Nepal: Bhutanese Refugee Tensions Erupt Into Violence

(Washington, DC, May 31, 2007) ? Violent clashes this week resulting in two deaths in Nepal's Bhutanese refugee camps underscore the need for the Nepali police to protect refugees from mob violence and ensure their right to peaceful expression, Human Rights Watch said today. The death of a third Bhutanese refugee in a confrontation with Indian police forces this week indicates that all sides must exercise restraint before tensions escalate further with even more loss of life.

Human Rights Watch is concerned about the escalation of violence in the refugee camps in eastern Nepal and along the Indian border, which some refugees have been attempting to cross in a march to Bhutan.

On May 27, a group claiming to be members of the Bhutanese Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) attacked refugees who have voiced support for a US offer to resettle Bhutanese refugees. The attackers beat at least one refugee leader and destroyed his and several other huts in Beldangi II camp in eastern Nepal. Similar attacks occurred in another camp, Beldangi I, where several huts, including the camp administration office, were also burnt down.
In response to the violence, a contingent of the Nepal Armed Police opened fire on the mob and reportedly killed a teenage boy. By some accounts, police shot a second teenager on Monday who died later that day in hospital.

"Nepali police need to protect the Bhutanese refugees and their right to peacefully express their views on resettlement or return," said Bill Frelick, Refugee Policy director of Human Rights Watch. "Factions of Bhutanese refugees divided over the resettlement issue should reflect on the tragic loss of these young lives and conclude that fighting each other will not solve their plight."
Refugees or others who resort to violence and attack refugees with whom they disagree must be arrested and prosecuted by Nepali authorities, Human Rights Watch said. At the same time, the police should avoid excessive force in maintaining order.

While a US offer to resettle 60,000 or more Bhutanese refugees has given hope to many of the 106,000 refugees living in Nepal, some refugees see the resettlement offer as undercutting the prospects for repatriation and have increasingly resorted to threats and violence to prevent other refugees from advocating for solutions other than return to Bhutan. In a report published earlier this month, "Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in India and Nepal," Human Rights Watch warned that tensions in the camps are growing.
"Although there is no question that Bhutanese refugees have a right to return, they also have the right to make choices on essential issues like resettlement without threats, intimidation or violence" said Frelick.

In a related development, a group of Bhutanese refugees this week attempted a march to return to Bhutan. Bhutan and Nepal are separated by a strip of land belonging to India. Indian police forces clashed with the refugees at the Mechi River bridge that serves as the crossing with Nepal. Refugees pelted the police with stones, and Indian police fired on the demonstrators, killing one and injuring others. The standoff ended after local leaders talked with Indian authorities who have agreed to forward their demands to the relevant officials in New Delhi.
Repatriation of Bhutanese refugees must be accompanied by the restoration of rights, and should include monitoring and assistance from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. At the present time, none of the conditions that would allow them to return safely and in dignity have been met, Human Rights Watch said. "Groups of Bhutanese refugees should not resort to violence in exercising their right of return, and the Indian police should also act with restraint and compassion for the refugees," Frelick said.

The Bhutanese refugee crisis began in 1991 when Bhutan started to expel ethnic Nepalis, a policy that resulted in the expulsion of one-sixth of the country's population. So far, in complete violation of international law, Bhutan has not allowed a single refugee to return. Consequently, the refugees have endured years in cramped camps with no prospects for solutions, conditions that have led to domestic violence and other social problems that have come after protracted periods in closed camps. Before any solutions can be achieved, Nepal must provide sufficient security in the camps to enable refugees to express their opinions and exchange information freely, Human Rights Watch said.

At the same time, the United States and other resettlement countries should expand an information campaign in the camps to reiterate that the choice of resettlement is voluntary and does not in any way extinguish the right of return. The countries offering resettlement need to provide detailed information about the rights and benefits for refugees that choose to resettle in their countries. Together with the rest of the international community, particularly India, these countries should bring pressure to bear on Bhutan to permit the refugees to return home in safety and dignity and to end discrimination against its ethnic Nepali citizens.

