BHUTAN AND ITS
PEOPLE
INTRODUCTION
Bhutan, as we know today, lies
on the southern slope of the western half of the eastern Himalayan range and to
the south of the Tibetan autonomous region of China. While two rivers
Jhaldhaka and Dhansiri respectively demarcate its western and eastern border
with India, the plains of Assam and Bengal Duars border
it in the south. And this border in the south with India was re-demarcated in
1972-73. However, its border in the north with China is not yet clearly marked.
Though in most parts the northern border is clearly defined by the watershed,
there are some areas where the issue is yet to be settled making the
geographical size of Bhutan variable. In the past, Bhutan was much bigger and
extensive geographically and had common border with Assam and Koch-Behar and
extended up to the Teesta river in the west. But after the conflict of 1864-65
with British India, Bhutan lost the entire strip of the 18 Duars in Assam and
Bengal and the part beyond from the right bank of river Jaldhaka to river
Teesta to British-India with the treaty of Sinchula in 1865.
ORIGIN OF THE NAME OF BHUTAN
Available records suggest that since 840 A.D big
flow of immigration took place to this area from Tibet, known then as Bhot, and
soon it was colonized by the soldiers of Tibetan garrison and their
descendents. Besides them many lamas too had immigrated to this area. And since
they had all immigrated from Bhot, outsiders saw this place mainly occupied by
Bhuteas, as people of Bhot, they started calling it as a place of Bhuteas, i.e.,
Bhuteas- sthan, and later it got the
name Bhutan. In this regard, the
theory put forth by David Field Rennie(1866) is interesting and credible. (BHUTAN by Nagendra Singh)
PEOPLE OF BHUTAN
According to the Sanskrit tradition, it is
believed that people of Kooch tribe lived and ruled Bhutan since the 7th
century B.C to 650 century A.D when this area was under the tutelage of Kamrupa
(Assam, India). The origin of
Sarchops, seen as descendants of heaven in Bhutanese tradition, Borokpas in the
east and Doyas, Totas etc in the west of this area is still obscure but it is
true that those tribes were there much before the immigration of Bhuteas from
Tibet with the immigration of Gorkha/Nepali
descent much later. (MODERN BHUTAN by Ram Rahul:7).
POPULATION OF BHUTAN
The 1962 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica
gives the population of Bhutan as 6,23,000. The State
Department of Bulletin in its status of world’s nations puts the population
figure at 7,15,000 in 1965. In the 1966 edition of the International Year Book,
a figure of 7,00,000 is cited. In the U.S Army handbook, prepared at the American University, the population of Bhutan in 1964 is placed at 7,25,000. (BHUTAN BY Nagendra Singh 1972:13).
So the population has varied. The census of Bhutanese citizens, first in
the history of Bhutan, was conducted in 1968
which declared the population of Bhutan to be 1.2 million. And
this figure was reflected in the United Nations Organization while Bhutan became its member in 1971.
But the population of Bhutan has often been used by
the government of Bhutan to meet its political
ends. No actual figure has ever been published. When it comes to the actual
size of its population, it is expediency and not accuracy that seems to have
dictated the government position. And that is why in 1990 this number was
suddenly reduced to somewhere around 5,00,000 and what followed was the
eviction of more than one hundred thousand bona fide Bhutanese citizens of Gorkha/Nepali
ethnicity from the south including many eastern Bhutanese of Sarchhop descent.
Now the government shamelessly labels them illegal immigrants, economic
migrants, terrorists, anti-nationals, disgruntled Bhutanese and lately even
Indians.
HISTORY OF BHUTAN IN BRIEF
Indian Rulers:
A proper record on Bhutan is not available until
we come to 7th century AD. But the earliest legend takes us back to
about 7th century before the Christian Era (BC) when Sangaldip from
Kooch-Behar (India) held sway in this area
after subduing Bengal, Bihar and Assam (all in India). Thereafter and until
several centuries AD later, his descendants ruled Bhutan as tutelage of Kamrup (India). On the basis of
legends it can be stated with precision that the ancient civilization of India had spread to this area
and had dominated political and social as well as religious life. But in 650
AD, Bhutan got separated from
Kamrup and thus exposed itself to incursion from Tibet (BHUTAN by Nagendra
Singh 1972:18). The last Kooch Raja, descendant of Sangaldip, was displaced
from his capital in Punakha by a lama who came from Tibet. While escaping from Bhutan, the Kooch Raja left
behind many of his people in Punakha and their descendants are called Dhep / Thep
in and are living even now in the Punakha and Wangdi valleys (POLITICAL MISSION
TO BHUTAN by Asley Eden).
