRTR RR RRTR
<jfdqi RR n'qild
RT-R-RT Reqid fd\*11 Rid Ri qlq clddid
KTrfcTR aiat
fcld, S1M-I fKTR R RT K SR RR RR>
fel
Rl*ld R<d1 R <15111
■gR RH KT RRTSTT SRhldR RTREIK
RTRTRT fRfdtf R 7KR KTRR TK RRT RRR KRTTT
RT safer RRT RRT SlciPI KRRt RT RRRTt RR RRTcT
Tarn rt rm tk k Rr rkh rtt rrr
KT fgcT R It RR RR7 Kt RRTcT
KRTTt RRR RTRRt
RTHRTI R Rt RRTR KR ^’<’11
gRRR giRit srfKRi
tgZ RR KR
Rlfer RTR HslA 3TRRt RRft RT RTRR
■5JR
RT RTcT
TRR R r^KT Rt TRK Kt
KRR <TTR RR RRfeRT RR gfe Rt 3TK Kt
garrt rr rttrt
rr fearsa kr r^rt kktr rr rttrt
RfTR KRRT RK TJTR PdR<bi cTTcfT R
KRTTt SRRTR RRT felcfl STTRt RRT
KR <<si*l 3TRR TRoT RTR 3RT RTRR
KR 3TRR
RTR RTR Tg?lt R RKRTR RT W STRR RT
feRTR 3TfTRKtat
KR RR Ridl, RRffcft RtfeRI,
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 20
Fifteen years of Turmoil
July 1990: The Bhutan People’s Party
(BPP) submitted a memorandum to the
King, Wangchuck in which it demanded
the establishment of a democratic
system.
September 1990: Peaceful pro
democracy demonstrations in 14 towns
of Bhutan’s southern districts.
Bhutanese embassy official in New
Delhi denied reports that some 327
people were shot dead by government
troops during two weeks of protest
demonstrations and rallies. The
spokesman also alleged that the
protesters belonging to the Bhutan
People’s Party (BPP), armed with
petrol bombs and guns confronted
police and soldiers in nine areas along
the Kingdom's border with India.
According to him, the BPP is allegedly
using the tea estates in West Bengal
province in neighboring India as their
hideouts (Los Angeles Tones, 12/23/95).
Feb 1991: The king began expelling
large number of such people from South
Bhutan, whom he suspected to have
participated in the pro-democracy
demonstrations. An influx of Nepalese
migrants poses the greatest threat to the
survival of Bhutan since the seventh
century, said the 35-year old King
Wangchuck.
He
expressed
apprehensions that in (he coming years
the original inhabitants’ — Drupkas shall be reduced to a minority as
happened in Sikkim with Nepalese
domination there.
September 1991: In a convention on
the issue of the Bhutanese refugees
Bhutan Solidarity was formed with
Justice Krishna Iyer as its Patron and
Anand Swarup Verma as the Convenor.
October
1991:
Three
exiled
Lhotshampa (Bhutanese citizens of
Nepalese origin) members of Bhutan’s
National Assembly began a 24-hour
hunger strike in Katmandu to protest
the convening of their legislative body
in Thimpu. The trio, who staged their
protest in front of the South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation
(SAARC) meeting, said the session
made a ‘'mockery of democracy” since
it docs not represent the Bhutanese
people. Only 14 members of the 150seat National Assembly are Bhutanese
of Nepalese origin despite the fact that
ethnic Nepalese comprise nearly 53%
of Bhutan's population. Five members
out of the fourteen have fled to Nepal
and one is in jail.
Feb 1992: Since the enforcement of
Bhutan’s citizenship law in 1985.
about 10.000 “foreigners”, mostly of
Nepalese origin, have been expelled.
Many more have left because of the
government’s Bhutanization policy.
The BPP. formed in 1989. was banned
in 1990 and operates primarily from
Nepal and India.
May 1992: A team of jurists under the
leadership of Justice Krishna Iyer set
for a visit to Bhutan but despite their
already booked tickets of Druk
Airlines, they were stopped by the
Bhutanese officials in Katmandu from
taking the flight.
March 1993: Exodus of.many senior
civil servants from Bhutan alleging
“ethnic cleansing" — a deliberate
policy to depopulate the country of
non-Drukpa people. According to
them the government was harassing
the people of Nepalese origin and/or
was putting them in jails.
Jun 1993: Nepal and Bhutan have
finally agreed to hold talks later this
month to resolve the issue of
Bhutanese refugees living in crowded
camps in eastern Nepal. The refugees
now number about 86,000. The flow
peaked late last year and hundreds are
still arriving every day, relief officials
say. Some analysts indicate that
Bhutan’s new-found keenness to hold
talks could have been timed to prevent
Kathmandu from raising the issue at
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 21
the European Community meeting in
Brussels and the UN human rights
conference in Vienna this month.
