The ULFA and Bodo militants were invited into Bhutan-Dr S Chandrasekharen
Be decisive on refugee issue
The Kathmandu PostBy Dr S Chandrasekharen 19 August, 2002
The 80th National Assembly of Bhutan, which began on June 25, rightly identified the two most important issues faced by that nation: The problem of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal and the presence of Bodo and ULFA militants in south Bhutan. On both issues His Majesty King Jigme Singe Wangchuck has taken the responsibility upon himself. What the king means by "himself" is not clear at present. But do the members of the National Assembly have the power to deal with the problem decisively? As usual the deliberations were ritualistic. Nevertheless, Foreign Minister Jigme Y Thinley responsible for briefing the refugee issue, and Home Minister Thinley Jamtso responsible for briefing the militant issue, presented the progress of the talks on superficial notes, explaining very little on the difficulties for arriving at the resolution.
The ULFA and Bodo militants were invited into Bhutan with the purpose of quashing the return of refugees from Nepal. The former Home Minister, who now serves as Ambassador to India, was reported to have hob-nobbed with the militants in the 1990s. With increased pressure of the Indian government, Bhutan has opted now to request the militants to leave peacefully, and there had been parlays between the militants and the high officials of the Royal government, including the King. As per the understanding signed with the militants in June 2001, they were expected to shift their camps out of Bhutan in a year’s time. While Minister Jamtso made a bold statement that the militant camps have been reduced as agreed from 10 to 6, the reality is that the number of camps has increased to 30, and there is now West Bengal based militant outfit, called Kamtapuri Liberation Organisation (KLO), establishing its camps in south Bhutan. The Indian army has cordoned off the Indo-Bhutan border. The militants are unwilling to risk the escape, opening up the possibility of armed confrontation in Bhutan which is likely to be bloody and long-drawn. To Bhutan’s disadvantage, the militants are reported to be working in tandem with the al-Qaida members active in the local Muslim communities with the sole purpose of creating disturbances in India. It is a grave concern for the Indian government, and the need to flush out the militants and restore normalcy in south Bhutan becomes India’s priority as well. On the refugee question Minister Thinley was quick to blame Nepal for shying away from its commitment to categorisation and harmonisation of position of the respective governments on each of the category. He attributed the delay to the dissolution of Nepal’s Legislative Assembly, absence of full-fledged Foreign Minister, and Nepal’s pre-occupation in dealing with the Maoist problem. Instead of presenting the difficulties in so-called harmonisation process, to which Nepal has rightly asserted that Bhutan take back all its citizens irrespective of which category they belonged to, Minister Thinley did not hesitate to shift the blame onto Nepal, pointing out its incapacity to put together a team to discuss with him the refugee issue with clarity and competence. Certainly, Thinley is not completely out of tune in making this allegation. A core issue such as this, which has eclipsed the country’s foreign policy over a decade, requires careful handling by a competent authority, for example, custodian of the nation. The political bosses, who come and go, and generally have more shallow understanding than seasoned bureaucrats, are normally given ceremonial role, for example, reading out the press briefings or posing for photograph sessions. In Nepal this has not happened at least in the case of Bhutanese refugee. The politicians have overstepped their responsibilities. The personal visits of Chakra Prasad Bastola and Madhav Kumar Nepal were uncalled for. What has transpired between Jigme Y Thinley and former foreign minister Bastola is a matter of speculation, but certainly Bhutan wasted little time in providing wine and dine to the visiting couple who are considered influential at least in the Koirala faction of the Nepali Congress party. But on the visit of Madhav Kumar Nepal, the Kuensel reported that "before his trip to Bhutan, he had always thought that all the refugees in the camps were genuine Bhutanese citizens and that they were forcefully evicted from Bhutan. However, after coming to Bhutan and meeting with His Majesty the King, the ministers, the civil servants and the people from the private sector, he has changed his view". Nepal has not yet refuted the statement printed in the Kuensel, and he visited Bhutan at the capacity of the leader of the opposition in Parliament. It is a tested hypothesis that "Bhutanese hospitality is hard to resist". In the early 1990s, KES Kirby of The Los Angles Times, Tim McGirk of The Independent and James Clad of Far Eastern Economic Review were made to write what Bhutan wanted. A free trip to western Bhutan, an interview with the King and wine and dine at the hospitality of the Foreign Ministry were necessary to mortgage their professional integrity for false reporting. In fact the full-time job of Sonam Rabgay, then