In the middle of the 8th century AD,
Sindhu Raja also called Naguchi, another Indian ruler, ruled Bhutan after establishing his
capital in Bumthang where he built a
castle called the Chakhar Dzong (iron castle without doors) that still stands as evidence even today. During
his reign, the border of Bhutan extended up to Sikkim in the west and then
too immigration of people from all directions to Bhutan seemed to have
continued without restriction. Sindu Raja lost his powerful eldest son in the course
of war with Raja Nabudara and was stricken with grief. At this time, Sindu Raja
invited a renowned monk, Guru Padma Sambhawa from Swat (now in Pakistan) to Bumthang. The monk
introduced Nyngmapa sect of Mahayana Buddhism in Bhutan (BHUTAN AND THE BRITISH
by Peter Collester 1987:4). Thus Sindu Raja is responsible for introducing
Buddhism in Bhutan. Later, Sindu Raja
accepted Buddhism and his country was gradually taken over by the lamas those that
had immigrated from Tibet (Bhot).
Immigration
of Bhuteas:
In fact, Bhuteas from Bhot (Tibet) started immigrating to
Bhutan as early as 650 AD as
there was no restriction for immigration to Bhutan but history of their
immigration, except in the case of those few prominent lamas, was never
recorded. After the middle of 13th century AD, many lamas from Bhot (Tibet) visited Bhutan as missionary and
settled there to propagate Buddhism as most of the people in Bhutan were then Bhuteas
immigrated from Tibet. In this seamless process,
one of the most popular figure was the successor of Gro-Gong Tshangpa Gyal-ras (1160-1210 AD), the founder of the Drukpa
offshoot sub-sect of Nyngmapa, Kagyupa, Phago Drugom Sigpo who immigrated to
Bhutan from Ralung in central Tibet to preach Buddhism and settled down in
Bhutan. Later, Phago Drugom Sigpo became a very popular leader of this area.
The people of Bhutan regard Phago Drugom Sigpo
as the fore runner of the present Drukpa Kagyu school of Buddhism in Bhutan. Majority of the
aristocracy of western Bhutan including the present
Royal dynasty claim their descent from him.
For many centuries, until the treaty of Sinchula
between Bhutan and British-India
signed on 11th
November 1865,
the western border of Bhutan was the left bank of
river Teesta (now in India). In those days there
was no restriction for immigration either from Bhot (Tibet) or from small kingdoms
(now in Nepal) in the west of Bhutan, but none noted about
such immigrants until the mid 19th century when a kasho (edict)
system was introduced for the immigrants. During those days, Bhuteas including
many officers hardly knew in detail about Bhutan. In this context, a
revenue surveyor of British- India had reported to Charles Bell in 1877 that ‘
a more difficulty could be met with ……………………even few Bhuteas I had with me knew
little or nothing about their own country’ (BHUTAN AND THE BRITISH-Peter
Collester 1987:140).
Although thousands of Bhuteas from Bhot (Tibet) immigrated to Bhutan for centuries, none of
them settled in today’s southern parts of Bhutan. But they used to come
down as lamas and in groups claiming themselves to be sent by Paro Penlop to
the southern parts of Bhutan, which was occupied or settled by Gorkhas /
Nepalese and Sikkimese, and use to extort cash and kind on and of until the early
20th century. Similarly some group of Bhuteas encroached on orange
gardens owned by southern Bhutanese during the fruiting season and sell oranges
without permission of real owners. In such situation, once in Changkuna (near
phutsholing) a quarrel ensued between them and the real owners and some of the
Bhuteas had to shed blood before they withdraw from such encroachment in around
1947.
Immigration
of Ngawang Namgyal:
Over the centuries distinctive faith developed
and that was accelerated when some members of the old monastic school
immigrated to Bhutan as refugees from
political strife in Bhot (Tibet). In this time line,
the immigration of monk Ngawang Namgyal along with his subordinates from Ralung
in central Bhot (Tibet) in 1616 AD is considered a watershed moment in the
history of Bhutan. He consolidated factional and rival groups and emerged as
the undisputed leader of Bhutan. After that he
constituted the central monastic body under him after defeating many monastic
overlords ruling different parts of Bhutan in 1639 and took the
title of ‘Zhabdrung’(BHUTAN AND THE BRITISH-Peter Collester 1987:5). After
uniting different parts, Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal named the territory the
“Drukyul” and the inhabitants of this area were called “Drukpas” and its ruler
the “Druk Gyalpo”. Prominence and fame of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal spread far
and wide and received friendly missions. Neighboring rulers of Kooch Behar (India), Drabya Saha and
Paramanda Saha of Gorkha, small kingdom then in the west of Nepal sent him presents and
sought for friendship (BHUTAN-Nagendra Singh 1972:21). Zhabdrung took many
skilled craftsmen along with their families to Bhutan for constructing
Chhorten (Stupa) for his deceased father Tempai Nyima and settled them in Bhutan. Mani, Mayang, Zatiphala, Ani Phala and
Mangala etc. were some of those craftsmen (WHERE IS THE 10TH
ZHABDRUNG? By T.Penjore, 2011:8).
