The Plight of Bhutani Refugees

In the early 1990s more than 80,000 Bhutanese citizens were forced out of their country. These Nepali-speaking Hindus—whose forefathers settled Southern Bhutan in 1880s—had been systematically persecuted by the authoritarian government of King Jigme Singye Wangchuk and the Dzongkha-speaking Northern majority. Arbitrary rules, such as mandating universal adoption of the traditional Northern clothes and customs, and forbidding the official use of the Nepali language, were imposed. New citizenship laws classified most Southerners as non-citizens paving the way to eventual usurpation of their properties. Peaceful protestors of the unjust policies were imprisoned. Many were tortured. The Southerners, fearing their survival, fled, and were settled as refugees in Nepal by the local government and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Though the Bhutan government painstakingly tried to hide the fact, subsequent research by Amnesty International has established the fact that it was a case of meticulously planned religious, cultural and ethnic cleansing.

After almost twenty years, the Bhutanese refugees are still languishing in those makeshift camps in Eastern Nepal—battling difficult living conditions, suffering from mental and physical ailments, and subsisting in handouts from aid agencies—with no hope of ever returning to their homes. Their children were born and raised never knowing life outside the confines of the camps. In the tragic saga of the Bhutanese refugees, the injustice of the repressive government of Bhutan is matched in equal parts by the hypocrisy of India, the ineptitude of Nepal, and the indifference of the international community.

India claimed that the refugee crisis was a bi-lateral issue between Nepal and Bhutan. Their stance was not just inaccurate but also irresponsible for India, a country which sees itself as a regional leader, and besides controlling Bhutan’s foreign policy, also serves as the chief economic benefactor of the Bhutanese government. When the refugees fleeing from Bhutan’s security forces landed on the Indian soil, they were mercilessly nabbed by the Indian police and escorted all the way to Nepal’s border to be released. Such action punctures India’s hypocritical claim of respectable distance from the issue and shows whose side India took. For twenty years, India never used its considerable influence both in Thimpu and Kathmandu, to mediate or help resolve the Bhutanese refugee crisis.

On the other hand, Nepal’s ongoing internal political turmoil and the ineptitude of its successive governments must also share a portion of the blame. While Nepal had every reason—economic, social and political—to hastily repatriate the Bhutanese refugees, Nepalese efforts rarely amounted to much beyond fruitless bi-lateral talks. Since none of the talks were mediated by a third-party (such as India or UN), no significant or lasting breakthroughs were ever achieved. With India silent, Nepal simply hadn’t much leverage against Bhutan. Neither was Nepal capable in engaging other third-party pressure. Nepal’s inability to muster international support is a definite failure.

Finally, the international community simply ignored the problem. While the aid agencies and UNHCR performed valuable service at the camps, no Western government put discernible pressure on Bhutan, or India, for repatriation. Perhaps because of the geographical remoteness, the relatively smaller number of victims, or lack of major, visible bloodshed, until recently, the international community’s official response to the Bhutanese refugee crisis was tepid to non-existent.

Then in May 2007 the United States offered a plan of third-country resettlement for more than 60,000 of the Bhutanese refugees. Other countries such as Australia, Canada, and Norway also offered to take in 10,000 refugees each. A vocal minority within the refugee community dismissed the resettlement plan as permanent banishment from their homeland; they saw resettlement in a third country as the ultimate victory for the repressive Bhutanese government. However, most of the refugees, tired, sick and desperate as they were in the camps, saw a fresh start in the United States as their only way out. Some 8000 of them have already made their way to be resettled in America.
 

Though generous, the American plan offers little hope of lasting resolution to the Bhutanese refugee crisis. For twenty years, the refugees’ main objectives were justice and safe repatriation to their own country. The American solution provides neither. Actually, in essence, the plan helps the Dzongkha-speaking majority in their ultimate goal of ridding Bhutan of the ethnic Nepali minority. Most of the Bhutanese refugees have agreed to the bargain out of sheer desperation. However, if given the opportunity, would they not choose to take back their ancestral lands and homes, their fields of rice and barley, and live again in the southern hills of Bhutan?