Bhutan: Echoes of Pain

Tek Nath Rijal
Bhutan’s criminal justice and prison system is cruel, barbaric, inhuman and primitive. The prisons were in bad condition. More than a formal prison, they were a brutal place for sentencing the opponents. The prolonged detention and brutal punishment that follows here through highly unconventional means is hardly known to the outside world. I still recall a barbaric act in which a political prisoner, Dasho D.B. Subedi, was stripped off his clothes and the police personnel tied rocks on his genital.
In another instance, an illiterate village woman prisoner was asked to undress and lie flat on the ground. After she undressed, security personnel inserted gun muzzle into her genital. Similarly, a prisoner named Tularam Rai was flogged repeatedly on his ankle until he fainted. Padam Lal Dhakal, Prem Bahadur Gurung, Kapil Mani Acharya, Narayan Acharva, Bishnulal Adhikary, Ram Bahadur Rai, Barmalal Adhikari, Tejman Chhetri, Loknath Dhakal, Mukti Paudel and Chakrapani Khatiwada recount stories of gruesome tortures in prisons. Such instances of brutality continued unabated. All that went inside the jails were seldom reported.
The RBG (Royal Bhutan Government) is given the overall charge of the prisons. The Royal Bhutan Army (RBA) and the Royal Bhutan Police (RBP) officials were placed under the control of the RBG. The political prisoners were mercilessly tortured with impunity by the command of the King. People’s right to freedom of expression had been severely suppressed. Dissidence and opposition to the government policies are considered anti-national activities. The law of Tsa-Wa-Sum (the three elements — king, country and government) bans criticism of these elements. This law declares any act of “making conversation and correspondence” criticizing the King and his government by the citizens as treasonable offence inviting life sentence or death. It may be mentioned that the draconian National Security Act (NSA) was enacted in 1992. It was given retrospective effect from November, 1989, the time when I was abducted from Nepal, to implicate me on false charges of treason.
Under the NSA, the government arrested about two thousand people who had participated in the peaceful demonstrations in 1990. As prisons had limited space in the district headquarters, hundreds of prisoners were detained in health and education centers as well as deserted houses of the royal family members. These institutes had been shut down which not only deprived thousands of students of education but also prevented the public from basic health care. According to Ram Bahadur Rai, a political prisoner who is still inside the jail, more than one thousand five hundred political prisoners were detained in the Dradulmakhang prison alone. Nine to ten prisoners were cramped into 9’ x 9’ cells.
The detainees did not receive adequate medical facilities. The doctors occasionally visited jails, but their rude attitude surpassed that of the police. If any prisoner had fever, the guards would take the patient to the river and throw him/her into the ice-cold water. In Cherugang jail, five prisoners had died due to such inhuman practice. Apart from it, the regime used mind-control devices--that made the prisoners unconscious--to extract confidential information. In such a state, the prisoners were taken to the court and made to confess and sign false statements. The victims, moreover, were kept in a state of fear so that they would not tell others about such a device being applied.
Once inside the prison, the prisoners were kept incommunicado for months. The relatives who came to visit the prisoners were harassed and humiliated. The hard-core criminals from the Ngalong community, serving life sentences, were used to torture the political prisoners.
The prisoners were forced to work at private saw mills and apple orchards of Namgval Wangchuck and Ugyen Dorji. They had to endure long hours of labor that stretched from 4 am to 9 pm while being shackled. They were neither given time to wash their body nor were they provided any tools for digging soil or stones. They were also forced to work in the construction of schools, hospitals and roads in and around Thimphu for which the regime received huge amounts of foreign aid. On the one hand, the private contractors used the prisoners as laborers while they were forced to work on the construction of the police officers private buildings, on the other. The detainees were not only forced to use their mouth to pick up anything that fell on the ground but were also forced to lick the paint droppings.
Beatings with canes, sticks, batons, chains, leather belts and rifle butts, on the back, head, arms and feet of detainees were routinely carried out. One night, Tshering Wangda stormed the jail and severely beat up the detainees. He did so to extract the statements of confession. They were kicked around like a football and were also forced to fight with one another. This had an ugly purpose: to entertain the RBG and the RBA officials. Such barbaric acts, while entertaining to the perpetrators, would often result in injuries to the prisoners. On several occasions, detainees were tied to a post outside the jail compound and left overnight in the freezing and biting cold.
As if the above mentioned methods of torture were not enough, the guards, in their whims, would order the prisoners to run. Then, they would whip their backs and butts. Those who fell while running were overrun by the prisoners following them injuring the fallen ones severely.
Various acts of sexual perversion were ordered by the guards. For instance, prisoners were ordered to perform anal sex between father and son, to masturbate in their presence, and so on. In Thimphu prison, both male and female prisoners were brought to a room in pair and ordered to perform various perverse sexual activities, either alone or as a couple. Guards often hit the sexual organs of the prisoners with their boots and laughed at the expression of pain. The female prisoners were sexually harassed and abused.
If a prisoner died and his relatives or son is also in the same prison the relative would be ordered to abuse the dead. One day, in Chemgang jail, a prisoner, who was unwell, asked his father for water. Overhearing their conversation, he ordered the father to urinate in his son’s mouth. The father was forced to do so. In the evening, the father who came back from the forced labor, found his son dead.
Two prisoners in Lodrai prison were killed and shown as having committed suicide. Both were found dead, hanging in the ceiling with their hands and legs tied. How can a person, whose hands are tied, commit suicide? Their unnatural death was put under the carpet. No one was there to enquire. Manoj Biswa, a Lhotsampa jailed in Samchi, was found dead and shown as having committed suicide, when in fact he was murdered. When he refused a guard’s order to drink water from a drum, the guard in a fit of anger, submerged his face in the water. He could not breathe. As a result, he died. Chakrapani Khatiwada, a priest from Lamidara temple, died in Thimphu prison due to excessive torture. Punya Prasad Dhakal, a student leader, was tortured to death in Chemgang jail.
Those arrested from the villages were never registered in the district police office, not even in the prison. The whereabouts of many ex-prisoners is not known. The officials claimed they were released. But, to this day, their whereabouts is unknown. The bodies of political prisoners killed by the police were never handed over to their family. The movable and immovable properties of the political prisoners were seized by the regime. It has not given so far a full account of the number of people arrested, detained, killed and released. It’s only after the lCRC started visiting the jails that the regime has been obliged to keep the records of its political prisoners.
