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.