Bhutan's Shame

Refugees camped in Nepal must be allowed back home

For nearly 100,000 Bhutanese refugees of ethnic Nepali origin, home has been a refugee camp in Nepal, in the districts of either Jhapa or Morang. Oppressed by restrictive changes in Bhutan’s citizenship laws, and in some instances, forced out of their homes by Government officials, they fled southern Bhutan between 1988 and 1993. More than ten years on, the refugee population remains in the camps, with Bhutan obstinately refusing to allow the refugees back, a ‘joint verification’ by Nepal and Bhutan having effectively stalled, and repatriation appearing as distant as it was ten years ago. 

Meanwhile, even as well-meaning governments and other actors float ‘options’ to resolve the issue, they would do well to keep in mind that: a) the refugees belong in Bhutan, b) Bhutan must not be allowed to get away with many observers claim is akin to ethnic cleansing. 

The first subtle but menacing blow to the chances of the refugees returning home to Bhutan came in 2003, when the governments of Bhutan and Nepal agreed to set down the parameters for the verification of the refugees, aimed at eventual return of bonafide Bhutanese. Bhutan insisted that not all the refugees were Bhutanese citizens. Some left voluntarily in search of better opportunities, others were criminals, it claimed. It then set forth four ‘categories’ into which the refugees must be divided – 1) Bonafide Bhutanese citizens evicted forcefully, 2) Bhutanese who emigrated, 3) non-Bhutanese who came to the refugee camps and stayed, and who would not be accepted by Bhutan, and 4) Bhutanese who committed criminal acts, who would be tried in Bhutanese courts. 

The categorisation was insidious and problematic. For example, many refugees feared that specific responses given to mandatory questions during the verification, might be used against them in the categorisation process or in Bhutanese courts. Other worrisome questions related to whether the refugee had appealed against a forced eviction order. Many refugees claimed they were forced to sign voluntary migration forms at the time of their eviction and feared they would be categorised as voluntary migrants. It was also not clear whether mixed families, consisting of both non-Bhutanese and Bhutanese citizens, would be able to return to Bhutan.

Nepal, in a moment of unwise capitulation, agreed to the categorisation, paving the way for a long-drawn, ambiguous and unreliable verification process that is yet to be completed. The status of 12,000-odd refugees has been verified, 2.4 percent of whom reportedly fall in Category 1 (Bhutanese who were forcible evicted) and more than 70 percent categorised as voluntary migrants. During the 15^th ministerial meeting between Nepali and Bhutanese officials, it was decided that those verified as Bhutanese would begin to be repatriated in February 2004. However, ten months on, no refugee has returned home. The verification process was suspended after some refugees turned unruly during a visit by the Joint Verification Team to one of the camps. This was in response to the provocative statement by the Director of the Home Ministry in Bhutan that refugees under Category 1 would not get back their original homes and lands, and that those under Category 2 would have to stay in “transit camps” for two years during which they would have to prove their loyalty to Bhutan’s king, its history and culture. He further declared that there would be no review of those placed in Category 3 (said to be “non-Bhutanese”). The statement only served to confirm the widespread belief that Bhutan has no intention to take back the refugees “with dignity and honour”.

Meanwhile, credible refugee leaders report that Bhutan’s policy of forced evictions and ill-treatment of ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan is continuing. The government is reportedly carrying out land surveys in some of the districts, and if the land holder is dead or absent during the survey, their heirs or next of kin will not be allowed to cultivate the land. The government also does not allow the transfer of the registration of land to the heirs or next of kin. Sources in Bhutan have reportedly informed refugee leaders that many people are likely to be forced to leave the country after the land survey is completed. These reports only serve to underline the impression that Bhutan is not sincere about taking back any of the refugees. It also means that Thimpu does not intend to guarantee the safety and well-being of the refugees that may eventually manage to return to Bhutan.

In response to options such as partial resettlement in Nepal and in a third country, the refugees stress that they would like to return to Bhutan. Nepal is unwilling to bear the burden of the refugees by having them “integrate” into Nepali society. Further, along with a few other countries, it has already pointed to the unnerving – and not completely inconceivable – possibility that its rebel Maoists will look towards the unemployed and disillusioned youth in the refugee camps in order to reinforce their cadres.

An initiative by the United States to have some of the refugees resettled in the United States and the rest in India and Nepal is well-meaning but mistaken. Firstly, it only concerns a token number of refugees and does not, as a result, solve the problem. Secondly, such resettlement is happening anyway, as disillusioned refugees move away from the camps in search of better prospects elsewhere. The US proposal therefore is not ingenious, nor is it very useful.

Third, India and Nepal have already signalled their unwillingness to resettle the refugees. After all, the refugees, on leaving Bhutan, had first arrived in India, only to be “encouraged” by Indian officials to go on to Nepal. As for Kathmandu, it realised only later that agreeing to Bhutan’s dubious categorisation would result in a large number of refugees remaining within its borders.

The problem is underscored as much by the lack of foresight on the part of international non-governmental organisations, of certain sections of the refugee leadership, and of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as by the ineptness of the Nepali government and Bhutan’s obduracy. Some organisations have been claiming – as have certain refugee leaders – that India holds the key to the resolution of the problem by virtue of its influence over Bhutan. This is an erroneous assumption. While India may have diplomatic leverage over Thimpu, it cannot force Bhutan to settle what is essentially a bilateral problem. Further, if India had wanted to help, it would have taken the matter into its own hands when the first refugees arrived at its borders after being compelled to leave Bhutan. Nepal, for its part, did little or nothing to take up the issue at multilateral or international fora such as the UN Commission on Human Rights.

The international refugee agency, UNHCR, has also failed the refugees. It failed to adequately and effectively internationalise the issue at its Executive Committee meetings. It failed to counter Bhutan’s obstinacy and its insistence on the four-tier categorisation of the refugees. The agency that was best placed to help the refugees has achieved next to nothing for them in terms of protection – UNHCR’s primary mandate – and safe and dignified repatriation.

Meanwhile, refugee leaders report increasing cases of depression in the camps, and frustration among the youth. The refugees’ presence – compounded by an increasing number of refugees seeking work outside the camps – has served to antagonise the local Nepali community. Education is being provided but is gradually being phased out, leaving nearly 8,000 boys and girls without the prospect of higher education. The current situation in the camps is a recipe for social instability. The US suggestion, meanwhile, has prompted a section of the refugee leadership to declare that all the refugees will be resettled in the United States, raising false hopes among many in the camps. It is clear that any information on the possible options will need to be circulated with care, using credible channels.

The onus is on Bhutan to fulfil its obligations by allowing the refugees back safely. It is also the responsibility of the international community, including Bhutan’s immediate neighbours, to ensure that in all the proliferation of “options”, the primary aim is not forgotten – that of repatriation of the refugees to Bhutan. Thimpu must not be allowed to arbitrarily expel its citizens and get away with it.

 Human Rights Features