Even the personal possessions were never returned to them after their release. Instead of handing over the court verdicts to the concerned detainees, the prison officials confiscated it. The regime feared that the detainees would present the documents as evidence to the human rights bodies after their release. Even the cards issued to prisoners by the ICRC were confiscated at the time of their release. Instead of re-habilitating them, the regime seized their documents and evicted them under duress. While in Nepal, they were denied registration and have been surviving at the mercy of their relatives and sympathizers.
Bhutanese in Indian Jails
The Indian authorities were well-aware of the Lhotsampas’ contributions to Bhutan’s socio-economic progress. On this backdrop, we had great expectations from India that it would help us in the hour of need. Sadly, however, our hopes were completely shattered. Adding salt to injury, law-enforcement agencies of the states bordering Bhutan arrested Bhutanese citizens fleeing their homeland. These hapless refugees were beaten, tortured and imprisoned in Siliguri, Jalpaiguri and Barhampur (Kolkata) jails. As recently as on May 27, 2008, one Bhutanese was killed in Indian firing and seven were injured, while they were proceeding to Bhutan. Some of those fleeing the country have been handed over to the Bhutanese security personnel. The stateless refugees are deeply anguished at this treatment meted out by India, a country that claims as a savior of democracy. It has further etched a permanent scar on their psyche.
Atrocities on Religious Grounds
There are many ethnic communities in Bhutan, like Brokpas, Doyas, Totas, Khengs, Mangdepas, Lepchas and others, besides the three main communities — Lhotsampas, Ngalongs, and Sharchokpas. The Sharchokpas are indigenous people of Bhutan, but they too are neglected, discriminated against and humiliated. Neither their good services to the nation are appreciated, nor do the ruling elites allow them to prosper.
Sharchokpas are predominantly Nvingmapa followers but they have no right to elect their own religious head. The King selects one Ngalong abbot and imposes it on the entire Sharchokpa community. Sharchokpa monk, objecting to, it or demanding to elect their own abbot, were either killed, tortured or incarcerated for long jail terms. Khenpo Thinley Ozer, one of the chief abbots of the Nyingmapa Mahavana Sect was imprisoned for eight years in solitary confinement. Another monk, Gomchen Karma, was murdered in day light by Lakpa Dorji, the Dzongdag of Mongar. Lakpa fired from a 9 mm pistol provided by the regime and remained unpunished.
Due to the suppression, members of Sharchokpa community were either forced to flee the country or stay back in a state of repression. Many of them are now living in the refugee camps. The relatives of refugee Sharchokpas continue to face barbaric treatment inside the country. Dasho Rongthong Kuenley Dorji, Dasho Thinley Penjore, Rinzin Dorji, Aum Deki Yangzom, Tenzing Zangpo, Gup Khilla and late Aappa Chheku are some of the distinguished Sharchokpas, who had escaped from their native land and have been working for establishing genuine democracy and human rights there. On April 6, 2009, Zangpo, a political leader, was arrested from Guwahati in India and deported to Bhutan. There are reports that he is in a prison inside Bhutan. But his whereabouts are still unknown.
Bhutanese people had great expectations of securing protection, justice and support for the ongoing democratic struggle from the so-called world’s largest democracy. But instead, it brazenly violated the international laws by deporting a refugee leader like a criminal.
About the Author:
The author was born on March 27 1947 in Lamidara in south Bhutan, as the youngest son of Dina Nath Rizal and Bishnu Maya Rizal, Tek Nath Rizal joined the country's Department of Survey at age 16. In 1964, he joined Bhutan Engineering Service. From 1974 to 1984, he served as a National Assembly member from Lamidara constituency of Chirang district. During this period, he was also a National Labor Recruiting Officer.
The most important designation he held was Royal Advisory Councilor (1984-88). In that capacity, he was member of both the council of ministries and royal Civil Service Commission. He was also a coordinator of national-wide investigation bureau which investigated the corruption rampant in the country. But he was unceremoniously dismissed from the post and was forced to leave the country. In November 1989, he was arrested from his shelter in southeastern Nepal and deported to Bhutan. He underwent a horrendous torture for a decade inside Bhutan's prison and was released on December 17, 1999. Currently based in Kathmandu, Nepal, Rizal, a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International, is Chairman of Bhutanese Movement Steering Committee.
Excerpts from the Book by the author entitled 'Torture: Killing Me Softly-Bhutan, through the eyes of Mind Control Victim"
Printed at: Jagadamba Press, Hattiban, Lalitpur
Publisher: Friends of Bhutan
Edition: 2nd 2010 (Shortly to be Published)
Price: NU 300, IRS. 300, Nrs. 450, US$ 30
Edited by Deepak Adhikari
Copyright © Tek Nath Rizal

Bhutan: In the Shadow of Fear

Tek Nath Rijal
Enduring the torments at one after another prison, I was moved into Dradulmakhang prison, whose very name evoked fear. Known in Thimphu as detention centre, it was worse than the Rabuna jail. Apart from being disgusting, some of the dreaded criminals served their sentence here. The menacing presence of not only Bhutanese, but also notorious criminals from India and Bangladesh scared me to death. The prison reminded me of the stories told about Nazi Concentration Camps, during the World War II. The turreted stone-walled prison with iron-gate and barbed wires was surrounded by a few dark pines which stood like sentinels guarding the prison. In fact, the prison buildings and forts were built a century ago with the forceful labor and the contribution from the inmates.
I was stunned to find that the jail buildings in both Rabuna and Thimphu looked similar. In Rabuna jail, I was kept on the ground floor, but here my cell was in the first floor of a dilapidated building. Some obnoxious odor wafted through my cramped and damp cell causing constant nausea. The ceiling, like in Rabuna, was made of wood except there was an iron hook hanging menacingly in the centre. The difference between the two jails was that the Rabuna accommodated only political prisoners, while Dradulmakhang had pet criminals, too. These criminals were kept on the ground floor and I was kept alone on the first floor.