Source: Reuters News, May 31, 2007

Shameful act

The act of Indian security forces, which killed a Bhutanese refugee, should be condemned from all sections of society. In fact, the human rights groups must take up this incident seriously and raise it in international forums as it is a crime committed by a so-called largest democratic country, which claims that it honors freedom and people's rights. Unfortunately, the Home Ministry, instead of condemning the killing, asked the refugees to return to UNHCR-administered camps. India blocked the road and imposed a curfew to prevent the refugees from returning to their homeland. Indian security forces acted in tandem with the Druk security forces. Both the Indian and Bhutanese security forces had held meetings last week in Phutsoling and Darjeeling to thwart the refugees' attempt to return to Bhutan. In an attempt to deny them the right to return home, India's border security forces mercilessly killed a refugee and injured scores of others.

On May 29, the Bhutanese refugees were returning to Bhutan to participate in a mock election there. The Druk regime is exercising a mock poll in the run up to a general election slated for early next year. The mockery of such exercise is that Bhutan has been run with the royal edicts. Holding such elections, in other words, is mocking democratic values. Has a country ruled by a tin-pot dictator ever become democratic? India should know it well that it has dishonored the rights of the refugees. India's pet regime has evicted hundreds of thousands of its citizens forcibly. India has protected the tin-pot dictator, who has adopted a policy of ethnic cleansing. And this was not the first incident of killing a refugee. Earlier, Indian armed forces killed a refugee who had crossed the Nepal-India border to participate in a protest rally. Since 1994, India has denied the Bhutanese refugees to hold any sort of protest programs within its territory.

In 1991, Bhutan forcibly evicted the Lhotshampas. They were ferried by West Bengal Police and dumped into the Nepali territory. India, since then, has brushed aside the refugee problem citing it as a bilateral issue, siding with the tin-pot dictator. It was a naked crime and a sheer attempt to deny the refugees' right to return home. It is very sad that Nepal has always pushed the refugee issue to the backburner. The third-country resettlement plan will not prevent the Druk dictator from evicting the people of Nepali origin so long as India protects the tin-pot dictator and encourages him to intensify the “ethnic cleansing” drive. What the people of Bhutan need is international support for the fight against the Druk dictator. So, India ought to allow the refugees to participate in the elections slated for early next year in Bhutan.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, May 31, 2007

Another you

The pitiable existence of the more than one lakh Bhutanese refugees of Nepali origin now living in the seven refugee camps in eastern Tarai remains more or less the same as it was 17 years ago when, expelled by the Druk regime from their own country or fleeing torture or persecution at home, they had to enter India, their first country of asylum. Later, they entered Nepal — a number of them had been carted off to the eastern Nepal border by the Indian police and left there. On Monday and Tuesday, thousands of refugees attempted a “Long March” to Bhutan, as on several occasions in the past, and as before, their long march has been cut short by the Indian police (and troops, too, on Tuesday) especially stationed in force as the refugees tried to force their way through the barricades in the Indian side. Inside Nepal, this had been preceded by the death of two refugees in police firing in Beldangi refugee camps. The refugees’ determination to return home was also a proof that third-country resettlement was not everything for them.

However, the offer to resettle 60,000-plus refugees in the US and other western countries should be taken positively, at least in one sense. At the same time, the seeming American unwillingness to pressure Thimphu to resolve the issue according to international conventions has surprised many Nepalis, as well as refugees, especially because wherever it wants the US tends to throw its weight around. This leaves some room for doubt. On its part, India has for umpteen times ruled out the possibility of using its good offices to end the refugee deadlock, terming it purely a “bilateral issue”, except once, during the world conference on the environment and development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, when the then Indian prime minister P V Narasimha Rao had sounded positive on the idea of India helping resolve the issue.