Similarly, Deb Minjur Tempa (1667-1680) took
many Newari craftsmen to Bhutan along with their
families. Those people were settled near chhozom (confluence of Thimphu and
Paro rivers) who later lost their identity due to inter-marriage with local
people only to survive in their genes now (BHUTAN A KINGDOM BESEIZED by J.Y.Thinley
2008:2).
At the later part of his life, Zhabdrung
bifurcated his absolute power creating two separate offices- one to look after
spiritual and religious affairs to be known as ‘Dharma Raja’ and other to look
after general administration of state revenue, expenditure and foreign affairs
as ‘Deb Raja’ for better administration of Bhutan. Zhabdrung also appointed
‘Penlop’(provincial chief or Governor).
After the death of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal,
lineage of Dharma Raja started becoming weaker due to gap in administration
during his death and re-incarnation. During such period, Deb Raja had to look
after total administration including the office of the Dharma Raja. So Deb Raja’s lineage became
more stable and acceptable to the people. However, later the Penlops working as
provincial chiefs under the Deb Raja became more powerful and started ruling
provinces under them independently. Such situation invited civil wars amongst Penlops
for power supremacy. Ultimately, after many civil wars and much bloodshed,
Tongsa Penlop Ugen Wangchuk emerged as the most powerful among them. Later in
1907, he became the first king of Bhutan with the help of British- India. Thus began the
Wangchuk dynasty and the present king of Bhutan, Jigme Ghesar Namgyel Wangchuk
is 5th in line of the dynasty.
Advent of
Gorkhas/Nepalese:
As noted earlier, there was no restriction on
immigrants to Bhutan, either from Bhot (Tibet) or from Kalimpong, Darjeeling, Sikkim and even from the then small
kingdoms (now in Nepal) in the west. So thousands of ethnic Gorkhas/Nepalese and
Lepchas had already migrated and settled beyond the left bank of river Jaldhaka
in the west and to the western bank of river Dhansari (name given by ethnic
Gorkhas in the east even before the signing of the treaty of Sinchula in 1865.
Many
important British dignitaries like Esley Eden (1863), David Field Rennie (1864),
Charles Bell (1904) , John Claude White (1905)
and C. J Morris (1933) had noted only few huts of Gorkhas/Nepalese en route to
Paro,Thimphu and Punakha on their mission.
Image number: S0003373 Image
number: S0003444
Gurkha homestead – Dorkha, West Bhutan Terraced cultivation (Gurkha) at Denchuka, Bhutan
Image number: S0003389
Damai
(Gurkha) band at Denchuka
Image number: S0003374 Image number: S0003372
Terraced cultivation (Gurkha) from Denchuka
Terraced cultivation (Gurkha) at Denchuka
But surely that does not give the total picture
of settlement of ethnic Gorkhas/Nepalese in southern Bhutan as they did not visit
all parts of southern Bhutan which was not then open
to foreigners and is restricted even now. While thousands of Gorkhas/Nepalese and Sikkimese had already immigrated
and settled in the country, a number of families immigrated and settled in Bhutan afterwards with the
permission of late Kazi Ugen Dorjee, grandfather of the first Prime Minister of
Bhutan, Jigme Paljor Dorjee in accordance with the kasho(edict) from Tongsa Penlop.
Seeing the settlement of Gorkhas in southern Bhutan, a rich man from Sikkim, Kazi Dalchan Gurung
immigrated to Bhutan in mid 19th
century and settled in Toribari (today’s Samchi) after obtaining kasho from
Tongsa Penlop. He took land between the river Jadlhaka in the west and river
Toorsa in the east on lease from Para Penlop on payment of Rs 9000/- (nine
thousand) only either in cash or kind. Later, his son kazi Garjaman Gurung
continued with the same agreement with Paro Penlop and the kind part of payment
(loads containing different items) had to be carried by the citizens without
payment on relay basis. I remember even my father had to once carry such load
containing betel nuts up to Dorokha. Kazi Garjaman Gurung became very rich and
powerful in southern Bhutan and built a fort-like
building on top of Saureney in Samchi, the ruins of which can be seen even
today. Later he was assassinated at Paro in a political coup. At present the grandson
of Garjaman Gurung, Dasho Meghraj Gurung is still living in Thimphu after serving the
government of Bhutan for a long period.
After the treaty of Sinchula on 11th
November 1865
between the government of Bhutan and British-India, Bhutan occupied land between
rivers Teesta in the west and Jaldhaka in the east along with the 18 Duars was
ceded to British- India. It was mainly the
people of those areas who were constantly ill treated by Bhuteas and the rulers
and chose to remain under British- India. Even Charles Bell
(1885-1910) found the Nepalese settled in the territory of Bhutan were ill treated by
Bhutias ( BHUTAN AND BRITISH- Peter Collester 1987:140). During this period,
the plain lands including Kalimpong of Bhutan was inhabited by one lakh fifty
thousand Bhutanese of Gorkhas/Nepalese ethnicity and one lakh Bhutanese of
Koche-Mechi ethnicity. After the treaty of Sinchula, many of those became
subjects of British- India. Some years later
Tongsa Penlop Ugen Wangchuk (later the 1st king of Bhutan), Penlop
Ugen Dorjee, Gelong Sheraf Dorjee, Kham Topden, Kazi Dalchan, Chhatre Thapa,
Jeet Sing Aley motivated Bhutanese, who had already become subjects of British-
India to migrate to the hilly area of Bhutan and promised them all facilities.