The criminals were allowed to make fire to warm their bodies in the winter, which was justified from a humanitarian angle. However, the hidden intention was to create problem for me through the dense smoke emanating from the fire. As if this was not enough, they were provided with heavily moist or wet wood or coal for making the fire. When the criminals were taken out on labor duty, prison officials threw chili powder in the fire. One can imagine the suffocation created by the fumes of burning chilies in a room without the ventilation. Actually, the walls as well as the floor were made of the wooden planks with gaps between the two planks, through which the rising smoke crept in my room.
Let me describe the structure of the detention centre. The area where I was kept was actually a big bathroom attached to a living room. When I was brought here, the room was allotted to six policemen, who were duty-bound to guard me. The bathroom was converted into a living room by erecting a five-foot wooden partition, though the height of the wall was seven feet. It was done on purpose, as I learnt later. Whenever I started eating my food, one of the guards or inmates from the ground floor would always come to use the latrine. The foul odor would make eating impossible.
The most disgusting part was that the toilet was without running water. This caused the stink unbearable with the foul smell emanating out of the heaps of human excreta that kept piling up each day. I was given only five liters of water per day for latrine, bathing and drinking, making it a precious commodity so that I could not afford that to flush. Thus, the room had an air of a garbage dumping site. The room buzzed with flies and mosquitoes. The old quilt-cover--laden with dust and infested with bedbugs--was not long enough to cover my body. I was neither able to ward off the biting cold nor fend off the mosquitoes. As a result, some part of the body was always exposed to the attack by mosquitoes. The toilet was flushed only when international humanitarian groups visited the prison. Once the visit was over, the prison authorities would resort back to the same inhuman practice.
In addition, I was not permitted to wash myself or my clothes for a long time. Living constantly in dirty environs was terrible. Bad smell emanated from my clothes and it obviously was extremely hazardous to my health. After a few months, on my repeated pleadings, I was provided with a small piece of detergent soap and water. After washing my clothes, as per the rule, I gave them to one of the guards to get them dry. However, I never got those clothes back. The guard told me the clothes had been blown away. I protested saying, “What would I wear now?” But he shrugged and left. After some time, this guard was transferred and a new one replaced him. When I inquired about my clothes, he feigned ignorance. Deliberately, I was not given the clothes for next six months and had to manage by wearing the battered quilt-cover and a stinking bed- sheet.
I was passing the lonely and torturous moments inside the detention center. One day, a constable came hurriedly and asked me if I was interested in smoking a bidi (a rolled tobacco leaf. I replied affirmatively. He whispered, “Come on! Tight this bidi.” Gesturing persuasively, he thrust on me a piece of bidi along with a matchbox and disappeared. I opened the matchbox and found out that it contained only a few match-sticks. I lighted the bidi and felt satisfied as I was smoking after a long time. To my amazement, there was something else inside the matchbox: a brand new razor blade. My whole body shivered at this. I could not believe that the officials would stoop so low because the prisoners are strictly denied access to such hazardous articles. It was difficult to guess why an item like a blade was left. Perhaps, the regime hoped that I would commit suicide in utter despair.
It was not the first time the regime had provoked me to commit suicide. It reminded me of a rope which was left in my room just a few days ago--it would have been a convenient appendage to the iron hook on the ceiling. The jail officials deliberately chose the time to keep the rope when I was attending hearings in the court. Incidentally, the judicial process took four years to begin. It began only when all the options to keep me detained illegally were exhausted, due to the ever-mounting international pressure. The most brazen effort to exhort me in committing suicide took place when a technician, on the pretext of repairing the electric wiring opened the wiring system and spent the whole day doing nothing. In the evening, he left the live electric wires exposed, went out of the room and did not come back. Thus, the wires remained dangerously exposed for a long time.
A similar incident occurred inside the jail. There was no provision for storage of drinking water in my room. Whenever I requested the guards to provide me drinking water, they tended to turn a deaf ear. But, whenever they supplied water to me, it was always brought in an empty beer bottle. This happened many times. It is strictly prohibited to provide the prisoner anything made up of glass, as they may hurt themselves or others. Clearly, they wanted me to make use of the bottle either to end my life or, in a fit of rage, to attack the guards so that in the name of self-defense they could justify my killing. In this way, they evolved different strategies to get rid of me and started provoking me towards committing suicide. For this purpose, first, they made me depressed through mind-control technique and then conditions conducive for me to commit suicide were created. Thanks to my immense inner strength, I could resist the regime’s relentless efforts to end my life. That is how I survived ten years of rigorous torture inside jail.
The regime left no stone unturned to entice me to commit suicide, but eventually failed. I was seized by a sudden pang of conscience in spite of all these provocations pushing me to the edge. Fortunately, I escaped such a fate. This was also due mainly to the lesson learnt from my mother, which would often come flooding back to my memory. There was a time when women committed suicide in my village after their husbands were forcefully taken to labor camps. When the breadwinners were missing for a long time, the women, out of helplessness and overburdened by having to nurture children, jumped into the river. I have a vivid recollection of my mother narrating those stories and counseling the neighbors not to commit such acts. Since childhood, she always told us that life, in due course, might create some moments, inflicting sorrow and pain on us, but at such times, we should never think of ending the life. Hence, it was my mother's teaching that helped me survive those days of extreme brutality.
(Excerpts of a book on 'Torture Killing Me Softly: Bhutan through the Eyes of Mind Control Victim)

I was born in Nepal: HM the King of Bhutan

telegraphnepal.com
The King of Bhutan, His Majesty Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, revealed at an interaction with Nepal’s Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal that he was born at a Hospital in Kathmandu in the year 1980.
“Thus I have sentimental attachment with Nepal because I was born there in the year 1980”, he added.
“Nepal and Bhutan must join hands because we share similar cultural and geographical settings”, said the Bhutanese King.
“We both are landlocked, mountainous and developing nations”, he also said.
“Nepal and Bhutan have tremendous prospects of harnessing of Hydro-Electricity, we must thus work together in developing our respective economies”, the Bhutan King suggested PM Nepal.
Whereas other leaders of South Asian Countries separately paid courtesy calls on Bhutan King, however, the Bhutan King in a grand departure from all the diplomatic protocols himself came to see the election defeated Nepal PM at the Nepal House built in the SAARC village, say reports.