Serious doubts exist in Nepal on this particular issue mainly for two reasons. First, New Delhi was seen to take an interest in ensuring that most Bhutanese refugees in Indian territory came into Nepal, whereas, since then, it has prevented the refugees, if need be by applying force, from going back home. Secondly, the Bhutanese government, under a 1949 bilateral treaty, is to be guided by the advice of the government of India in its external relations. Therefore, there are people who express reservations about the view that the refugee issue is a bilateral one. This, according to them, is a “heads I win, tails you lose” approach. Besides, they also look at the US position with a pinch of salt — its relative silence on the right of the Bhutanese to return home and its offer of resettling them may indeed strengthen the Drukpa rulers, who, some doubt, may then be emboldened to expel more Bhutanese of Nepali origin. The stalemate strikes one as odd because both the US and India are hailed as great democracies. The first and foremost right of any refugee is to be allowed to return home, but under the formula being promoted, this has been ignored. Options like third-country resettlement may indeed be a good opportunity for the willing.

Source: The Himalayan Times, May 30, 2007

Bhutan : Situation Of Ethnic Nepalis

Kazi Gautam

A New-York based human rights organisation - Human Rights Watch (HRW) - made public its report in Kathmandu on May 17. In the report, the HRW has presented a report on the situation of ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan, the condition of the refugees in the camps and three options available to the refugees. The study has highlighted that ethnic Nepalis residing in Bhutan have been facing constant prejudice and ongoing threats to their citizenship status, and implies there could be more ethnic cleansing in the days ahead. Problems of ethnic Nepalis According to an official census conducted in 2005, 13 per cent of Bhutan's current permanent residents are "non-nationals". Following the census, new ID cards are being distributed to all recognised Bhutanese citizens. But those eligible for receiving the ID cards are F1 (genuine Bhutanese citizens) and F4 (non-national women married to Bhutanese men, and their children). A lack of 'No Objection Certificates' (NOC) barred others from getting the ID.

The NOCs were introduced by the government following political instability in the south in the early 1990s when the Lhotsampas (Nepali speaking people) revolted against the Druk regime. NOCs are issued by the Royal Bhutan Police (RBP) only if they receive confirmation from the Dzongdag (district administrator) that a person in question is not in any way involved in "anti-national activity". NOCs are required for enrollment in higher education, employment in the civil service, obtaining business and trading licenses, travel documents and the like. During the last census, the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGB) did not allow a large portion of Lhotsampas to enlist their names in the voting list. They were asked to produce NOCs before their names could be included in the voting list. But the RBP did not provide them the NOC, alleging them that they had constant touch with the refugees living in Nepal. Some 70,000 Lhotsampas were not included in the mock election that Bhutan conducted last month. The lack of NOCs does not allow the Bhutanese to get involved in any sort of political or governmental activities. On the other hand, ethnic Nepalis are always in fear that their NOC and citizenship might be snatched away if they keep relations with the refugees. Some refugees who sometimes visit the camps refuse to talk about their present condition in Bhutan. They fear that the source of information might be revealed to the Bhutanese authorities and that might eventually become a reason to get evicted from the country.

The practice of forced labour still exists in southern Bhutan. Ethnic Nepalis must provide free labour. They have to assist the Drukpas to get resettled on the land that was once owned by the refugees. There is no instruction in the Nepali language, even in schools in the southern districts - only Dzongkha and English are taught. Ethnic Nepalis are still expected to wear gho (for men) and kira (for women), the traditional Drukpa clothes, in schools and other public places, as stipulated by the king's 1989 decree of Driglam Namza. A draft constitution released in March 2005 incorporates the discriminatory provisions of the 1985 Citizenship Act, and provides that Dzongkha is the national language of Bhutan, and that Buddhism is the "spiritual heritage of Bhutan".During the 14th SAARC summit, Nepalese Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and Foreign Minister Sahana Pradhan pressured their Bhutanese and Indian counterparts to accept all the Bhutanese refugees unconditionally. It was the first time that India and Bhutan had appeared positive. Bhutan had agreed to accept at least some refugees. However, instead of repatriating the refugees, it plans to evict more southerners from the country.

