Information Bhutan International

Bhutan Review.

With annual report 2002 Spring Edition 2003 Summer edition 2003
Autum edition 2003
Winter Edition 2003 NEW

Some clips from the latest issue of Bhutan Review:

THE CURRENT AFFAIRS

Secret Christmas.

Bhutanese Christians celebrated Christmas this year secretly in a Church-house in Thimphu. Since a few years the regime has persecuted Pastors and asked Christians to leave their faith, or country. Earlier this year World Wide List of Christen-dom ranged Bhutan as the 7^th worst offenders of Christian faith.

www.bhutan4christ.com

Verification Team ran away.

The Verification Team of Bhutan went back without completing the task bestowed by the 15^th Ministerial meeting. The team led by Dr. Sonam Tenzin and Mr. Susil Jung Rana briefed the verified refugees of Sector A of Khudunabari camp in a nearby bamboo hut in Dec.22. Dr. Sonam provoked outrage by telling that, those refugees categorised as Bhuta-nese who emigrated, will be held in a camp for two years as non-national if they go back to Bhutan. Some refugees offended, and the team ran away fearing lack of security provi-sions. Back in Bhutan, they accused the refugees of trying to burn them with the hut itself, a trick of the Drukpas to avoid repatriation.

The king is fighting.

His Majesty the King Jigme is in the battle zone, chasing Indian insurgent, compelled by New Delhi. During his Dynasty’s 96^th anniversary of kingship celebrated as National Day on 17th Dec. Prime Minister assured the public that he is safe. He either do not have confidence on the military, or out of mob mentality, he is fighting India’s war personally.

Bhutanese feared in India.

When the Bhutanese military refused the truce offered by the Indian insurgents last week, a sense of enmity grew among the Assamese ending up centuries of cordial friendship. The insurgents notified the Bhutanese to leave North India.

INTERNATIONAL GRANT IS AID IS AIDING TO INTENSIFY THE DISCREMINATION IN BHUTAN.

The Sustainable Development Agreement (SDA) between Bhutan and The Netherlands has always been lucrative, but to Bhutanese regime alone. Bhutan is contend of whether or not the Dutch scrap out from its list of grant aid beneficiary. Most of 13 countries out of 49 that are severed from Dutch grant aid decried not do so. In contrary, the oppressed Bhutanese minorities urged the Dutch to suspend its grant aid or assert basic human rights preconditions such as repatriation of the refugees. But the Dutch ministry for development cooperation neither considers such preconditions nor severed Bhutan from aid flow. This is evident from the fact that the commitment for 2004 and 2005 has already been made of 4 million and 3.4 million Euro respectively, quite before the parliamentarians debated over such provisions. Apart from the official government aid to Bhutan, the SDA provides for projects and activities which are prepared and executed through different NGOs of The Netherlands. This agreement has been renewed last year, irrespective of the human rights record of Bhutan and the way such grants are being used.

Bhutanese regime discriminates ethnic minorities based on their race. Forcible exile of more than 100,000 Lhotshampas and oppression against their kiths in the six southern districts is self evident. The grant aid of 4.5 and 3.8 million Euros given under SDA in the year 2001 and 2002 respectively has not benefited these districts. Thus the implication is that the present manner of aid disbursement strengthens the intensity of discrimination. Beside that there is lack of control mechanism. A spokesperson of the foreign affairs say they do not know if Bhutan government misappropriates the fund or do not distribute fairly. The Dutch government is squeezing its spending in all spheres of their national and inter-national priorities, but the same stand is not taken against Bhutan.

The Dutch Minster for Development Co-operation in her white paper ‘mutual interest mutual responsibilities’ asserted to maximize the efficiency by terminating their cooperation with the countries receiving smaller aid packages. As a result Bhutan fell in that category. However the Director Mr. Robert Milders revealed that the termination of grant aid to Bhutan does not mean that the SDA will be denounced or suspended. If this agreement seek to conserve Bhutan’s bio-diversity alone, then is also imprudent because Bhutan already has undisturbed bio-diversity with 72% of its land covered with forest.

The essence of development cooperation is to combat poverty in a sustainable manner. “If the grant aid recipient country (Bhutan) does not have in its constitution to eradicate poverty, illiteracy and preventable diseases, there is no use giving Dutch tax payer’s money” said, former minister Evelen Herfkens in an interview given to me earlier. If the Dutch government has in its policy that recipient government must have, in practical, the plan to eradicate poverty, illiteracy and respect human rights, then it is self incriminating to give money to the government of Bhutan that does not have such a plan practically. No amount of their grant benefited the six southern districts where the government closed down schools, hospitals and water supply schemes in 1990, and those reopened facilities are given only to the resettled elite and state military. Whose benefit the grant stands for? Is it not democratic to disburse the grants from bottom up? By Gautam

Verified,Categorised and beleaguered!

The figure shown here oner are the Bhutanese refugees from Khudunabari camp in Nepal forcibly exiled by Bhutan in early 1990. They were verified by Nepal-Bhutan Team after ten years of waiting and categorized as shown. Even the children are also categorized as criminals-category 4. According to 15^th meeting with Nepal, Bhutanese regime has to repatriate some of them. But the team provoked rage by telling them that they will have to stay as foreigners, isolated in camps without any rights if they go to back to Bhutan. The team left and accused the refugees of setting them on ‘fire’, trying to avoid their repatriation.

Refugees are verified and categorized by Nepal Bhutan team as:

Number of Family

Population

%

Category 1

(Bhutanese if forcefully evicted)

74

293

2.40

Category 2

(Voluntarily emigrated)

2182

8595

70.55

Category 3

(Non-Bhutanese)

817

2948

24.22

Category 4

(Bhutanese with criminal Acts)

85

347

2.85

Total verified refugees

3155

12153

Reappealed by: (Category 2 to 4)

2965

-

-

Not re-appealed (Category 2 to 4)

119

-

Bhutanese government has created a row with the refugees by asserting inhuman conditions for repatriation. The JVT members conveyed such condtions on 22 December and left with any further steps. Below is the detail report on the row:

23.12.2003

Joint Verification Team(JVT) briefings and untoward incident

At around 11.15 A.M yesterday ie 22nd December 2003, both the verification teams of Bhutan and Nepal led by Dr Sonam Tenzin and Mr. Sushil Jung Rana arrived at Khudunabari refugee camp to brief the refugees about the conditions and guidelines on repatriation. According to the scheduled plan the briefing was to carry on sector-wise first day starting with sector-A and continuously for 7 days. It is felt that the plan was not properly organized and well communicated to the camp supervisor and camp committee for the arrangement as not only people from sector-A was there but thousands of refugees had already gathered. Once the teams arrived, people of sector-A were asked to enter the community hall which has no enough space to accommodate even the sector-A people. Most of the people from sector-A have to either sit or stand outside on the ground to listen the briefings with other crowds.

The first briefing started by Mr. Sushil Jung Rana, the Nepali team leader informed the people that the agreement of two governments reached after 15th round of bilateral talks to a very important and crucial stage of repatriation. According to the agreement the category-1(Bonafide Bhutanese, if they have been evicted forcefully), category-2(Bhutanese who emigrated) and category-4(Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts) people will be repatriated to Bhutan. According to the Nepal government there is no any distinction of categories and all people are looked one and the same and should be repatriated with dignity. After that he requested the Bhutanese team leader Dr Sonam Tenzin to brief.

Dr. Sonam Tenzin started his briefing with categories of people falling in C1, C2 and C4.