A rare honor indeed. Nothing remains now to be said for this grand honor granted to Nepal and its population by the Bhutanese Sovereign. Thanks Your Majesty!
The meeting between Nepal PM and Bhutanese King lasted for almost an hour.
Analysts opine that since His Majesty the King of Bhutan has himself admitted that he was born in Nepal and thus the Nepal Government is advised to confer upon the Bhutan King “Distinguished Honorary Citizen of Nepal” certificate organizing a grand ceremony befitting the sagacity , height and the modesty of the Bhutanese King.
It would be in the wisdom of both Nepal and Bhutan to cash in on from the frankness of the Bhutanese Monarch and initiate diplomatic activities to open Bhutanese embassy in Nepal and act in a manner that has been advised by the King of Bhutan in order to expand Nepal-Bhutan bilateral ties.
(With strong inputs from Nagrik daily dated April 30, 2010. Thanks Nagrik).

Bhutan: Inviting International Attention

Tek Nath Rizal and Thinley Penjore, Bhutanese nationals
The historic records of Bhutan reveal government’s gesture of gratefulness paid either on the edge of sword or prison. The several reincarnate of Bhutan’s unifier, the Zhabdrungs, ended up theft lives in the hands of King’s appointed assassins in 1931 and 1953 while, the first Prime Minister of Bhutan, Jigme Palden Dorji, the farsighted national personality ended up his life in the hands of military assassin in 1964.
One of the politically conscious Southern Bhutanese Garjaman Gurung, who spoke in support of the Zhabdrung, was allured into the royal palace at Paro on the pretext of sorting out differences amicably and was assassinated by putting him into boiling oil in a large frying pan. Another person, Mahasur Chettri of Tsirang, who spoke against Zhabtog Lemi (Forced Contributory Labor), was arrested in public. His family members and the village community were called to witness the punishment being awarded to Mr. Chettri. Against the principles and ethos of Hindu Religion, a cow was slaughtered and its fresh hide wrapping him, was thrown alive into the Sunkosh River.
Similarly, loyal, grateful and innocent people landed up in prison cells framing them of being supporters of the fabricated Bhutan -Tibetan internal royal conflict of 1974. Many succumbed to prison torture while those released after decades of imprisonment continue living under strict surveillance. Upon royal amnesty or release from the prison, they found their families either displaced or their properties registered in the name of senior government officials.
A loyal Royal Body Guard who escaped the royal atrocities was chased and killed at gun point at his home to in Saleng in Mongar district of east Bhutan by a senior bodyguard officer following the 1974 incident. His brother, who joined the pro-democracy movement was abducted from Siliguri in the Indo-Nepal border on fabricated charges and incarcerated for life in Bhutan. His family members, an ailing wife and children have been missing from the refugee camps since 2005. The heinous crimes committed by the regime can go endless as the ink may run out of stock but the stories of atrocities are endless.
During Bhutan’s infrastructural building, the female workers were mobilized to work for the period extending beyond one month at a time. In Hindu culture, daughters or wives are not separated from the house for such long periods of time. Due to coercion against the culture, the entire community of Danishey Kali Gaon of Tsirang had to flee the homeland for freedom and safety. In the name of decentralization, regime used government forces to mobilize people to work under Zhabtog lemi with no wages. In the same way, the present refugees languishing in Nepal have been evicted as their reward of being grateful for their hard labor in the road construction and administrative infrastructural building of modem Bhutan. Large sections of these people are branded either as illegal migrants or anti-nationals.
Democracy and Human Rights in Bhutan is a Farce
The making of its own citizens stateless and refugees is due to absence of democracy and human rights with Bhutan’ s insincerity to follow the provisions of the United Nations on various rights of its people. Bhutan does not have right to: Freedom of Speech and Expression; Peaceful Assembly and Union; Justice, Due Process of Law and Equality before Law; Vote Freely and Fair Elections; Freedom of Religion
• Freedom of Press, Publicity and Printing; Oppose and Choose the Government; Form Unions, Associations, Organizations and Political Parties; Social and Cultural Rights; Right to return to our country.
There is a complete ban on the formation of unions, associations, organizations and political parties. In the absence of the Constitution or Basic Law or the Bill of Rights, people do not enjoy even the basic human rights. Dissidence and opposition to the Government is treated as treason and punishable according to Thrimzhung Chhenpo and Tsa-Wa-Swn. Without transforming absolute monarchy into constitutional democracy, rule of law and human rights are not guaranteed in a feudal society. The door to peoples’ participation in the nation’s political, social, economic and cultural domain remains under lock and key. So, it will be through the transition of polity into democracy that the people of Bhutan will have greater say in the affairs of the state, especially in terms of accountability and transparency of the government, which, at present, is totally missing.
The establishment of representative and participatory democracy, rule of law, secular political and social order, end of racism and inequity, promotion of true decentralization, balanced and uniform economic growth and development, release of political prisoners, declaration of general amnesty, repatriation of Bhutanese refugees are some of the vital tasks that need to be achieved.
The September eleven episode brought about millennium drive against terrorism bulldozing and chasing Bin Laden all along the deserts and mountains ultimately ushering among others, substantial social change in the Afghan governance and at the same time reminding the rest of the world to help support the eradication of world terrorism. The arrest of Saddam is yet another example of success in the transformation of the military rule to democracy. But flushing out of the Indian insurgents in December 2003 in the Himalayan kingdom only tormented the families of scores of Sharchhokp ethnicity who were taken into prison under fabricated charges as being responsible for helping these elements in the Bhutanese soil.
In our crusade for the:
Establishment of Constitutional Monarchy with multi-party Democracy, Parliamentary system of government and Independent Judiciary; 2. Establishment of National Human Rights Commission for the compliance and effective implementation of provisions of the UN charters, declarations and covenants, including rights of linguistic, religious and cultural minorities; 3. Promotion and strengthening of harmony and goodwill amongst multi-ethnic society of the multi-racial, multi-religious and multicultural groups in Bhutan; Institutionalization and consolidation of civil society to create a vibrant, stable and functioning democracy; Drafting of a written Democratic Constitution, which shall be the basic law of Bhutan with the rule of law as the foundation of the democratic process; The political, economic and social stability, security and well being of Bhutanese nation; Creation of a conducive environment for refugee repatriation;
The people of Bhutan seeks support and solidarity to liberate citizens from the existing bonds of suppression and pave way to equal opportunity coexisting with the main stream of the global family and live in a free society having dignity and honor of a human being.
