Copyright© 2016 by SAAPE All Rights Reserved. However, the texts from this report may be reproduced, republished and circulated for the purpose of advocacy, campaigning, education and research with due acknowledgement to the source. We appreciate getting informed prior to any kind of use of this material and receiving a copy of the published document whenever possible. No part of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any forms or by any means for resale or other commercial purpose without prior written consent of SAAPE.

Published by South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication (SAAPE) Secretariat 288 Gairidhara Marg, Gairidhara, Kathmandu, Nepal Telephone :977-1-4004976, 4004985 Email: [email protected] Website: www.saape.org

Authors Dr.Bhampa Rai Karma Country Issues: Refugee crisis Introduction Bhutan a small Himalayan kingdom at North latitude of 26°45’ to 28° 10’ and east longitude of 88° 45’ to 92° 10’, is landlocked by China in North and India in south. It has area of 38,394 sq. km( was estimated to be 47,000 sq km until recently). It has population of 760,000(2015 estimation). Home to several ethnic communities, Bhutanese population is broadly categorized into three ethnic groups based on regions they live. The Ngalong (some historians also refer as Ngalop), from Tibetan Stock inhabiting western region of country dominate the political and economic spheres of the country. The Sharchop, belonging to Indo-Burman Stock and believed to be the oldest inhabitants in country inhabit in eastern region. Ethnic Nepali belonging to Indo-Aryan stock is newest settler in Bhutan and predominantly live in southern stretch. 16 % Naglong, 25 % Nepali origin and 45 % Sharchop and other smaller group comprised the population. The political entity of country was founded by Tibetan Refugee, Zhabdrung Nagwang Namgyal in seventeen century. He instituted theocratic form of government in country and it lasted for 257 years. The Wangchuck Dynasty under the powerful war lord Ugyen Wanguck was established only in 1907 with the help of British India. After 1947, independent India replaced British India and Bhutan enjoys very special friendly relationship with India. Bhutan became the member of U.N.O. in 1971. Bhutan has deliberately avoided the power play of the world powers by not having diplomatic relations with any of five permanent members of the security council of U.N.O. The mystic image of Bhutan is of a land where Gross National Happiness is more important than the Gross National Product. This soft image has captured international attention and Bhutan is seen as a pioneering country where peoples’ happiness is more important than material and political interests. However, the ground reality in this last Shangri-La is very different, in the early 1990s, the Royal Government of Bhutan evicted one sixth of its population comprising people of ethnic Nepali origin compelling them to refugee status in eastern Nepal. The case of Bhutanese refugees though typical is fraught with complexity as it involves issues pertaining to demographics, security, migrations, human rights and democracy. The Bhutanese government deprived Bhutanese of Nepali origin of their citizenship besides confiscating everything. The politically intended debate on demographic imbalance equation, migrant threat to the national security and sovereignty of nation became aggressively assertive in public discourse. The people of Himalaya enjoyed freedom of movement through porous borders and have a history of economic migration. India-Bhutan Friendship treaty of 1949 which was revised in 2007 permitted the freedom of movement to the subjects of India and Bhutan in each other territories. The precedence was followed when the Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1950 was signed. The Bhutanese government has used this to assert that the majority of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal are economic migrants and that Bhutan itself is the victim of such migration. The absence of laws protecting the rights of refugees in the South Asian combined with the geostrategic location of Bhutan placed the Bhutanese refugee issue on the backburner for the decades. None of the countries from South Asia have signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Refugee Protocol that ensures refugee protection. However, this has not deterred India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka from offering asylum to a considerable number of refugees. Bhutan, ironically, gives asylum to thousands of Tibetan refugees who flew after Tibetan uprising in 1960s and 1989. The Bhutanese refugee issue is intertwined with the Bhutanese movement for democracy and human rights. In 2008, Bhutan embraced ‘planned democracy’ by adopting a written constitution pushing active monarchy to constitutional role and introducing government elected through universal adult franchise. Since then Bhutan has conducted two successful elections based on multi-party politics. In the same year, the UNHCR along with eight core countries (US, England, Denmark, Canada, Norway, New Zealand, Netherland and Australia) initiated the Third Country Resettlement and started to take refugees from Nepal. As a result, over a hundred thousand Bhutanese refugees have resettled in eight countries so far. As of now, approximately 15,000 Bhutanese refugees are housed in eastern Nepal. However, UNHCR states some 8,000 refugees are likely to remain in camps as they are either not willing to resettle in a third country or are ineligible for the programme. Thus an unanswered question lingers on the fate of remaining refugees. More importantly, it asks, who will deliver justice to those families who were uprooted from their ancient homes? Refugee issue became the front page news only when Europe faced the refugee crisis of her own. In 2015 the picture of a drowned Syrian refugee child on the shores of Europe moved the hearts of many global leaders who displayed their compassion and Europe and Canada particularly have welcomed Syrian refugees with open arm. The terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015 and in Brussels in 2016 however reversed most of the generosity generated in the early part of 2015. Now, the EU has struck deals with Turkey to stop the refugees from entering Europe. The refugees are human beings and deserved the ‘human rights’. The world must address the fundamental reasons for the refugee crisis in first place. The protracted Bhutanese refugee issues had been being neglected without sympathy and attention until 2007. History of Lhotshampa in Bhutan Bhutanese of ethnic Nepali origin are called Lhotshampa . Though the word literally means southerner, it is now used as a politically correct term of addressNepali speaking population. Some historians state that Newari artisans from Nepal were brought by Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal to build aChhorten (Stupa) for his father Tenpai Nyima at Cheri in valley in the first part of the 17th century,aKing Ram Shah of Gorkha and Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal were said to be on good terms.Before the Treaty of Sinchula in 1865, from left bank of Teesta (in India) in the west to right bank of Dhansiri river in east, all eighteen duars were under Bhutan. There was no restriction migration of Nepali from Kalimpong, Sikkim and Duars. Druk Desid Jigme Namgyal, father of First King Ugyen Wangchuck even issued Kashog (decree) on 11th month of Bhutanese Bull Year ie, 1877 A.D. to Mr. Dhanbir Burathoki to settle Gorkha (Nepali) in Dzongsharpa, Samchi ( South west Bhutan). However, the large scale of Lhotshmapas settlementoccurred in the south western part of the country in 1904 at the behest of Kazi Ugyen Dorji Gonzim( Chamberlian), after he received the Kasho(decree) from the then Tronsa Penlop Ugyen Wangchuk. The southern settlement was established with both economic and political objectives. It acted as a buffer between Bhutan and the encroachments of British India besides supplying the cash tax to Trongsa Penlop treasury. In 1903, British diplomat Charles Bels writes about the presence of 14,000 Nepalis on the Torsa River bordering India. In 1932, captain C.J Marris observed some 60,000 strong population of Nepalis in Bhutan. The history of Lhotshampa settlement in Bhutan is older than the history of monarchy which came into being in 1907.