The people in Bhutan have often been tortured and harassed for no good reason. Due to lack of agencies to address their sufferings, they cannot be publicised. Moreover, the ill practices of Bhutan rarely reach the concerned authorities due to lack of an independent media to impart factual news. The Kuensel, a mouthpiece of the Druk regime, supports only the king's activities. The two private publications that have recently started, The Bhutan Observer and The Bhutan Times, are also under the clutch of the king. So they have failed to relay uncensored news. Also, there are no human rights agencies to look after and safeguard the rights of the people. The long endeavours of the Nepalese government to repatriate the refugees have not been able to bear any fruit. The steps taken so far to solve the impasse, including the bilateral talks, have turned out ineffective. Hence, the US has proposed third country resettlement. But Bhutan has considered this scheme to be in its favour, and decided to evict more Lhotsampas so that they could also be handled by the western countries.

Conscious people By this time, all the people residing in Bhutan - be they Sarchhops or even Drukpas, or Lhotsampas - have become highly conscious about their rights. They have eventually realised that the people in the refugee camps have been struggling to safeguard their rights as well. It should also be remembered that the Bhutanese - both inside and outside Bhutan - are committed to overthrowing the Wangchhuk dynasty. The united revolt of the people can put an end to any sort of government. The Great Revolt of 1857 in India against the British regime and the popular revolt of the Nepalese in 2006 to restore the rights seized by Gyanendra are common examples.When the Bhutanese political movement started in the early 1990s, only some people participated. The movement also lacked able leaders, and, thus, the movement turned out to a failure, forcing the people to become refugees. There were no inspection teams from human rights activists and other similar agencies. The movement also could not get wide media coverage as the international media did not get the information. The condition has, however, changed now. Slowly, the violation of human rights and other atrocities of the tin pot dictator are being slowly revealed to the outside world. Hence, other members of SAARC and the international community must take immediate action to safeguard the rights of some 100,000 Lhotsampas residing in Bhutan before they are made refugees.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 29, 2007

US Proposal : Instances Of Resettled Cases

D. Rose

THE Bhutanese refugee issue has been viewed with much importance in the latter days for different reasons. The resettlement proposal of the refugees by the western countries, including America, has been highly acknowledged as it is expected to bring a durable solution to the refugee impasse. The US proposal made public for the first time in Geneva by Ellen Saubrey, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, has created confusion in the refugee camps. Hence, a brief discussion about the US resettlement scheme is needed so that the refugees have some knowledge about it.

Resettled Instances
The US has been resettling 75,000 refugees from different countries annually. It has also maintained a rich and vibrant tradition of offering refuge to those who fear persecution. The Department of State coordinates the admission of refugees and works in concert with other key government agencies - Department of Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services. The US Refugee Admissions Programme is the global leader in this field and offers admission to the largest number of refugees in need of resettlement. The offer of resettlement as a durable solution to refugees is a crucial responsibility in a highly visible policy arena. Third country resettlement certainly benefits the refugees, the host country and the community offering the refuge.

Last year, about 1,500 Vietnamese refugees who had been living in the Philippines were resettled in the US. They were granted all rights as first class citizens of the US. The Bermudian refugees, survivors of the horrific massacre at Gatumba, were also resettled.

The legal basis of the refuge admission programme is the Refugee Act of 1980. The Refugee Admission Department is interested in the Bhutanese and Tibetan refugees, and was discussed in its forth annual public meeting. As this is a legal procedure, the refugees should not sense any suspicions as regards the US resettlement scheme.

In a period of almost two decades, numerous futile attempts have been made to repatriate the refugees. The steps taken by Nepal in this regard were less pragmatic. Since the inception of the issue, Bhutan has been refusing to accept its citizens in exile. Instead of taking back its people, it is preparing to evict another 80,000 Nepali-speaking people from the southern and eastern belt.

Bhutan has taken this US proposal as an opportunity to evict more Lhotsampas or Bhutanese of Nepalese origin living in the southern belt. It is also tacitly preparing to exclude them from participating in the country's first general election to be held in 2008. This indicates that the tin pot dictator is to carry on with its repressive mechanism.

Seeing no other way, Bhutanese leaders in exile have formally announced the second and the last movement against the Druk oligarchy. However, the refugees are still ambivalent about the credibility of the movement. Indian indifference towards the refugees' endeavours shall surely hinder the entrance of the refugees to Bhutan. If the movement fails this time as well, the issue will be even more complicated.