Firstly he started with C1(Bonafide Bhutanese, if they have been evicted forcefully):- He said the C1 people will be repatriated in the first phase and as soon as they arrive in Bhutan they will be given citizenship and have the full rights to enjoy like any Bhutanese living in Bhutan but on the question of land he clearly stated that those who have sold off their land either to private or government will not get any land. One who has not sold and left will be given substitute land in equal measurement in his thram record (land registration). After that he asked C1 people if any in the sector-A to raise questions. One of the C1 people started asking questions which later on denied to listen to him or answering as reasoning that if one goes on asking question it will be never ending and others will not get chance. He asked him to stop, then immediately he proceeded to C2.

For, C2(Bhutanese who emigrated) people he told that those who willing to return to Bhutan will be allowed but the conditions are that once arrived in Bhutan will be registered as re-applicants and a card will be issued to them. They have to remain on probation at least for 2 years and re-apply for citizenship. While applying for citizenship, all the family members those who are with him/her have to be physically present in Bhutan and cannot apply for other members who are still in the camp or elsewhere. Further to get the citizenship, one has to though reading and writing Dzongkha is exempted but has to speak and know the Bhutanese history, culture and traditions. In the meantime if anyone is found speaking against the King, country and the people or left Bhutan will not be given citizenship. He also told that the C2 people will be taken to Bhutan and kept in the camps and one member from the family will be employed as a laborer in the road site and will be provided facilities as that of expatriated laborer in health and education. No body will get any rights of citizenship and will also have no freedom of movement.

The statement clearly means that only one member has to work and support the other members and rest have to stay in the camp depending on the earning of one member only which definitely means slowly starve to death as earning of one member is not sufficient to meet the basic needs of all and it is clear that the government is not going to supplement any things. After the re-application for citizenship which is very ambiguous that we have never applied before for citizenship as we were naturally or by birth citizens. So question of re-application should not be there. He told that a committee will be formed to interview the re-applicants and if they are satisfied then only be granted citizenship. The deliberation was very provocative and intentionally Bhutan government discouraging the people from returning bringing unacceptable conditions.

C3( Non-Bhutanese people): About the C3, the Bhutanese team leader clearly said that his team has already submitted their review of re-appeal report to the government and got back the reply that there is no any changes from the previous result on the side of Bhutan government. He also said that he is not the one to make the decision and is here only to convey the message of government and is not going to say anything more or less than the government's instruction to him.

C4(Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts): About the C4, he said that the Nepal police will handover the people falling in this category to Bhutan government and will be taken to Bhutan and dealt according to the Bhutanese's law. Their family will also be taken but will be kept in a separate camp which means distinctly stigmatizing as a family of so called "anti-national" from the other community. After hearing all these there was confusion and noise and protest from outside the hall and inside. This occurred at about 1.30 PM.

In the meantime the Nepali team leader requested the people to be quiet and started briefing on the His Majesty Government-Nepal's(HMG-Nepal) position.

He said the Nepal government will treat all the Bhutanese like as any other foreigners. He also cautioned that if any one quietly leaves the camp and go out to live in Nepal, action will be taken if found later on. He also clarified that HMG Nepal is not responsible for any statement made by the Bhutanese team other than in the bilateral agreement. He also clarified that the Nepal government is not responsible for the conditions on repatriation briefed by Bhutanese team leader as it is not the agreement and is in their knowledge. He also clarified that there will be free transportation of people and belongings and will be escorted up to Bhutan border.

By this time the people became bit aggressive and surrounded both the team members from inside the hall and outside and verbally started charging them. There was no further discussion or deliberation. We tried to pacify the crowd but was unmanageable. In the meantime, security force of unified command of Nepal led by one Sub-Inspector arrived in the camp with arms and wanted to enter inside the community hall compound which was prevented by the UNHCR Security Officer and requested them to enter without arms which was not possible for them to leave their arms. They remained outside and only the Sub-Inspector went in and first met the Deputy Director, Refugee Coordination Unit. Deputy Director told the Sub-Inspector to safely whisk away the Bhutanese team members. The Sub-Inspector without clearing the crowd went in the hall and brought out the Bhutanese team members. So once the team members were out the angry crowd started assaulting the members first verbally and later physically till they enter their vehicle and drove away. It is learnt that one of the Bhutanese team members was hit by stone on the head and have to stitch the wound and another members' cloth (gho- Bhutanese dress) was torn. The extent of injuries to others is not known although no single member was spared. There were some damages to Bhutanese vehicles and Nepalese vehicle too like window shield and wind screen were damaged as mob charged them while trying to drive away.

According to the information, the Bhutanese team members have left for Bhutan early this morning.

An appeal submitted to the Dutch Parliament on 10th December 2003 by the Bhutanese Human Righs Activist in Europe.

Honourable Chairman

Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Postbus 20018
2500 EA Den Haag

Subject:                                             APPEAL

Your Excellency,

Appreciating the government of Netherlands and Bhutan’s friendly relationship, and their partnership for sustainable development, we the undersigned, representing the Lhotshampa minority (including more than 20% of Bhutan’s population who are forcibly exiled by the Bhutanese regime) appeal you with this memorandum to beseech on to our plight please.

The Royal Government of Bhutan’s respect to the inherited rights and freedoms of the Minority Lhosthampa people has been deteriorating over the last thirteen years. The strategy is to alien its minority citizens from their basic human rights and systematically eliminate them out of the country. Bhutan’s dubious motives to render these Lhosthampa people stateless through systematic ethnic cleansing, has been apparent from its strategies that:

        I.      Revised Citizenship law of 1958 to the Citizenship Act 1985 including vague measures to deliberately revoke the citizenship of those who were naturalised as Bhutanese under 1958 Citizenship law. Thus the Lhotshampa’s citizenship status was down graded to 7 categories and then exiled one after another. Hindu minorities, matured to receive the citizenship by birth are denied of citizenship since 1985. Later, the government down-graded the citizenship status up to seven categories.

     II.      Declared the supporters of democratic movement and their relatives as “Ngolop” or the ‘anti-national traitors’ and forced them out of the country. Those resisting against such a strategy are still in prison.

   III.      Formulated the so-called ‘voluntary migration forms’ under which the Lhotshampas were forced to sign under duress and leave Bhutan immediately.

IV.      Halted every development programmes in the six southern districts, closed down schools, hospitals, communication etc. and deployed the Royal Bhutan Army in the villages. Organised rapes, arbitrary detention, plunder and intimidation followed to hound out the innocent people. The development activities in the South have not been reopened fully. A few schools and health centres restarted are used exclusively for the children of military and the resettled Northerners only.

    V.      Introduced greenbelt policy, Ngalong’s etiquette-Driglamnamza, Survey system, route permit, Police Clearance/no objection certificate, language policy etc. that facilitated mass discrimination.

With these strategies and the policy of One Nation One People, Bhutan has forcibly exiled about 20% of its citizens since 1990, as a formal measure to dissolve any element opposing to the absolute monarchy. As a result, more than 100,000 Lhotshampa refugees have been stranded in the UNHCR administered refugee camps in Nepal over the last 12 years. About 30,000 refugees are living outside the camps in India and Nepal. Bhutanese government has delayed and denied every practical measure for repatriation initiated through bilateral talks with Nepal. This has disturbed the peace in South Asia.

In the light of these facts, one can realize that the ruling elite have been pursuing ethnic cleansing measures to eliminate the Hindu minorities from the Buddhist kingdom. Since the Lhotshampas were forced to leave their country not because of a civil war, foreign intervention or natural calamity, which entitle them to a voluntary return upon restoration of previous situation, the refugee crisis will not be solved unless the donor country, especially The Netherlands asserts human rights pre-conditions with its grant aid. This is now inevitable given the fact that, instead of recognizing the refugee’s right to return to their homeland, Nepal agreed to Bhutan’s following motives of delay, in order to dissolve these refugees in the slums of Nepal and India, through an unacceptable process, which held them in dismay more than a decade. Categorizing these refugees in to two: Bhutanese and Non-Bhutanese would have been desirable but Nepal and Bhutan decided against the interest of these refugees to divide them in to following four categories:

1.            Bhutanese who migrated voluntarily. The trick used thereby is to brand as non-Bhutanese since under the Bhutanese law do not stipulate the circumstance for emigration but forfeits the citizenship, much in contrary to international law which otherwise must insure the nationality of another country before emigration is approved. Beside that the vast majority of the refugees were forced to sign 'Voluntary Migrations Forms' under duress before leaving the country. The government has retained these forms.