Genesis of Bhutanese Refugee Crisis The genesis of the Bhutanese refugee phenomenon was not the result of one sudden action or policy by the Government nor for that matter, of any dissident counter action. Its roots cause lies in the illiberal attitude of a defensive evolving Drukpa community and their inability to accept the existence of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual society. The peace in country had returned after the establishment of Wangchuck dynasty in early twentieth century. Thereafter, country followed deliberate self-imposed isolation policy until 1952. The majority among the Drukpa community practice Mahayana Buddhism while the Lhotshampa communities practiced Hinduism. The clash of traditions, customs and religions had been simmering from the reign of the Third King, Jigme Dorji Wangchuk. In fact, the converting of non-Buddhist Nepali of southern Bhutanese to Buddhism was discussed back in the first session of National Assembly in 1953. Southern Bhutanese for a first time formed a political party "Jay Gorkha" in 1947 under direction of Sahabir Rai demanding institutionalization of democracy in Bhutan. That party was brutally crushed by regime and Mahasur Chhetri, one of the leaders of the movement was assassinated few years later. Even after demand of "Jai Gorkha" the situation within the country remained unchanged. The Bhutan State Congress was formed by a group of Lhotshampa ‘refugees’ led by D.B Gurung, D.B Chettri and G.P Sharma at Patgaon, Goalpara district of Assam (India) in 1952. The congress demanded the abolition of feudal system, civil and political rights and democratization of administration and closer ties with India. The congress claimed that 64 percent of the population of the country was made up of Nepali speaking people and therefore merited a larger share of political and economic rights. However, the exact percentage of the Nepali speaking population at that time will be never known though Jigme Y Thinley states that it was below 15 percent. The Congress sent its 100 ‘volunteers’ to stage the Satyagraha in 1954 to Tsirang, Bhutan. In response, the Government of Bhutan mobilized a thousand militias and chased the activists back to India. Mr D B Gurung, President of the Bhutan State Congress received a pardon in 1969 and returned to Bhutan and ended party activities. Subsequent to Jai Gorkha and Bhutan State Congress assertion, for the first time in history, the Lhotshampa communities were granted Bhutanese citizenship under the Nationality Law of Bhutan, 1958. The 13th session of the National Assembly of Bhutan , 1959 resolved “that from this date the Nepali would enjoy equal rights in the National Assembly, as well as in the country, like other bona fide citizens.” National Integration Policy The Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru supported the Third King‘s initiative to introduce modern development through planning. The First five year plans were thus started with complete Indian financial support in 1961. Almost all major industries and commercial centres were established in southern Bhutan. Inter marriages between Lhotshampa and northern Bhutanese were encouraged as part of the National Integration Policy and incentives of Nu.10,000/- were offered. The Government provided free education, scholarships, gave government jobs to qualified Lhotshampa and the Lhotshampa community was given representation in the National Assembly and Royal Advisory Council. The King gave the ethnic Nepali a Bhutanese identity, the Lhotshampa, to the southerners in 1975. The period from 1975 to 1985 is called the ‘golden period’ in the annals of Bhutanese history by most Lhotshampa dissidents since some kind of a honey-moon for inter-ethnic relations between northern and Southern Bhutanese existed during these years. The Bhutanese regime was well aware of the external threat to the country’s sovereignty when it witnessed the occupation of Tibet by China. The northern Bhutanese in fact had a lot in common with Tibetans in terms of culture, customs, traditions and Buddhism. In 1962, Bhutan had a close shave with the Sino-India War. Bhutan had mobilized its militia for the protection of its territory and its forces were initially stationed at Tashigang, 30 km away from the Arunachal Pradesh border, where the Sino-India war was taking place. But, the Bhutanese forces were forced to shift to Lingmithang, Mongar, 90 km away after receiving the stern warning from China to shift inwards. The Bhutanese regime tilted towards India and on October 15, 1962, the Indian Military Training Team, popularly known as IMTRAT, was established in Bhutan. Strategic defence ties with India has deepened over the years. However, the assimilation of Sikkim state, a neighboring Buddhist state by India and that too with the support of “Nepali origin” people had a great impact on the Bhutanese regime, which saw itself as being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. It was faced with choice between expansionist communist China in north and an equally expansionist India in the south. It probability preferred India in hope that its culture and ethnic difference from India might pose a deterrence for swift assimilation unlike its northern neighbor. Henceforth, Bhutanese initiated cautious national integration policies. The King was then guided by his mother and Uncle, Dasho Ugyen Dorji (Rim). The Queen mother and Dasho Rim had been brought up at Kalimpong, a place where Nepali culture and traditions thrives. They had a deep knowledge and understanding of the Nepali way of life and cultural sensitivities. Displeased with government handling of southern citizenship crisis, Dasho Rim had commented, “Thought them like a Drukpa who can be subjected to abuses?”1 Mr. Teknath Rizal, then the Royal Advisory Councilor was tasked to lead the Audit Committee when corruption scandals erupted in the country. His findings indicted eight Dzongdas – Chief District Administrators besides indicting members of Royal family. Eight Dzongdas were either terminated from service or sentenced to imprisonment. Their relatives,who were entrenched in

1 Late R.K Dorji recalled Dasho Rim’s comments in 1990. influential positions of the government were unhappy with Mr. Rizal. This is evidenced in Paro Penlop, Prince Namgyal Wangchuk’s order to Rizal to expunge his sister’s name from the audit report stating that the image of royal family would suffer in front of India if this was not done. Mr. Rizal refused to comply on the grounds that the authenticity of Audit report would be in question if he were to give in this request given that the auditing work had been carried out by Indian experts. The significance of this lies in that Mr. Rizal, who displeased the prince, belonged to the Lhotshampa community. The Bhutan government was witness to the anti-foreigner movements and the son of the soil agitation in Assam, by ULFA and Bodo from 1979-85 especially as the Indian ULFA and Bodo took refuge in Bhutan during the agitation period. In neighboring India the violent Gorkhaland agitation was successful in creating hill council comprising the Hill district of Darjeeling and the adjoining areas in the Duars, just across Samchi Dzongkhag of Bhutan. Bhutan was closely watching the developments in its neighborhood. The 1985 Citizenship Act was enacted against this background. This act retains the gender discriminatory clauses. The clauses in the 1958 Citizenship Law, and the subsequent amendment in 1977, however did not deprive Bhutanese citizenship to the children born from non-Bhutanese spouse and provided avenue for such spouses to be eligible for Bhutanese citizenship through naturalization. Nonetheless, the children born from such marriage were discriminated. The significant and notable clause in the 1985 Citizenship Act was the domiciled cut-off year. The section 3 under registration states,” The person permanently domiciled in Bhutan on or before 31st December, 1958, and, whose name is registered in the census register maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs shall be deemed to be a citizen of Bhutan by registration.” The representatives of the southern Bhutan had been arguing to make 1985 as the cut-off year to implement the contents and spirit of the 1985 Citizenship Act. They argued that the Ministry of Home Affairs had been setup in 1968 and thus it cannot implement the act in retrospect. The Government went about in its census exercise and a cadastral Survey and Census began in 1988. The government applied iron chain for cadastral survey. Citizens were not allowed to possess their excess land. These excess lands were used by the government to settle the northern Bhutanese later on. The census team applied the Citizenship act, 1985 retrospectively and created problems in southern Bhutan. Applying December 31, 1958 as cut-off for citizenship by registration and the government declared the presence of 15,0002 illegal immigrants in Bhutan. These illegal immigrants were of ethnic Nepali origin. On the other hand, the figures pertaining to illegal immigrant presence of this group in Bhutan is plausible. As Bhutan and India enjoy a porous border and there are no visa requirements between the two countries. The situation was complicated by the fact that it is impossible to differentiate between the Lhotshampa and Nepali origin Indians staying across borders. The ‘illegal immigrants’ declared by census in 1988 were asked to leave country immediately after selling or leaving their land and other properties to the Government. Those who left Bhutan under compulsion received meager compensation. The census declared children of