The Druk regime will never accept voluntarily these forcefully evicted people. Accepting them would force Bhutan into a democratic atmosphere, which is dead against the aspirations of the Druk dictator. The Bhutanese case is similar to that of the Palestinians. The Palestinians, who fled Israel in around 1948, are still not accepted. The acceptance of the Palestinians would change Israel from a Jewish state to an Arab state.

There is a saturated level of frustration and a feeling of insecurity among the refugee youths. They talk to each other in trepidation. Majority of the refugees are unemployed and seem to be swayed by the filthy motives of politicians. The refugees have been made hostage in the name of establishing democracy in Bhutan. Warehousing these refugees is a waste of humanity.

This is the right time for the refugees themselves to decide whether to accept or reject the US proposal. It might prove a hard blow to them if they fail to realise what they are waiting for. They must read the complexities surrounding this issue. They have the right to decide and speak what they wish. However, there is a web of deceit and suspiciousness among the refugees that has prevented them from speaking out freely about the option on hand.

Millions of Palestinians, neglected by the international community, are leading pathetic lives in the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordon. Hence, if no grave decision is taken, the condition of the Bhutanese refugees would be similar to that of the Palestinians.

Local integration
The option of local integration also deserves special mention. Nepal should make its stance clear whether it is ready to assimilate the refugees wanting to be locally integrated into the Nepalese society, similar to what Ivory Coast did during the infiltration of the Liberian refugees in 1989. President Felix H. Boigny set an example by accepting Liberian refugees as "brothers in distress".

Any further delay towards solving the refugee deadlock may push the frustration of the refugees to its optimum. This shall invite sprawling problems for Nepal.
(Rose is with Bhutan Press Union)

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 21, 2007

Ethnic cleansing

New York-based Human Rights Watch has rightly assessed the gross violation of human rights in Bhutan. The Druk regime, which evicted over one hundred thousand people back in the 1990s, continues to deny the rights of minorities living there for centuries. Now, the fear is that the third country resettlement plan undertaken by the United States may further encourage the Druk dictator to evict the remaining Lhotshampas. And this is happening at the behest of India -- the largest democracy, which is backing Bhutan's policy of ethnic cleansing. Bhutan has adopted several ways to evict the Nepali minority. First, it has introduced a 'No Objection Certificate' system. It is a must for admission in schools, registration of any firm, running a business establishment for a living or employment. Issuance of such certificates has denied the basic education to the children of Lhotshampas. Second, Bhutan has no constitution as to ensure the rights of the minority. The royal edicts are the supreme law of that country. As a result, hundreds of innocent people have been languishing in the Druk jails for decades.

No country has committed such heinous crimes against its people. Bhutan has denied no objection certificates to the Lhotshampas, with a clear intention of evicting them gradually. It has denied the right of over one hundred thousand refugees to return to their homeland. Yet, some Western countries, which are defending democracy across the world, have funded development projects in Bhutan. India has gone to the extent of protecting the autocratic regime. Earlier, Northeast Indian states did so to uproot the Nepali settlement. Hundreds of thousand of people of Nepali origin were forcefully evicted from Manipur, Meghalaya and Assam states in the 1980s citing them as foreigners. Now, Bhutan has done the same thing as Northeast Indian states did in the 1980s.

Bhutan is planning to hold polls early next year to eyewash the international community. The refugees languishing in UNHCR-administered camps in eastern Nepal will not be allowed to participate in the elections. Although the Druk regime has admitted that the refugees are bona-fide Bhutanese citizens, it has refused to take them back. Besides, the mockery of Bhutanese democracy is that the regime has allowed no individuals to form a political party. While one-fifth of the population is languishing outside Bhutan as refugees, how credible and authentic would such elections be? Obviously, Bhutan has not given up its state policy of ethnic cleansing. It continues to adopt techniques to block the repatriation attempt and sweep the minority out of its territory. Bhutan could do so by taking the side of the largest democratic country, India.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, May 19, 2007

