CULTURAL CLEANSING Denial and Discrimination in Bhutan
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Draft Report CULTURAL CLEANSING Denial and Discrimination in Bhutan INHURED INTERNATIONAL Lalitpur, Nepal 1 CULTURAL CLEANSING Denial and Discrimination in Bhutan 2008 Editor Dr. Gopal Krishna Siwakoti Concept: Yadu Lal Shrestha Special Assistance Shreejana Pokhrel Shree Krishna Subedi Bidur Prasad Adhikari Bibha Prajapati Setting/Layout Sanat Sapkota Copyright: LWF Nepal INHURED International Publisher INHURED International GPO Box: 12684, Kathmandu Ceasefire House, Jhamsikhel, Lalitpur-2, Nepal 2 Editorial Destruction by Design and Durable Solution The difficult situation in which the Bhutanese refugees are getting through in the refugee camps has nothing to do with any nations or individual political interest and need not to be worried about. It is absolutely a humanitarian problem and demands immediate humanitarian solution in the best advantage of the refugees. The issue of human rights, justice and democracy has its own track and the cause is genuine and serious. It should not be at all diluted with the problems in the refugee camps. The RGOB has invited itself serious other obligations to fulfill to its citizens besides taking back the refugees. The transition to democracy has been deliberately designed to be slow and steady and the monarchy will continue to play a central role in Bhutanese life. The recent coronation would further de-consolidate the country's sovereign independence and security and derogate further unity, harmony, and peace in the country as the so called gross national happiness and cosmetic democratic change is for the selected only. Therefore, the Bhutanese issue and the refugee crisis should be seen as two separate entities and require separate solutions. The refugees have suffered and experienced enough adversities without opportunity for improvement and advancement. None can deny that every human being has equal desire to live, to interact, to respond and to grow. Such desire serves as a motive force in life and adds towards the improvement of latent attributes within the individuals to unfurl and helps to render effective services to the society. The conglomeration of people for a prolonged period never produces constructive and meaningful end results. Where does then lie the prospects of nation building in the absence of responsible citizens? The current efforts to bring solution to the refugees are good signs of hope. The three-prong strategy in the UNHCR mandate would be an ideal mechanism to find solution and would be best if it is exercised based on the priority of needs and feasibility of options and not based on loss or gain of negotiations between nations and politicians – at least for the sake of humanity. The US proposal of resettlement of more than sixty thousand refugees in the USA has been taken as one of the generous offers of sympathy for Bhutanese refugees who have remained refugees in Nepal for over one and half decade. Observers feel that the offer has brought division in the refugee community. It is true there is division among the refugees but it has to be understood by the onlookers that the division is not actually due to the US offer but due to the lack of understanding and wrong interpretation from some refugee leaderships. Thus the situation demands deep analytical study as the victims are in real form and are in dire need of liberation. More offers for resettlement is expected and requested from other nations, including Nepal and India to rehabilitate with dignity and honour the remaining willing refugees. The primary source of this document is founded on the report titled "Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan" authored by Mr. David B. Thronson of Harvard Law School, USA and published by INHURED International in August, 1993. We have reproduced some of the chapters of the report as the story that we excavated 15 years ago remains intact even today. Similarly, the analysis of the camp life and the durable solution part has been based on the findings from the meticulously researched report titled "Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal: Anticipating the Impact of Resettlement" authored by Susan Banki and published by Austcare in June 2008. Finally, we extend our heartfelt thanks to Lutheran World Federation Nepal and owe a great debt of gratitude to the organization for its financial support to successfully accomplish this special report. INHURED International is also grateful to Mr. Yadu Lal Shrestha of LWF Nepal for his insight in developing this report in a very short span of time. Credit also goes to all INHURED secretariat staff, namely Mahan Shrestha, Narayan Adhikari and Abhaya Raj Joshi who relentlessly contributed to the preparation of this report. The Bhutanese refugee leaders namely Ratan Gazmere, S.K. Pradhan, Narayan Sharma, Setu Nepal and Sushma Kharka Chhetri deserve special appreciation and acknowledgement with whose support and hard work, the preparation of this report would not have been possible. Gopal Krishna