Jul 1993: The governments of Bhutan
and Nepal formed a joint ministerial
committee to look into the issue of the
Bhutanese refugees. The committee
agreed to classify them in four
categories:
1. Bonafide Bhutanese evicted
forcefully:
2. Bhutanese who have emigrated
voluntarily;
3. Non-Bhutanese; and
4. People who have committed
criminal offenses.
They also agreed to form a verification
committee with five members from
each country that would identify and
group the refugees into the different
categories.
Feb 1994: According to a newspaper
report, the Sarchops, the second largest
community in Bhutan, organized anti
government demonstrations in eastern
and southern Bhutan which were
crushed by the security forces. Police
opened fire at the demonstrators.
killing eight of them. “The Sarchops
are angry with the King for the false
promises made by him during the last
three years, when he managed to raise
over 10.000 militiamen from among
them to crush the southern Bhutanese
movement", the newspaper said.
Sarchops are said to represent some
30% of Bhutan’s population.
Jan 1995: Indian Prime Minister P.V.
Narsimha Rao advised Nepal and
Bhutan to resolve the issue of
Bhutanese refugees in Nepal
bilaterally and in the spirit of good
neighborliness. The two governments
had asked India to help mediate their
dispute
Mar 1995: During the latest round of
talks between Nepal and Bhutan earlier
this month, Bhutan agreed to take full
responsibility for the refugees under
the category “bona fide Bhutanese
evicted forcefully”. But it would accept
only a few refugees into this category.
Nepal insisted that long-
term residents of Bhutan should also
be given a chance to return. Bhutan
disagreed and accused the refugees of
mounting a campaign of terror in its
southern provinces to create a
Nepalese homeland in Bhutan.
Apr 1995: No progress was reported
following the sixth round of talks
between the governments of Nepal and
Bhutan over the issue of Bhutanese
refugees who are residing in eight
camps in Nepal. Bhutanese officials
indicate that Nepal has now toughened
its position by seeking the repatriation
of all the refugees.
Jan 1996: During the first week of this
month, Indian security forces arrested
numerous Bhutanese citizens when
they attempted to cross the Nepal-India
border. India asserts that it will not
allow its territory to be used for any
anti-Bhutan
movement.
The
Lhotshampas, from the refugee camps
in Nepal, were undertaking a protest
march to Bhutan in order to press for
their
repatriation
and
for
democratization in the tiny kingdom.
Over 90 Bhutanese were arrested while
others were chased back into Nepal.
Despite Indian opposition, the refugees
are planning another march to Thimpu.
Jan 12, 1996: Over 96 Bhutanese
refugees in the jails in West Bengal
have begun hunger strike to demand
their unconditional release..
Jan 14, 1996: A dawn-to-dusk mass
strike called by the Association of All
India Gurkha League (ABGL)
paralyzed three sub-divisions in
Darjeeling district. The strike was
called to express support for Bhutanese
refugees who are trying to return
home. The protesters were also
demanding unconditional release of all
the Bhutanese from various Indian
jails. The Bhutanese movement has
already gained the support of two
regional parties, the Communist Party
of India (Marxist) and the Communist
party of India, in West Bengal,
according to PTI Report.
Jan 23, 1996: Nepal called for talks
with Bhutan at the foreign ministers
level in order to solve the predicament
of up to 100,000 Lhotshampas who are
entering their sixth year in Nepal's
refugee camps. Six rounds of talks at
the home ministerial level have not
resolved the issue of refugee
verification. While India has so far
urged the two countries to solve the
issue bilaterally, its recent arrest of
over 150 Lhotshampas is viewed as
sending a signal to Nepal. Under a
1949 treaty. India controls Bhutan's
defense and external policies.
Jan 24, 1996: Indian authorities
stopped Over 300 Bhutanese refugees
as they attempted to cross into Bhutan
through India from their camps in
Nepal. The march was organized by
the AMCC.
Jan 28. 1996: Nepal officially
requested Indian intervention on the
issue of the fate of up to 100.000
Lhotshampas who are in Nepalese
refugee camps. India still maintains
that issue should be resolved
bilaterally.
Feb 1996: A three week sit-in at
Nepal’s eastern border with India
ended on February 15 as Indian
security forces arrested nearly 300
Bhutanese protestors when they
entered Indian territory. The sit-in was
to protest the continued detention of
over 150 Bhutanese refugees and to
demand free passage to Bhutan .
Feb 26,1996: Another 343 Bhutanese
refugees arrested by the Indian
Security Foces as they crossed into
Indian territory en-route to Bhutan.
Over 400 other ethnic Nepalese
Bhutanese are already in detention.
Nepal criticized the Indian action
asserting that India did not stop the
Bhutanese when they fled their country
and crossed India before ending up in
UN refugee camps in Nepal.
March 1, 1996: The UN High
Commissioner for Refugees will fund
eight refugee camps in Nepal for the
Bhutanese refugees for another year.