But they didn’t migrate to Bhutan as offered as they were
happy with the rule of British- India (DRUK LOSEL:24).
In 1887, another person, late Dhanbir Burathoki
immigrated to Dzongsarpa area of south- west Bhutan after obtaining kasho of
settling additional ethnic Gorkhas/Nepalese in that area. This area was already
occupied by Gorkhas who had settled there for centuries. After settling
additional ethnic Gorkhas/Nepalese at Dzongsarpa, late Dhanbir left for Chirang
Bhutan.
Copy of the kasho (edict) and its translation into English is
furnished below:-
Translation
of the Kashog:
In
response to the petition regarding new settlement of Gorkhali (Nepali) people
in Dzongsharpa area of Bhutan Mr. Dhanbir is hereby appointed as Mandal to guide the
settlers. The settlers shall obey his guidance and they shall settle within the
Dzongsharpa area stipulated for them only. Besides the Nepalies brought under
the notice of Mr. Dhanbir, no person, either the Bhutanese who have fled away
and settled in Darjeeling or Mentshong (Lepcha) shall be allowed to settle within the
Dzongsharpa area.
The people
allowed to settle in Dzongsharpa area shall in no way, be debarred by anyone
from their settlement within the stipulated area.
This
Kashog is issued on 7th day of 11th month of Bhutanese
Fire Bull Year.
Seal
(DEYSYTH)
At present, great- great grandson of late
Dhanbir Burathoki, Mr Rituraj Chettry (Burathoki) is practicing as lawyer in
Thimphu Bhutan and one great grandson of late Dhanbir, Mr Harka Bahadur
Burathoki, is living as Bhutanese refugee in the camp in eastern Nepal.
In this context, I must mention that my own
grandfather late Hajur Sing Rai worked as baidar (office assistance) to late
Mondal Dhanbir Burathoki. And forefathers of my late grandfather had spent
generations in Dube-Bara of Bhutan. Later, in the early
1950s my own two uncles Jangbir Rai and Ari Bahadur Rai along with their
families also settled in Mechetar, Samchi, after obtaining permission of the then
Dewan, late Jasraj Gurung, son of late kaji Garjaman Gurung. Thus Samchi was
never occupied by any illegal immigrants as is often claimed by the government
of Bhutan.
While such settlement was going on in the
south-west of Bhutan, most part of the
southern Bhutan still remained
unoccupied by the high hill people (Bhuteas). Even in 1885-1910, John Claude White found that the high hill
people (Bhuteas) dreaded of fever of lower hill. So the lower hills were not
occupied by the high hill people (Bhuteas) but by the people of doubtful
character either from Bhutan or defectors from British- India and they used to
indulge in cattle rustling, robbery and do pretty much they liked. This was the
main cause of border discord between government of Bhutan and British- India. So Penlop Ugen
Wangchuk decided to settle Nepalese people in those areas under strict
observation (BHUTAN AND THE BRITISH- Peter Collester 1987:155).
Ethnic Gorkhas/Nepalese, Sikkimese and people of
other ethnicity were earlier barred from settling in high hills occupied by
Bhuteas but only in the lower hill which were left unoccupied by the high hill
people for reasons mentioned. In the meantime, the high hill people (Bhuteas)
were not receptive to people of other communities and that is why Bhutan remained isolated up to
the mid 20th century. Foreign missions were not welcomed. Even the
mission of Asley Eden (1838-1864) was held up by the refusal of Sikkimese and
Nepalese coolies to go to Bhutan as they had noted the
lack of warmth in reception by the high hill people (BHUTAN AND BRITISH- Peter
Collester 1987:55).
Although the large number of Bhutanese of
Gorkhas/Nepalese ethnicity turned subjects of British- India after the treaty
of Sinchula in 1865, even then there were 2.5 lakh (two lakh fifty thousand)
Bhutanese of Gorkhas/Nepalese ethnicity in Bhutan by 1901, according to a
Gorkha League paper published by leader and journalist Thakurchand Singh from
Dehradun, India ( DRUK LOSEL:11). So obviously people of Gorkhas/Nepalese
ethnicity had settled in Bhutan since a long time and
the names of places and rivers, in fact, every place and river, carry Gorkhali/Nepali
names bearing testimony to the historical fact of their settlement in the
country. In the recent past, Drukpanisation of such names have been done at a
rapid pace.
Thus
Bhutan was purely running under theocratic system up to 1907 during which entry
of famous lamas to Bhutan were recorded in the history of Bhutan but entry of
ordinary Bhuteas from Tibet, Gorkhas from
present day, Nepal and Sikkimese
from Sikkim were never noted in the history of Bhutan. So we have to depend on
the scanty history written by the foreign visitors who either had not visited
or not allowed to visit southern Bhutan freely and completely.