2 Page 119, The – Retrospect and Prospect bona-fide citizens as illegal immigrants. Spouses married from outside were forced to leave country immediately leaving behind their family. An Indian citizen, Sita Mothey, wife of Damber Mothey from Chirang Bhutan committed suicide when the census team ordered her to leave country immediately leaving behind her husband and children. The aggrieved Lhotshampa approached their representative, Mr.Teknath Rizal, a member of the Royal Advisory Council to raise their issue to king. Rizal along with a friend put up a petition to the King to look into this matter in 1988. The King dispatched an investigation team to Chirang to authenticate the claim. Dago Tshering was then Deputy Home Minister. His brother, Dago Sitha, was one of the Dzongdas who had been sentenced to three imprisonments as a consequence of Rizal's audit findings in 1985. Dago Tshering had bided his time to exact revenge on Teknath Rizal, and he seized the opportunity when it came his way. He instructed Chirang Dzongda, , to engineer a public contradiction to Rizal’s claims in front of the King’s investigation team by threatening the local people into making false statements to the contrary. The people disagreed with the claims made in the petition because of fear. The other reason could be that Prince Namgyal Wangchuk, then Home minister might have directed his deputy because of Rizal’s defiant refusal to expunge his sister name from corruption scandal report way back in 1985. This is borne out by the fact that Rizal was subsequently sacked from the Royal Advisory Council. In 1989, Rizal fled Bhutan for Nepal and formed the People’s Forum for Human Rights in Bhutan (PFHR). This underground organization started to campaign for human rights in Bhutan. However, the Nepal Government had him extradited and he was imprisoned at Rabuna jail in Wangdiphodrang where he was mentally tortured and kept in inhuman conditions. In all, Rizal was inhumanly incarcerated at various jails in Bhutan for a period of ten years. After release from jail in 1999, he entered Nepal in 2003 after failing to stay in Bhutan and India. To return to the citizenship issue, the Government claimed that they had prepared to evict “illegal immigrant”, people who were unable to substantiate proof of their stay in Bhutan before cut-off year of December 31, 1958. Bona fide Lhotshampa citizens feared that this might enable the government to evict and deprive them of their landed properties. The agitation against the government took place in southern Bhutan from 1990-1991. The other reason for peaceful resistance was the government’s decision to impose dress code, custom, tradition of the Buddhist north onto the Lhotsampa population who had their own culture, language and tradition and overwhelming majority practice Hindu religion. The Government started its “One nation One people’ policy in its Sixth Five Year Plan (1986- 1991).The King issued a royal decree on 6 January 1989 to implement “ Driglam NamZhag” ( social etiquette code) practices and the National Dress Code, which came into force in May 1989. The National dress, ‘Gho’ for men and ‘Kira’ for women are identifiable with northerners. All the ethnic groups of Bhutan accepted the National dress which is worn on special occasions such as visiting religious places or government offices. There was a legitimate cause for the Lhotshampa community to be aggrieved by the implementation of National dress code. It was difficult for residents of southern Bhutan, included northern Bhutanese to accept it as an all- time work dress given the hot and humid climate of the region. There was disillusionment and discontentment even among the northern Bhutanese staying in southern Bhutan when the overzealous officials followed the national Dress code guidelines strictly. The “half-Gho and half-kira’, the creative dress design suitable to the climate of southern Bhutan was not accepted by the government. The Government dropped the Nepali language from the school curriculum to add further salt on wounds.