The UNHCR says that funding cannot
be provided indefinitely. In response
to Bhutan's claim that majority of the
people in the camps are non
Bhutanese. the UNHCR claimed that
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 22
all the people living in the camps have
documentary proofs of being
Bhutanese citizen. Meanwhile,
significant limitations remain on the
right to a fair trial, assembly, and
association in Bhutan. Political parties
are not allowed and Bhutanese
Nepalese parties such as the Bhutan
People’s Party are regarded as
"terrorist and anti-national”.
March 6,1996: India and Bhutan have
begun talks on developing an
extradition treaty to combat crossborder rebel activities. Both countries
assert that rebels seek sanctuary across
their common border.
March 13, 1996: Another 183
Bhutanese refugees arrested while
attempting to cross Indian territory on
their way to Thimpu. Hundreds of
Bhutanese refugees are already
languishing in Indian jails.
March 19, 1996: The European
Parliament passed a resolution calling
upon the Bhutan government to take
concrete steps to ensure the
repatriation of Bhutanese in Nepal's
refugee camps. It also urged Bhutan
to respect minority rights in its
territory.
April 4, 1996: Talks between the
Nepalese and Bhutanese governments
over the refugee verification process
began in Katmandu. Prior to the
beginning of the negotiations. King
Wangchuck asserted that over 99% of
those in Nepal’s refugee camps are not
Bhutanese citizens. However, a
Bhutanese human rights spokesman
states that just the opposite is true.
April 7,1996: An unidentified number
of Bhutanese refugees were arrested at
Nepal's eastern border as they were
attempting to continue their protest
march to Bhutan. More than 1000
Lhotshampas have been arrested since
January: some of these were recently
released when an Indian court ruled
that their arrests were illegal.
April 8, 1996: The first round of talks
at the foreign ministerial level on the
status of Bhutanese refugees
languishing in Nepalese camps has
without any result. Nepalese officials
think that the issue of adequate
verification of refugee status remains
the main stumbling block. Observers
believe that little headway can be made
until India steps in as a mediator, a role
it has so far refused to play. Meanwhile,
Bhutanese refugees in Indian jails went
on a hunger strike to protest their
detention and one refugee group
announced that it would wage an
"armed struggle" against the Bhutanese
government.
it will ask the Indian government for
free passage and will seek international
support to pressurize
Jun 1, 1996: The AMCC re-launched
its protest march to Thimpti on June 1
with over 200 refugees. The protestors
decided to cross Indian territory
through non-lraditional routes to avoid
arrest by the security forces.
Jul 1996: The United Front for
Democracy in Bhutan (UFD) — a
coalition of political parties
representing Bhutanese refugees,
human rights groups and Bhutanese
intellectuals formed in Nepal to
intensify the struggle for democracy
and the free repatriation of the refugees.
The front includes the Bhutan
Democratic Party (BDP), the Bhutan
National Democratic Party (BNDP)
and the Druk National Congress
(DNC). DNC leader Rongthong
Kunley Dorji would lead it. The UDF
plans to lobby Bhutan’s donor
countries for support.
Aug 18, 1996: Between 50 to 150
Bhutanese protestors were deported
back to India after they crossed from
West Bengal into Bhutan on August 15.
They were arrested soon after entering
Bhutanese territory. The AMCC, which
organized the protest marches, called
upon Indian Prime Minister HD Deve
Gowda to allow refugees residing in
India free passage to Bhutan.
Sept 1996: A delegation of hundreds
of refugees left UN camps in Nepal to
stage a sit-in in India’s capital city. New
Delhi. It would attempt to draw
attention to the plight of the almost
100.000 Lhotshampa refugees.
Dec 5, 1996: A convention was jointly
organized in the India’s capital. New
Delhi by Bhutan Solidarity, India and
GRINSO, Nepal to discuss issue of the
detention of Bhutan's prominent
political prisoner, Tekanath Rizal and
his comrades and to demand their
release.
Dec 30, 1996: Royal army of Bhutan
forcibly evicted many more citizens
from South Bhutan and chased them
away into India. Over 600 Bhutanese
refugees were loaded into buses from
West Bengal and dumped at the IndiaNepal border. Refugees periodically
attempt to cross India en route to
Bhutan.
Jan 3, 1997: A sit-in by thousands of
Bhutanese refugees at the India-Nepal
border ended. The AMCC called off the
action, claiming that the Indian
government had admitted its mistake
in deporting the Lhotshampas. Thirteen
Indian buses were also released.
Jan 8, 1997: India asked Bangladesh
and Bhutan to help flush out militants
who operate in its seven northeastern
states and New Delhi claimed that they
often seek sanctuary in neighboring
countries.
Feb 1997: The US State Department’s
Report on Human Rights practices in
Bhutan in 1996 indicates that state
security forces committed some human
rights abuses against the Lhotshampas.
Two people were arrested for “anti
national” activities in southern Bhutan.