2.            Non-Bhutanese. The government of Bhutan claims that the majority of people in the camps did not come from Bhutan but are local Nepalis or Indians, in order to deny their repatriation.

3.            Bhutanese who have done criminal acts. Government aggregates all those Bhutanese who have participated in political and human rights activities as criminals.

4.            Bona fide Bhutanese, who can prove the evidence that they are forcibly evicted. While Bhutan has conscripted all the documents what so ever before they were evicted, and its hard to prove with tangible evidence.

These conditions for categorization clearly expose Bhutan’s concoction to render these refugees stateless. The 15^th round of talks held recently with Nepal also failed. Holding bilateral talks appeared as the tactics of Bhutan only to continue luring more grant aid. The bilateral talk that ended on 22^nd Oct2003 in Thimphu, the capital city of Bhutan, has resolved to take back all the refugees except those that falls under category III. The norms and conditions for repatriation is vague and is against the interest of the refugees . Bhutan declines to respect the citizenship rights of the refugees prior to repatriation. It also disagrees the involvement of international agencies like UNHCR to monitor the repatriation and rehabilitation process. This clearly reveals the insincerity on the part of the Royal Government of Bhutan in resolving the crisis.

The reports from Southern districts say that the data collected during the verification process in a refugee camp in Nepal has been used to further harass the concerned relatives of the refugees who are still living in Bhutan. Lhotshampas are treated as slaves, legally discriminated and held in constant suppression and persecution. Royal Bhutan Army still occupies school buildings and development infrastructures that has been closed down in the six Southern districts since 1990. The Lhotshampa children are denied admission to few schools that are reopened. Recently the government passed a law that prohibited Lhotshampa children who were accommodated by their relatives to go to school in other parts of the country. People are suffering from untold man made calamities. The fear of unfounded persecution and the restrictions against the right to freedom of opinion and expression forbids anybody to speak out and let anyone know their plights.

Beside that the government has been resettling the Northern Drukpa in the lands of the Lhotshampa refugees, ignoring the recommendations of the Habitat International to stop violating its obligation as State of Origin. The motive behind could be to ignite ethnic clash in case in future the government is compelled to accept the refugees back. This will lead to exodus once again, accomplishing its strategy to reduce the population of the minorities.

The very nature of the so called drafting a written constitution at the behest of the king, is self evident to constitutionally deprive the Lhotshampa minority’s rights and freedoms as its drafting committee did not include even a single representation from the Lhotshampa communities. This is another ploy of the king to fortify his position and avoid external criticism. This will not promulgate the genuine democratic change.

In this way the present monarchical regime of Bhutan has been gravely violating almost all the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Rights of the Child and the international conventions.

Bhutan has undisturbed bio-diversity and clean environment. The support given by The Netherlands through Sustainable Development Agreement and any other channels is being misappropriated, as it is mostly used for the state military and to develop only the western region, predominated by the Ngalongs- the elites. It is ironical to point out that not a single Lhotsampa has been benefited by the support provided by the Dutch government.

.

In the light of the above, and for the justice to give a chance, we all, on behalf of the Lhotshampa minorities and indigenous people of Bhutan humbly appeal you, to request your government to consider to:

1.            evaluate the Dutch grant assistance to Bhutan in the light of human rights record and suspend all the grant aid until Bhutan promulgates a fair and democratic written constitution.

2.            assert human rights pre-conditions with the economic help, pressing to respect and observe the rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child, Women and, Minorities’ Rights, and control that the aid is distributed for the general welfare of the people irrespective of their race, religion, region and ethnic background etc.

3.            Facilitate to form an unbiased body in line with the parameters of the international norms and standards to monitor the human rights situation in the country, and over verification, categorization, and repatriation and rehabilitation process of the Bhutanese refugees. Accordingly expedite the repatriation of the Lhotshampa refugees and settle them in their original place with honour and dignity.

4.            urge Bhutan review its laws to ensure that they are consistent with the fundamental principles of international law and UN conventions, particularly to withdraw the Revised Citizenship Act 1985 and refrain from racial discriminatory practices.

5.            ask Bhutan to constitute a well represented constituent assembly, by firstly allowing the political parties and human rights organisations to function from within the country to render a healthy and balanced debate over each clauses of the draft constitution in order to build truly democratic constitution.

6.            urge Bhutanese regime to withdraw its military forces that are stationed in the Southern villages, provide education to all the Lhotshampa children and restore the health, communication and agricultural input facilities that are closed since 1990 in the six southern districts and ensure the international aid is not used for the military purpose.

Your Excellency, it is an honest request of the people of Bhutan to kindly request your government to use its diplomatic influence to steer and encourage Bhutan to recognize and respect the above stated recommendations in order to render justice for all the Bhutanese people please.

Signed in good faith:

Date:               10 December 2003

Place:             Parliament House, The Hague.



For and on behalf of the Democracy Aspiring Bhutanese Citizens

FACILITATED BY: GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENCE (GHRD).



Email: ibistichting@hotmail.com

Source: AI Index: ASA 31/060/2003 (Public)
News Service No: 247
28 October 2003

Nepal/Bhutan: Bilateral Talks Fail to Solve Refugee Crisis -- International Community Should Take Concerted Action
(New York/London, October 28, 2003) -- The latest round of talks between the governments of Bhutan and Nepal to resolve the Bhutanese refugee crisis has failed to provide a solution, a coalition of five leading non-governmental organizations (NGOs) said today. Donor countries should convene an international conference to devise a solution to the longstanding crisis.

The two governments heralded the bilateral talks, held last week in the Bhutanese capital, Thimpu, as a "historic breakthrough".

"These talks between Nepal and Bhutan were neither historic nor a breakthrough," said Rachael Reilly, refugee policy advisor at Human Rights Watch. "The bilateral talks have ignored the concerns of the international community and failed to provide a solution for the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. Donor countries must insist on the full involvement of the international community in solving the refugee crisis."

The coalition of NGOs - Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Lutheran World Federation, Habitat International Coalition and the Bhutanese Refugee Support Group - called on donors to urgently convene an international conference involving the two governments, refugee representatives, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and other relevant U.N. agencies to devise a comprehensive and just solution to the 12-year-long refugee crisis.

More than 100,000 Bhutanese refugees - an estimated one-sixth of the population of Bhutan - have been living in camps in south-eastern Nepal since the early 1990s when they were arbitrarily stripped of their nationality and forcibly expelled from Bhutan in one of the largest ethnic expulsions in modern history.

After years of stalemate, the governments of Bhutan and Nepal in March 2001 agreed to conduct a pilot screening of the refugees in Khudunabari camp, which houses 12,000 refugees, to determine their identities and eligibility to return to Bhutan. The refugees were divided into four categories:

Category I - bona fide Bhutanese citizens (just 2.5% of the refugees);
Category II - refugees who supposedly "voluntarily" migrated from Bhutan (70% of the refugees);
Category III - non-Bhutanese (24% of the refugees);
Category IV - refugees who have committed "criminal" acts, including those who participated in so-called "anti-national" pro-democracy activities in Bhutan (3% of the refugees).

In August, a group of NGO representatives visited Khudunabari camp as part of a joint international mission to Nepal and India. The mission expressed grave concern about flaws in the screening process as it excludes UNHCR, fails to comply with international human rights and refugee standards, and risks leaving tens of thousands of refugees stateless.

