|
A National Seminar on "Different Dimensions of Bhutanese Refugee Problems: Implications and Lasting Solutions"
Organised by Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA)
A half-day national seminar on "Diff erent
Dimensions of Bhutanese Refugee
Problems: Implications and Lasting
Solutions" was organised by IFA at the Hotel
Malla, Lainchaur, Kathmandu on 21st May, 2007.
As the title suggests, the major objective of
the seminar was to explore and understand
the diff erent facets of the Bhutanese refugee
problem, analysing its varied implications
and seeking solutions to the problem. The
seminar also aimed at collecting opinions on
the refugee issue from various scholars from
diff erent fi elds.
The seminar was divided into two parts--
inaugural session and working session.
Inaugural Session
The inaugural session was chaired by Prof. Dr. Gopal
Pokharel, Executive Director of IFA. Hon'ble Minister
for Foreign Aff airs, Mrs. Sahana Pradhan graced the
opening ceremony as the Chief Guest, while the Guests
of Honour were Mr. Gyan Chandra Acharya, Acting
Foreign Secretary, His Excellency Mr. Abraham
Abraham, Country Representative of UNHCR, and Mr.
Thinley Penjore, a Bhutanese representative.
Hon'ble Minister Pradhan inaugurated the seminar by
lighting a traditional lamp amidst an august gathering
of the representatives of the Government of Nepal, the
diplomatic community, scholars, refugee representatives and
journalists.
Addressing the inaugural session, Mrs. Pradhan assured that
she would exert her every eff ort in the coming days to help
resolve the Bhutanese refugee crisis. She said that Nepal
has always urged the Government of Bhutan to allow the
exiled people to return their country when the latter was
preparing to enter into a democratic political system. She
said that repatriation step would really be commendable
commitment of Bhutan in conveying the message to the
whole world that the country was transforming itself towards
democracy. She appreciated the friendly gesture of the
Core Group countries (the USA, Canada, Australia, Norway,
Denmark and The Netherlands and New Zealand) to resettle
the Bhutanese refugees. She, however, opined that the third
country resettlement must not be the seal of approval to the
policy of not allowing the exiled Bhutanese citizens back to
their homeland. She also said that the process of third country
resettlement and repatriation should go hand in hand.
Delivering his speech, Acting Foreign Secretary Mr. Acharya
said that the Bhutanese refugee issue came on top among
various refugee issues in the world. Criticising the heinous
act of Bhutan, Mr. Acharya said that procrastination policy
on the part of the Drunk Kingdom was the cause of creating
refugees and prolonging the problem. He said that the
problem of Bhutanese refugees was not created out of
vacuum, but it was a creation of its policy.
He added the policy should be dealt with so that there would
be refugee in South Asia. Shedding light on the role of India
and international community in resolving the problem, he
said that the former had to play a constructive role. Recalling
the past 15 rounds of bilateral talks between Nepal and
Bhutan, he accused the Bhutanese side of always appearing
with unclear vision and policy.
Focussing on a durable solution to the refugee problem,
he said that the basic aim of the Nepal Government was
repatriation with dignity and security. He, however, said that
Nepal would not intervene if the refugees voluntarily opted
for third country resettlement.
The Country Representative of UNHCR, Mr. Abraham
Abraham said that the time had come for all to be more
creative and objective to resolving the longstanding refugee
problem. Talking about the previous eff orts, he said genuine
and sincere eff orts were made by diff erent sectors to fi nd a
durable solution to the crisis. Calling for urgent solution to
the problem, he said living in camps for 16-17 years was a
long period.
Pleading for the refugees' rights to choice, he urged all the
stakeholders to realise their desires and aspirations and help
address the problem. Depicting a pathetic and diffi cult camp
life of refugees, he called for durable solution at the earliest
possible.
He said that the UNHCR 's mandate to protect and to fi nd
solution would always be the most outstanding part of its
role. However, the UN body would not dictate or infl uence
anybody to undertake third country resettlement, host
country integration or repatriation. He said it depended
on the people's decision. He suggested that the problem
should not be looked at from political line. He believed that
the problem would be looked upon more closely from the
humanitarian angle to put an end to the suff erings of the
people.