Bhutanese of Nepalese origin who
attempted to re-enter the country were
forcibly stopped.
Mar 18,1997: Some 15.000 Bhutanese
refugees in Nepal’s camps went on
hunger strike to press the United
Nations to help ensure their return. The
Appeal Movement Coordinating
Council (AMCC) organizes the action.
Apr 14. 1997: The Bhutanese refugees
ended their almost month-long hunger
strike.
Apr 18,1997: The UFD leader,
Rongthong Kunley Dorji arrested in
New Delhi for not having proper travel
documents. He belongs to Sarchop
ethnic community.
Apr 22, 1997: Bhutan Solidarity
condemned the arrest of Bhutan's UFD
leader. Rongthong Kunley Dorji. The
Deputy Coordinator of Bhutan
Solidarity. Arun Kumar Singh filed a
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 23
petition in Delhi High Court
challenging illegal arrest and detention
of Dorji in Tihar jail of Delhi.
Apr 19, 1997: In Kathmandu, the
United Front for Democracy
demanded the release of its leader.
Rongthong Dorji. who was arrested in
New Delhi on the 18th April. The UFD
was afraid he would be handed over to
the Bhutanese government whose
oppression had forced him to flee from
Bhutan in 1991.
Apr 20,1997: Some 20.000 Bhutanese
held two rallies in Nepal to oppose the
arrest of Rongthong Kinley Dorji. the
leader of the United Front for
Democracy in Bhutan (UFD) by the
Indian government.
Apr 25, 1997: Bhutan’s pro
democracy leader Teknath Rizal
completed the 9th day of an indefinite
fast in his prison cell at Chamgang in
Bhutan's capital Thimpu. He was
demanding an audience with King
Wangchuck to discuss the country’s
political crisis. Rizal was a member of
the National Assembly until 1988
when he invited trouble for himself
from the king by opposing the forced
eviction
of
Nepali-speaking
Bhutanese. He lived in exile in Nepal
until November 1989 when he was
kidnapped and returned to Bhutan.
where he was convicted to life
imprisonment in 1993 after three years
in solitary confinement.
May 14, 1997: An Indian court told
the government to consider releasing
Bhutan’s opposition leader Dorji.
May 20.1997: In Singapore. Bhutan’s
Foreign Minister Lyonpo Dawa
Tsering expressed apprehensions that
Bhutan is under threat of being overrun
by "Nepalese".
Jun 5, 1997: Some 35 Lhotshampas
were arrested in Kathmandu prior to a
planned protest which was to coincide
with a visit by Indian Prime Minister
Inder Kumar Gujral.
Jul 14, 1997: Reports of the plans of
the Bhutanese King to launch another
ethnic cleansing campaign against the
country’s Nepalese population. The
state-owned newspaper. Kuensel.
recently reported a national assembly
decision, which makes it compulsory
tor relatives of Bhutanese nationals of
Nepalese origin to retire from
government jobs.
July 29, 1997: GR1NSO. Nepal and
Bhutan Solidarity, India jointly
organized a three-day South Asian
Peoples Conference on Bhutan in
New Delhi. The conference registered
among the others, the participation of
many parliamentarians and eminent
personalities from India. Nepal.
Srilanka and other Asian countries.
Aug 1.1997: Official sources in Nepal
indicated a breakthrough in the recent
talks with Bhutan. Bhutan reportedly
agreed to some major concessions to
help facilitate the return of the refugees
except those, who “voluntarily” left the
country. Previously. Bhutan only
agreed to accept those who were
forcibly evicted.
Aug 14, 1997: On the initiative of the
Bhutan Solidarity many Members of
Parliament and representatives of the
mass organization staged a overnight
Dharna at the gate of Tihar jail in New
Delhi to demand release of Bhutan’s
UFD leader Dorji and other Bhutanese
political prisoners in Indian jails.
George Fernandese, Nitish Kumar.
Brahmanand Mandal, Anand Mohan
Singh. Mahenra Baitha, Suresh
Prabhu. Ratna Bahadur Rai. Tamang
Dawa Lama. Digvijay Singh and many
other prominent persons participated
in the Dharna.
Dec 18, 1997: Bhutanese refugee
groups and Nepal government officials
urged India to persuade Bhutan to
accept the Lhotshampa refugees. India
responded negatively by saying that it
is a bilateral issue between Nepal and
Bhutan.
Jan 15, 1998: The Bhutanese
government began distributing land in
southern Bhutan that belonged to the
Lhotshampa refugees. According to a
report published by Nepal-based
Federation of Human Rights
Organizations of Bhutan, the land is
being used to resettle some 370
families from northern Bhutan. Several
hundred
Bhutanese
refugees
demonstrated in Kathmandu to protest
against the King’s action.
Jan 18, 1998: A new report by
Amnesty International states that
political activists in Bhutan arc
regularly tortured and the dissenters
are persecuted. More than 150 political
prisoners are in custody. Most of those
targeted are members of the Sarchop
ethnic group who reside in eastern
areas. The Sarchops have been
organizing grassroots campaigns for
democratic reforms and human rights.