US Proposal And Its Initial Repercussions

Kazi Gautam

THE US proposal of resettlement for the Bhutanese refugees has been highly anticipated as it is expected to bring about a durable solution to the refugee impasse. Although it cannot give a permanent solution to the issue, however, it is expected to improve the refugees' lives up to some extent. Nevertheless, the formal announcement of the US scheme has invited serious predicaments that need to be addressed at the earliest. It has particularly created a faction among the refugees, thus, creating enmity between each other.ConsequencesIt was a near miss for Hari Prasad Adhikari-Bangaley, secretary of Beldangi II camp when he managed to evade the attack of an unidentified armed assailant on April 10. It's been almost a year since he started to live in Damak due to numerous attacks that were intended to kill him since he started advocating the US resettlement plan.

In another similar incident, Parsu Ram Dahal of Timai refugee camp was abducted and released by an unidentified group. A few months back, three of the refugee teachers of Beldangi 1 camp were severely beaten up.Following the official proclamation of the proposal of the US to begin from July 1, the refugee population has been divided into three groups: one which has welcomed the US plan, another group against it and the last group of those who are still ambivalent about accepting or rejecting the resettlement scheme. There have been clashes and scuffles between the first two groups that have eventually invited inestimable seen and unseen squabbles. There is an eerie silence in the camps that has tormented the refugees' lives. The refugees must be always alert and be on their guard for fear of getting attacked any time.

Though everyone is aware of the criminal activities that have been terrorising the refugees, no steps have been taken so far to guarantee a secure life for them. Neither the UNHCR nor the Nepalese government has been able to check the internal security system in the camps. Given the dispute between the first two groups, the refugees have been found attacking members of the rival group, thus, afflicting those innocents that don't belong to any of these camps. On the other hand, there exists a cold relationship between the refugees and the locals. The former are mistreated and tortured by the latter off and on. They are chastised and intimidated even for small things. The scuffle between the refugees and the local forestry officials on February 22 this year took the life of Gopal Khadka, a refugee from Sanischarey refugee camp. Because the refugees cannot survive with the meagre commodities supplied to them, it becomes necessary for them to go out of the camp to earn money. This results in quarrels between the locals and the refugees, which eventually benefits none.

The US seems committed to resettling the Bhutanese refugees in its land in the next few years. It has already begun the process by working towards the establishment of an overseas processing entity in Jhapa and Kathmandu. It has also begun to counsel the refugees tacitly. Some other countries as well have shown immense interests towards sharing the burden.However, the prime importance to be carried out without further ado is to provide a secure life to the refugees. There must not be any sort of threat, and there should not be any danger to the refugees. The Camp Management Committee (CMC) and the committee that looks after the internal security system in the camp and the secretaries of the camps have not succeeded in providing security to the refugees as they have been threatened very often by unidentified people.

The police check posts responsible for providing security in the refugee camps do not exist now. Anyone can walk into the camps very easily. If immediate steps are not taken to check the security in the refugee camps, several serious incidents could arise, thus, pushing the situation out of control.Hence, there are certain things that must be addressed before the US begins the process. First, the confusion among the refugees as regards the resettlement scheme must be cleared. There is a large portion of the refugee population that is unaware of the proposal. Also, a peaceful and conducive environment must be created in the refugee camps so that the refugees feel free to decide about choosing the option at hand.The second important thing that deserves special attention is making public the state of those refugees who have been recently resettled in some western countries. Till date nothing is known to the refugees regarding their present condition.

Third, every refugee needs more information. With a paucity of information as regards the terms and conditions to be faced by the refugees, and also the western culture and lifestyle, the American proposal still looks like an enigma, and the refugees are ambivalent about accepting it. So before the establishment of an overseas processing entity, the necessary information should be made public.RepatriationThe next point that deserves mention is that majority of the refugees have been waiting to get repatriated. Failing to address their interests would be a hindrance towards the peaceful beginning of the resettlement programme.The last urgent step to be taken by the concerned authorities is to check the internal security system in the refugee camps. The fact is also that the insidious effect of the present camp activities would surely turn out to be a serious impediment to the resettlement process. A failure to find an amicable approach could prove a serious blow to the US.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 7, 2007

Third Country Resettlement : How Durable For The Refugees?