In the present context, Bhutan is completely run by an absolute monarchy. There are no private organizations, institutions or any political parties, even social organizations. The government bars people from criticizing the acts of the government or raising question on Royal family members and King. The Driglam Nam Zha (its so-called dress and language code) and such other traditional laws define any one as terrorists or anti-nationals if found speaking against the government or the royal family members. Government officials censor the news. Even other programs of the radio and television and most of the articles on the newspaper are administered by government. Government not only discourages private publications but also imposes serious penalty on such attempts.
According to the provisions of the Rule on the administration of the National Assembly vide Rule no. 11, drafted in 1953; every member of the legislature shall have the full right and privilege to express his thought in the Assembly. No rule or law can interfere with the member’s freedom of expression.
But according to the Citizenship Act 1958, amended in 1977 states, “Anyone having acquired Bhutanese citizenship involve in the act against the king or speaking against the royal government or being in association with the people involve in activities against the Royal government shall be deprived of the citizenship. Similarly, Citizenship Act 1985 says any citizen of Bhutan who has acquired the citizenship at any time, if the person has shown by act or speech to be disloyal in any manner whatsoever to the King, Country and People of Bhutan, his citizenship will be seized.
People never demanded press freedom nor did they try for private publication in the past. It was only after 1990 that freedom of press and right to information has been felt. Bhutan People’s Party staged peaceful demonstration demanding establishment of democracy and human rights which could only guarantee freedom of press and expression in 1990. The Druk National Congress also peacefully demonstrated in east Bhutan. It covered capital and major towns with demand for fundamental rights in 1997 and ended up shooting a monk at point blank range killed in cold blood while a Chief Monk was incarcerated for eight years merely for asking for freedom to practice their own religion which is Nyingmapa Buddhism, one of the sects of the dual system of Ka-Nying. Other political parties like Gorkha National Liberation Front continued with their peaceful demands for the establishment of democracy in Bhutan.
In the name of press and right to information of the Bhutanese people, a radio, a television (both run by Bhutan Broadcasting Service owned by state) and a weekly newspaper (Kuensel, published by state owned Kuensel Corporation) exist whose contents are censored by the government. They carry the voices of the government and the prominent figures that support the absolute rule. There are neither any private publication houses nor any organization working in the field of right to information. Specifically, no person is permitted to start any private organization or the publication house. As such any one speaking against the government, king or the high profiled bureaucrats face serious physical punishment. A hundreds of thousands people were banished from their homesteads while staging for the right to organization, speech and culture in 1990. Even then, a large section of the Bhutanese people feel the need of a private publication house or any organization working for their right to speech and expression in Bhutan. The Right to speech should be guarantee to its citizens.
Bhutan has lately been advocating transformation of itself into a democratic kingdom under the leadership of its king Jigme Singye Wangchuk. The recently drafted constitution vide Article 16(e) “The Druk Gyalpo, in exercise of His Royal Prerogatives, may Exercise powers relating to matters, which are not provided under this Constitution or other laws”, does not give power to the parliamentarians which are not in tune with the democratic norms whereby the constitution only becomes supportive to autocratic role. Similarly, Article 2 (26) — “Parliament shall make no laws or exercise its powers to amend this Constitution so as to affect all or any of the provisions of this Article”-this cripples entire democratic values in the parliamentary democracy with written constitution. There is also no apt provision for the development of journalism and freedom of press. The government has said that two weeklies have been registered. One of them Bhutan Times has begun its publication from April 30. The other Bhutan Observer is yet to be seen.
Electronic Media
Bhutan Broadcasting Service, established in 1973 and given its current name in 1986, operated under the auspices of the Department of Information; it began with Sunday programs and increased to thirty hours a week of shortwave radio programming in Dzongkha, Sharchopkha, Nepali, and English. There was daily FM programming in Thimpu and shortwave reception throughout the rest of the nation in the early 1990s. In 1991 there were thirty-nine public radio stations for internal communications. There were also two stations used exclusively for communications with Bhutan’s embassies in New Delhi and Dhaka and thirteen stations used by hydrologists and meteorologists. There were no television stations in Bhutan in the early 1990s, and a 1989 royal decree ended the viewing of foreign television by mandating the dismantling of antennas. The government wanted to prevent Indian and Bangladeshi broadcasts from reaching Bhutan’s citizens.
While television was banned in Bhutan, foreign cable lines continue restricted circulation as the free access to foreign television is considered a threat to the national identity and culture. In 1989 king banned private satellite dishes and dismantled 28 privately owned dishes. At that time people mostly viewed Indian and Bangladeshi channels. The most favorite was STAR television network. Audio-visual program started in 1981 with DSCD. It made films and documentaries on life, culture and religion (development oriented). But the program was stopped in 1996.
Re-Registration of Refugees
In Nepal, during the time of initial registration of asylum seekers, many people were excluded. They could not report on time as they were out looking for food. When they approached for registration, the screening posts were found closed. Such persons and those unaware of the facilities accounting approximately fifty-thousand have been living in different parts of India under displaced condition. Therefore, parents and children are separated. In some cases, husband and wife are separated. It has become difficult for us to locate their whereabouts.
In line with the expectations of Bhutan, gradual reduction of humanitarian assistance to the refugees in the areas of education, medical, food items and basic amenities like cooking fuel and shelter maintenance were brought to the camps in recent times. The UNHCR on the other hand as coordinating agency of the UN assistance to the refugee community show their concern for early dismantling of the camps due to donor fatigue, which however, indirectly supports the interest of Bhutan whose main target is to shy away from accepting repatriation and resolving the refugee imbroglio.
With regard to recent development of Nepal’s policy towards re-registration of the refugees, Nepal must review its policy before it is implemented. At the time of bilateral talks which dragged for fifteen rounds, refugee leaders were not consulted. Despite bowing that the refugee issue is a political issue between the people and the regime, Nepal carried on as a bilateral process. Nepal also at the same time did not approach India for their intervention. It would have been appropriate for Nepal to have proposed to India for their intervention at the beginning of the process where Nepal could have facilitated for regime-refugee dialogue.