May 8, 1998: The United Front for
Democracy in Bhutan (UFD). having
lost the hopes of democratic reforms by
the king, declared it's readiness to
launch a revolution to overthrow
Bhutan’s monarchy, according to AFP.
Jun 1998: For the first time in the last
26 years. Bhutan's King Wangchuck
dissolved the cabinet and appointed six
new ministers. Henceforth, the cabinet
will be elected and be responsible to the
national assembly. The national
assembly will also have wider powers
including the ability to call for a noconfidence vote against the king. Such
a motion if passed by two-thirds of the
majority, the king would have to
abdicate. Analysts indicate that the
reforms might be a move to ease ethnic
tensions within the country and to
improve Bhutan’s international image.
UFD termed it as a trick of the king to
divert international attention from
country's pressing issues including the
issue of refugees living in the camps in
Nepal.
Aug 14, 1998: Nepalese officials
accused Bhutan of stalling the
resumption of talks regarding the
Lhotshampa refugees. Formed in 1993.
the Nepal-Bhutan Joint Ministerial
Level Committee last met in early 1996.
1999: Limited access to television and
internet services allowed. Many
political prisoners released.
Jan 23, 1999: Analysts and Bhutanese
refugees deny the recent newspaper
reports that the Lhotshampa refugees
are being trained by the United
Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA)
insurgents in Bhutan. ULFA is reported
to have bases in Bhutan. A South Asian
human rights group asserted that the
Indian insurgent groups, specifically the
Bodos and ULFA. were responsible for
committing some of the atrocities
against the Lholshampas in southern
Bhutan.
Jun 2, 1999: In Nepal, some 40,000
Lhotshampas demonstrated in the
refugee camps while another 10.000
staged a hunger strike to protest the
celebrations of the 25th anniversary of
the coronation of King Jigme Singye
Wangchuck. The king's coronation
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 24
ceremony was the first broadcast on
Bhutan’s newly established television
network. Previously, there were no
local TV networks and the use of
satellites to obtain foreign broadcasts
was not allowed.
Jun 3. 1999: The Bhutan People’s
Party submitted a
10-point
memorandum to the King calling for
the establishment of a multi-party
democracy within a constitutional
monarchy, respect for human rights,
and the return of the Lhotshampa
refugees. Political parties are banned
in Bhutan.
Dec 17. 1999: The King reportedly
released some 200 prisoners, including
Tek Nath Rizal on the National Day.
2000: The first Cyber Cafe in Bhutan
established.
August 2001: Nepal and Bhutan held
talks on the issue of repatriation of the
refugees.
September 2001: R.K. Budalhoki.
President of the Bhutan Peoples Party
murdered in Jhapa district of east
Nepal.
January 2002: Assam government
asserted about the presence of the
camps of two groups of the ULFA
militants whereas the Bhutan
government had ordered the removal
of the camps by the end of 2001.
December 2003: Fierce fighting
reported between the Bhutanese
soldiers and the ULFA militants in
south Bhutan.
March 2005: Declaration by the
Bhutanese king of the proposed
constitution promising parliamentary
democracy in Bhutan. The King also
promised to subject the proposed
constitution to a referendum for
approval.
December 2005: King Wangchuk
declared that he would abdicate the
throne for the Crown Prince after the
2008 general elections.
Conclusions of the fact-finding Team
O
During the last 15 years of stay in the refugee camps, the conditions of the Bhutanese
refugees have gone from bad to worst.
O
Plight of about 150 thousands refugees in the camps is glaring proof of the three concerned
countries - Bhutan, India and Nepal - have not been able to make it an issue of common concern. The UN
has confined its role to the task of only providing aid, whereas during the last ten years the issue of Bhutanese
Refugees has been repeatedly knocking the doors of the UN Human Rights Commission.
O
17 rounds of talks between Nepal and Bhutan on the initiative of Nepal have remained
inconsequential due to stubbornness of the Bhutanese King.
O
India is not only the largest country in the South Asia but borders Bhutan and the route of
refugees’ returning home is through the Indian Territory. In such a situation India’s neutrality has aggravated
the problem. Bhutanese refugees’ anger has now diverted against Indian Government from the Bhutanese
King.
O
The endurance of Bhutanese refugees has reached to its climax. The refugees adopting
peaceful means for their right to homeland for the last 15 years are getting restive and are talking of picking
up arms. This is truer in the case of about 40,000 refugees who have grown up in the camps. The success of
Maoists in Nepal is also an inspiration for choosing the path of armed struggle. If they do so there would be
another center of “disturbed” area in the already “disturbed” Northeast region of India. And the responsibility
for this would lie with the erratic policies of India’s Foreign Ministry. Not only this, it could create a
Palestine-like situation in the South Asia, which shall be detrimental to the peace in India, Nepal and
Bhutan.
