Repatriation of the Bhutanese Refugees: A Forgotten Agenda in South Asia
Terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation have, by and large, dominated the security debate in South Asia. However, the overarching influence of these two issues has led to the neglect of the other problems that are equally, if not more, important for security in the region. One such problem is refugees and migration. The presence of more than 110,000 Bhutanese refugees in Nepal and the condition in which they live in different refugee camps is threatening to develop into a major humanitarian crisis in the absence of concrete effort by the parties involved.
The origin of this crisis dates back to the early 1990s when streams of Bhutanese of Nepalese origin from Bhutan arrived as refugees in Nepal. The people of Nepalese origin form one-sixth of Bhutan's total population. They were arbitrarily stripped of their citizenship and forcibly expelled from Bhutan to southeastern Nepal. The Bhutanese authorities claim that the people of Nepalese origin are not its citizens. Still, the labourers were hired by the Indian Border Road Organisation (BRO), which was involved in constructing roads in Bhutan in the 1980s. After the BRO left, the Bhutanese Department of Roads took over the maintenance of roads. It employed these labourers and promised them land in return after a decade of service. It has been alleged that the Bhutanese authorities asked these landless labourers to surrender their citizenship papers in return. Having surrendered their papers, they could do nothing to prove their identity and were systematically driven away from Bhutan. The actual reason, many argue, behind the expulsion of these people was the desire of the Bhutanese Royal family to weaken the pro-democratic movement in the kingdom.
After years of stalemate and persistent lobbying by international humanitarian organisations, Nepal and Bhutan 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 results of this screening were declared two years later, in 2003. It divided Bhutanese refugees in Nepal into four categories. First, the category included two and a half per cent of refugees who are bona-fide Bhutanese citizens eligible to return to Bhutan. The second included seventy per cent of the population, who had ‘voluntarily emigrated’ and were therefore required to reapply for Bhutanese citizenship. Twenty-four per cent formed the third category, whose claims to citizenship were rejected. Lastly, three per cent were labelled criminals liable to be tried in Bhutanese court. If implemented, this would risk leaving tens of thousands of refugees stateless and, therefore, was rejected in Toto by international humanitarian agencies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Teknath Rijal, a prominent refugee leader, rejected any attempt to resettle refugees in a third country and said these categories are purposely made to divide the Bhutanese refugee community in Nepal and called upon the international community to intervene.
The call for the international community's intervention was aimed at involving India in finding a solution to this issue. India is the region's dominating military and economic power and shares a very special relationship with Nepal and Bhutan. India’s role would be critical in solving the problem, particularly when the records of its BRO could verify the claim of the Bhutanese authorities about the Nepalese in Bhutan. India now considers this issue a bilateral affair between the two Himalayan kingdoms. India has given a clear indication that it does not have any intention to spoil its relations with Bhutan, which recently destroyed bases of terrorists active in India within its territory. India, too, is trying to deal with the Bangladeshi refugee problem at home.
The Indian reluctance has forced the refugees to appeal to the US for an early and tangible solution to their problems. Ultimately, this led to the visit of US Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration Arthur E. Dewey in mid-October this year. He visited the Bhutanese refugees in the Beldangi camp in Jhapa and Pathri camp in the Morang district of Nepal and met Indian, Bhutanese and Nepalese authorities regarding this issue. He assured the refugees that the US would help them find early solutions to their problems. However, in a press conference later, he agreed that the US could only play a limited role and that the real onus lies with India, Bhutan, and Nepal to solve the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal.
Although Mr. Dewey's visit did highlight the condition of the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal, it could do little to address their problems. The real trick for the solution to this humanitarian problem, however, lies upon the ability of the concerned parties to find a compromise between the Bhutanese denial to allow repatriation of all the refugees and the Refugee's demand for total repatriation to Bhutan and not to any third country.