Speaking at the session, Mr. Thinley Penjore termed Bhutan
'a human zoo' where the people lived a dictated and docile
life under the elusive policy of 'Fkincopco|c', the so-called
etiquette of life. Coming down on the Bhutanese King, he
called the King solely responsible for refugee making and
living by declaring legacy for the new regime. In response
to Bhutan's remarks labelling the refugee camps as 'terrorist
breeding ground', he blamed Bhutan for its state act of
terrorism that rendered a large section of its citizens stateless,
homeless and discriminated.
He disclosed the fact that outsiders visiting Bhutan were
handled with utmost care to ensure that they were properly
guided to keep them away from exploring innocent people
and knowing the reality of the people's life. Regarding
the Indian role in the refugee problem, he believed that a
slight movement by Delhi would make a great diff erence in
helping to bring about an amicable solution to the refugee
imbroglio.
He said neither Bhutan was ready to take its citizens back
nor anybody from other countries came forward to help
bring Bhutan to the negotiation table. According to him,
the three options (local integration, repatriation, and third
country resettlement) should take place simultaneously for
the durable solution. He warned that the problem would
be much more costly even to the entire SAARC countries if
timely measures were not taken to address the issue. He was
of the opinion that the third country resettlement proposal
was a temporary measure to relieve the protracted refugees.
He, however, said that it was the right of every person to
choose their destination.
Earlier, welcoming the Chief Guest, Guests of Honour, scholars
and other invitees, Dr. Gopal Pokharel, Executive Director of
IFA, said that democratic changes in Nepal in 1990 sensitised
the Bhutanese monarchy and the Druk Kingdom adopted
an ethnic cleansing policy and evicted more than 107,000
people.
Recalling the several rounds of futile talks between Nepal
and Bhutan, Dr. Pokharel said it had been the endevour
from the Nepalese side to explore all the avenues possible
for solving the humanitarian problem in a peaceful manner
so that the refugees could repatriate to their homeland with
honour and dignity. He added that the bilateral talks proved
to be inadequate to resolve the problem and the issue was
internationalised. He opined that the refugee problem would
be solved forever if Indian showed a little magnanimity.
Appreciating the invaluable assistance provided by
UNHCR, FAO and other organisations, he said the problem
became further complicated when both the governments
agreed to categorise the refugees into four categories in
October 1993. He expressed his doubts whether the third
country resettlement programme would be a durable
solution or not.
At the end of the opening session, Ms. Anjan Shakya,
Deputy Executive Director of IFA, extended a vote
of thanks. Ms. Shakya said after the global upheaval of
democratic movement, which took place particularly in 1989
and 1999, brought a diff erent situation to Nepal and Bhutan.
Citing the root of the problem, she said when Nepal entered into the multiparty
democratic system in 1990, the Royal Government of Bhutan was
afraid of the growing awareness level of the people and started evicting its
own citizens from the country.
She further said that the Bhutanese government's such a move was a part
of its ethnic cleansing campaign adopted in the name of its citizenship
policy to forcibly evict the politically conscious and advanced section of the
society.
Reff ering to the Indian role in the issue, she said that India helped them to
cross the territory of India and thrown into Nepal. She added that Nepal
might have made mistakes in its negotiation with Bhutan, but it had been
trying since the beginning to resolve the crisis at the earliest possible. She
expected that the outcome of the seminar would be useful to resolve the
crisis.
Working Session
The working session was divided into three parts. The fi rst part of the session
was chaired by Chairman of the School of International Studies,
Jawaharalal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, Prof. Mahendra P.
Lama. Altogether three working papers were presented in the session. Mr.
Prakash A. Raj, former offi cial of UNHCR in Pakistan, presented his paper
entitled "Durable Solution for resolving Bhutanese Refugee Problem"
in the fi rst part of the session. The second part of the session was held under
the chairmanship of Prof. Dr. Gopal Pokharel, Executive Director of IFA.
In that part, former Hon'ble senior Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
for Foreign Aff airs, Mr. K. P. Sharma Oli presented his comprehensive
paper on "Diff erent Dimensions of Bhutanese Refugee Problem,
Its Implications and Solution." Similarly, Mr. Dhruva Joshy, former
Executive Director of NARC, presented his paper entitled Repatriation
or Expatriation? Refugee Rigmarole on the Last Shangri-La." The third
part of the session was chaired by Prof. Ananda Aditya.
Paper Presentation
Presenting his paper, Mr. Prakash A. Raj was of the opinion that the Bhutanese
refugee problem remained unsettled due to failure of the Nepalese foreign
policy. He also warned that Bhutanese refugee problem could lead such
kind of situation to other countries of South Asia as well if it was not
addressed on time.