O
Stoppage of the verification of refugees has caused alarm among them. They categorically
reject the American plan of dividing them into groups and settling them in phases in the US and Canada, as
they find it objectionable on many grounds. They apprehend in such proposals a conspiracy by the nexus of
the Bhutanese King with the US and other western countries not only to destroy their cultural identity but
also to revive the slavery of feudal era.
•
One pertinent question of the refugees to the propounders and the propagators of such
‘generous’ proposals is: “why are we being deprived of our homeland?”
•
They are not so surprised at the American support to the despotic monarch of Bhutan who
has been oppressing and harassing a sizable section of its population for the “offence” of demanding
democracy, as they know the reality of its claim to “democratize” the world. But they are surprised at the
India’s firm support to the King contrary to their hopes, as they had expected that the “largest democracy of
the world” would support their struggle for democratic rights. They are very angry against not only the
king but also against the world powers like America and Bhutan’s “democratic” neighbor India also.
They almost unanimously feel that the only solution to the issue is their repatriation to Bhutan where
they can live with dignity and with their citizenship rights.
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 25
Some Questions
□ Who shall be responsible if the growing discontent among the refugees precipitates into violent
manifestation?
□ What shall be the future of thousands of children growing in the camps in the conditions of
malnutrition, ill health and are victims of gross neglect?
□ What is the present state of the confiscated properties of the Bhutanese refugees?
□
Is the issue of Bhutanese refugees a bilateral between Bhutan and Nepal or trilateral with
India as the third party?
□
Is the plan of dividing the Bhutanese refugees into small groups and settling them in different
countries of the American camp not a conspiracy to disturb the socio-cultural fabric and the
economic structure of Bhutan?
□ Why is there no representation of the refugees in the Joint Verification Team formed for their
verification?
□ Why has JVT become defunct?
□ Why the format of the new constitution presented by the king has no mention of the Bhutanese
refugees?
□ When Bhutanese refugees came to India after being chased away from Bhutan by the Kingi's
forces, the Indian government forcibly sent them to Nepal, why is it not allowing them through
its territory to go back to their homes?
□ Despite the intensifying gravity of the refugees! plight during the last 15 years, why has India
not as yet raised this issue with the Bhutanese king?
Why the political parties of India whicn claim to be the custodians of democracy and human
rights have not shown any concern for the democratic and human rights of the Bhutanese
refugees?
□ George Fernandese, while in opposition sat on a over-night dharna outside Tihar jail in Delhi,
why did he not even raise the issue when he came to power and became the Convenor of the
then ruling alliance NDA?
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 26
Appendix — 1
Charter of Demand Submitted to the
King of Bhutan in August 1990
Introduction
The Peoples Forum for Human Rights (PFHR) and the Student’s Union of Bhutan (SUB) awaited the
government’s positive response to their demands for human rights until May 1990 but to no avail. On the
other hand, violations of human rights through arbitrary enactment of new laws continued. As the result of
government’s non-response attitude, the Bhutanese people such as the Sarchops. Adivasis, Nepalese. Doyas,
Brokpas, Tibetans, Kheng even Ngalongs were compelled to organise themselves and form the Bhutan
People’s Party (BPP).
Thus, a political organisation referred to as Bhutan People’s Party (BPP), is being established on June 2,
1990.
Aims and Objectives
The broad aims and objectives of the Party are as follows:
to evolve a parliamentary form of government with provision of a multiparty political set up;
to fight against violations of human rights by the Government of Bhutan;
to establish ‘rule of law’ under a written constitution guaranteeing socio-economic-cultural-political
rights to all the Bhutanese citizens;
(4) to establish an independent judiciary and introduce modern and professional legal practices in the
Kingdom; and
(5) to amend all the anti-people and anti-human rights laws and bylaws.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Demands
1.
Unconditional Release of Political Prisoners
We demand the unconditional release of all prisoners arrested from within and outside Bhutan.
2.
Change of Absolute Monarchy to Constitutional Monarchy
We demand constitutional monarchy in place of the present system of absolute monarchy. The
parliamentary system of government with multiparty provision must be introduced with a view to
electing a government responsible to the legislature.
3.
Reform in the Judiciary
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “all are equal before the
law and are entitled to equal protection of the law”.
We demand a completely new and independent judiciary with professional judges who impart
justice without distinction of race, religion, wealth, social status or political influence. The system
of representation by attorney and lawyers must be introduced. The present system of one-man
judgement must be abolished.
4.
Amendment to the Citizenship Act
The baseless cutoff year should be amende and implicit biases inherent in the present system
be removed. However, infiltration of illegal immigrants must be restricted and people must be
left free to marry persons of their choice.
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 27
5.
Right to Culture, Dress, Language and Script
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 grants an individual the freedom to one’s own
culture, dress, religion, language and script. The government of Bhutan must grant the right to
culture, dress, language and script to all the Bhutanese citizens.