Counsellor at Bhutanese Embassy in Delhi, was to keep the media-men in good humour by extending the Embassy’s hospitality. It is important to understand that the Bhutanese psyche is built around the thesis that even the saints in heaven would be tempted by their hospitality. The issue here is of fairness and justice to the innocent victims, and not of commercial deal. The overwhelming majority of the people in the camps have documentary evidence to prove their origin in Bhutan . Of the 12,804 persons verified at the Khudunabari camp, over 95 percent have such proof. Should the verification process allow to reach to its logical conclusion, over 95,000 of the present 100,000 refugees would qualify to return to Bhutan. At the most Bhutan wants to take one half of 100,000; and this is the crux of the problem. Bhutan knows that the continuation of verification would only embarrass the Bhutanese team as almost all the families are going to produce evidence of their citizenship or of the "forced signing of the migration form". Therefore, what Bhutan has been trying to make Nepal agree is on number. To this end it wants to build pressure on donor community that further support to the refugees is subject to the progress of the negotiation. Some of the donor countries from the European Union have begun to voice Bhutan’s concern that the repatriation of all the refugees would create political instability in Bhutan as they have been exposed to open environment for a long time. It is like a person seeking mercy as an "orphan" after having killed both parents. It was Bhutan which created the refugee problem, it was Bhutan which deliberately delayed the verification process, and it is Bhutan which is unwilling to proceed further verification for fear of having to swallow all the untruths said before. Whether it be the statement of Thinley to the National Assembly of Bhutan, the statement of King to the visiting US Ambassador from Delhi, or responses of the government officials to the visiting UNHCR team in Thimphu— all connote that Bhutan is unwilling to take back all the people identified as Bhutanese citizens in the camps. Nepal has two options: either take principle stand or cut a deal on number. The Bhutanese refugee issue has a deeper ramification for Nepal than seen by outsiders. Letting the issue live as it is will pay positive spin-off in the long-run than dividing the refugee community arbitrarily. Today, Bhutan is not as monolithic as it is perceived by many. The urgency to handle the militants in Bhutan is increasingly catching India’s attention, and this may become a blessing in disguise in the resolution of the refugee problem!
The Kathmandu PostBy Dr S Chandrasekharen 19 August, 2002
The 80th National Assembly of Bhutan, which began on June 25, rightly identified the two most important issues faced by that nation: The problem of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal and the presence of Bodo and ULFA militants in south Bhutan. On both issues His Majesty King Jigme Singe Wangchuck has taken the responsibility upon himself. What the king means by "himself" is not clear at present. But do the members of the National Assembly have the power to deal with the problem decisively? As usual the deliberations were ritualistic. Nevertheless, Foreign Minister Jigme Y Thinley responsible for briefing the refugee issue, and Home Minister Thinley Jamtso responsible for briefing the militant issue, presented the progress of the talks on superficial notes, explaining very little on the difficulties for arriving at the resolution.
The ULFA and Bodo militants were invited into Bhutan with the purpose of quashing the return of refugees from Nepal. The former Home Minister, who now serves as Ambassador to India, was reported to have hob-nobbed with the militants in the 1990s. With increased pressure of the Indian government, Bhutan has opted now to request the militants to leave peacefully, and there had been parlays between the militants and the high officials of the Royal government, including the King. As per the understanding signed with the militants in June 2001, they were expected to shift their camps out of Bhutan in a year’s time. While Minister Jamtso made a bold statement that the militant camps have been reduced as agreed from 10 to 6, the reality is that the number of camps has increased to 30, and there is now West Bengal based militant outfit, called Kamtapuri Liberation Organisation (KLO), establishing its camps in south Bhutan. The Indian army has cordoned off the Indo-Bhutan border. The militants are unwilling to risk the escape, opening up the possibility of armed confrontation in Bhutan which is likely to be bloody and long-drawn. To Bhutan’s disadvantage, the militants are reported to be working in tandem with the al-Qaida members active in the local Muslim communities with the sole purpose of creating disturbances in India. It is a grave concern for the Indian government, and the need to flush out the militants and restore normalcy in south Bhutan becomes India’s priority as well. On the refugee question Minister Thinley was quick to blame Nepal for shying away from its commitment to categorisation and harmonisation of position of the respective governments on each of the category. He attributed the delay to