Siwakoti, Phd President, INHURED International 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Bhutan is a monarchy with sovereign power vested in the king. Until recently, there was no constitution and there is no comprehensive Bill of Rights. The king exercises strong, active, and often direct power over the government. Bhutan has no independent judiciary; judges serve at the king's pleasure. Though cosmetic bipartisan system was introduced last year, the legislature called the National Assembly is virtually partyless. Though an eye-washing election is held in 2007, most of the members are indirect nominees of the king or people's representatives taken by consensus. People cannot easily change the government. Reformist and democratic political parties and formation of unions are virtually banned in Bhutan. There is no freedom of speech, press, assembly or association. There are limitations on the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion and citizen's privacy. The Wangchuk Dynasty of hereditary monarchs has ruled the country since 1907. The new king of Bhutan has been crowned in a lavish coronation ceremony in the isolated Himalayan kingdom. King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, 28, an Oxford-educated bachelor, becomes the world's youngest monarch. Bhutan held its first so called democratic elections for a new parliament and prime minister in March, 2007. The coronation of the Buddhist nation's fifth hereditary king fell in what is known in Bhutan as the month of the male earth rat. (BBC Report). He has become head of state of the world's newest democracy after his father abdicated in 2006 as Bhutan changed to a constitutional monarchy. Bhutan appeared in the international field only in 1971 when it became the member of United Nations and so far Bhutan has established diplomatic relation with only a few countries. Bhutan has close relations with India and by a 1949 treaty agrees to be guided by India in regard to its external affairs. The country is a land of immigrants. The population of Bhutan comprises of three main ethnic groups. The Ngalongs of west and the Sharchops of eastern Bhutan though sometimes commonly identified as Drukpas bear different ethnic identity and place of origin. Although both groups are Buddhists the former are Kayugpa and the later practice Nyingmapa sect of Buddhism. Lhotshampas, the Nepali speaking populace along the southern belt are the Hindus. State Repression The Citizenship Act of 1958 granted the Nepali speaking people (also called the Lhotshampas which means people living in the south) the full citizens of the country. As the nationwide programmes of development and modernization commenced in 1961, the Lhotshampas, with the development of education, social services and the economy, during the 1960s and 1970s, rose to occupy influential positions in the bureaucracy. During the 1980s, the Lhotshampas came to be seen as a threat to the political order and Drukpa culture. The Durkpas of the northwest or the ruling elite began to see themselves as an endangered species that would one day be swamped by the Lhotsampas of the south or the Sharchops of the east. In 1985 the government began its defense of Drukpa culture and traditions. A new citizenship act was passed that applied new criteria of citizenship, and made them retrospective, declaring all previous legislations null and void. The new citizenship Act of 1985, One Nation One People policy, Driglam Namza, Compulsory Labour, and No Objection Certificate were the vivid government repressions against the Nepali speaking Lhotshampas that resulted in the democracy movement of 1990. One Nation One People In the name of national integration, government's drive for "One Nation One People'' policy made all the southern Bhutanese liable to a fine or imprisonment if they ventured out in anything other than western traditional costume, and Nepali language was removed from the school curriculum. Many southern Bhutanese were fined 4 and imprisoned for not complying with this order. The wearing of 'gho' and 'kira', traditional Drukpa male and female garments was unsuited to the heat of southern Bhutan. Driglam Namza, an ancient code of social etiquette of the western Bhutanese which dictates how to eat, how to sit, how to talk, how to dress or how to bow before the authority, and what hair style to adopt, was made mandatory to all the Bhutanese despite their cultural diversity. May it be Driglam Namza or One Nation One People policy, but they clearly had the political objectives behind and were initiated politically with a view to binding the growing class of educated lot with complete obedience to the crown and the ruling elite. However it was difficult to the Bhutanese nationals of other ethnicity to surrender their own traditional customs whatsoever. No Objection Certificate After the democracy movement of 1990, No Objection Certificate (NOC) or a police clearance was made mandatory to all the southern Bhutanese in order to work, obtain license or attend school allegedly for having their implication in the movement.