Red marked in Map shows the homes of Bhutanese refugees when they were evicted from Bhutan. Peaceful Demonstration in Southern Bhutan To seek the justice and amicable solution to evicted Bhutanese sheltered at Garganda tea garden, in India, a political party, "Bhutan Peoples' Party" under leadership of charismatic Lhotshampa Mr. R.K. Burathoki was formed on June 2, 1990. The party forwarded thirteen points to King. At the lack of response from the Government, the agitators decided to launch peaceful rallies in all six affected districts in southern Bhutan in August-September 1990.The agitations were spearheaded by the Bhutan Peoples Party (BPP), The People’s Forum for Human Rights (PFHR) and the Student’s Union of Bhutan (SUB). The mass demonstration at Gelephu(then called Gaylegphug) overwhelmed the zonal administration headquarters and compelled the Chief Zonal Administration Officer, Dr. Kinzang Dorji to carry the BPP party flag and hoist it on in the office building. The government started the crackdown on agitators after mobilizing the militia. The regime alleged those peaceful demonstrators to be terrorists, economic migrants, anti- nationals, illegal migrants etc. The security personnel manned the situation throughout the day and night. The security force intimidated and arrested hundreds of innocent people, killed many in jails by torturing, raped many women, burnt down many houses of Lhotshampa, confiscated gold, silver, citizenship Identity cards, valuable documents and Kashog (decree) and asked them to leave country immediately. Many horrified Lhotshampas left the country mostly in dark hours of night. The people were coerced to sign in 'Volunteer Migration' forms at respective district office and ordered to leave Bhutan within short period of time. Some of such Lotshampas sold their land property beside other valuables to officials in throwaway price where as other were evicted forcefully. From recent revelation in books by the king’s close aide and confidante, Lyonpo Om Pradhan, the King had provided carte blanche to Army, Militia and police while dealing with “violent agitators”. In an interview, in 1992, the then deputy Home Minister Lyonpo Dago Tshering, admitted to activities such as land grabbing and purchase of land from ‘emigrants’ who were leaving the country. According to him, “some of the officers of the Royal Bhutan Police and the security forces were also involved in purchasing land and houses”. Prof. A.C Sinha writes, “The Bhutanese turned so panicky that they drove away almost one – third of their subjects away from home and hearth. They did perpetrate a type of human genocide by inflicting all types of human rights violations.” The Government campaign in international forums projecting Bhutan as the last bastion of Mahayana Buddhism in the world under threat of extinction from culturally diverse immigrants gained sympathizers. Foreign Minister, Lyonpo Dawa Tshering, led the debate in National Assembly of Bhutan and in international arena. He claimed that dissident were pursuing the Greater Nepal cause with the support of the Nepali diaspora in India and Nepal. He painted Bhutan/Drukpa as the ‘endangered species ‘in the world. His boss, the King told Reuters correspondent that “in the next 10, 15 or 20 years. Bhutan will no longer be a Bhutanese nation. It will be a Nepali state ..just like Sikkim”. In January 1992, then, Foreign Minister Dawa Tshering, stated that, “radical groups like communist, leftist and Naxalites in India and Nepal were patronizing ‘terrorist’[sic] against Bhutan”. The Government claimed that agitating groups were supported by their kin and kith across the borders. Dissidents groups, on the other hand, published articles, leaflets and booklets about the lack of human rights and democracy in Bhutan besides the abuses of human rights allegedly carried out by the government. Countering dissident claims, the Home Ministry published the graphic booklet about the killings, destruction of schools, hospitals, bridges allegedly carried out by the dissidents. The Home minister reported “73 murders, 63 rape, 64 vehicle hijacks, 31 vehicle destruction, 996 injuries due to ambush, and destructions of 12 clinics, 30 schools, 13 police stations, 21 forest offices and 16 bridges” caused by the agitators. Ironically, both sides published same pictures citing atrocities by the other side. BPP alleged that 190 peaceful demonstrators were killed at Sibsoo on September 21, 1990. On September 22, 60 more people were allegedly killed at Pugli. The Royal Bhutan Police allegedly poisoned the river Diana at Chengmari. On September 20, 1990, some 200 peaceful demonstrators were allegedly killed by Lhakpa Dorji, the District commissioner of Samchi. He was later involved in the killing of an unarmed lay monk Karma in Mongar when eastern Bhutanese stageda demonstration calling for the establishment of human rights and democracy in 1997. He was subsequently dismissed from the civil service but was not charged for murder in spite of irrefutable evidence stacked against him. The details of 63 extra-judicial killings and death of 11 women as the result of rape is appendixes in Mr. Teknath Rizal book published in 2014. The School in southern Bhutan was used as Army/police or militia barrack then. It was reopened only in 2012. The current Police chief of Bhutan, Brigadier Kipchu Namgyal was one of the main persons behind major human right violations during the 1990 evictions. He admitted to National Assembly discussion on human rights that the police force alone cannot protect human being by the sets of rights. His statement and mentality shows the scenario of continued human rights violations by police authority. Exodus of Refugees in India and Nepal Nepal and Bhutan doesn’t share border. To reach Nepal, Bhutanese have to pass the Indian Territory. The Lhotshampa ejected out of Bhutan entered India. Indian allowed only to established temporary relief camps in its territory. The asylum for Bhutanese citizens was not permitted by the article 5 of the India-Bhutan Friendship treaty of 1949. Besides, Bhutan is central to its strategic security interest and good relationship with Bhutanese regime is paramount though India has policy of allowing ‘refugee’ to assimilate within vastness of India. On the other hand, In 1964 Nepal accepted the immigration of the people of Nepali origin from Burma when Burma enacted the Burmese citizenship act of 1964. In 1967 about 8,000 people of Nepali origin fled Indian North east after trouble broke out between native populations over the use of land. Nepal also had experience in dealing with refugees as it had granted refugee status to Tibetans in 1959-60. Nepal became the destination for Lhotshampa refugees. Initially few in number, the flow of Bhutanese refugees to Nepal reached overwhelming proportions with the unleashing of terror in southern Bhutan. Nepal was ill prepared in dealing with a large number of destitute refugees. But senior Bhutanese officials who had come out of Bhutan to support and advocate for unfairly justice denied to fellow Bhutanese, appealed the Government of Nepal for asylum and security. The Government of Nepal gave asylum to those destitute Bhutanese purely on humanitarian ground. First temporary camp was set up on the left bank of river Maidhar, east Nepal after taking permission from the then chief district officer Mr. Kulchandra Shrestha, Chandragudi, Jhapa. Refugee also sent an appeal to UNHCR, Geneva besides personally approaching Kathmandu based INGOs and NGOS for assistance. A camp secretary was appointed as the in charge of camp management. The camp was further divided into sectors and sub- sectors with sector head and sub-sector head respectively for the smooth running of camp management. Similarly volunteer guards and workers from refugee community were selected for security within the camp. Nepal was overwhelmed. In the face of a looming humanitarian crisis, the Nepali Government under Prime Minister G.P.Koirala invited the UNHCR to set up camps in eastern Nepal to provide humanitarian assistance. Prior to arrival of UNHCR, the camp was managed by assistance rendered by CARITAS, LWF, DANIDA, OXFAM and Nepal Red Cross on ad-hoc basis. Besides looking after refugee administration Dr. Bhampa Rai had to attend all camps patients along with other Bhutanese paramedics. He was later joined by other Bhutanese doctors. Over a thousand children and elderly died of diarrhea and malnutrition at the makeshift camp at Maidhar, Jhapa. Dr. Bhampa Rai opines,” There was acute shortage of medicinal supplies. Oral rehydration salts (ORS) alone could have saved hundreds of children”.One of an elder refugee, recall, “I along with friends buried 27 children in a single day”. At such critical conditions Mr. Patrik D'souza, Desk officer south-east Asia and UNHCR country representative to Nepal M/s Tery Lekey visited camp at Maidhar in 1992. UNHCR came in the scene fully equipped during later part 1992 and started aiding refugee in all fields, though camp administration and documentation of refugee remained under camp committee ran by Bhutanese. The committee developed good rapport with all INGOs. In later part of 1993 Dr. Rai handed over the charge of camp administration to government of Nepal as Bhutanese political parties and social organizations wanted camps administration to be divided under their political line.

Bhutanese refugee making way to Nepal via Indian Territory

Nepal-Bhutan Bilateral Talks on the Refugee Crisis In December 1991, the King of Bhutan met Nepali Prime Minister Koirala in December 1991 at Colombo and had asked him to disband the camps. By the time Bhutan and Nepal established formal talks on the refugee issue in 1993, the refugee population, which was housed in seven camps in Jhapa and Morang, had reached almost 100,000. The Government of Bhutan continued to alleged ‘refugee ‘as non-Bhutanese from India and Nepal. Bhutan yielded later on. The Bhutan-Nepal Joint Ministerial Level Committee was proposed by the King of Bhutan to Prime Minister of Nepal, G. P. Koirala on 9 May 1993, during the SAARC summit in Dhaka, Bangladesh, to resolve the Bhutanese refugee crisis. On 7 July 1993 they met formally in Thimphu, the capital of Bhutan and agreed to place the refugees into four categories. These are : I. Bonafide Bhutanese, if they have been forcefully evicted II. Bhutanese who have emigrated III. Non-Bhutanese IV. Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts

After ten rounds of Nepal-Bhutan talks, both governments agreed to form a Nepal-Bhutan Joint Verification Team (JVT) to assess refugees. The JVT started interviewing and verifying the Bhutanese refugees, staying at Khudnabari refugee camp in Jhapa on 26 March 2001. The result was declared in 2003. Verification of Bhutanese Refugees in Khudnabari Camp Category Description Families Population Percentage

I. Forcefully evicted 74 293 2.5 II. Voluntarily emigrated 2182 8595 70.5 III. Non-Bhutanese 817 2948 24.2 IV. Criminal records 85 347 2.8