The mission also identified the refugees' key concerns regarding repatriation to Bhutan. These include guarantees of safety and security, full citizenship rights, and return to original homes and properties for refugees returning to Bhutan. None of these conditions was addressed by the latest round of talks, said the NGOs.

The NGOs had hoped that the 15th round of bilateral talks would answer some of the serious concerns about the ongoing screening of the Bhutanese refugees and plans for their repatriation.

Instead, the NGOs pointed out the following shortcomings in the outcome of the talks:

Both governments have rejected the strong appeals of the international community to involve an independent third party, preferably UNHCR, in the screening and repatriation process;
The Bhutanese government repeated its position (announced at the 14th round of talks in May) that it would allow refugees in Categories I, II and IV to return. However, the talks failed to clarify the conditions under which the refugees would be readmitted;
The Bhutanese government affirmed that refugees in Category II would have to reapply for citizenship in Bhutan after a probationary period of at least two years, even though the majority of them were forced to sign so-called "voluntary migration forms" when leaving Bhutan. The stringent and discriminatory nature of Bhutan's citizenship laws, including the requirement that all applicants are fluent in the language of northern Bhutan, Dzonkha, could exclude many southern Bhutanese from reacquiring citizenship;
The Nepalese government repeated their offer of citizenship for refugees in Category II, the supposedly "voluntary" migrants, who choose not to return to Bhutan. But the growing insecurity and instability in Nepal raise questions about the viability of this offer;
Refugees in Category IV, including those who participated in peaceful pro-democracy activities, would have to stand trial in Bhutan if they returned, despite the absence of any guarantees of fair trials or due process in Bhutan;
The talks gave no guarantees that refugees would be able to return to their original homes and properties or enjoy basic human rights protections and full access to social services, including education, all of which are critical conditions for sustainable return;
The governments agreed that the screening would proceed in a second camp - Sanischare - without any assurances that the serious anomalies and inadequacies in the process would be addressed. The decision to continue the screening process camp-by-camp in the other 6 camps will further delay the process. It took over two years just to complete the screening in Khudunabari camp;
The governments set a deadline of January 2004 for reviewing the appeals of refugees in Category III but failed to address the serious concerns of the international community regarding the flaws in the appeal process. These include: the absence of an independent third party to hear the appeals, the lack of transparency regarding the criteria for screening, and the extremely short timeframe for appeals.

"The two governments look set to repeat all the mistakes of the initial screening in Khudunabari camp," said Peter Prove, Assistant to the General Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation. "None of the fears of the refugees have been properly addressed, and the process could drag on for years, prolonging the suffering of the refugees."

In a move criticized by the NGOs, UNHCR announced earlier this month that it would begin phasing out assistance to the refugee camps in the absence of a just and lasting solution by Nepal and Bhutan.

The NGOs called on donors to apply new pressure to Nepal and Bhutan and insist the two governments uphold the refugees' rights and allow UNHCR to monitor the repatriation process.

"For too long donor governments have offered tacit support to the bilateral process between Nepal and Bhutan," said Eve Lester, refugee coordinator at Amnesty International. "Now they must recognize that this strategy has failed and international efforts are needed to find a comprehensive solution for the refugees."

For further information, please contact:
In London, Magda Wendorff-Kowalczuk, Amnesty International: +44 20 7413 5729/ + 44 7778 472 173 (mobile)
In Geneva, Peter Prove, Lutheran World Federation:
+ 41 22 791 6364/ 41 78 757 6749 (mobile)
In New York, Rory Mungoven, Human Rights Watch: + 1 917 497 9704
In New Delhi, Malavika Vartak, Habitat International Coalition: + 91 11 2435 8492 (office)/ + 91 11 3590 0378 (mobile)

Stichting Information Bhutan International, Gautam: Phopne: 0031 (0)640475108.

The Stichting Information Bhutan International publishes a human rights news bulletin, BHUTAN REVIEW quarterly from the Hague. The readers and well-wishers of the Bhutanese people may contact this foundation for free issue of this publication. You are requested to kindly donate some amount you would like to, in order to cover the printing and postage cost. Please deposit from your nearest Post Office, send cheque or ask for an Accept Giro.

The ACCOUNT NUMBER IS 9232778

Thanking you with respect. Please contact us

For electronic copy of BHUTAN REVIEW download here under:

BHUTAN REVIEW

(A human rights news brief of the Stichting Information Bhutan International).

Volume: 2,7. Quarterly, 30 September 2003.

With annual report 2002 Spring Edition 2003 Summer edition 2003
Autum edition 2003
Winter Edition 2003 NEW

THE CURRENT AFFAIRS.

Rounds and rounds again.

The twice delayed talks between Bhutan and Nepal on the Bhutanese refugee crisis will resume their 15^th round on 20^th October in Thimphu. This was decided during an informal talk between the delegations to the 58^th session of the UN general assembly in New York. Earlier Bhutanese regime postponed the talks indefinitely citing its cabinet re-shufflement. The 14^th round of talks held last May 19-22 blatantly violated the refugee’s right to repatriation by making the verification report inconsistent and abusive. International communities have urged both the countries to re-verify the report.

Bhutan government destroying Lhotshampa designed houses.

The Bhutanese government began destroying the Lho-tshampa styled houses and forced people to build with the classical Tibetan architecture. It has such a plan since the department of Works & Housing in 1980 was created under which, models were designed. This is in pursuit to eradicate anything of Hindu tradition and culture.

Nepal held refugees in chaos.

Insecurity and chaos surpassed in the Bhutanese refugee camps in Nepal when the government of Nepal withdrew the security arrangements after a deputy police inspector was shot dead by the suspected Maoist in the Khudunabari camp last week. In another camp in Beldangi, one refugee was found dead in a nearby forest. The government has not justified the withdrawal of the security provisions nor has satisfactory investigations done against such death cases

Ten prime ministers taking oath (Kuensel) to serve the king, alone.

The government of Bhutan was taken over in turn wise, five times over the last five years with five different prime ministers. There was no improvement in the human rights situation. Five more heads are added recently (see Kuensel of July 2003). The government remains same, the undemocratic, under the same absolute monarchy. Each of them took oath of allegiance to serve the king, not the people; and expressed to support the king as their main challenge. Thus they are debauched, holding power, not devolved by the king but shared among the elites, and do not respect the rights and freedoms of the people.

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF BHUTAN DENOTES FUTURE ETHNIC CLEANSING.

The national assembly of Bhutan expounded in its 81^st session last month desperately the same disgust and xenophobia against the Lhotshampas and their forcibly exiled brethrens, as has been done over the decade. Its resolution began quoting that ‘people round the country expressing their apprehension and alarm over the news that some refugees were to be repatriated’. The fact is that the government instructs the members to deliberate in that way, in order to enhance unity among the supporters of the monarchy, unfortunately by inculcating the feelings of hatred against the minorities. It is pathetic on the part of the Chimis (nominated peoples’ representative) to obey as a technique for their survival. It happens regularly in the country where there is no right to freedom of opinion and expression. The whole national assembly demonstration is a consolidated message to the world that the government will not repatriate once forcibly evicted people but will continue strategically some more in the future. This is evident from the claim made by the home minister that there are about 55,000 non national workers some of whom have lived and worked in Bhutan for many years. There aren’t any non nationals in Bhutan and no body can enter there and live discreetly but what the government mean these ‘non nationals’ are factually its Lhotshampa minority citizens some of whom have been internally displaced. Displaced persons are currently those working in the roads and construction works it has conscripted from the southern villages in 1980’soon after it created the National Work Force. It ousted all the Indian and Nepalese labourers from the construction companies and inducted the poor Lhotshampa from the six southern districts, initially for the tenure of ten years. The government promised them of adequate work ergonomics, medical and educational facilities during the tenure and then extra land, housing and complete resettlement facilities after the tenure. But in contrary, the government seized their land later in 1990 onwards and gradually dis-placed. If it evicts them branding as non nationals, it is a double crime against the humanity, the international communities need to interfere timely. By: Nandi K.S. Neopaney.

