How it happened?
According to news reports on December 22, 2003 Nepalese and
Bhutanese members of the Joint verification Team (JVT) arrived
at Khudunabari camp in Jhapa to brief the refugees about the
terms and conditions for their return to Bhutan. It seems there
was some confusion about how these briefings were to be
conducted. The JVT did not want to face a big gathering of the
refugees. According to the schedule of the JVT the briefings
were to be held over a period of seven days beginning from
December 22, 2003. The refugees residing in different sectors of
Khudunabari camp were to be briefed separately. On December 22,
only the inmates of Sector A of Khudunabari camp were to be
briefed. Apparently, the camp management was not aware of this
plan and as a result had allowed a big gathering of refugees at
the hall where the briefing was to take place. The JVT members
however asked only the refugees staying in Sector-A to stay in
the hall and told the rest of the refugees to leave. This
created some confusion however it was soon sorted out and only
the residents of Sector-A remained inside the briefing hall. It
seems that the briefing hall was not big enough for all the
inmates of Sector-A as a result, some of them remained outside
the hall along with refugees from other sectors.
Conditions of Return: Nepalese Version
Mr. Shushil Jung Rana the leader of JVT from His Majesty's
Government of Nepal briefed the refugees about the terms of
return. He informed the refugees that during the 15th round of
bilateral negotiations held in Thimphu by the Ministerial Joint
Committee (MJC) it was decided that all refugees belonging to
the Category-I (Bonafide Bhutanese, evicted forcefully),
Category-II (Bhutanese who emigrated voluntarily) and
Category-IV (Bhutanese against whom there are criminal charges)
would be repatriated to Bhutan. He also informed them that the
repatriation was to begin from February 2004. He emphasised that
no distinction would be made on the basis of categories and all
the people would be repatriated with dignity.
Conditions of Return: Bhutanese Version
After Mr. Rana, Dr Sonam Tenzin, the leader of the JVT from the
Royal Government of Bhutan addressed the refugees. He emphasised
that inside Bhutan the refugees belonging to different
categories would get different treatment. For example the
refugees classified as Category I (those evicted forcefully)
would be repatriated in the first phase. They would be returning
as citizens and would have all the rights enjoyed by other
Bhutanese citizens. When questioned by one of the refugees about
the return of their land and other properties, Dr Tenzin said
that those who had sold their land and other property either to
private persons or to the government would not get back their
property. He said that those who did not sell their land would
be given substitute land in equal measurement as per his or
Thram (land registration) records. When one of the refugees
belonging to Category I started asking questions, Dr. Tenzin
refused to answer and started speaking about the terms of return
for the people belonging to Category II (voluntary emigrants).
He said that they would be treated like other foreigners for a
period of two years. They would not be eligible to reclaim their
property until they proved their loyalty to the Bhutanese crown,
culture, language and tradition. Further, to regain their
citizenship, they would have to learn to speak Bhutanese
language, though they would be exempted form reading and writing
the Dzongkha script. However these people would have to know
Bhutanese history and culture. He also said that the persons
belonging to Category II would be taken to Bhutan and kept in
the camps. During this period one member from each of the
families would be employed as a labourer in road construction.
They would not be allowed to move freely inside Bhutan till they
were able to regain heir citizenship. This announcement
generated a heated exchange between the refugees and Dr. Tenzin.
Some of the refugees who were classified as Category II, pointed
out that they were in possessions of documents, which proved
that they were natural born citizens of Bhutan. They felt that
this was a ploy to evict them again. Dr. Tenzin refused to
engage in any discussion but went ahead to say that a committee
would be formed to interview the re-applicants and if the
committee members were satisfied, only then would these people
would be granted citizenship.
The Appeal of Category III (non-Bhutanese) Rejected by Bhutan:
He also informed that Royal Government of Bhutan had not changed
its position about the persons who were classified as Category
III (non-Bhutanese) by the JVT. In other words their appeals for
reconsideration stood rejected. (The refugees under category
claim that they have documents to prove that they are Bhutanese
citizens.) Dr. Tenzin said that the persons classified as
Category IV (alleged criminals) were to be handed over to the
police in Bhutan. According to him, Nepal police would hand over
these people to Bhutan government and once inside Bhutan they
would be dealt with according to the Bhutanese's law. Their
families would also be taken back to Bhutan. However these
family members would be housed in a camp designated for families
of criminals.