The JVT result substantiated that over 75% refugee in Khudnabari camp were indeed bonafide citizens of Bhutan contrary to Bhutanese government assertion that ‘people in camp’ are not Bhutanese. The terms and conditions for repatriation were based on Bhutanese Law. The Re- application of Citizenship carried conditions such as , “the Royal Government shall keep the applicant on probation for a period of at least two years. On successful completion of the probation period, the applicant will be granted citizenship provided the person in question is not responsible for any activities against the Royal Government.” On December 22, 2003, the Bhutanese JVT delegation were at Khudnabari to announced the terms and conditions of repatriation The Refugees out rightly rejected the terms and condition of repatriation and a scuffle broke out between them and the Bhutanese JVT members. The Bhutanese delegation left Nepal citing insecurity. At that time, Bhutan and India had launched Joint “operation all clear” to flush out the Indian militants from the Bhutanese soil. Since then the two countries have not met on the Bhutanese refugee problem in Nepal. The Constitution of Bhutan, being promulgated for the first time in the history of Bhutan in 2008, is still stiff on citizenship issue. Article VI specifies under section (1) “A person, both of whose parents are citizens of Bhutan, shall be a natural born Citizen of Bhutan”; (2) “A person, domiciled in Bhutan on or before the 31st December Nineteen Hundred and Fifty Eight and whose name is registered in the official record of the Government of Bhutan shall be a citizen of Bhutan by registration”; (3) “citizens by naturalization” . Naturalization requires applicants to have resided in Bhutan for at least 15 years with official permission; have no record of imprisonment for criminal offences within the country or outside; can speak and write Dzongkha; have a good knowledge of the culture, customs, traditions and history of Bhutan; and have no record of having spoken or acted against the tsa-wa-sum. They must also renounce the citizenship, if any, of a foreign State on being conferred Bhutanese citizenship; and take an Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution. The grant of citizenship by naturalization takes effect by a Royal Kasho of the King. The Constitution prohibits dual citizenship. If citizens of Bhutan acquire another citizenship, their Bhutanese citizenship is terminated. The power to regulate matters on citizenship is vested with the National Assembly. Bhutan continues to forge existing Bhutanese into single unity by restricting citizenship and foreign marriage. Third Country Resettlement Offer There was stalemate in Nepal-Bhutan bilateral talks to resolve the refugee issues. Political instability within Nepal did not help matters. With the Maoist Party waging armed revolution, Nepal was plunged into civil war that lasted from 1996 to 2006. The international community was reluctant to use their leverage to pressure the Bhutan on refugee repatriation so as to counter balance perceived India’s influence and preclude the "Sikkimization" of Bhutan. The UNHCR policy on the rehabilitation of refugees was developed against this background. It offers three basic options 1. Repatriation to the motherland, 2. Assimilation in the host country. 3. Third country Resettlement (TCR). The first option was becoming impossible because of Bhutanese Government’s inactive attitude. The second option was not without problems. Nepal being poor country has its own share of problems with “Madeshis’ who accuse the Nepal Government of neglecting their rights. The doable thing by core countries with Nepal was the Third country Resettlement option. In addition, while meeting with foreign dignitaries during the visit to refugee camps, some leaders expressed the refugee’s willingness for the TCR. In August, 2006, a US delegation met the King in Thimphu and revealed that the US was willing to resettle 60,000 Bhutanese refugees. Bhutan was unwilling to repatriate such a large number of refugees for its fear of demographic imbalance. The then Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee reiterated same line on June 10, 2007 , "if these 100,000 people enter Bhutan it would create a demographic imbalance”. The then USA Assistant Secretary of State for Refugee Affairs, Ellen Sauerbury, officially announced the resettlement offer at UNHCR office, Geneva on 2 October 2006. Core groups were formed with countries comprising Australia, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and USA. Later on UK joined the group. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) now processes the resettlement of refugees on the basis of referrals made by UNHCR. First expression of interest for resettlement has been made known to UNHCR. The TCR program is still under way. As of 31 December, 2015, about 101,222 Bhutanese refugees have been resettled. Country-wise Number of Resettled Bhutanese Refugees (2007-2015) S Year Number of Bhutanese Refugees Resettled Under Third Country Repatriation N Australia Canada Denmark Netherlands New Norway U K USA Zealand 1. 2007 2 2. 2008 393 31 13 25 129 24 7544 3. 2009 626 859 311 95 170 300 15077 4. 2010 1158 1454 2 107 199 49 111 11728 5. 2011 1033 1879 287 97 92 14735 6. 2012 629 1079 128 120 173 146 14457 7. 2013 920 477 106 150 4 101 9050 8. 2014 546 438 27 87 6 7474 9. 2015 315 420 1 55 10 5760 TOTAL 5620 6646 874 327 1002 566 358 85829 Total departure as on 31 December 2015 101222

Tension in Camps after the Resettlement Announcement

The announcement of the TCR programme created tension in refugee Camps. Two opposing factions surfaced. The pro-resettlement groups argued that TRC offered hope and a secure future for younger generations. The against–resettlement group argued that Bhutan was getting a clean chit for human rights crimes committed by the state against citizens (refugees). They argued that the TRC would only embolden the Thimphu regime to carryout similar pogroms in the future. Refugee leadership was divided. DNC and BNDP welcomed the TCR. The Bhutanese Movement Steering Committee (BMSC) under the leadership of Teknath Rizal and Bhutanese Communist parties were fierce opponents of the TCR. The Bhutanese Refugee Representative for Repatriation Committee (BRRRC) also strongly condemned the TCR. In 1992, Dr. Bhampa Rai, said, “ Our interest lies in as rapid a return as possible because we realize that the longer we stay away, the greater the possibility that the population will give up hope”. His observation became like a prophecy in 2007-2008. The majority of people have given up their hope of returning. Poverty and deprivation was still rampant. The elder population was uninterested to TRC. They were unwilling to take another journey and after braving the difficult early years in Nepal. They also harbor a hope of returning to Bhutan and havean emotional attachment to environment where they grew up. They loved Bhutan and had contributed for the making of present Bhutan when they were in Bhutan. The younger regeneration, who either have a little knowledge of Bhutan or have only known camps in Nepal as their home, were adventurous enough to take a new voyage of their life. The TCR provided younger generation an opportunity to escape vicious circle of poverty in camps and explore their full potential as human being and responsible citizen. They have endured the humiliation and suffering of being refugee for a long time. People treat condescendingly when h/she introduced him/herself as ‘refugee’. The Third Country Resettlement programme not only divided the political opinion of the refugee leadership, it also divided families. The head of the family had to give prior assent to the Declaration of Interest for TCR to UNHCR. Reluctance of the family head or parent to give his /her assent led to fights within the family. In some cases, the elder son even bashed aged parents. Similarly, difference of opinion between spouses led to a large number of divorces cases. In most divorcee cases, the judgment of divorcee was arbitrarily handled by the UNHCR field agent and usually with ex parte rulings. In refugee camps many committed suicide due to pain of family separation. The custom and traditions that has bonded the family were shaken. The Bhutanese regime had failed to break the existing family bond in community was of course easily broken by TCR programme. In refugee camps, there are thousands of aged parents who were left behind by their children, who are resettled in eight core countries. These aged parents harbor a hope of returning to their place of birth in Bhutan despite the absence of their loved one nearby. Only human being who has undergone the same experience can understand and feel the pain and agony of family separation. Dan Maya Timsina, 74 years old and Purni Maya Magar, 73 years, now residing at Beldingi II, refugee camps, says their soul will only find peace when they are able to die by the place of their birth in Bhutan, They continues to hope for the repatriation. At present, UNHCR claims Bhutanese resettlement process is one of the largest and most successful programme under taken through international solidarity and burden sharing of international humanitarian crisis. Isn’t this successful program at the cost of nationality, horror of lost hope, home, broken families of bona fide Bhutanese?