Blaming India for not showing interest in resolving the Bhutanese refugee
crisis, he said that India was trying to stay away from the problem by calling
it a bilateral issue between Nepal and Bhutan.
He said India benefi tted tremendously from water resources of Bhutan and
the former did not pressurise the latter to resolve the crisis. Considering the
real situation, he said that all the people would not be repatriated and urged
to go for other options (especially the third country resettlement) to seek
solution to the impending crisis.
Floor Discussion
Participants from diff erent walks of life raised their queries on the paper
of Mr. Prakash A. Raj. Commenting on the paper, Mr. Sambhu Rana
asked what would be their fate if the exiled Bhutanese became stateless.
Answering the question, the author said that UNHCR was working and
would be working not only for refugees but also for the stateless people.
Another participant Mr. Sunil Poudyel asked why Nepal was not seen
serious in resolving the issue. Agreeing with Mr. Poudel's view, Mr. Raj stressed
the need for Nepal to be more serious about it.
Similarly, Prof. Kapil Shrestha urged Nepal to ratify the statute of
International Criminal Court (ICC) and demand the King of Bhutan and his
ministers to be tried under crime against humanity. In response to Prof.
Shrestha's proposal, the author said that Bhutan also signed on Child Rights
Convention, so it would be possible to make the Druk Kingdom accountable
for human rights violation.
Raising his query, Prof. Dr. Soorya Lal Amatya said that Nepal had done
its justice to the exiled Bhutanese by allowing them to be resettled in the
third countries. Dr. Amatya said had India been positive on the issue, the
problem would have been solved easily. Accepting Dr. Amatya's points, the
author said that the problem would have already been solved, if India had
shown a little interest in the Bhutanese refugee issue. Mr. Lal Babu Yadav,
a lecturer of Patan Multiple Campus, asked the author to clarify the meaning
of 'Bhutanese people of Nepalese origin'. The author replied that they were
Nepali speaking Bhutanese people, whose forefathers were taken from Nepal
by the then government of Bhutan.
Chairman's Remarks
Chairman of the session Prof. Mahendra P. Lama said that Bhutanese
refugee problem was one of the most protracted refugee issues in the world.
Pinpointing where things had gone wrong, Prof. Lama said that Bhutan had
always been very clear since the beginning that it would not take its people
back from the refugee camps.
Recalling a number of ploys that Bhutan has used to prolong the crisis,
he said the fi rst one was 'Vuc/Yc/uwo) meaning country, people and the
king respectively. The real meaning of the dictum was that despite having
a citizenship of Bhutan, one cannot be a Bhutanese national. He said that
it was a very peculiar concept where the distinction was made between
citizenship and nationality.
Prof. Lama said that Bhutan again came up with another ploy telling that the
people who left the country were all the anti-nationals. As yet another ploy,
the Government of Bhutan brought BODOs into Bhutanese jungles in order
to say that Bhutan as well had presence of ULFAs & BODOs on the boarders
of Kantapuri jungles to threaten India in case of intervening in the Bhutanese
refugee issue. He also said that Bhutan even proposed India to take a district
from Bhutan for resettling the refugees permanently.
Prof. Lama also said that, as another ploy, Bhutan came with the issue of four
categorization of refugees which was nowhere found in the world. The last
ploy that Bhutan has been hatching is mock or squidly guided democracy.
Commenting on the Nepal's side, Prof. Lama said that Nepal extended its
friendly hands in providing security and protection to the exiled Bhutanese
on the humanitarian ground. However, in reality, Nepal had never been
serious in giving solution to the Bhutanese refugee crisis. Taking example
of Nepalese diplomats visiting India to pressurise the latter for resolving the
crisis, Prof. Lama said that Nepal appeared with ten or more diff erent agendas
in one single basket. Nepal never visited India with a single refugee issue.
Prof. Lama blamed India as the main culprit in the entire drama of making
refugees. He further said that it had violated the principle of international
laws and norms by denying asylum to the evicted Bhutanese. Prof. Lama said
that in spite of giving asylum, India packed them and loaded them in trucks
and threw them across its border.
In the context of third country resettlement, he said that it was
one of the likely solutions to the impending crisis. Welcoming
the friendly gestures of the Core Group Countries, Prof.
Lama urged them to make the conditions of resettlement
clear before taking the refugees. He stressed resettling the
refugees as the evicted Bhutanese citizens but not as the
stateless group.