The Bhutanese and Nepalese Team Leaders Clash:
After the briefing by Dr. Tenzin the refugees became agitated. A
group of refugees moved forward and surrounded the JVT members.
The Nepali team leader requested them to clam down and listen to
His Majesty's Government of Nepal's position. He clarified that
his Bhutanese counterpart had gone beyond the terms agreed by
the MJC at the 15th round of bilateral talks. He stated that His
Majesty's Government of Nepal was not responsible for the
statements made by the Bhutanese team leader. He insisted that
Nepal government stood by the bilateral agreement that all
refugees, irrespective of their categories would be treated with
dignity and repatriated to Bhutan. Mr. Rana insisted that the
JVT was still reviewing the appeals made by the people
classified as Category III (non-Bhutanese). Dr. Tenzin refuted
this and said that the Royal Government of Bhutan had already
rejected the recommendations of the review committee. Mr. Rana
insisted that Nepal made no distinction between Bhutanese
refugees and other foreigners in Nepal. He also warned the
refugees against leaving the camps and taking up residence
outside. It was apparent that the Bhutanese side held the upper
hand and that the bilateral agreement was silent on how Bhutan
would treat the refugees once they were inside Bhutanese
territory.
The Refugees Retaliate:
The refugees were upset and angry. They accused the JVT of
taking advantage of their helpless condition. The refugees
reiterated their demand for the return of their homesteads. They
rejected the harsh conditions that were being imposed. According
to reports, the agitated refugees surrounded the JVT officials
in the meeting hall and for about half an hour heated
discussions took place. The efforts of the camp officials, the
UNHCR personnel and refugee volunteers to restore order met with
little success. As this was going on, security forces belonging
to the Unified Command of Nepal reached the camp. They wanted to
enter the briefing hall with arms. The UNHCR security officer
requested them not to enter the hall with their arms as it could
create panic and in the confusion some tragedy might take place.
The Sub-Inspector in-charge of the security team agreed. However
without first asking the refugees to come out of the hall, he
entered the hall without arms. He pushed aside the refugees
gathered around JVT officials and escorted them out of the
briefing hall. Some of the refugees who had gathered outside the
meeting hall, in the mean time had become violent. They tried to
mob the JVT officials and abused them verbally. Later some of
the refugees resorted to throwing stones. In the fracas one of
the Bhutanese team members was injured in the head, while the
clothing of another was torn. The windowpanes and windshield of
the three vehicles being used by the JVT officials were damaged.
Some of the refugees were also injured during the clash between
the police and refugees. According to news reports, Dr. Madan K.
Bhattarai, spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of Nepal told
the news reporters that the unpleasant incident in Khudnabari
refugee camp happened essentially because the Bhutanese leader
of the JVT had gone beyond the mandate of the Ministerial Joint
Committee. He also confirmed that the Bhutanese officials left
Nepal on December 23 without informing the Nepalese government.
Should the Refugees be Blamed?
Should we blame the refugees for what happened in Khudunabari
camp on December 22, 2003? While these hapless people have been
patiently waiting for the past 14 years to return to their
homeland, the governments of Nepal and Bhutan have been holding
endless rounds of talks. Government of India, which pushed these
people into Nepal across its own territory, refuses to
intervene. The International community, other than providing
relief materials for the camps, has done little to resolve this
crisis. Ignoring the irrefutable evidence of ethnic cleansing,
the entire world seems to be keen on preserving the cultural
heritage of Bhutan, which apparently will be destroyed if these
people were to return to their homes. This incident happened
because of the failure of the governments of Nepal, the western
governments, and the international community to bring justice to
these people. It also happened because His Majesty's Government
of Nepal was not clear about the purpose of the so-called
verification process. It would appear that the Nepalese team had
gone along with the demand of the Royal Government of Bhutan
thinking that this would open the way for repatriation of all
the refugees. Whereas the Royal Government of Bhutan had devised
this so-called verification process clearly as a method of
discouraging the refugees from going back to their country. The
purpose of the verification process is vitiated by that fact
that Bhutan wants to place the refugees who are claiming
citizenship into different categories. The so-called Category
II, persons who left Bhutan voluntarily, is a farce on the UN
Declaration of Reduction of Statelessness. All the refugees in
Khudnabari camp who have been classified as belonging to
Categories I, II and IV should be able to return to Bhutan in
safety and dignity. Their citizenship rights must be restored.