The families from outside Lhotshampa community who do not have the capacities to communicate or socialize with other than their own community have fallen victim to non availability of screening post and registration facilities. In the process, many are learnt to have entered Kalimpong and Darjeeling in the state of North Bengal and Arunachal Pradesh in the north east; besides, several of them are wandering in different parts of Nepal. Therefore, re-registration of the refugees without accommodating these people into the mainstream of the asylum seekers in Nepal would be a serious injustice to the displaced and suffering people who are the victims of regime atrocities. In this context, Nepal should not be focusing and concentrating only on the Nepali speaking community of the Lhotsham region. These people from the Sharchhokp, Ngalong and Kheng region, who lived in complete peace and harmony, have become political victims only because they realized the inhumane treatment meted to the common people and left Bhutan to join hands with the Lhotshampa.
Many of their relatives continue suffering in jails in Bhutan while monks were killed during military crack down in east Bhutan. This community has become vulnerable in the refugee camps due to difference in language and culture. Many of the victims of crackdown were not registered as Nepal government took more than six years to decide on their registration. The kith and kin of this community also equally suffer discriminatory policies of the regime and undergo social out caste in their home town in Bhutan. These vulnerable groups do not have any relatives and adaptable communities in Nepal to whom they could approach for help and support. It therefore becomes Nepal’s responsibility to look at the refugee community with broader perspectives rather than perceiving them only as a Nepali speaking community.
Ever since the time of entry of asylum seekers into Nepal, the refugee leaders urged Nepal to seek international assistance for the assessment of properties that were left behind at the time of eviction. Every time the new government was formed in Nepal, appeals were submitted in written for consideration to facilitate assessment of the refugee properties. By now, Bhutan regime has resettled people all over the region and Nepal is out for re registration of the refugees. It is urged to make provisions to accept registration of the refugee properties along with the people so as to be convenient at the time of making assessment of the properties for justice upon repatriation.
Excerpts only from the author’s book entitled Unveiling Bhutan. The full text of the book is in our website telegraphnepal.com (see inside Nepal-World)-ed.

Indo-Bhutan friendship, which is portrayed as unique in the world is in reality limited to hi-fi policy level of statesmanshi

p

Tek Nath Rijal & Thinley Penjore*
When Bhutan evicted the Lhotshampa community, the parliamentarians, senior citizens, farmers, women, children, handicaps, aged people, pundits and all those helpless people, unable to resist the torture entered Assam and Bengal to save their lives. The neighboring people, who were well known to the evictees due to their past relationship from the times of their fore fathers having depended on India for salt, matches, clothes and basic needs of livelihood, including those of the Nepali speaking community of the neighboring villages of Indian citizens came forward to sympathize and help the Lhotshampas in plight.
The relationship between the escapees and the neighboring people prevailed not only because of racial and cultural linkage like marriage but also because the relatives residing at the other side of the border were none other than those who were separated at the time of border demarcation. The suffering escapees had entered into the bordering villages looking for their ancestral relatives for protection from the Bhutanese army. Although, relief was forthcoming at the initial stage, owing to government’s vigilance the host supporters, both non Nepali speakers and those of the same race and culture withdrew from providing humanitarian relief.
The distant relatives in Assam and Bengal who had extended their sympathy and made arrangements for the escapees to take shelter in their villages and vacant forest land had to flee to save their lives. Bhutan security forces collaborated with the Indian Border Security forces and picked up the escapees and dumped them in the Lorries bound for the west. The vehicles, irrespective of whether they carried goods or animals were used for loading Bhutanese evictees and dispatched them to the Indo-Nepal border. Consequently, youths and men who were out of camp looking for food were left behind. They are missing to this day. Little valuables saved from the looting armies inside Bhutan were either snatched by Indian security forces or lost in the process as people were dumped into vehicles like cats and dogs. The women and children, particularly pregnant women suffered bleeding and miscarriages due to the barbaric Indian security forces while handling the escapees. Many died on transit while those who could make it to Nepal continue under medication till today due to traumatic inhuman torture in the hands of both the Bhutan army and the Indian security forces.
After arrival in Nepal, due to non availability of immediate humanitarian relief, both old and children succumbed to hunger and multiple epidemics. The cremation and burial of those who died were highly emotional and a terrifying sight. The local supplies made available through alms were hardly sufficient to survive as distributions were meager about ascoop full of grain weighing approximately fifty grams. The support and solidarity of the local people of Nepal reached its government who approached the United Nations for humanitarian support in order to save Bhutanese refugees dying every day along the Sacred Mai River. In 1991 UNHCR, at the request of Nepal government, appeared on the scene to coordinate emergency relief assistance for the Bhutanese refugees.
As the news media began covering the incident, the world community became aware about the existence of Bhutan ruled by an absolute monarch. All these activities were witnessed by the Central Government of India very closely, yet it remained a mere spectator. The media exposed Bhutan as one of the SAARC member nations, which has no Human Rights or such provisions and organizations that could either advocate or protect the innocent people from the claws of brutal rule.
Looking back to the past from the time of British rule and the subsequent independent India, Bhutanese people have played their own role in the Indian struggle for independence while British India has also been responsible in the emergence of hereditary Monarchy in Bhutan. The Indo-Bhutan friendship, which is portrayed as model and unique in the world podium is in reality limited to hi-fi policy level of statesmanship. Taking into consideration the overall aspects of the growing historic relationship between the two countries, India can not be irresponsible as it is the largest multiparty democracy. India has played a vital role in guiding Bhutan on several specific areas of diplomatic relationship; it assisted Bhutan in the management of its defense and security. The industrial, trade and commercial collaboration of the Bhutanese products, all of which account for Bhutanese national economy, are controlled by India.
In consideration of the aforementioned realities, as India had guided Bhutan in all the development, political, diplomatic, defense and economic welfare, it is unfair of India to be a silent observer to the phenomenal aspects of Bhutan’s refugee making using its brutal army. While Bhutan is responsible for its wrongdoing to its own people with torture, cruel and degrading treatment extending to eviction and land grabbing, being a silent observer, India is equally responsible for the injustice being meted to the people.