Forwarding other likely solutions, Prof. Lama urged the
Bhutanese King to give pardon to the entire evicted
population of Bhutan. He also called for forming an
independent commission with representatives from diff erent
parts of the world, which would investigate the refugees as
Bhutanese and non-Bhutanese in the camps, to facilitate the
process of repatriation and third country resettlement. While
concluding his remarks, Prof. Lama said that if the problem
were not solved in time, it would be one of the greatest
threats in the whole South Asia and its implication would be
more in Nepal.
Paper Presentation
While presenting his paper, former Hon'ble senior Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Aff airs, Mr. K. P. Sharma
Oli highlighted some pathetic conditions of the Bhutanese
people languishing in diff erent camps of Jhapa and Morang
districts of Nepal. Describing the objective situation of the
problem, Mr. Oli said that Bhutan did not show any interest
in repatriating its citizens back despite Nepal's several eff orts
and requests. He said that Nepal might not have been very
cautious in bilateral talks, but it was always wishing to reach a
consensus and conclusion to fi nd solution to the problem. He
also mentioned that in around 1990, the world community
was highly infl uenced by people's movement against
tyranny in favour of democracy and human rights and it was
natural to have that infl uence in Bhutan as well. Mr. Oli also
said that, in reality, it was the problem of Druk regime and its
citizens and there was no reason for Nepal to involve itself in
the problem. He disclosed the fact that Nepal gave entrance
to the refugees on the humanitarian ground and being the
intimate friend of Bhutan.
Speaking on the impact of refugee problem in Nepal
(especially at the local people), the former minister said that
the people at the local level had undergone psychological,
cultural, environmental and mental pressure. He also blamed
Bhutan that it was actively involved in forwarding wrong
information to the world telling that the people living in the
camps were not Bhutanese but Nepalese.
Emphasising the durable solution to the problem, he said
that dignifi ed and safe repatriation was the only solution.
However, he also said that if repatriation were not possible,
Nepal should also go for other options (especially third
country resettlement). He also alerted against Bhutan's
drama of democratization.
Floor Discussion
Following Mr. Oli's paper presentation, scholars from various
fi elds raised their queries. In response to Mr. Sunil Poudel's
question regarding Nepal's failure in diplomatic negotiations
with Bhutan, Mr. Oli refuted it and said that Nepal had high
prestige in the world in comparison with Bhutan. Mr. Oli
counteracted if it were a good diplomacy on the part of
Bhutan to evict its own citizens.
Similarly, Mr. Shree Ram Upadhyaya asked whether Nepal
could adjust the Bhutanese languishing in the camps in
Nepal itself. Responding to his query, former minister Mr. Oli
said that Nepal was not in the position to integrate them in
Nepal.
Another participant Mr. Som Pudasaini asked about the
steps ahead to be taken by Nepal in resolving the rigmarole
of Bhutanese refugee issue. Mr. Oli said that repatriation of
the refugees was the only durable solution to the problem.
He also said if repatriation was not possible, Nepal had to go
for the option of third country resettlement, too.
Mr. Bidyapati Mishra, a news reporter from Bhutan News
Service, asked how the Nepali members of Joint Verifi cation
Team (JVT) agreed on declaring children of 4-5 years as
'terrorists' in Khudunabari camp. In response to this query,
Mr. Oli said that he wanted to seek durable solution to the
problem by learning lessons from the past experiences rather
than blaming one another for the past mistakes.
A Bhutanese refugee leader Mr. Bala Ram Poudel inquired
why Nepal could not give up bilateral talks and involve third
party (either refugee representatives or the UNHCR or India)
in the negotiation. In his response, Mr. Oli said that India
remained indiff erent on the issue and always said that the
problem was a bilateral issue, and in the case of involving
refugee representatives and the UNHCR, Bhutan did not
want to do so.
Similarly, a lecturer from Patan Multiple Campus Mr. Babu
Ram Singh Thapa raised a question of India's vested interest of lingering the refugee issue. Answering Mr. Singh's
question, Mr. Oli said that had India been interested to solve
the refugee problem, it would have been solved easily and
quickly.
Remarks of the Chairman
Chairman of the session Prof. Dr. Gopal Pokharel,
Executive Director of IFA, said that he fully agreed with
the remarks made by Prof. Mahendra P Lama. In the earlier
session, he said that in around 1990, the world community
was highly infl uenced by people's movement against tyranny
in favour of democracy and human rights and it was natural
to have that infl uence in Bhutan as well. He further said that
the movement sensitised the Bhutanese monarchy and
adopted an ethnic cleansing policy and evicted its more than
107,000 innocent citizens. Speaking on the several rounds
formal and informal talks between Nepal and Bhutan, Dr.
