: At a time when most of the exiled Bhutanese in Nepal have lost their hopes for repatriation by choosing to resettle in the west, Bhutan has demonstrated yet another foul play against the actual sentiment of refugees’ rights to return home with dignity and honour. If what the King-appointed Prime Minister Jigmi Y Thinley commented to mediapersons in Thimphu on March 1 was sincerely correct, some refugees from UN-administered camps will have chance to go back. However, it is an undeniable fact that the Bhutanese authority has been blindfolding every one in the name of accepting citizens back home from the very start of high-level bilateral talks between Nepal and Bhutan. Thus, still hopes are very shadowy.
According to the claim made by the Bhutanese Prime Minister, genuine citizens would be repatriated, but returning of those people will only be based on the criteria set by the Joint Verification Team (JVT), which verified refugees of Khudunabari camp in 2001. Surprisingly, the JVT tagged even children born in refugee camps as criminals and categorised 2.5 percent out of 12,500 refugees as genuine Bhutanese. The criteria are such that no refugees will accept the so-called home-going package. How can refugees accept to remain in a transit camp in Bhutan for two to 20 years before the authority starts verifying the returnees’ eligibility for acquiring citizenship identity cards? In fact, no returnees would be granted citizenship cards even after spending years in such transit camps since the existing citizenship act of the country requires all individuals to speak Dzongkha compulsorily. The fate of younger generations would be more severe since most of them were born or brought up in the refugee camps. Therefore, there is no any seriousness in Thinley’s assurance for repatriation. His government must understand explicitly that no refugees from the camps would be ready to accept the fabricated criteria set by the JVT. Indeed, they don’t want to become refugees one more time in their own soil, likely to happen if Thinley’s version of repatriation is ever materialised.
Majority of refugees in camps have taken the Thinley’s remark as spin-off of series of bomb blasts on various occasions inside the country. The recent explosion at the gateway of Bhutan definitely added more fuel to the fire. This is why the regime has lately accepted that the longstanding refugee crisis is one of the biggest problems that has been a threat to peace and stability in the country. The government has also admitted that it is the refugee issue that has taken century old Bhutan-Nepal relationship into ransom. According to Nepalese historian Dr Suman Dhakal, Bhutan’s relations with Nepal were established in the beginning of the sixth century AD. While, the formal cordial tie between Gorkha and Bhutan was established in 1624 when Bhutan accepted some Nepalese families for permanent settlement in Bhutan. Thus, Bhutanese definition of “genuine citizens” should not ignore the fact that Nepali-speaking citizens, who were forced into exile in late 1980s and early 1990s, have carried a long history of over 370 years in Bhutan.
Unlike in his past statements concerning repatriation of exiled Bhutanese, Thinley has given some new pitches this time as he remembered to mention that “whatever the status, background or the rights or the lack of rights of the people might be, the fact is because Bhutan is directly associated with the huge population in the camp, it has very strong security and political implications for Bhutan”. However, the method of criticising the Nepalese side for not being serious enough in cooperating with bilateral talks to resolve the refugee imbroglio has remained unchanged, and will do so till he continues to remain in the power. But, the good thing to note here is that the world has gradually started analysing his stalwart art of lying, thanks to the international community for helping refugees to spread the stories of suppressions against them in global arena. Thinely, who has been thanking the resettling countries for accepting his fellow countrymen, will in no time understand the other side of gross national happiness.
On the other hand, the opposition leader Tshering Tobgay has sternly stood against Thinley for speaking on the favour of Bhutanese refugees, saying that the government even doesn’t have any basis of identifying whether a refugee from the camp in Nepal is a genuine Bhutanese or not. This fellow, who has just two seats in the National Assembly, irrationally commented that if repatriation was not possible 10 years ago, in spite of the best efforts of the governments of Bhutan and Nepal, how could it be possible to accept refugees in new democracy.
The ongoing allotments of lands and farms in the southern belt, which was previously owned and occupied by Nepali-speaking Bhutanese refugees, to landless people from other districts, clearly explain what the Thinley’s repatriation package looks like. So far, 5,088 people have been resettled, between 1997 and 2008, on the lands abandoned by exiled Bhutanese. But, this number could be higher. Officially, the government claims that resettlement in various six districts in the south was completed in 2008. However, internal land allotments still continue.
If repatriation ever happens as claimed by Thinley, there will be two owners for the same farm, violating the basic principles of right to property restitution – as promoted universally by the Pinheiro Principles. Article 10 of this principle states, “states shall allow refugees and displaced persons who wish to return voluntarily to their former homes, lands or places of habitual residence to do so. The right cannot be abridged under conditions of state succession, not can it be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful time limitation”. Therefore, Bhutan should be well prepared in respecting the real sentiment of repatriation making it acceptable to all returnees and international community if the Thinley’s government is positive at bringing the two-decade long ethnic cleansing to a logical ending at the earliest.