INTERVIEW

Though the government of Bhutan has forcibly exiled about 20% of its citizens, only a handful of the Bhutanese asylum seekers could enter in to Europe. A second person who contacted the Information Bhutan International, Nandi K.S. Neopaney sought asylum in The Netherlands. He is leading a Federation of Bhutanese Trade Unions in exile. Following is his interview with Bhutan Review.

1. Why should you seek asylum twice, firstly in Nepal and then now in The Netherlands?

Not only twice, I am triple refugee, firstly in my home country Bhutan itself. While attaining my duty as a Junior Electrical Engineer in Chhuka, I was actively campaigning against the government’s strategic ways of ethnic cleansing. Like those one hundred thousand Bhutanese Lhothsampa minorities who are forcibly exiled by the present regime of Bhutan, I was also persecuted. I was forced to flee for life, thus came to India and then to Nepal in January 1992. In Nepal too, I had to face risk to my personal security that compelled me to seek protection elsewhere once again. In pursuit of it, fortunately, I arrived in The Netherlands.

2. How did you face forcible exile? Describe your life before and after that?.

In pursuance to the discriminatory Citizenship Act which deprived the Lhotsampas of their basic right to nationality, people demonstrated for their rights in September 1990 under the banner of Bhutan Peoples’ Party. The government took this as a threat to ‘national security’ and deployed the military in the southern villages. After that the government branded the minorities as anti-nationals and started evicting them. Organised rape, torture, plundering, arson and then forcible exile began under gun point. I was by that time working clandestinely with the democratic forces operating from India. It was on 27^th January1992, I somehow managed to escape arrest from Chhuka. Life in Bhutan is no better than a captive as all the rules, regulations, food habits, dress etc are dictated by the government. It is continuing. Out from Bhutan, at least I could enjoy the freedom of expression, religion and culture. The neighbouring countries are democratic, and there I found equal respect for all its citizens irrespective of color, creed, faith, political opinion which is absent in Bhutan. To be strictly personal I got chance to study Law and Politics which was impossible inside Bhutan and organize to work for their rights.

3. Could you elaborate the trade unionism in Bhutanese context?

The Bhutanese government have been violating the workers rights by even not observing the ILO Core Labour Standards. Workers are silently suffering for the lack of collective bargaining and an organized body to work for their rights. The Bhutanese workers who have been forcibly exiled have organised themselves as ‘Association of Bhutanese Professionals and Technicians (ABPT)’ in Nepal. It was later felt to organize a broader forum to accommodate all the Bhutanese workers. It was on May 1^st,2000 that a Federation of Bhuta-nese Trade Unions (FOBTU) was formed. It takes care of all the Bhutanese workers both within and outside Bhutan. As of date eight individual unions are already affiliated with FOBTU and five unions are on the affiliation row.

4. Bhutanese regime claims that the government is democratic. Why should you operate the FOBTU in exile?

The claim doesn’t suffice reality and it should fully demonstrate with the basic tenets of the democratic society if it wants to portray itself as a democratic nation. Had it been democratic it should have observed at-least the ILO Core Labor Stand dards which is mandatory for all the states irrespective of its polity and ILO membership. It is because that the most fundamental rights of a worker ‘the right to organize’ is banned, there remains no option but to organize in exile.

5. What could be the prospect of the refugees and democratic forces when the king promulgates the draft constitution?

The entire resolution of the country’s problems depends in its constitution. Any law that contradicts the constitution must be abrogated. So if this constitution is drawn to safeguard the interest of all the people irrespective of race, religion and sex then the government has to abrogate the existing Citizenship Act, Marriage Act, Land Law and the Security Act. All these Acts are discriminatory. True attitude of the government can be reflected in the constitution. If the king is truly serious about the well being of all the Bhutanese people then he must give recognition to the democratic forces operating from exile and repatriate his citizens to their original homes.

6.How do you think The Dutch Government can do being a development partner?

First of all I would like to thank the government of the Netherlands for helping Bhutan in its developmental activities. My only concern is whether the Netherlands knows that the support provided to Bhutan is being utilised for the people’s welfare. The Netherlands being one of the largest donors and having a special Agreement for Sustainable Development it can play more proactive role to repatriate the Bhutanese refugees.

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING

If the human rights are violated in a democratic nation, the discontentment is taken up even to the international level, but the same is ignored in the absolute monarchical Bhutan where all the basic rights and freedoms are being violated.

The present regime does not allow independent journalists to enter for in depth reporting nor allows the indigenous intellectuals to operate the private news media. Admission for UNHCR was long time rejected. Any one hardly ever penetrates are not allowed to visit the six southern districts where people are reduced to slavery, and conditioned to total ignorance. Making the minorities poor and ignorant is a technique to subdue their rights and aspirations, least to mention the democratic fantasies. As a result the Lhot-hampas minorities did not dare to demonstrate again against the suppression, as they did in 1990 even though more than half of their brethrens faced forcible exile. The still remnants in the country are facing various inhuman cruelties in the hands of racist and absolute regime. I illustrate here their true circumstances which have gone backward to the time of the country’s self imposed isolation.

1. .Admission to a few schools that re-opened recently, after government closed down in 1990, are given to the children royal Bhutan armed forces stationed in the southern villages. Lhotshampa children are not admitted in any of the schools throughout the nation. Thus right to primary education of the children is grossly violated.

2. Hospitals and basic heath facilities in the southern Bhutan does not serve the common people but only the government servants and military personnel and their families. Poor people are forced to die without any medical aid.

3. Travel is restricted by deman-ding to produce route permit. Basic facilities like the electricity, drinking water, postal services, telephone service, irrigation canals and others hardly exist in the south. People are not allowed to tune outside radio, mainly Nepal, in the South.

4. Every family must contribute free labour to the armed forces and the northern Drukpas resettled in the lands belonged to the refugees. They also have to work for the govern-ment schemes. Disobeying of the order is liable to punishments.

5. All the cash crops have to be sold to government in a throw away price. The farmer’s cost of productions is not compensated.

6. The government issued the citizenship identity cards only once ie, before it revised the citizenship law in 1985. It did not issue again to those who were under aged at that time. Very few people were given a second class identity papers, but now the government is accusing the holders that they are fake. Next year the government will issue a new type of multiple ID cards. For the Lhotshampa minorities it has produced a separate type of ID cards different form the Drukpa elites. Consequently the Lhothsam-pas will be rendered as second class citizens. In addition to that, the government will not let all the Lhot-shampas, particularly the relatives of the exiled refugees to qualify for that identity card. In this way they will be rendered stateless over night. They will gradually face forcible exile.

The silent suffering of the minorities inside Bhutan is comparable to once apartheid South Africa. There are many organisations looking after the welfare of the Lhotshampa refugees living in the UNHCR camps in Nepal but there is no one to see what has been happening to their relatives left behind in Bhutan. The donor agencies of Bhutan, instead of providing grants to the regime should consider providing from bottom up in order to prioritize for the neglected ones.

The problem of the refugees is comparatively less than of those Lhotshampas who remained behind in Bhutan. The only commonality in both the group is that of insecure future. The proof can be seen by visiting them.

By: Ram BK Chhetri. YOB.

International concern on JVT report, expressed recently.

EU called for transparency.

The European Union expressed concerns over procedures and results of the verification process that forced about 97% of the verified 12,800 Bhutanese refugees as stateless, and called for transpa-rency in repatriation and reinte-gration process, according to a state-ment released in Brussels in July.