Woman and Child Issue in Refugee Camps Majority of refugee women were farmers when they were evicted from Bhutan. Most of them were illiterate and dependent on husband for living. They had left most of their immovable belongings in Bhutan. Their scant jewelry was either robbed by the Bhutanese securities personal or robber while on way to Nepal. They had to start afresh in camp. The poverty was rampant in camp. Unlike in Bhutan, in refugee camps, girls at least got equal access to education and health. The AMDA hospital provides free health facilities to refugees. However, the more serious health treatment and specialist were absent at hospital and thus, transferred to Birat Nagar hospital where, refugee has to bear the health treatment expenses Caritas Nepal operated education programme in refugee camp. After completion of studies, majority of boys and girls worked outside the camp to earn income. However, boys were in better position than girls to earn respectable wage. Officially refugees are not allowed to work outside the refugee camps. But the thousands of refugee worked out of refugee camps in nearby towns. The ration supplied to refugee was inadequate and didn’t fulfill all the needs. Prior to 2008, thousands of Bhutanese refugees illegally worked in Kathmandu, Shillong (India), Sikkim, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Ahmedabad. The significant numbers of female worked as teachers in Kathmandu and boarding schools of eastern Nepal. To escape the poverty, young refugee girls had also fallen prey to human trafficker. Some young girls willfully engaged in flesh trade in nearby towns to earn extra cash so that she can buy new clothes and shoes. The UNHCR field agent (FA) is responsible for the wellbeing of woman and children in refugee camps. Minor cases involving verbal abuse between husband and wife are settled by internal negotiation through focal point personnel. These focal point personal are refugees nominated among them. The more serious cases of domestic violence, physical abuse, rape, and divorce cases injured by the husband or wife are handled by FA and the Nepal Bar Association serves as legal representative at court or guide or grants legal advices. In camps, there exist where women were abandoned by the husband. Husband marries second wife without the consent from first wife. Refugee Women were not provided relief like their fellow citizens in Bhutan by Paternity law. In Bhutan, father has to provide monthly child support money until child attains 18 years old. Refugee camps recorded suicide case and large number of attempted suicide case. In addition there is a prevalent of underage rape case in refugees. 2015 saw the marked increased in underage rape and suicide cases from the previous two years. The teenage pregnancy, rape, physical abuse, suicide case is witness in refugee camps. The situation of woman and children inside Bhutan is no different either. Bhutan is signatory to Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) since 1981 and is also a signatory to Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) since 1990. The National Commission for Women and Children (NCWC) was established in 2004 as an agency to monitor and coordinate all policies and activities related to protection and promotion of rights of women and children. Bhutan has passed legislation on the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, 2014 and the Childcare and protection Act 2011. Yet the legal provisions have failed to deter the perpetrators. In 2014, the newspaper reported 13 minors raped in five months. Interestingly, in Bhutan, the perpetrators also include teacher, father, policeman, army and monks. Bhutan Multiple Survey 2010 highlighted about 70 percent of women said that they deserved beating if they neglected their children, argued with their partners, refused sex or spoiled meals. The high level of acceptance by woman on male supremacy in Bhutan is institutionalized by superstitions, culture, custom and ignorance. The legal age of marriage in Bhutan is 18 for boys and girls. People arrange marriage without the knowledge of the local authority. The underage marriages are dealt now in Bhutan as statutory rape case if marriage consummation has taken place. Several instances of cases were reported in media. In Bhutan, rape case invites 9 years imprisonment. In political leadership, people think men are better than women. No woman was elected for Nation Council in 2013 election by Bhutanese electorate that has women voters in majority. Only four were elected to National Assembly. Bhutan for the first time got female Cabinet minister in the form of Dorji Choden, who had to ditch her own party to enter the Parliament. In local government as well, only single woman was elected as village headman in 205 village headman elections. Citizenship law is still discriminatory to female.

Resettled Bhutanese Refugees There is the worrying trend of suicide and attempted suicide case committed by resettled Bhutanese refugees. The rate of suicides among Bhutanese refugees resettled in USA was 20.3 per 100,000 people. About 87,517 Bhutanese are resettled in US. So far 54 resettled Bhutanese have committed suicide in the US. Majority of suicides were attributed to mental illness. The Federal Government has teamed up with Bhutanese communities on sensitizing suicide case and mental health issues. The Bhutanese communities themselves have created the awareness on suicide issues through musicals, art and communities gatherings. There is a brighter side to resettled population. The former refugee had achieved the American dreams of owning a house, car, job, and respectable bank balance in last 8 years. In other resettled countries as well, the former refugees are economically doing fine. The host country Nepal suffered deforestation, low wage and social conflicts by granting asylum to Bhutanese refugees. The former Bhutanese refugees are gratitude to Nepal for providing them refuge and they are returning generosity to Nepal and its people. There are several projects currently operating in Nepal for which Bhutanese diaspora is sponsoring. And there are numerous occasions when Bhutanese diaspora generously donated to Nepal during the time of emergencies. The former Bhutanese refugee from across the resettled countries donated over NRs 4.5 million last year to help victims of the disastrous earthquake. The remittance has also increased to Bhutan and Nepal. In 2008 to 2013, the Jhapa region of Nepal received the maximum remittance. The former Refugees relatives back in Bhutan do receive remittance from the eight resettled countries. The Bhutan’s remittance has been steadily increasing year after year.

Exiles Political Movement The political parties were compelled to take birth in Bhutan due to continuous oppression, suppression and discrimination on people by the rulers. There was no democracy and human rights or the culture of political parties in Bhutan apart from the brief “ Jai Gorkha” and Bhutan State Congress activities back in 1947 and 1950s. The exiles became politically conscious after getting exposure to surrounding political developments. The Bhutan Peoples’ Party was the first party to be formed on June 2, 1990 at Garganda, India. It headquarters was at Sarbang Bhutan. The Bhutan National Democratic Party was formed at New Delhi on February 7, 1992 with their own sets of programs and ideology different from the BPP. There was fractious bickering between two parties. The refugees were divided between two parties and failed to present the unified voice. Dr. Bhampa Rai surmised situation then and said,“ Exile politics has reflected our upbringing in Bhutan. In the beginning, we had no political culture, knew nothing about forming a party or about ideology. So we have learning”. From very beginning Dr. Rai discouraged forming more parties and social organizations. Today refugees are facing the consequences of opening numerous parties, organizations. On June 16, 1994, the prominent Sharchop exile, Rongthong Kunley Dorji along with his friend established the Druk National Congress in Nepal. The party had democratic socialism as their ideology and sought the establishment of Constitutional monarchy in Bhutan. In 1997, its cadres organized coordinated demonstrations across six eastern districts of Bhutan demanding the establishment of democracy in country. Bhutan Gorkha National Liberation Front with the inspiration from GNLF was formed later on. In 1997, Coalition of three political parties namely, BPP, BNDP and DNC formed United Front for Democracy (UFD). The leadership of the front was given to Rongthong Kunley Dorji. TheFront’s agenda was for the establishment of democracy and dignified repatriation of refugees. The UFD activities were cut short when India arrested Mr. Rongthong Kunley Dorji. India tried him for the extradition after receiving the request from Bhutanese government. He was jailed for 14 months imprisonment and 10 years confinement in Delhi. He was required to report police station twice in a week and cannot leave Delhi Jurisdiction during his confinement. The extradition was ended on April 21, 2010 when a proceeding against him was dropped. He died at Sikkim on 19 October, 2011. The Indian actions meant the political activity by exiles was once again confined in refugee camps of Nepal. The Bhutan Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) came into existence on 22nd April, 2003 with objective of “smashing the monarchy in Bhutan”. The party issued its formation press release under General Secretary Vikalpa. In refugee camps, over 40% were youth. There was no possibility of their secure future and frustration was growing deep within. Besides, the surrounding area of refugee camps was the hotbed of Nepali Maoist, who was waging their people’s war to over throw of monarchy. The refugee camps provided the fertile ground for the recruitment of cadres to newly formed BCP. Later on, BCP suffered split and one faction was led by Virat. Another communist party with name “Communist Party of Bhutan (Maoist) under General Secretary Surya Bahadur Subba came into being. The serial blast rocked four district of Bhutan including Capital Thimphu in eve of its first General election in 2007. BCP denied the hand behind the explosion. The exile polities, BPP, BNDP and DNC denounced the blasts. Low level insurgency continues in Bhutan with occasional Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blasts. Several Kidnapping occurred in southern Bhutan and Bhutanese government blamed the radical outfits of Bhutanese refugees. On March 16, 2016 three Bodo suspects were arrested at Bangaluru for their involvement of kidnappings in southern Bhutan. “People from across the border kidnap our people for revenge. Otherwise, everything is normal and peaceful here,” said a resident of Sarpang, Southern Bhutan. Bhutanese themselves has learned the unresolved issues with people across the border as the cause of abduction. The exile political parties’ continues to campaign for the dignified repatriation of the remaining Bhutanese refugees and integration of exiled political parties and human rights organizations in the political process of Bhutan.