6.
Freedom of Religion
We demand freedom to profess and practice religion of one’s choice. The state shall have no
religion and it shall not allow religious or cultural instructions in governmental institutions nor
shall the state fund be used for any religious body. Bhutan should be secular state, meaning “equal
respect for all religions’’ and the separation of the state from religion.
7.
Freedom of Press, Speech and Expression
We demand the right to express one's convictions and opinions freely through speech, writing,
painting, picture, or any other modes of expressions. We demand freedom of the press.
8.
Freedom of Formation of Unions, Associations and Political Parties
We demand the right to form associations, unions and political parties.
9.
Freedom of Trade and Occupation
We demand the right to practice any profession or carry out any occupation, trade or business
which are not illegal, immoral or dangerous to the health and welfare of the people.
10.
Right to Equitable Distribution of Wealth and Funds
We demand equitable distribution of wealth and development funds in all areas of Bhutan
without distinction on grounds of race, religion, language and culture.
11.
Right to Equality of Opportunities in Matters of Public Employment
We demand equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appoint
ment to any office under the state.
12.
Right to Education
We demand the right to education in any field and upto any level as per one’s ability and choice.
There must be no discrimination in respect of opportunities for training, scholarship and admis
sion on grounds of race, religion, language and culture.
13.
Right against Exploitation
We demnd the abolition of the present system of forced labour such as National Work Force,
Goongda Woola, Septolemi etc. through which women, children and old people are also
exploited.
R. K. Budathoki
President
Bhutan Peoples Party (BPP)
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 28
Appendix — 2
Circular of Dago Tshering, Deputy Home Minister dated
August 7, 1990.
r
a
August 1990
NOTIFICATION
It has come to the government's notice that a large number
of Southern Bhutanese people have left the country to join forces
with the ngolops. You are hereby instructed to immediately inform
all the gups, DYT members and the geneial public In your
dzongkhag that any Bhutanese national leaving the country to
assist and help the anti-nationa1s shall no longer be considered
as a Bhutanese citizen. It must also be made very clear that such
people's family members living under the same household will also
be held fully responsible and forfeit their citizenship.
I would like to assure you that the government is fully
aware of the recent developments and the situation in southern
Bhutan. The Home Ministry will extend all possible assistance to
the concerned dzongkhags to look after the security and well
being of both the government servants and the general public.
Dzongdag,
Dzongdag,
Dzongdag,
Dzongdag,
Dzongdag,
Dzongdag,
Samch i
Chukha (for Fhuntsholing
Sarbhang
Ch irang
Dagana
Samd rupj ongkha r
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 29
Appendix —3
Mrs. Madhumaya Bhattarai
Lepcha Gaon
Bara
Date: 8.1.92
As per the orders of the Dasho Dungpa issued to all the five block Mandals
of Sibsoo dungkhag on 23-12-91 at Sibsoo dungkhag office, all such families where
a member of the household has left the country are ordered to leave the kingdom
immediately. Since your name is enlisted in the list of such people, you should
leave the kingdom alongwith your entire family who are under thram no. 18 and
house no.38 within 15-1-92.
Leela Prashad Sharma
Gup
Bara Gewog
Dasho
Dungpa
Mandal
Dungkhag
Thram No.
Gup
Gewog
- A term used to address higher government officers.
- Sub-divisional officer
Village headman
- Sub-division
- Number assigned to land holdings
- Village headman
- A block consisting of several villages
’ -~rsj
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 30
Appendix —4
English text of Letter in Nepali ordering demolition.
Royal Government of Bhutan
Dzongkhag Administration
Sarbhang Bhutan
REf: Sardzong/109/91-92/1367 Dt January 4. 1992
To, Gup. Singay Gewag.
You are hereby notified that, although as per your report submitted to Dzongkhag
office, stating that you had completed the demolition of bouses of those who bad
absconded from the country, on my personal visit and in my assessment you have
not complied to the order. I found that most of the bouses were not demolished and
those demolished bouses were not cleared properly.
Therefore, within three days you are ordered to gather 70-80 people of your village
to demolish the bouses and intimate me about the same. The bouses should be
demolished in my presence. Treat this notice as very urgent
Sd/(Kencbo Dotji)
Officiating Dzongda
Royal Government of Bhatu
BZOaOOM AWHSIUnM
SARBHANC
&WTAM
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 31
Appendix — 5
Conclusions of the report of the fact-finding Team of
Journalists that visited the Refugee Camps in Nepal in 1995
The team of journalists after interacting with a large section of people - Bhutanese refugees residing in the border
areas between India and Nepal; refugee leaders in the camps; leaders and the workers of Bhutan’s various political
parties: human rights activists, villagers of Indo-Bhutan border, political prisoners released from the Bhutanese
jails; and Bhutanese citizens living in Nepal - had arrived at following conclusions:
1. The oppressive and discriminatory rule of the Bhutanese King has made the lives of Bhutanese people in
general, and southern Bhutanese in particular, miserable. Their human rights are being blatantly violated. The
movement of people demanding democracy was brutally crushed. The citizenship of the participants in the pro
democracy rallies and their relatives was withdrawn and they were chased away from the country.