The categorization was done according to Bhutan’s demand that gave mandate to its joint verification team. The team categorised even the children as ‘criminals’ The other categories they divided are Bhuta-nese who proved forcible eviction, and those who could not prove are categorised as Bhutanese who emi-grated or non-Bhutanese.

USA is also shocked. A two-member team from the US Committee for Refugees (USCR) led by Mr. Hiram A Ruiz made a field visit to the camp in Nepal on July 24^thand assured to appraise its government over the unfair categorization of the Bhutanese refugees. He assured the solidarity of USCR and said, ‘repatriation is the only solution’.

Human Rights- memorandum

A team of human rights activists led by Ms. Richael Reailly from the Human Rights Watch and representatives from various international human rights organisations presented to the government of Bhutan and Nepal a 10-point memorandum on August 27^th concerning the Bhutanese refugees. Some of the points in the suggestion include division of the refugees into two classes, inclusion of UNHCR in the verification team and opportunity to re-appeal in case of dissatisfaction with the results. The team also visited India and urged the government to help solve the problem

Statement to Donor Agencies.

Six international humanitarian and rights groups- Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Lutheran World Federation, Refugees International, the U.S. Committee for Refugees, and the Bhutanese Refugee Support Group, in a joint statement earlier called on donor governments and governments in the region to increase pressure on the governments of Bhutan and Nepal to find a just and fair solution to this long-standing refugee crisis.

"The Bhutanese refugees have been waiting over a decade for a solution to their plight," it stated and pointed out that the way they are verified and categorised is not a solution but a wholesome problem.

EU delegation informed.

European Parliamentary delegation for Relations with South Asia is apprised in a meeting held in the Amnesty International Secretariat on 8^th September over the way the government of Bhutan and Nepal has violated the rights of the refugees. Refugee policy advisor Rachael Reilly and Fr. Jadot, presented the field assessment of the Bhutanese refugee camps, and the visit to New Delhi and Kathmandu. The European Parliament mission to Bhutan will hold a meeting from November 24 to 28. Jesuit Refugee Service officials also made a leading role in apprising the EU.

State of Bhutan’s Press.

Bhutan ranked as one of the five worst press offenders.

This was revealed in the Reporters Sans Frontiers’ survey of the worlds press freedom 2003. The others are North Korea, China, Burma and Turkmenistan. The top five countries include Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Netherlands and Canada.

There is no right to freedom of press, opinion and expression in Bhutan. Private newspapers, community radio and Internet services are not permitted. There is only one newspaper released weekly, two bulletin of radio news per day, TV news once in the evening and one ISP, all owned by the government.

Ruud Lubbers’ Solution.

’The top priority for my Office remains that of resolving the stalemate on finding solutions for over 100,000 Bhutanese people in camps in Nepal’ said Mr. Ruud Lubbers the High Commissioner for the Refugees in his opening speech at the 54^th Executive Committee in Geneva yesterday. He said that the UNHCR attempted to involve with Bhutan and Nepal to identify acceptable solutions for the Lhotshampa refugees but was not admitted to participate in the Joint Verification Team nor have been granted access by the government of Bhutan to areas of potential return.

This, he said; is totally unacceptable. Mr. Lubber also stipulated three key measures. Firstly, to promote self reliance projects to facilitate refugee’s integration in Nepal if the government of Nepal grants them the citizenship, and then gradually phase out its direct involvement in the camps.

Second, he said; is to support resettlement initiatives for vulnerable cases. Third, because of the denial of access to UNHCR in Bhutan, making it impossible to monitor the return process, Mr. Lubber said, UNHCR will not promote repatriation. However UNHCR will assist in verifying that returns from Nepal are voluntary. Mr. Lubber urged the States, particularly neighbouring India, to help Bhutan and Nepal solve the problem.

Commenting on the UNHCR’s plan, a Bhutanese lawyer said that, assimilating the refugees in Nepal is not fair. They waited for a decade to return to their homes in Bhutan. If they do not return, the Bhutanese regime will forcibly exile the rest of the Lhotshampas one after another and at that time there will be no one for help.

Rijal forms Human Rights Council of Bhutan.

The struggle for the basic human rights, or in Bhutan’s context, total end to racial discrimination and injustice to the Lhotshampa minority is consolidated.

Quite a large number of Human Rights Organizations have been initiated by the Bhutanese people in exile to advocate for the cause of Bhutanese refugees and all the people inside the country as there has been blatant abuse of peoples’ rights by the Bhutanese regime. All these organizations took their own way in interpreting the refugee issue in the international forum.

However, quite recently, the founder of the Peoples’ Forum for Human Rights, Bhutan (first Human Rights Organization) Mr. Tek Nath Rizal consolidated in to a common platform of all the human rights organizations by forming the Human Rights Council of Bhutan (HRCB) on 25^th August in India. In a Press release, Rijal pointed out that:

-The worsening human rights situation inside Bhutan and the complications created by Bhutan’s government in the refugee crisis had compelled him to form the HRCB.

He tries to emphasise on the need to resolve the Bhutanese refugee issue and call upon friendly India to mediate between Bhutan and Nepal on good faith and also calls international community by highlighting that "the world cannot ignore Bhutan’s discrimination and racial subjugation of its minority people."

This shows that Bhutan government can no longer shirk of its responsibilities in upholding the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is expected that India should come one step forward in solving Bhutanese imbroglio and help improve regional peace and security.

EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION. UDHR ARTICLE 19.

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace, & Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of the mankind; the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy the right to freedom of Opinion and Expression, without fear, has been proclaimed as the basis of the fundamental Human Rights of men, women and children.

The history of Bhutanese Nepalis

Bhutanese Nepalis’existence.

By: Nanda Gautam

The providence of Bhutanese Nepali speaking people-The Lhotshampas, to live as refugees for decades in Nepal, is due to the loss of their pedigree in their ancestral soil, as a result of their long establishment in Bhutan than foreign scholars have been estimating. The evidence of this is self-illustrated by the missioners who shaped Bhutan to an independent Buddhist nation and in its own indigenous literatures.

Bhutan: meaning the ‘end-land’ of Tibet survived as an independent nation; owing to the unity in the diversity of the cultural and religious homogeny of the different races of the people from Nepal, Tibet and North India. The same cultural and religious homogeny was overwhelmed by the influx of Ngalongs from Tibet in early 17^th century, who later transformed in to their village the “Druk Yul”. They imported their nomenclature ‘Drukpa’ and their religion as the Drukpa Kagyupa from their original homestead; now the Ralung district of Tibet.

Bhutan’s pre-history links much to the dominance of the Kamrup and Kirati civilizations influenced by the expanding Buddhist cultural heritage of Nepal. Should the ancient Nepalese mission abroad deserve any recognition, then their contribution to the kingdom of Bhutan must be accountable. Nepal gave birth to the light of Asia, the Lord Buddha, Sita, the consort to Lord Ram and the angel incarnate- Bhrikuti Devi. They are the stalwarts for peace and integrity for Bhutan. An Indian saint Guru Rimpochhe and much later, a Tibetan vicar Shabdung Rimpochhe were the other religious missionaries who owe the heart and soul of Bhutan and the Bhutanese people. But their mission was begun from Nepal. When a flash flood in 1996 broke the Punakha dzong’s original chapel, a history had to uncypher itself that the main deity in it was installed by an Indian saint Nag Ratna long before Shabdung found this place a holy site for his palace. Thus because the oral history is unwritten and much of the critical facts are being discouraged to uncover by the state, the histories so far written either begins with or concludes in obscure myths and mystery. Nevertheless Bhutan was exposed to the world, twice from its ruler’s imposed isolation; firstly for the import of Buddhism and secondly for the modernisation. This began with the relationship with Nepal.