Those foreign writers noted few huts of ethnic Gorkhas/Nepalese in the southern
Bhutan where only the huts as they
saw en route to central Bhutan.
Some of the photos taken by Photographer C. J.
Morris in 1933 also show the evidence of Gurkhas settlement in Tarai, Bhutan.
Image number: S0003440 Image number: S0003446
Gurkha homestead in Terai, Bhutan Sarbhang - Gurkhas in the foreground at
Terai, Bhutan
Image number: S0003441 Image number: S0003445
Terai, Bhutan
Gurkha settlement - Terai, Bhutan
Image number: S0003371 Image number: S0003402
Limbu boy ploughing Limbu (Gurkha) cemetary in Terai
Although king system in Bhutan was established in
1907, the system of administration remains as that of medieval and theocratic
for which people of Bhutan were not happy. In such
difficult situations the people from southern Bhutan dared to form a political
party called ” Jai Gorkha” under the leadership of late Saha Bir Rai and
organized a mass protest demonstration at Dagapela, Bhutan in 1947 to address
their grievance. This Party was brutally suppressed by the then regime with the
help of India and kept high price on
the head of late Saha Bir Rai. As the ruler still remain adamant, another party
called “Bhutan state congress “ under the leadership of late Mahasur Chhetri
from Chirang Bhutan was formed in 1952 to address the grievances. This party
also was crushed down brutally by regime, killing number of party members in
Sarbhang Bhutan and assassinating Late
Mahasur Chhetri.
Because of the protest of those two political
parties, the 3rd King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk established National
Assembly in 1953. In 1958, Bhutan passed its first citizenship Act and for the
first time entire southern Bhutanese population of Gorkha community was granted
full citizenship;
domiciled in Bhutan on or before 31st
December 1958
after the resolution of National Assembly of Bhutan. (Resolution
No. 3, 11th Session, and Resolution No. 8, 11th Session
1958). But the Resolution tactically
made its citizens of Gorkha community, alien; Nepalese (foreigner) the citizen
of another country, Nepal. Nevertheless the
census of the people of Bhutan was maintained by the
Village Headman (Mandal) until 1968, only when the Ministry of Home Affair of
Bhutan was established.
National Assembly of Bhutan, Resolution No. 3, 11th. Session, 1958
"It is resolved
that henceforth Nepalese of Southern Bhutan should abide by the rules and
regulations of the Royal Government and, pledging their allegiance to the King,
should conscientiously refrain from serving another authority (such as Gorkha).
They should submit a signed agreement to this effect to the Government. In
addition, southern Bhutanese should themselves shoulder the responsibility of
protecting the southern border''.
National Assembly of Bhutan, Resolution No. 8, 11th Session,1958
"There were two
ethnic groups in the kingdom under the rule of His Majesty the King. Since
Nepalese inhabiting southern Bhutan as bonafide citizens of this country have
submitted bond agreements affirming their allegiance to the King and the
country, the Assembly resolved that from this date Nepalese will enjoy equal
rights in the National Assembly, and in the country, as other bon-fide
citizens."
The king also introduced the 1st
fifth year plan in 1961 in Bhutan with financial aid of India when a highway
connecting Changkuna (today’s Phuntosholing) to Thimphu was constructed. All
southern Bhutanese had to contribute compulsory labour. Ironically today more
than one hundred thousand Bhutanese of Gorkha/Nepali ethnicity cannot travel on
that road constructed by our fathers.
King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk is found to be really
far sighted, modern, and visionary nation builder amongst the kings of Bhutan so far. He established the
Royal Advisory Council in1965 and the Council of Ministers in 1968. He did not
overlook the more important constitutional, political and economic aspects
which are vital to the country’s well being. He introduced number of social
reforms such as abolition of serfdom, placing a ceiling on land holdings and
improving the position of women in society. During his reign, Bhutan opened up to the outside
world casting its age-old policy of isolation.
Planned development of the country began with the help of India and all Bhutanese
people felt a sense of ‘ National Happiness’. Then in 1968, the Ministry of
Home Affairs conducted nationwide census declaring its total population to be
1.2 million. In 1971 with the strong support of India, Bhutan became a member of
United Nations when the total population of Bhutan was reflected to be 1.2
million.
After the death of then visionary 3rd
king Jigme Dorjee Wangchuk, Bhutanese found Jigme Singye Wangchuk as their 4th
king in 1974. He too, at the beginning, seemed to be following the path of his
father. He granted kasho for citizenship to Late B.B. Kullung in 1975, but confiscate
in 1990. Father William Mackey, Canadian Jesuit priest,
who worked hard for Bhutan, mostly in education,
and was declared by Bhutan the “Son of Bhutan” was not allowed to be buried in Bhutan when he died. His last
rites were done in Darjeeling, India. Such deceptive promises
of nation are really beyond belief.