T. P. Mishra

FINALLY, the America's offer of third country resettlement has given rise to a lot of debate. Despite several attempts by the refugees to oppose it, the US and some western countries seem committed to expediting the process of resettlement latest by early 2008.Besides the formation of a core group comprising 14 of the world's biggest democratic countries, the Overseas Processing Entity (OPE), one of the latest concepts in backing up the process of third country resettlement, is planning to set up its office at Jhapa and in Kathmandu in July.This very information was revealed by two senior US officials, Lawrence Barlett and Janice S. Belz - assistant directors of the Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration of the U.S. government - during their interaction with the refugees at Goldhap camp on April 25.

Faction

Since the time when the third country resettlement package was brought up, it provoked factions among the refugees - individual opinions can be distinctly seen divided into different groups. Literate youths among the Bhutanese refugees favour third country resettlement. The other elderly, illiterate groups want to get repatriated as they say they have worked hard and sweated a lot to bring Bhutan into its present state. Not only this, a section of the people living inside the refugee camps have already obtained Nepalese citizenship certificates. They were able to obtain Nepali citizenship after the government of Nepal decided to issue citizenship certificates to four million people prior to the constituent assembly (CA) polls. This ironically leaves a clear message that a portion of the refugees are even willing to get locally assimilated. Meanwhile, it is still a matter of doubt whether those refugees, who have already obtained Nepalese citizenship certificates, would qualify for third country resettlement. More interestingly, this verity would also be a tool for creating internal divergence among the refugees if those, who have already possessed Nepalese citizenship identity card, get a chance to opt for resettlement prior to those without citizenship cards.

Majority of the so-called frontline leaders in exile, most of the political and a few apolitical organisations have been frequently opposing the offer of third country resettlement, claiming it would not help furnish complete justice to the suppressed Bhutanese people. Since there is divided opinion among the individuals, the question of reaching a common consensus is difficult. People inside the camps are quite confused and do not know whether to apply in advance for this offer as they are little informed of its procedures.When such fact-based points are fresh at hand, opening the 'single option' for refugees would be a bleak step. Not only third country resettlement, the concerned authorities should work towards unlocking all possible options, including repatriation to their original homeland, Bhutan. The long-standing issue will get a safe landing only when all possible options are opened.

Criteria and procedures

The obvious question at this hour is: why are those countries that are wishing to resettle the refugees not making transparent all the criteria and other necessary procedures before the resettlement process begins? At least a dozen refugee families have already been resettled in Canada in the recent months, but the authorities concerned haven't yet made their status public.On the other side, the UNHCR is reportedly learnt to have been selecting families in the camps in recent days to begin the process for third country resettlement. However, it has refused to reveal the criteria for their selection. Actually, why can't such steps be carried out in an open and transparent way? The refugees should not be deprived of their basic human right to access to adequate information on any options coined. And, this should be more precisely done in a transparent way.Meanwhile, it is equally necessary to note that any options, what they be, shouldn't be made a 'compulsory option' for the refugees by citing unfeasibility of other possible options.Even Nepal has flashed a green light for allowing these refugees to get resettled. If Nepal by doing so wants to eliminate the Bhutanese refugee problem from the country, then it must be mentioned here that dignified repatriation should also be promoted at any cost. Otherwise, what would be the future of those refugees who want to get repatriated? Thus, it is a matter of essence that Nepal publicise its official stance at the earliest to bar ideological divergence among the refugees.

Sentiment

It is a fact that options besides third country resettlement - dignified repatriation and local integration - are, with the flow of time, getting less prominence. If the authorities concerned are truly committed to finding a durable solution to the Bhutanese refugee stalemate and embracing and supporting them, then promoting the refugee's sentiment is a must.(The writer is President of Third World Media Network - Bhutan Chapter)

Source: The Rising Nepal, April 30, 2007