Initially, the daughter of the king Amsuvarma of Nepal, Bhrikuti Devi was the first Nepalese to grace Bhutan. Upon marrying her, the king of Tibet Shongchen Gembo in 647 AD introduced Buddhism with the construction of 108 temples among which two are in Bhutan. Jampel Lhakhang in Bumthang and Kichu Lhakhang in Paro are the token of Nepalese from where the Buddhism was first introduced. A group of Nepalese architectures constructed these temples and installed deities, followed by other fortresses later. Bhutan was at that time populated by Kirati tribes and Bon primitives.

A century later in 747 AD, Guru Rimpochhe went to Bhutan and subdued the demons opposing Buddhism, with his spiritual power and induced god consciousness in the society. Takshang monastery in Paro and Kurje monastery in Bumthang are his wonders for spiritual solace, built also in Nepali architectural design.

The existence of the Nepalese people settled officially in Bhutan goes back to early 17^th century. The Shabdung Rimpoche, who unified Bhutan, established friendship with the then king Ram Shah of Gorkha, Nepal, in 1624 in pursuit of support for the protection of the sovereignty of his country. He brought a group of Nepalese to settle in Bhutan led by Bishun Thapa Mogar. At the same time he established friendship with the King of Kathmandu; Sivasinha, to import architectures and constructors to build fortresses and monasteries in Bhutan. The Nepalese imported in these periods are settled in the Tista valley (now under Darjeeling district) which was at that time a part of Bhutan. The Newar architects brought in from Kathmandu firstly built Tango Monastery, a sacred meditation centre for Shabdung himself. The Newaris were settled permanently in Thimphu valley and Kochemeche architects in Wangdi and Punakha valley. Shabdung visited Nepal again in 1640 and brought in a large group of Nepali families to settle along the border with India for the purpose of defence. The same year Shabdung inducted an oath of allegiance to the Nepalese settled in Bhutan with the conversion: ‘that we were previously the public of Gorkha Raja and now we are the public of Dharma Raja, the Shabdung”. A certain etiquette in conjunction to Bhuddhist culture; for example, to take the cap (Topi) off in presence of the king, monks and in the office buildings was prescribed for them which in Nepali’s culture is done only during the condolence period of the death of one’s father and mother. The Drukpa cultural etiquettes composed by Shabdung converted these Nepalis into pseudo Drukpa cultural identity in course of time. The present king reintroduced the same etiquette in 1989 as pre-requisite behaviour in all circumstances.

The first buddhist temples built by Nepalis inearly 7th Centuary, Jambay Lhakhang and Kyichu lakhang below.

The local government headed by mandals with the power to taxation, land reforms and employment was instituted by Shabdung himself. A list of names holding such portfolios is still available in their family record. While the people brought from Kathmandu were engaged in business and construction activities, those from Gorkha were deployed for security, agronomy and handicrafts. The documents in this matter were written in copper follies. Some of the families did arrive in Bhutan with approval written in such folios but recently fell in the possession of the royal government. They were then termed as Nepali that indicates their origin to Nepal and not necessarily their citizenship as Nepalese. They fought wars against Nepal during the reign of Prithivi Narayan Shah who in Nepal’s reunification triumph in 1769 drew to the border of Bhutan crossing Tista River. Similarly during the war with British India in 1870’s a brigade led by Amar Pradhan collected weapons from Nepal’s Prime Minister Janga Bahadur Rana. Several Nepali battalions fought against the British under the commandant of their host in Thimphu. However the battle was defeated and lost the duars plain, protection of the border from the base of the mountains and hills in the south, was continued as a personal responsibility of the people settled there. As the threat was always eminent, irrespective of India’s independence, the polity after Shabdung was probably soft at newcomers in the South where Drukpa were reluctant to settle due to its hazardous condition. Apparently the British also encouraged the regime through a political agent, ‘Gongzin’ Ugyen Dorji, the first Prime Minister of Bhutan. He was a pioneer to fortify Bhutan’s political autonomy and deal with the outside world. Unfortunately “The Unbecoming Citizens” of Michael Hutt rarely touched this primeval account in escalating the history of the Lhotshampas in Bhutan.

To uphold the rule of the law and justice at the time Bhutan was suffering from inter-provincial conflicts, Dorji families initiated to recommend Ugyen Wangchuk who championed from east to west of the country as ‘Gongsar’, a ‘New Supremo’, as the king for Bhutan. Bhutanese Nepalis were represented by the Gongzin himself to enthrone Ugyen Wangchuk (the present king’s great grandfather) as the hereditary king in 18 December 1907. The Prime Minister portfolio, apparently like a hereditary rights of the Dorji family, also continued under the king, as in the panchayat raj in Nepal until 1965. The last Prime Minister Jigmie Palden Dorji was shot dead by the state military and a law removing such a portfolio was enacted, thereby making the monarchy as absolute.

These Prime Ministers had the authority to allow the family reunion of the settled Nepalis in the South in early 19^th century. They were mobilised in to main stream and inducted in to developmental works and military. Their population grew as a result in addition to the natural growth rate, the government put is a few years ago, of 3,5% per year and are comparatively more active and fertile than the Northern Drukpas. Within 30 years of embracing modernisation, Bhutan emerged as a progressive nation of the world.

Recognising the contribution of these Nepalis, the late king Jigme Dorji entitled them as Lhotshampas, a nomenclature of Bhutan itself and honoured with the citizenship as per the first Citizenship Law 1958. Thus the Nepali Bhutanese are never immigrants.

This article is written with reference to ‘Lhoyi Choe bjung’ ( the emergence of southern religion) and Sabdrubg Namthar by the head abbot- Thinley Lhendup.

Shabdung Ngawang Namgeyl being worshipped, but only to its potrait. His sucessive inarnations were killed on political motivation.

APPEAL during Round Table Meeting Between Bhutan and its Donors.

18th February 2003, Geneva.

“Bhutan’s donors! Please assert the respect to human rights and repatriation of the Lhotshampa refugees as pre-conditions for the grant aid to Bhutan.”

This was the theme of a peaceful demonstration held in front of the United Nations building in Geneva during the 8^th Round Table Meeting on 18-19 February 2003. Bhutanese asylum seekers living in Europe and New York waged the voice of the forcibly exiled Lhotshampas and their relatives and the supporters of democracy in Bhutan. Some Americans, Tibetans, Nepalese and Swiss people also joined the demonstration for a while. Being held for the first time, this was a historic event of the movement for human rights and democracy. It was organised by a former prisoner of conscience; Bishwanath Chhetri and Nanda Gautam, an exiled journalist.

The demonstration was followed by a number of appeals to the donor agencies to urge Bhutan respect the basic human rights and accept repatri-ation of the refugees. A Nepalese dele-gation comprising the Bhutanese Refugees Repatriation Committee, led by Sailendra Kumar Upadhya appealed personally to the missions of all the development partner countries of Bhutan based in Kathmandu, New Delhi and in Geneva. A Kathmandu based organisation monitoring the racial discrimination in Bhutan, CEMARD also submitted an appeal. The leader of the Youth Organisation of Bhutan, Ram Karki and the founder of a NGO in The Netherlands; Stitching Infor-mation Bhutan International jointly appealed donor country’s missions based in The Hague and other world leaders for the same.

The Dutch Ministry for external Affairs, Danish Embassy and the European Commi-ssion responded with their assurance on it stating that they are equally concerned about the human rights situation in particular of the ethnic minorities in Bhutan. The theme of this historic demonstration was the subject of the people’s representative, Mr. Tek Nath Rizal’s appeal before Bhutan jailed him for a decade until 1999. If the king of Bhutan has beseeched his appeals then the refugee crisis would have been prevented. But few in affinity with the king also smell foul of ignoring the sources of resolution. Strangely, a UN official denied to let the journalists including myself to cover the RTM, and declined to provide the outcome of the conference, stating ‘a private’ business of Bhutan. Thus a silent gap between the donors and the Bhutanese people has been created, benefiting the undemocratic regime alone. By:Gautam.