2. In order to project the movement of the people for democratic and human rights as the issue of citizenship and
thus to present it as an ethnic issue, the king has been resorting to blatant lies and false propaganda.
3. People were coerced into signing a letter saying that they are voluntarily leaving the county on their own,
whereas each and every refugee wants to return back to his/her home at any cost.
4. In the name of the Bhutanization the government imposed the culture, language and way of life of the ruling
tribe on the people of Southern Bhutan - mostly of Nepalese origin - aggravated the situation.
5. The Bhutan government did not only abolish the citizenship of the agitators for democracy and their families
and chased them away but also demolished their houses, set them ablaze and appropriated their property, orchards
and farms.
6. There are enough documentary evidences to prove that the people banished from Bhutan have been living there
for generations and are the bonafide citizens of that country.
7. In creating the refugees’ problem in Nepal along with Bhutan, India is also equally responsible. India borders
Bhutan and Bhutanese citizens entered India after being chased away from there and tried to take refuge in Assam
and West Bengal. Assam Government refused them aid and protection. In many cases they were chased back to
Bhutan across the border. They reached Nepal after seeing no ray of hope in India. Many were bundled into Police
trucks and dumped across the border in Nepal. India is a signatory to the 1948 Charter of Human Rights and to
provide shelter and protection to these political refugees was the moral responsibility of India.
Team’s Appeal to the Indian People and the Indian Government:
1. The people expelled from Bhutan and currently living in India should be provided with immediate relief and
protection. They should also be immediately granted refugee status so that they can avail the assistance from the
UNHCR and other international agencies.
2. India has Peace and Friendship Treaty with Bhutan, hence it should ask Bhutanese government for early and just
solution of the problem. As compared to over 90 crores population of India, the number of over 150 thousands
refugees appears negligible, but it is a sizable proportion of Bhutan’s population.
3. The issue of the refugees should not be treated as bilateral between Bhutan and Nepal but India should actively
intervene and make it a trilateral issue. Given its standing in the South Asia. India could play a meaningful role in
the resolution of the issue.
4. The oppressive, inhuman and brutal measures adopted to crush the peaceful movement for democracy in a
neighboring country must be condemned in no-uncertain terms but the India’s silence and “neutrality is surprising.
5. India should keep in mind that the issue of refugees apart for needing humanitarian consideration is also linked
to regions adjacent to India’s sensitive area. If not resolved, in coming days it may create problems for the peace and
harmony in India.
The Tragic Tale of the Displacement / 32
Group for International Solidarity - Nepal
(GRINSO - Nepal)
GRINSO-Nepal was founded on April 9, 1990 by a group of committed and
enthusiastic people of high social profile dedicated to the peaceful neighborhood,
equitable social system and dignified life for all people around the globe and within
the country. The Group for International Solidarity (GRINSO -Nepal) established
with the objectives of peace, social justice and promotion, protection and preservation
of human rights it has become a leading human rights organization of the country.
It has been working as the secretariat of the South Asian people’s Solidarity (SAPS)
- a coalition of the human rights organizations of Nepal and other South Asian
countries. GRINSO-Nepal conceptualizes the human rights as indivisible, inter
dependent and universal, which can be well protected in a democratic setup only. It
recognizes tremendous strength of group-action, therefore it aims to work at national,
regional and global level with the organizations committed to similar causes. It is
committed to be an active partner in the formal/informal global networking for the
human rights. GRINSO-Nepal has been honored with the Special Consultative status
with ECOSOC of the United Nations on 31 July 1998.
With its headquarters in Kathmandu, GRINSO - Nepal has it’s regional centers at
Biratnagar, Hetauda. Dhangadi in the eastern, central and far- western comers of
Nepal respectively. It has its special training center at Pratappur. The center is called
the “Liberation Academy (LA)” and situated in far-western region in Pratappur,
Kailali to cover Central and Far Western regions. It works as a resource centre for
human rights and empowerment of the indigenous people. Dalits and backwards
since its establishment in 1995. Since late 1999 till this year UNICEF and ILO
supported its program for the rehabilitation of the bonded labor. During the armed
conflict the centre was target of both - the Nepalese army and the Maoists and on
April 2002 their Center was set on fire. Most of the training materials, library and
other goods were burnt and the building partially damaged. The total loss estimated
by a human rights fact finding mission was about Rs. 13 million (Nepal Rs.)
From the very beginning GRINSO - Nepal has been concerned with the issue of
Bhutanese refugees and has jointly with the Bhutan Solidarity (India) organized
many programs on the issue.
x.
- Media
BHUTANESE REFUGEES.pdf
Position: 131 (34 views)