Political Situation within Bhutan Bhutan embraced democracy with the promulgation of its written constitution on 18 July 2008. The first ever General election was held in 2008 with two registered parties, People's Democratic Party (PDP), headed by Mr. Sangay Nidup, maternal uncle of King, and the second, (DPT ) Mr. Jigme Y Thinley, matrimonial relative of King. The DPT won the election and formed the government under Mr. Jigme Y Thinley. In 2013 general election, four parties contested the primary election. The three new parties are - Bhutan Kuen-Nyam Party (BKP) headed by Sonam Tobgay, (DCT) headed by Lily Wangchuk, and (DNT) headed by Dorji Choden. During election, BKP failed to field the candidates from Gasa District and thus was disqualified to participate in primary election. Election in Bhutan is conducted in 2 rounds, viz. primary and the general round. In the primary round, all registered political parties are allowed to participate in the election, but only two parties that secures the highest and the second highest votes in the primary round qualifies to contest in the General Round. In 2013 primary election, the DPT, won 33 constituencies, PDP 12 Constituencies, and DNT 2 Constituencies. However, in the general round between DPT and PDP, the later won 32 seats and the former 15 seats. The PDP formed the government under Tshering Tobgay. Registered Political parties are not allowed to either enlist the new members or espouse their party aims and objectives except during the stipulated election campaign. The political parties inside Bhutan are only active during election period. The candidates are funded by the state during elections. The fourth King of Bhutan in 1992 declared to National Assembly that he will abdicate if he did not find a lasting solution to the “Southern problem” /refugee problem”. He did abdicate in 2006 and the lasting solution to refugee problem is still not found. Lyonpo Jigme Y.Thinley, the first prime minister of ‘democratic’ Bhutan stated that refugee problems will be resolve by 2015. The current Prime Minister of Bhutan, Tshering Tobgay didn’t give the time line for the resolution like his predecessor. He however met Nepali Deputy Prime Minister, Prakash Man Singh at New York in September 26, 2015 and discussed to end the problems of Bhutanese refugees in a friendly manner as it was in the interests of both the countries. Resettlement of Northern Bhutanese in Southern Bhutan After the Lhotshampas’ demonstration in 1992 demanding the citizen rights, the members of the National Assembly of Bhutan discussed to settle Lhotshampa in north while the northern would be resettled in south. Taking a cue from National Assembly discussion, the Government started the resettlement of northern Bhutanese in the land belonging to refugees from 1993. The lands were initially gifted to landless people with former military background. The Government wanted to prevent the lands from being fallow. Those who received the “kidu’ lands were mandate to cultivate the land and failing to do so will invite Government’s punishment in form of fine or confiscation of land. Until 2004, the resettled northern Bhutanese were not allowed to build concrete house. The government asked landless people to apply on an application form to the government for land. Over 20,000 landless northern Bhutanese are now resettled in land once belonging to refugees. The authorities acknowledge that government was distributing only those lands in southern Bhutan which belong to people who left Bhutan ‘voluntarily’. The southern Bhutan at present has become one of fast growing economics and the real-estate value has increased. The Government intention to build international Airport at Gelephu meant the real estate value nearby the Gelephu and Sarbang has increased. At present Domestic Airport is already in place at Gelephu. The Government policy to resettle on the land belonging to refugee from 1993 meant the repatriation of refugees to their home and hearth was not on their mind. The TCR process had drastically reduced the number of refugees in Nepal now, so the small number of refugees might opt for repatriation and they might want to have their land back once they are in Bhutan. But, there is possibility of conflict arising between returning refugees and resettled northern Bhutanese. Prior to 1990s peaceful demonstration in southern Bhutan, different communities were living in peaceful coexistence. Equal opportunities were granted to people irrespective of race, religion and caste. The government galvanized the people of north and created the hatred between the communities along the ethnic lines and polarized the communities. The government sought help from other communities in its handling of southern problem by declaring that the ‘outsider’ were trying to uproot the natives from their hearth and home and the very survival of “Drukpa’ is under threat. In this way, the national militia was mobilized. Post refugee crisis in southern Bhutan, the remaining Lhotshampa in Bhutan were discriminated. The relatives of refugee were mostly affected. They were sacked from the Government jobs. They were denied “No Objection Certificate’. Without which, access to further studies, passport, jobs, state benefits were closed. The village headman issued the paper which served as identity card. This paper needs to be renewed every year. Failing to do so will invite fine and restriction of travel within country. The immigration officer at check posts are directed to strictly restrict the movement of people who either failed to show the identity card or traveling with expired identity cards. The other fellow citizens were allowed all the social benefits. The Lhotshampa communities inside Bhutan were treated as second class citizens. The plight of Lhotshampa community has improved post 2008 when the country embraced the ‘planned democracy’. Two Lhotshampa became the Cabinet Minister in 2008- 2013. 11 Lhotshampas were elected to its first ever parliament. In General election of 2013, 10 Lhotshampa was elected to parliament. Currently, there are two cabinet ministers belonging to Lhotshampa community. In democracy era, the votes of Lhotshampa community have become the kingmaker to the political parties for the formation of government. They decide the fate of 13 members out of 47 National Assembly seats. Lhotshampa community are slowly limping forward in economic prosperity by the remittance from the relatives resettled in America and forthcoming of political parties eagerness to solve their genuine grievances. Nowadays, political parties of all hues put the resolution of citizenship issue of Lhotshampa community in their manifesto.