18^th February 2003

AN APPEAL

To: Bhutan’s development partner countries,

Donor agencies and

UN agencies

Delegating at the Round Table Meeting, Geneva; on February 18,19-2003 on the plights of the Bhutanese minority Lhotshampas inside Bhutan and their forcibly exiled families in the UNHCR refugee camps in Nepal.

Your Excellencies,

The Royal Government of Bhutan’s respect to the inherited rights and freedoms of the Minority Lhosthampa people has been deteriorating over the last twelve years. The strategy of the present regime of Bhutan to alien its minority citizens from their basic human rights by eliminating them out of the country had a human cataclysm that disturbed peaceful coexistence in South Asia. Bhutan has forcibly exiled about 20% of its citizens since 1990 as a formal measure to dissolve any element opposing to the absolute monarchy. As a result, more than 100,000 Lhtoshampa refugees have been stranded in the UNHCR administered refugee camps in Nepal over the last 12 years. About 30,000 refugees are living outside the camps in India and Nepal.

Bhutan’s dubious motives to render these Lhosthampa people stateless through ethnic cleansing, has been apparent from its strategies that:

I. Revised citizenship law of 1958 to the citizenship act 1985 including vague measures to deliberately revoke the citizenship of those who were naturalised as Bhutanese under 1958 Citizenship law. Thus the Lhotshampa’s citizenship status was down graded to 7 categories and then exiled one after another. Hindu minorities, matured to receive the citizenship by birth are denied of citizenship.

II. Declared the supporters of democratic movement and their relatives as “Ngolop” or the ‘anti-national traitors’ and forced them out of the country. Those resisting against such a strategy are still in prison.

III. Formulated the so-called ‘voluntary migration’ under which the Lhotshapas were forced to sign under duress and leave Bhutan immediately.

IV. Halted every development programmes in the six southern districts, closed down schools, hospitals, communication etc. and deployed the Royal Bhutan Army in the villages. Organised rapes, arbitrary detention, plunder and intimidation followed to hound out the innocent people. The development activities in the South have not been reopened fully. A few schools and health centres restarted are used exclusively for the children of military and the resettled Northerners only.

V. Introduced greenbelt policy, Ngalong’s etiquette-Diglamnamza, Survey system, route permit, Police Clearance/no objection certificate, language policy etc. that facilitated mass discrimination.

In the light of these facts, one can realize that the ruling elite have been pursuing ethnic cleansing measures to eliminate the Hindu minorities from the Buddhist kingdom. The Amnesty International in its reports: Forcible Exile has condemned the forcible exile as a formal measure the government has adopted to suppress the democratic movement. Since the Lhotshampas were forced to leave their country not because of a civil war, foreign intervention or natural calamity, which entitle them to a voluntary return upon restoration of previous situation, the refugee crisis will not be solved unless the donor agencies and the international communities make Bhutan accept its citizens back. The efforts to resolve this crisis through bilateral channel with Nepal has proved failure in every subsequent round of talks. Thus, instead of recognizing the refugee’s right to return to their homeland, Nepal agreed to Bhutan’s dubious motives of delay and dissolve the fate of these refugees elsewhere in the slums of Nepal and India, through an unacceptable process, which held them in dismay over the decade, supposed to be categorized as:

1. Bhutanese who migrated voluntarily. The trick used thereby is to brand as non-Bhutanese since under the Bhutanese law, emigration forfeits Bhutanese citizenship, much in contrary to international law which otherwise must insure the nationality of another country before emigration is approved. Beside that the vast majority of the refugees were forced to sign 'Voluntary Migrations Forms' under duress before leaving the country. The government has retained these forms.

2. Non-Bhutanese. The government of Bhutan claims that the majority of people in the camps did not come from Bhutan but are local Nepalis or Indians taking advantage of refugee subsistence.

3. Bhutanese who have done criminal acts. This includes those Bhutanese who have participated in political and human rights activities.

4. Bona fide Bhutanese, who can prove the evidence that they are forcibly evicted. While Bhutan has conscripted all the documents what so ever before they were evicted, documentation to Bhutan’s conditions are not possible. Bhutan claims falsely that the refugees holding Bhutanese citizenship documents are as ‘forged’.

These conditions for categorization clearly expose Bhutan’s concoction of rendering these refugees statelessness. The 12^th round of talks held on 6^th February 2003 neither paved any steps for repatriation nor released the result of a handful of refugees who were verified for above categorization. Holding bilateral talks appeared as the tactics of Bhutan only to continue luring more grant aid.

The reports from Southern districts say that the data collected during the verification process during 2001 in a refugee camp in Nepal has been used to further harass the concerned relatives of the refugees who are still living in Bhutan. Lhotshampas are treated in Bhutan as slaves, legally discriminated and held in constant suppression and persecution. Royal Bhutan Army still occupies school buildings and development infrastructures that has been closed down in the six Southern districts since 1990. The Lhotshampa children are denied admission to few schools that are reopened. Recently the government passed a law that prohibited Lhotshampa children who were accommodated by their relatives to go to school in other parts of the country. People are suffering from untold man made calamities. The fear of unfounded persecution and the restrictions against the right to freedom of opinion and expression forbids anybody to speak out and let anyone know their plights.

Beside that the government has been resettling the Northern Drukpa in the lands of the Lhotshampa refugees, ignoring the recommendations of the Habitat International to stop violating its obligation as State of Origin. The motive behind could be to ignite ethnic clash in case in future the government is compelled to accept the refugees back. This will lead to exodus once again, accomplishing its strategy to reduce the population of Hindu minorities forever from the country.

The very nature of the so called drafting a written constitution at the behest of the king, is self evident to constitutionally deprive the Lhotshampa minority’s rights and freedoms as its drafting committee did not include even a single representation from the Lhotshampa communities. This is another ploy of the king to fortify his position and avoid external criticism. This will not promulgate the genuine democratic change.

In this way the present monarchical regime of Bhutan has been gravely violating almost all the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Rights of the Child and the international conventions.

In the light of the above, and for the justice to give a chance, the Stichting Information Bhutan International, on behalf of the Lhotshampa minorities of Bhutan humbly appeal Bhutan’s development partner countries to consider to:

1. assert human rights pre-conditions such as to respect and observe the rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child, Women and, Minorities Rights while granting economic aid to Bhutan, and control that the aid is distributed for the general welfare of the people irrespective of their race, religion, region and ethnic background etc. Accordingly expedite the repatriation of the Lhotshampa refugees and settle them in their original place with honour and dignity.

2. urge Bhutan review its legislations to ensure that they are consistent with the fundamental principles of international law and UN conventions, particularly to withdraw the Revised Citizenship Act 1985 and refrain from racial discriminatory practices.

3. ask Bhutan to constitute a well represented constituent assembly, by firstly allowing the political parties and human rights organisations to function from within the country to render a healthy and balanced debate over each clauses of the draft constitution in order to build truly democratic constitution.

4. ask Bhutan to respect and fulfil the recommendations of the Amnesty International; AI Index: ASA 14/001/2002, recommendations of the Habitat International Coalition on Resettlement on Lands of the Bhutanese Refugees and the Resolutions of the European Parliament.

5. urge Bhutanese regime to withdraw its military forces that are stationed in the Southern villages, provide education to all the Lhotshampa children and restore the health, communication and agricultural input facilities that are closed since 1990 in the six southern districts and ensure the international aid is not used for the military purpose.

Your Excellency, it is an honest request of the people of Bhutan to kindly use your diplomatic influence to steer and encourage Bhutan towards recognising and respecting the above stated recommendations in order to render justice for the Bhutanese people please.

Signed in good faith:

Date: 18^th February 2003

Place: Paleis des Unies, Geneva.

Nanda Gautam

Executive Head

Stichting Information Bhutan International