BHUTAN COMPELS ITS CITIZENS TO
BECOME REFUGEES
Habituated to live peacefully, the Bhutanese
never knew what was breeding in the mind of the rulers since early eighties. So
until early eighties the Bhutanese living a simple family life more like
hermits were forcibly shaken out of their cloister by the government of Bhutan
by implementing arbitrary census in 1988 that demanded land tax receipt of 1958
as a proof of being Bhutanese citizens. Failing to produce the land tax receipt
of 1958 for various reasons meant that bona fide citizens were instantly declared
non-nationals. Since the act was given a retroactive affect all children born in
between the years 1958 and 1988 where the mother was non-Bhutanese were
declared as illegal immigrants. That particular census of 1985 also categorized
Bhutanese into seven categories even in a nucleus family placing them in
different categories. Besides those, the government of Bhutan implemented
discriminatory and suppressive policies upon its citizens mainly to affect the status
of the Bhutanese citizens of Gorkhas/Nepalese ethnicity and eastern Bhutanese
of Sarchop ethnicity.
As those policies became more and more drastic,
the southern Bhutanese were left with no option but to appeal to the government
of Bhutan and organized mass
peaceful rally in 1990 to respect Human Rights of Bhutanese citizens as
enshrined in the UNO covenants.
Similarly on October 23, 1997 eastern Bhutanese of
Sarchop ethnicity too organized mass rally to demand equality to all the
religions but was crushed down after killing a Buddhist monk, Gomtshen Karma.
Instead of considering the appeal of the
citizens, the government of Bhutan choose military
crackdown on its citizens of southern six districts and the traumas they went
through during that period can be heard even now from the evicted Bhutanese in
the camps in eastern Nepal and elsewhere.
Immediately afterwards the government of Bhutan started evicting
southern Bhutanese systematically on different pretext and branded them
economic migrants, terrorists, disgruntled Bhutanese, anti-nationals and lately
illegal immigrants. Even the family members and relatives of those who took
part in peaceful rally were classified as non-nationals through the notification
of then Home Minister Dago Tshering and were evicted mercilessly despite their
plea that they be not evicted. The copy of the notification is produced below-
How fair is it? Earlier migrants simply by
virtue of being in power labeling those who immigrated later and their
descendants as ‘illegal immigrants’ is neither logical nor justifiable. That is
only gross abuse of power. Even as
recent as April 2011, Prime Minister of Bhutan during his visit to Nepal branded them among
others as Indian citizens. It is their deliberate strategy to confuse the
international community and prolong the issue until Bhutanese refugees get
tired and opt for other options.
EVICTED BHUTANESE ENTERED NEPAL
After cruel eviction by the government of Bhutan, the bona fide
Bhutanese were compelled to enter India as the first port of
entry. But India did not want to host
the evicted Bhutanese in India as it was fully
supporting the government of Bhutan for eviction. The
government directed security forces of Assam, Bengal (India), motivated, instigated
even forcefully loaded Bhutanese evictees in trucks to enter Nepal. Thus evicted Bhutanese
did not enter Nepal by their own choice but
under compulsion. After entering Nepal and after our approach
the government of Nepal for asylum, the
government of Nepal was kind enough to
grant us asylum on humanitarian grounds although Bhutan and its propaganda
agents have for their own reasons claimed that Nepal has done so ethnic
considerations.
In Nepal, with the involvement of
senior Bhutanese refugees, systematized settlement in camps and camp
administration was started. However, during the initial period Bhutanese
refugees had to suffer a lot for lack of medicines, food supply, shelter etc.
In the mean time, we senior refugees approached INGOs who ultimately came to
assist Bhutanese refugees from early 1992 and now UNHCR, CARITAS, LWF and AMDA
Nepal are continuing their assistance though on a reduced scale.
BILATERAL TALK
Since the people those entered Nepal after eviction from Bhutan were none other than
bona fide Bhutanese with documentary evidences of their identity, the
government of Nepal started negotiation on
this issue. Of course, few people like late R.B.Gurung, former M.P whose kasho (edict)
issued some centuries earlier was confiscated by the government before
eviction.
At the beginning, the government of Bhutan flatly denied of any
Bhutanese citizens living in the camps in eastern Nepal. Truth, however, stood
and the international pressure piled on Bhutan. So the conspiring Bhutanese
government agreed to hold bilateral talks on the Bhutanese refugee issue with
the government of Nepal but without involving
the third party that would expose the insincerity of Bhutan. So the bilateral talk
was just a eyewash to lull the Bhutanese refugees, to mock the government of Nepal and to fool the
international community. And Bhutan seems to be very
successful in doing so at the cost of the nation and nationality of more than
one hundred thousand of bona fide Bhutanese.