Pokharel said that Nepal always tried its best to explore all the
avenues possible for solving the humanitarian problem in a
peaceful manner. He also added that if India showed a little
magnanimity, the refugee problem would be solved forever.
He was doubtful about proposal of third country settlement
and said that whether the third country resettlement
programme would be a durable solution or not.
Chairman Dr. Pokharel also highly appreciated former senior
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Aff airs, Mr. Oli
for his comprehensive presentation.
Paper Presentation
Mr. Joshi, while presenting his paper, said that the rigmarole
of Bhutanese refugee issue was one of the most protracted
and neglected issues in the world. He also made clear that
the exiled Bhutanese had lived all of their lives in Bhutan, but
they were forcibly evicted from their homes in Bhutan in 1990
when Royal Government of Bhutan (RGB) introduced a highly
discriminatory citizenship policy targeting the ethnic Nepali
community. Highlighting the Bhutanese King's conspiracy
against its citizens, he said the then King annulled the 1958
Citizenship Act and promulgated another one in 1985 with
the consultation of India. Mr. Joshi also said that from the
beginning, the RGB avoided talking about the refugees
with the lame duck excuse that they were not Bhutanese
nationals. However, to eschew censure from the international
community, Bhutan did skillfully engage itself in the bilateral
talks, but it never lost a single opportunity to delay or cancel
the meeting whenever possible. He blamed the government
of Nepal for its weak foreign policy. In order to resolve
the crisis, he urged for adopting the policy of Advocacy,
Diplomacy and Lobbying (ADL) in international platforms. He
also advised Nepal to immediately nullify the bilateral talks
and form a High Level Task Force (HLTF) on a permanent basis
until an amicable solution was reached. Mr. Joshi called for
Nepal to convince India to participate in the negotiation
process. Showing his disagreement regarding the division
of refugees into four categories, he suggested that refugees
should be divided only into two groups-- Bhutanese and
non-Bhutanese. Similarly, he emphasised the need for Nepal
to internationalize the issue even if it was not solved through
trilateralisation (Nepal, Bhutan and India) process.
Floor Discussion
Prior to the Chairman's remarks, a number of participants
from the fl oor raised their questions. Mr. Shree Ram
Upadhyaya urged the Nepali people to provide some
sort of help like recreation facilities from the to strengthen
people-to-people contact. Appreciating his comments, Mr.
Joshi said that those activities should be accelerated soon.
Ms. Guna Laxmi Sharma, the head of District Health Offi ce
Kathmandu, if Nepal had made Bhutanese refugee issue a
begging bowl. Denying her comment outright, the author
said that it was nothing more than a fi lthy blame. He further
said that Nepal wanted to see the problem solved as soon
as possible. Similarly, Mr. Hari Prasad Adhikari Bangale, a
representative from Bhutanese Refugee, the Camp Secretary
of Beldangi II, urged the Government of Nepal and the Core
Group Countries to accelerate the resettlement process as
soon as possible considering the deteriorating situation of
the camp life. The author said that if the exiled Bhutanese
were interested for third country settlement, they would be
allowed for the third country resettlement, too. He further
said that unless there was change in Bhutan, the people
would not be repatriated.
Chairman's Remarks
Chairman of the session Prof. Ananda Aditya said that
the Bhutanese refugee was a political issue and he urged
the concerned parties to seek a peaceful political solution.
Seeing fragmentation and division among the refugee
leaders of various parties and organizations, he suggested
that they should be united to fi ght against the autocratic
regime of Bhutan. Giving example of the Lcpc" Ccpfqncp"
KK of Nepal, he hinted at creating awareness and solidarity
among the evicted Bhutanese. Emphasizing the role of India
in resolving the crisis, the Chairman said that the leaders of
Bhutanese community should go with strategic vision and
plan by breaking the past trends. Regarding the proposal of
third country resettlement, Prof. Aditya advised them to see
both pros and cons of the proposal.
At the end of programme, IFA Executive Director Prof. Pokharel
expressed his sincere appreciation and thanks to the chief
guest Minister Madame Pradhan, all the paper presenters,
distinguished participants and all those who contributed in
making the national seminar a success.
|
|
|