Human Rights Situation in Bhutan On October 21, 1991 the former King Jigme Singye Wangchuk had announced that “As a Buddhist, and also as a member of the United Nations, I fully support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I respect human rights organizations”. Yet in 1991-1994 under his direction, the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were violated when one sixth of the country’s population was evicted inflicting unfathomed misery on affected citizens who were rendered homeless and given refugee status. At present, Bhutan has thirty five registered civil societies contributing to the wellbeing of the people and society at large. Incidentally, most of these civil societies are operated by the members of royal Family. The most famous civil society organization, the Tarayana Foundation was established by the Queen Mother Ashi Dorji Wangmo. The Bhutan Foundation founded by Grand Queen Mother Kesang Choden, is based in Washington, US, carries out several poverty alleviation programmes in rural Bhutan While RENEW (Respect, Educate, Nurture & Empower Women) which isunder the Queen Mother Ashi Sangay Chhoden, looks after victims of family violence and other forms of abuse. Over fifty prisoner of conscience are still incarcerated for engaging in activities that called for the institutionalization of democracy and human rights in Bhutan. Out of these about twentyhave been in prison for over fifteen years. No civil organizations are coming to their aid. Even the National Assembly standing committee for Human rights is reluctant to raise the issue of prisoners of conscience. No human rights organization has been registered in Bhutan. In Bhutan, there are a large number of stateless people created by the rigid citizenship law. Unofficial says about 24,000 Lhotshampa and 10,000 individuals from other communities are stateless and their applications for citizenship are awaiting Royal Prerogatives. King has a power to grant citizenship in his exercise of royal prerogatives. Majority of these stateless people are created by the discriminatory citizenship law. The children born from the Bhutanese woman marrying the foreigner husband doesn’t get Bhutanese citizenship. They are issued special residence permit. Mother of the children born out of wedlock, has to reveal the identity of father along with his citizenship details to authority for the citizenship of children. The fatherless children fall under stateless category. Since 2005, the Government of Bhutan issues the biometric Citizenship card to its citizen with validity of five years. The citizenship card needs to be renewed every five years. Poverty Bhutan is plagued by poverty, crime and unemployment. The population poverty rate rose to 12.0% in 2012 from 23 percent in 2007. The Government has adopted a strategy to alleviate poverty by identifying the poor households in the country. In 2015, the government identified 3,154 poorest households. These households will receive state program to alleviate their poverty. Bhutan is in transitional phase to graduate from the least developed countries. (LDC). Bhutan’s per capita Gross National Income as of 2014 was USD 2,440. Bhutan is now under Lower middle income group. However, the report in 2012 and 2014 poverty index show that inequality in Bhutan is highest in south Asian region. Majority of middle class Bhutanese have debt in form of house loan, car loan and education loan. There is a large number of divorces rate in Bhutan. In fact, divorce rate is one of the highest in world and first in south Asia. A government claim of Gross National Happiness is myth. Given an opportunity for Bhutanese to work as kitchen or domestic help in America and Europe, they will jump to the opportunity. There is pension system in place for the former civil servants and military personals. There is no state programme for the other aged citizens. The other aged people had to fend themselves. Many Bhutanese are migrating to developed countries. Unemployment rate is 2.6 %. But the urban unemployment rate is 6.7 %. There are 48,675 foreign workers as of April 6, 2016. In 2005,May 31, 81,986 foreign worker were working in Bhutan. At that time, Bhutan had a population of 552,996. Government attributes the Hydro-power projects as main source of foreign worker jobs in Bhutan. The brighter said to Bhutan’s fight against poverty is that the Government provides free education from the primary to tertiary level. The health facilities and medicine are provided free to the people.

Enrolment Year 2012 2013 2014

School 176,997 172,741 173,594

Boys 88,411 86,555 86,368 Girls 88,586 86,186 87,226

Source: National Statistics Bureau, Royal Government of Bhutan, October ,2015 Conclusion Bhutan is no Shangri-La or happy country in world even though Bhutan was ranked the most peaceful among eight South Asian countries and 13th among 163 countries on the Global Peace Index (GPI) 2016. Bhutanese faces similar socio-economic challenges like any others south Asian countries albeit with bit of success due to less population. Bhutan treatment of refugees by apartheid law against the Lhotshampa community in the name of threat to national security and cultural identity of Bhutan should never be forgotten. Twenty six years is a long time in a man’s short life. Bhutanese refugee deserved dignified closure. After the end to TCR programe, the residual refugee population in the camps is hoping for repatriation to Bhutan. In addition, there are unregistered Bhutanese refugees in India who are eking out their living in Sikkim, North Bengal, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. In addition, the resettled Bhutanese who now formed one of the largest forced diaspora are organizing themselves as ‘Non-Resident Bhutanese’. Bhutan must recognize genuine resettled Bhutanese as non-resident Bhutanese (NRB).International community must pressure Bhutan to solve the refugee problem for long- term political stability in Bhutan and south Asia as a region. Bhutan should resolve the pending citizenship cases of over 34,000 residents. There is campaign going on in Europe that the former King Jigme Singye Wangchuk deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for presenting Gross National Happiness as ‘unique vision of human development’. The Government of Bhutan has involved several eminent international scholars and academics including former Nobel laureates in its campaign. The eminent Buddhist religious personalities are also involved. The world should never forget the eviction of 100,000 Bhutanese citizens from their home by former King of Bhutan inflicting all types of human rights violations.

References 1. Bhutan Living Standard Survey, 2012 2. Bhutan poverty assessment, 2014 3. Bhutan: The Roar of Thunder Dragon” by Lyonpo Om Pradhan 4. Bhutan: A Kingdom Besieged by Jigme Y.Thinley 5. Political Development and Strategic security in Bhutan by A.C.Sinha 6. Justice to Justice: Bhutan by N.B.Giri 7. Torture killing me softly by Teknath Rizal 8. The Politics of Bhutan – Retrospect and Prospect by Pramanand 9. Leadership of the Wise. Kings of Bhutan by Karma Ura 10. The Bhutan tragedy When will it end? SAARC Jurist Mission on Bhutan 11. The History of Bhutan by Karma Phuntsho 12. Himal, Himalayan Magazine, July/August 1992 13. www.bhutannewsnetwork.com 14. www.kuenselonline.com 15. www.bhutannewservice.com 16. www.nrbbhutan.org 17. www.bhutandnc.com

Case Study Kinzang Dema hails from Khapshing, Dramatse under Monger District. She now stays at E-4, Hut No.95., Beldingi-II, Refugee camp. In 1997, the eastern Bhutanese staged the peaceful demonstrations demanding the establishment of democracy and human rights in country. Her husband, Sangay Dorji was involved in the prodemocracy movement. She was arrested demanding the whereabouts of her husband. She was beaten severely using wooden rolls. She was detained for 14 days at Dramatse makeshift prison and later transferred to monger prison where she was kept for a month. She was interrogated and tortured. They had repeatedly beaten her on head and now she is mentally unstable. During her imprisonment, her two teenage daughters and three sons were left to fend themselves. After a month, security officials located her husband and arrested. He was transferred to Thimphu jail. She met husband at Thimphu Central jail. From there, she went to Sikkim to received spiritual guidance. While in Sikkim, the people back in villages warned her she will be imprisoned when government completes its investigation into ‘anti-national activities”. She had suffered torture back in Bhutan so she did not return Bhutan. She reached Nepal. Later her children too joined her as they were threatened of imprisonment if they failed to convince the return of mother to Bhutan. Her husband was imprisoned for eight years. He was release in 2005 after serving out the sentences. One of her son, Rinzin Wangdi was arrested in 1999 for anti-national activities and he is sentenced to 24 years imprisonment. He is now serving the sentences at Chamgang central jail. After release in 2005, Husband contacted her to return Bhutan. She didn’t agree to return. The Government of Bhutan has not granted the citizenship to those people who have been registered in refugee camps in Nepal. She now considers refugee camp as her home. She has now idea, her home; the refugee camp is soon going to be closed in a few years. Her son and daughter have already resettled in America. Physically, she is healthy but mentally she is ill. She had refused the Third Country resettlement offer. She cannot be assimilated in Nepal as she hardly speaks local language. Repatriation to Bhutan and reunion with her husband will only bring some measure of peace in her sad life.