Their original lands and properties which they had to leave
behind or which was forcibly taken away from them or what they
were forced to "sell off" under adverse conditions created by
the state of Bhutan must be restored. Those refugees who have
been classified as non-nationals and put into the so-called
Category III should have access to a full, fair and independent
appeal process. Screening and repatriation should not proceed
without the presence of UNHCR.Verification of
Refugees: is it a sincere effort or a time buying tactic?
It would seem that one of the major roadblocks in the path of
return of Bhutanese refugees is the agreement between the
governments of Bhutan and Nepal on the Joint Verification Team.
The Nepal-Bhutan Ministerial Joint Committee (MJC) was formed on
July 17, 1993. Unable to come to any consensus on determining
the fate of the refugees, the discussions remained deadlocked
till the ninth round of bilateral negotiations held in May 2000.
While the Nepalese government and the refugees pressed for
repatriation of all, the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB)
insisted that most of the people living in the UNHCR
administered camps were not Bhutanese citizens. The RGOB claimed
that many of them were from India and Nepal and had entered the
camps claiming to be refugees so as to benefit from free
housing, food and services. The ninth round of bilateral
negotiations did not make any progress as Nepal maintained that
the verification team should interview the heads of the family
(unit verification), while Bhutan opted for interviews with
individual members of the refugee family. After the tenth round
of bilateral negotiations held in December 2001, the two parties
finally agreed to form a Joint Verification Team (JVT) and the
problem of unit verification that had remained a bottleneck
during the ninth round was apparently resolved. When it was
announced that the JVT would soon start its work, it rekindled
the hope of return in the hearts of the hapless Bhutanese
refugees. The agreement reached between Nepal and Bhutan, to
begin the field verification was appreciated and welcomed by the
refugees and others concerned.
The verification of refugees that started on March 26, 2001 was
completed on December 14, 2001 in the smallest of the refugee
camps located in Khudunabari. It took the JVT 264 days (153
working days) to complete verification of 12,183 refugees from
3,183 families. The unregistered asylum seekers living in
Khudunabari camp were excluded from the verification process.
The JVT checked and verified all documents available with
refugees including land tax receipts, house ownership documents
with allotment numbers, driving license, gun license and other
such papers issued by RGOB. According to reports published in
newspapers almost all refugees interviewed by the JVT possessed
some kind of documents issued to them by the RGOB as proof of
their last legal residence in Bhutan and their citizenship of
Bhutan. Dr Sonam Tenzin, the Director of the Special Task Force
of the Home Ministry of Bhutan who was one of the perpetrators
of the forced eviction of refugees, was the chief interviewer.
As the Dzongda (Chief District Officer) of Sarbhang district in
1998-99, he evicted a large number of refugees.
There was no transparency in the whole exercise. Nepal had given
in to Bhutan's demand to exclude the UNHCR or any other third
party. Naturally this gave rise to suspicion. The JVT was also
non-co-operative to the media. The Refugees right to information
was denied.
The governments of Bhutan and Nepal on June 18, 2003 finally
announced the results of the verification of refugees living in
the camp in Khudunabari. Out of the 12,183 refugees interviewed
in Khudunabari;
- Two and a half percent of the refugees (only 293 people) were
placed in Category I: bona fide Bhutanese citizens who would be
eligible for repatriation to Bhutan;
- Seventy percent were placed in Category II: refugees who
"voluntarily emigrated" from Bhutan and would be required to
reapply for Bhutanese citizenship;
-The claims of about twenty-four percent were rejected as they
were placed in Category III: non-Bhutanese;
-Three percent of the interviewees were classified as criminals
and were placed in Category IV who was to be taken back and
tried in the Bhutanese courts.