the dissolution of Nepal’s Legislative Assembly, absence of full-fledged Foreign Minister, and Nepal’s pre-occupation in dealing with the Maoist problem. Instead of presenting the difficulties in so-called harmonisation process, to which Nepal has rightly asserted that Bhutan take back all its citizens irrespective of which category they belonged to, Minister Thinley did not hesitate to shift the blame onto Nepal, pointing out its incapacity to put together a team to discuss with him the refugee issue with clarity and competence. Certainly, Thinley is not completely out of tune in making this allegation. A core issue such as this, which has eclipsed the country’s foreign policy over a decade, requires careful handling by a competent authority, for example, custodian of the nation. The political bosses, who come and go, and generally have more shallow understanding than seasoned bureaucrats, are normally given ceremonial role, for example, reading out the press briefings or posing for photograph sessions. In Nepal this has not happened at least in the case of Bhutanese refugee. The politicians have overstepped their responsibilities. The personal visits of Chakra Prasad Bastola and Madhav Kumar Nepal were uncalled for. What has transpired between Jigme Y Thinley and former foreign minister Bastola is a matter of speculation, but certainly Bhutan wasted little time in providing wine and dine to the visiting couple who are considered influential at least in the Koirala faction of the Nepali Congress party. But on the visit of Madhav Kumar Nepal, the Kuensel reported that "before his trip to Bhutan, he had always thought that all the refugees in the camps were genuine Bhutanese citizens and that they were forcefully evicted from Bhutan. However, after coming to Bhutan and meeting with His Majesty the King, the ministers, the civil servants and the people from the private sector, he has changed his view". Nepal has not yet refuted the statement printed in the Kuensel, and he visited Bhutan at the capacity of the leader of the opposition in Parliament. It is a tested hypothesis that "Bhutanese hospitality is hard to resist". In the early 1990s, KES Kirby of The Los Angles Times, Tim McGirk of The Independent and James Clad of Far Eastern Economic Review were made to write what Bhutan wanted. A free trip to western Bhutan, an interview with the King and wine and dine at the hospitality of the Foreign Ministry were necessary to mortgage their professional integrity for false reporting. In fact the full-time job of Sonam Rabgay, then Counsellor at Bhutanese Embassy in Delhi, was to keep the media-men in good humour by extending the Embassy’s hospitality. It is important to understand that the Bhutanese psyche is built around the thesis that even the saints in heaven would be tempted by their hospitality. The issue here is of fairness and justice to the innocent victims, and not of commercial deal. The overwhelming majority of the people in the camps have documentary evidence to prove their origin in Bhutan . Of the 12,804 persons verified at the Khudunabari camp, over 95 percent have such proof. Should the verification process allow to reach to its logical conclusion, over 95,000 of the present 100,000 refugees would qualify to return to Bhutan. At the most Bhutan wants to take one half of 100,000; and this is the crux of the problem. Bhutan knows that the continuation of verification would only embarrass the Bhutanese team as almost all the families are going to produce evidence of their citizenship or of the "forced signing of the migration form". Therefore, what Bhutan has been trying to make Nepal agree is on number. To this end it wants to build pressure on donor community that further support to the refugees is subject to the progress of the negotiation. Some of the donor countries from the European Union have begun to voice Bhutan’s concern that the repatriation of all the refugees would create political instability in Bhutan as they have been exposed to open environment for a long time. It is like a person seeking mercy as an "orphan" after having killed both parents. It was Bhutan which created the refugee problem, it was Bhutan which deliberately delayed the verification process, and it is Bhutan which is unwilling to proceed further verification for fear of having to swallow all the untruths said before. Whether it be the statement of Thinley to the National Assembly of Bhutan, the statement of King to the visiting US Ambassador from Delhi, or responses of the government officials to the visiting UNHCR team in Thimphu— all connote that Bhutan is unwilling to take back all the people identified as Bhutanese citizens in the camps. Nepal has two options: either take principle stand or cut a deal on number. The Bhutanese refugee issue has a deeper ramification for Nepal than seen by outsiders. Letting the issue live as it is will pay positive spin-off in the long-run than dividing the refugee community arbitrarily. Today, Bhutan is not as monolithic as it is perceived by many. The urgency to handle the militants in Bhutan is increasingly catching India’s attention, and this may become a blessing in disguise in the resolution of the refugee problem!
posted by Oh My GOD | 7:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home