(*The authors are respectively the chairman and vice chairman of BMSC -Bhutanese Movement Steering Committee)

How did the Bhutan refugee problem start?

Nepal: How did the Bhutan refugee problem start?
Several countries of South Asia have been generated and received flow of refugees in large numbers in the twentieth century. While large-scale movements of India to Pakistan and vice versa took place following the Partition in 1947, the movement of Afghan refugees in Pakistan in the 1980’s was also significant. A large number of refugees entered India before the breakup of Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh in early 1970’s. On the other hand, Bhutanese refugees in Nepal are smaller in number. Unlike in many countries of the world where refugees leave their homeland because of external intervention, war or communal disturbances, the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal represent the result of selected ethnic cleansing policy of the Royal Government of Bhutan followed since 1990 when multi-party democracy was restored in Nepal after Jana Andolan -1. However, not all persons of Nepali origin were expelled as refugees so that it was a not total ethnic cleansing.
The Bhutanese refugees entered Nepal in late 1990. There were 5,000 refugees by February 1991. Their number had swelled to over 100,000 by the year 2000. A British writer has commented that Lhotshampas growing influence was seen as a threat to Bhutanese way of life. According to him Lhotshampas were “presented with a choice between remaining in Bhutan, but as subordinate citizens maintaining abbreviated versions of their traditional way of life, or fleeing to Nepal”. It is thus a refugee problem generated and received inside SAARC. It is also one of the refugee problems when both the generating and receiving countries are designated as Least Developed among the developing countries by the United Nations. There are fifty such countries, which are categorized on the basis of such criteria as low income, human resources index and economic vulnerability. Nepal and Bhutan are also land-locked countries.
The Bhutanese refugees entered Nepal passing through Indian Territory as Nepal and Bhutan do not share a common border. In other words, India was the country of first refuge for the Bhutanese refugees. On the other hand, both Nepal and Bhutan share a common border with India and China.
Census conducted by the Bhutanese government listed its population in 2005 as 672,000. However, it did not categorize the Bhutanese living in Bhutan at that time on the basis of ethnicity including Lhotshampas. An article published in The New York Times lists Bhutan’s population being 700,000. The World Bank listed Bhutan’s population as being 918,000. According to former Indian Ambassador to Bhutan Salman Haider population in Bhutan was between 600,000 and 1 million.
Bhutan’s per capita income was listed as US$870 in 2005. On the other hand, Nepal’s population was estimated to be 25 million. While both Nepal and Bhutan had a per capita GNP of US$180 in 1988, Bhutan’s per capita Gross National Income had become US$870 in 2005, it was only US$270 in Nepal, a figure which was less than a third of Bhutan. A study by a British scientist found Bhutan “eighth happiest country in the world, although it was a relatively poor country”. Gross National Happiness includes such criteria as god governance, equity and harmony with nature. However, harmony did not mean harmony with more than 100,000 refugees living in camps in Nepal who were forced to leave the country. The density of population in Nepal in 2005 was 190/sq.km which was nine times that of Bhutan which had a density of only 20/sq.km according to the World Bank. As there were more than 100,000 Bhutanese refugees in camps in Nepal, they represented 14 percent of population. This would make Bhutan one of the countries generating one of the largest per capita refugee populations in the world. The percentage of persons of Nepali origin in Bhutan (called Lhothsampas) was stated to be as much as 45% before expulsion of the refugees. The Fact Book published by CIA (updated in March 2007) suggested that 35% of population was Nepali in origin. (www.cia.gov). A Canadian Professor who is advisor to sustainable development to the United Nations University states that Lhothsampas represent between 35 and 45% of Bhutan’s population but it is uncertain in his opinion whether these include those living in the refugee camps in Nepal. This is due to different figures given by different sources regarding Bhutan’s population.
The problem of refugees of Nepalese origin dates back to the early 1990’s immediately after the success of People’s Movement (Jana Andolan-1) in Nepal when Lhotshampas in increasing numbers started demanding democracy in Bhutan. The relations between the royal governments in Nepal and Bhutan during Panchayat era in Nepal were quite cordial. Actually it was during this period that Tek Nath Rizal, a leader of Nepali-Bhutanese was arrested inside Nepalese Territory in 1989 and handed over to Bhutan, where he was imprisoned for ten years. The King of Bhutan told an international newsmagazine in 1990- “The survival of Bhutan is at stake. We cannot have a large population that feels it is not Bhutanese” . King Jigme of Bhutan was reported to be asserting in his interviews throughout the 1990’s that Bhutan was a small country sandwiched between two big neighbors and was too small to afford cultural pluralism, as it needed to define its cultural identity. Hutt believes that Lhotshampas’ growing influence was seen as a threat to a distinctive Bhutanese way of life. Bhutanese Refugee Leader Rizal writes that rapid economic development in Bhutan in the past forty years benefited the Lhotshampa community as they were involved not only in food grain production but also in horticulture and vegetable farming. They benefited more than the others which proved to be a curse as it led to their eviction. On the other hand, King Jigme Wangchuk told the Indian daily The Times of India in 1993 when a large number of refugees had already left Bhutan:
“I actively participate in Dussera celebrations. Besides, how can they complain of discrimination when there are so many cultural and religious commonalities between the two groups? Our governing deity is Mahakali and we also worship Shiva and Vishnu”.