After several rounds of bilateral talks, both the governments
constituted a joint verification team comprising representatives from both the
governments. Whilst a joint verification team was being formed, the government
of Bhutan occupied itself in
distributing the lands of the evictees to other Bhutanese from the north and
east. No tyrant may ever have indulged in this sort of deception.
Ultimately, after thirteen years in 2003 the
verification process began in Khudunabari, one of the camps in eastern Nepal. All Bhutanese refugees
were happy with the hope of finally returning to their motherland, Bhutan, after verification.
But the scheming government had other ideas. Surprisingly, through he process
there were several instances in team from Bhutan which took domineering
position and casually categorized Bhutanese refugees as they wished. For
instance, Devi Maya Paudel, age 8 year, born in the Khudunabari Refugee camp, Sector-A,
Hut No. 9, was categorized as criminal. Similarly another 18 months old Kiran
Gautam was also placed in the same category. Even with the arbitrary standard
adopted by the government of Bhutan, 74% of the refugees of
the Khudunabari camp were verified to be bona fide Bhutanese by the Joint
Verification team irrespective of the category they might have fallen in.
Remainder 26% were declared to be non-Bhutanese by the verification team as
they could not produce the documents which were confiscated or lost during
military crack down on them in southern Bhutan during 1990.
Such injudicious verification naturally made
many children of Bhutanese soil unhappy. Out of impulsive sentiment, one of the
refugees pelted a pebble without intention of hitting anyone. And this instance
was enough of a ruse for the team from the government of Bhutan looking for an escape to
abandon the process and the team made mountain out of this mole hill. They hastily
stopped verification process of other camps by blaming the government of Nepal for not providing them adequate
security. Once again the government of Bhutan shamelessly betrayed
its citizens in exile and humiliated the government of Nepal. And they made clear
the intent of the rulers of our country, Bhutan.
ADVOCACY
To some extent advocacy for repatriation of
Bhutanese refugees were done by UNHCR, the government of Nepal and International
community, but without taking in confidence the Bhutanese refugee leaders. Here
I must say the Bhutanese refugees were not considered as human beings with
emotion and sentiments but rather as objects the price of which could be fixed
by anyone at anytime. Their views were not regarded worthy of consideration.
Similarly even the government of India who all along supported Bhutan on the
issue from evicting, prolonging the issue, and not allowing the issue to be
internationalized, is in the opinion of dividing Bhutanese and rule them
forever.
The government of India is still maneuvering
the Bhutanese refugee issue in favor of the autocratic democracy of Bhutan. Until the visit of
then head of the UNHCR, Madam Sadako Ogata to Bhutan in December 2000,
advocacy for repatriation was gaining positive ground when the king of Bhutan
Jigme Singye Wangchuk gave word to her that he would take back all the
Bhutanese citizens living in the camps in eastern Nepal. But after she left the
office of UNHCR, the organization took a
complete U-turn, abandoned its own position on repatriation saying it will not promote repatriation and
will be phasing out the camps slowly (BHUTANESE REFUGEES IN NEPAL-by Prof.
Mahendra P Lama) putting indirect pressure on the refugees to opt for third
country resettlement. It is definitely the influence of red carpet reception
compounded with the propaganda of the cunning rulers of Bhutan.
Counter
to Repatriation by Bhutan:
From the very beginning of this Bhutanese
refugee problem, the government of Bhutan has spent a good part
of its national budget just for inducement of influential leaders including the
Indian security personals in the Indo-Bhutan border area. It was not enough to
hush the cry of unjustly evicted Bhutanese citizens so the government of Bhutan moved further by
buying sympathy of international journalists, diplomats, politicians and even
organizing seminars and talk programs to propagate their point of view that the
Bhutanese in the camps in eastern Nepal as illegal immigrants. But truth
remains. While Bhutan aggressively working to prove exiled bona fide Bhutanese
in the camps in eastern Nepal as illegal immigrants, the advocacy groups for
repatriation of Bhutanese to Bhutan seem to have raised their hands up leaving
their moral obligation aside. What was even more painful was that the government of Nepal and the international
community were unable to pressure Bhutan to repatriate those
refugees verified as bona fide Bhutanese by the Joint Verification team at
Khudunabari refugee camp in 2003.
As for the refugee community, they have been
reduced to mute spectator of their own doom. No initiative was taken by the
government of Nepal to consult them during the negotiations and the refugee
leadership was handicapped to carry out effective advocacy which they wanted to
do in the absence of total lack of support and assistance from the host
government and the many NGOs and INGOs, all of them ironically claim to work for
the cause of the refugees.
Third country resettlement:
After tedious stay in the refugee camps, the
third country resettlement program for Bhutanese looked attractive especially
to young ones and to the ignorant Bhutanese who did not understand the value of
nation and nationality. And unfortunately no attempt was made in this regard to
educate them. Instead all attempts were directed at enticing the people to opt
for third country resettlement. And this option meant basically the lure of a
foreign land and some petty jobs but at what cost - the cost of their nation
and nationality for which they had put everything in line ad braved the life of
want and deprivation of a refugee camp since early 1990s. So it must be said that
this program certainly did not give any justice to the Bhutanese who were awaiting
repatriation with deep feelings about their nation and nationality.