The NGOs and INGOs criticised the undue delay in announcing the
results of the verification process in Khudunabari camp. They
were also critical of the lack of transparency and international
monitoring of the interview process. Although the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had initially assisted in
the determination of the status of the refugees and has been
administering the Bhutanese refugee camps since the start of the
crisis in 1991, it was systematically excluded by both the
governments from playing any role in the claim verification and
repatriation process.
Bhutan has not explained on what basis about 24 percent of the
inmates of Khudunabari refugee camp has been classified as
non-Bhutanese, specially when the screening team of the
government of Nepal and the UNHCR had found them to be bona fide
refugees. Bhutan also wants to arrest the refugees under the
so-called Category-IV as criminals. Under the UN convention on
refugees and under the constitution of Nepal, no person can be
sent to another country to face criminal charges without these
charges being prima-facie established in a court of law. Also
there is a question of the nature of these charges. It has to be
determined whether the so-called criminal acts were really
criminal or these were political actions, which were categorised
as criminal acts by the laws of Bhutan. The National Security
Act (NSA) of Bhutan and the Law of Thrimsung (Penal code)
declare any act of "making conversation and correspondence"
criticising the king and his government by citizens as a
treasonable offence. Criticising the government is a legitimate
function of citizens in Nepal and India. The criminality of
refugees' offence, if any, must be established by an impartial
court and not in a Bhutanese court. The question of Nepal
handing over this category of refugees does not arise, as there
is a well-documented case of persecution of opponents of
government in Bhutan.
It has been said that the Bhutanese refugees under Category II
would be given the option to re-apply for citizenship. This
means they will have to re-apply for citizenship under Article 4
of the Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1985, like any other aliens
seeking naturalisation. This Act envisages that "a person
desiring to apply for Bhutanese citizenship must have resided in
Bhutan for 20 years; the applicant must be able to speak, read
and write Dzongkha proficiently; the applicant must have no
record of having spoken or acted against the king, country and
people of Bhutan in any manner whatsoever'. About seventy per
cent of refugees living in Khudunabari camp have been classified
as Category-II. There is no guaranty that would not have to wait
for 20 years in a state of statelessness to claim Bhutanese
citizenship and not in the two years as has been reported. The
refugees cannot claim naturalisation as a matter of law. It is
the prerogative of RGOB to grant it, and even after 20 years,
their citizenship status can not be guaranteed. The majority of
refugees cannot speak Dzonkha language as a result of their
exile. Similarly, most refugees have spoken against the king and
his government. This will disqualify them from naturalisation
even after 20 years and they will face persecution inside
Bhutan.
The RGOB will certainly apply its draconian and discriminatory
laws against the returnees and no one would be able to protect
their human rights. The criteria adopted for this category are
questionable and unacceptable under international law. They were
classified as having voluntarily emigrated from Bhutan. There is
ample evidence that they were forced into sign the so-called
"voluntary migration" certificates before they were expelled
from the country.
Today more than 100,000 Bhutanese refugees live in seven refugee
camps in the Jhapa and Morang districts of southeastern Nepal.
In addition another 20,000 to 25,000 are believed to be living
outside the camps in Nepal and India. Largely ethnic Nepali and
Sharchops from eastern Bhutan left their lands in southern and
eastern Bhutan beginning from 1989, during the time of strong
calls for democratic reform within Bhutan. This was the time of
implementation of restrictive changes in the country's
citizenship laws. Most of the refugees claim that the Royal
Government of Bhutan forcibly evicted them using various
policies like the Citizenship Act of 1985, One Nation One People
system, Marriage Act of 1988, No-Objection Certificate system,
Voluntary Migration Forms (VMF) system, while the RGOB claims
that, for the most part, the refugees left voluntarily in search
of better opportunities.
Sources:
The Himalayan Times December, 23, 24 and 25, 26, 2003
The Kathmandu Post, December 23, 24 and 25, 26, 2003
The Rising Nepal, Dec. 24 and 25,26, 2003
BRRRC Update, December 23, 2003
KUENSEL, December 23, 2003
SAFHR's own source
|