Both Bhutan and Nepal are multi-ethnic countries sharing a common Buddhist- Hindu heritage. Nepal is a Hindu majority country having a large Buddhist minority. Bhutan is a Buddhist majority country having a large Hindu population in the same region. People speaking Tibeto-Burmese languages and practicing Lamaism in Nepal are living amicably with their Hindu neighbors and didn’t have to leave the country as refugees even when Nepal was a Hindu kingdom. This was in spite of discriminatory practices contained in civil code, Mulki Am which was in force till 1964. The reason why a large number of Lhotshampas speaking Nepali and mostly following Hinduism had to leave as refugees could perhaps be explained due to fear of losing power by the Bhutanese ruling family if the principle of one-man one-vote were to be followed in Bhutan. In addition, Lhotshampas were unwilling to dilute their own linguistic and cultural identity. Kharat, an Indian writer believes anti-Drukpa activities of Lhothsampas led the Royal Government to “forcefully integrate them into Driglaam Namzha meaning traditional Bhutanese culture”. He also believes that some Lhothsampas were advocating the concept of “Greater Nepal” which would have threatened Bhutan. Hun says a uniform dress code was required for all Bhutanese nationals including Lhotshampas. Teaching of Nepali language was discontinued and Nepali language materials were removed from curriculum in 1989. According to him, removal of Nepali language was symbolic and provocative. Teknath Rizal, leader of Lhotshampas in Bhutan writes that there existed tolerance between different ethnic groups in Bhutan till 1988 and Lhotshampas were free to attend court in their traditional dress and plead their case in their mother tongue. Most of the Lhotshampas were subjected to attack on their dress and language. It was made obligatory to wear traditional bakkhu dress in southern Bhutan and Djonkha language was made compulsory in schools. He feels that 1988 census was an exercise to brand some citizens of Bhutan as non-citizens and King Jigmey himself was involved in targeting this against the Lhotshampas. He complains that most of the Hindu temples in southern Bhutan were destroyed and Buddhist monks appointed by Bhutanese government appropriated funds generated for their upkeep. Sinha, an Indian writer thinks it was the democratic aspirations of Lhotshampas that forced the Drukpa establishment for ethnic polarization. A Nepalese researcher found that most of the Bhutanese refugees were forced to sign documents in Djonkha language, claiming that they were leaving Bhutan voluntarily. Only few of them knew the language. In a nutshell, it could be said that the Bhutanese refugees of Nepali origin forming a large percentage of population were forced to migrate from sparsely populated Bhutan to more densely populated Nepal. While the per capita income of Bhutan and Nepal were similar at the time the refugees left, Bhutanese as a whole had become better off fifteen years later as Bhutan’s per capita income had increased threefold that of Nepal. It was ethnic cleansing in a limited sense as some Lhotshampas still live in Bhutan. The primary reason for this refugee movement was thus the fear of Bhutanese ruling classes that Lhotshampas would not assimilate and would threaten Bhutanese Djonkha religious and linguistic identity when Bhutan would emerge as a democratic country when all its citizens would have universal adult franchise. The Bhutanese Government has changed the names of some towns inhabited primarily by Lhostampas as Samchi became Samtse, Sarvanga was replaced by Sarpang respectively. The hometown of refugee leader Teknath Rizal which was Lamidanda, became Lamidangra. Such cartographic changes seem to correspond to ethnic cleansing in Bhutan. Although several cities in South Asia have changed their names as Bombay became Mumbai and Madras became Chennai by the Government elected by the people, change of names of cities was done by Bhutan at a time at a time when refugees living in these towns had left the country.
Refugee Camps in Nepal
Bhutanese refugees are living in seven camps in Jhapa and Morang districts of southeastern Nepal. They numbered 104,235 in 2004. Bhutan has claimed that the refugees were migrants from Nepal who entered Bhutan illegally, criminals and those who were availing themselves of food and shelter supplied by UNHCR. According to latest figures provided by UNHCR, the refugees in the six camps in Jhapa district and one in Morang numbered 107,431 in January 2007. Bhutanese refugees receive assistance in such sectors as food grains, health care, education, shelter, water supply, sanitation, educations and legal assistance. Assistance from UNHCR and WFP is channeled through such INGOs as Lutheran World Service and Caritas and Nepalese organizations such as Nepal Bar Association, Jhapa unit and Centre for Victims of Torture.
Attempts to find a solution
A Joint Ministerial Committee between Nepal and Bhutan was formed in 1993 to find a solution to the refugee problem. The first meeting of MIC held in 1993 decided to divide the people in the camps in four categories: bonafide Bhutanese if they were evicted forcibly, Bhutanese who migrated voluntarily, non-Bhutanese people and those who committed criminal acts. Refugee Leader Tek Nath Rizal has written that such classification is a conspiracy of the Bhutanese administration and the Nepali side was trapped in accepting it. Eleven meetings of MJC held in Kathmandu and Thimpu failed to bring any results. However, in the eleventh meeting held in Kathmandu in February 2003 it was agreed to form a Joint Verification Team consisting of Nepalese and Bhutanese officials A breakthrough was made in the 15th meeting of MJC held in October 2003 when Nepal and Bhutan agreed to actual repatriation from Khundanbari Camp after verification of refugees in category 1,2 and 4. (20)
It was found as a result of verification exercise that 70 percent of refugees in Khundabari camp were genuine Bhutanese consisting of those who were evicted and had left “voluntarily”. However, UNHCR was not part of verification process. It was primarily because Bhutan Government did not see any role and involvement for UNHCR. The UN refugee agency was also not given access to areas of potential return in Bhutan. ‘When modalities of return were being discussed at Khundabari Camp, the refugees reacted violently on 22 December 2003 to harsh conditions being presented by Bhutan for their repatriation. They were told that they would have lesser rights in the camps in Bhutan than they enjoyed while in Nepal, This resulted in a security problem for Bhutanese officials. This was used by the Bhutanese Government as an excuse for delaying the process of repatriation. Bhutan wanted investigation of the incident and asserted that it would not accept a single refugee before the perpetrators of the event were punished. Refugee Leader Teknath Rizal believes the behavior of Bhutanese Government representative in the camp demonstrated that they didn’t want to solve the problem of refugees. Not a single refugee was repatriated from the refugee camps in sixteen years to Bhutan till now. This represents a classic example of failure of Nepalese foreign policy in this respect.
According to UNHCR, 70 percent of refugees in Khundanbari may be eligible to return but will have to re-apply to get their citizenship papers after probation of two years. Some may be denied citizenship and may become stateless. UNHCR would need to have a presence in Bhutan to assist Bhutanese Government in creating condition for reintegration and rehabilitation to monitor the return of refugees. Bhutan is unwilling to allow UNHCR any role inside Bhutan. It has also been the policy of Bhutanese Government to resettle northern Bhutanese in the lands where the refugees (Lhotshampas) were formerly living. Even if the verification exercise in the Bhutanese camps had progressed since December 2003 it would have taken eight years to “verify” the entire refugee population in view of its slow pace.