Instead it divided the refugee community, and
sadly even claimed some lives of innocent Bhutanese. Because of the strong and continuous
campaigning, incentive and instigation through various sources for third
country resettlement, it has further divided even the nucleus families in the
camps causing tension, stress and in some cases leading to suicide in the
families.
In this regard, many guardians of the families
filed petition to authorities requesting not to allow family separation but the
request went unheard. In a situation engineered in that fashion it is mostly the
elderly who are directly or indirectly forced to opt for third country
resettlement. Hence, third country resettlement program has become rather
compulsory and not than voluntary.
Repatriation:
No justice will be served unless the exiled
Bhutanese are repatriated to their homestead with safety and dignity. Because
of the guilty consciousness, the government of Bhutan has not dared to hold
talks directly with the Bhutanese refugees but has expended much resources and
energy extensively campaigning to spread the canard that the Bhutanese refugees
are illegal immigrants. The evicted Bhutanese would have been repatriated to Bhutan long ago if Bhutan was sincere in its
approach, and the international community, in particular the government of India had taken the
initiative to pro-actively mediate in the dispute. At the cost of the nation,
the rulers of Bhutan strongly backed by with
the support and goodwill of the government of India is enjoying the luxury of
talk and in the meanwhile carry out doing anything they please. If they are
true nationalists, which I hope they are, they will see the truth soon and act
to correct the historical wrong they have committed. The third country
resettlement and local assimilation is aimed to support tyrant rulers of Bhutan and to murder the
philosophy of human rights and true democracy in Bhutan. Hence, to see that
truth triumphs, we call on the international community with their faith in
truth and justice and all democratic
forces including the INGOs and NGOs to
support repatriation of all the evicted Bhutanese to Bhutan. We strongly feel that
this is the moral responsibility of all civilized nations and rational
individuals.
Position
of India:
There are ample of evidences to prove India’s
constant apathy towards the Bhutanese Refugee problems as demonstrated by
liberally driving away and instigated the mass evicted bona-fide Bhutanese to
enter Nepal instead of providing asylum as the first port of entry: complete
absence of Indian participation in the Bhutanese refugee camps in Nepal even on
humanitarian ground: arrest and imprisonment of the Bhutanese refugees going
back to Bhutan under the banner of “Cycle Rally” by Bhutan National Democratic
Party (BNDP), Human Rights Organization of Bhutan (HUROB) and Forum for Human
Rights of Bhutan (PFHRB) in 1996; Appeal
Movement Co-ordinating Council (AMCC) in 1996;
Return to Bhutan for reconciliation by “Bhutan Gorkha National
Liberation Front” (BGNLF) in 1996, 1998 & 2000; Repatriation of Bhutanese refugees by BNDP;
and Bhutanese Refugee Representative Repatriation Committee (BRRRC) in 2005;
and Repatriation of Bhutanese Refugees by Bhutanese Movement Steering Committee
(BMSC) in 2007
Near Future:
If the government of Nepal cannot negotiate its
internal political contradictions soon, it is possible; indications are there
already, that UNHCR, the government of Bhutan, government of India and even the international
community push the government of Nepal to assimilate the
remaining refugees in Nepal. By doing so, however,
will the agencies who have supported the refugees under difficult conditions
for so long and the international community have done justice to the exiled
Bhutanese awaiting repatriation for 20 years? Will not such an approach encourage
tyrant ruler of Bhutan to evict more Bhutanese
of Gorkhas/Nepalese ethnicity by adopting different mechanisms? Will it really help
solve the problem in a lasting and durable manner? We say no, and we believe
that lasting and durable solution can only be achieved through the repatriation
of the Bhutanese refugees to Bhutan in safety and dignity.
We hope Nepal will soon find a
constitutional solution to its entire problem. It will then have to take a
principled stand and aggressively pursue the course to repatriate Bhutanese
refugees to Bhutan. And if in this process
it has to internationalize the issue, it must not hesitate to do so for its own
national honour and for he larger good of the Bhutanese refugees.
APPEAL FROM B.R.R.R.C
The Bhutanese Refugee Representative
Repatriation Committee is the only refugee body constituted by the refugee
community under the adult franchise system. Its only objective has been to
repatriate all exiled bona fide Bhutanese to their homestead in Bhutan. I must categorically state here that the BRRRC
does not support repatriation of any illegal immigrant residing in the camps
who are not Bhutanese citizens as falsely claimed by the government of Bhutan. The BRRRC sincerely appeals
to the international community to help our repatriation to Bhutan. Do you not believe we
have a right to return to our own country?
In the mean time, the BRRRC also takes this opportunity to appeal to all
patriotic Bhutanese, within and outside the country, not to let our motherland,
Bhutan and its people suffer
silently.
Dr. Bhampa Rai,
Chairman, BRRRC
