The bilateral effort by Bhutan and Nepal to find a durable solution to the problem of 100,000 people in theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)-run refugee camps in eastern Nepal has been like ajourney through an extremely long tunnel; but there is now, at least, a small light at its end.
The problem began after the Government in Bhutan conducted a nation-wide Census in 1988. By the early 1990s,thousands of ethnic Nepalis, largely believed to be illegal immigrants, and some Lhotshampa (Bhutaneseof ethnic Nepalese origin) supporters, were violently protesting the results of the Census that found a large'non national' population living in Bhutan.
The first half of the 1990s saw a campaign of violence against Government institutions, including schools andhospitals, public and private property, as well as villages. For Bhutan, it was an unprecedented spate ofattacks on human and institutional targets. At the same time, families from the southern districts left forNepal, with a majority eventually ending up in the camps.
As the emerging political leaders threatened to repeat the 'Gorkha' success in India, when Darjeeling wrestedautonomy from the West Bengal Government at Calcutta, it stirred in the Bhutanese a sense of vulnerabilitythat stems from the country's geopolitical situation as a tiny state in a populous region. The Kingdom becamesharply aware of the demographic implications, as the Nepalese population moved eastwards across the Himalayanfoothills. The 720-kilometre porous border that had, in the past, symbolized the relaxed relations with theneighbours, suddenly assumed ominous dimensions.
Immigration became a thorny issue and the Bhutanese Government took a firm stand on its citizenship laws,upsetting not only the illegal immigrants, but Lhotshampa supporters who had inter-married across theborder. An ethnic rift became palpable, with local politicians entrenched across the Duars (Literally:gates or doors; referring to the 18 points of access into Bhutan from the Indian plain) encouraging bothillegal immigrants and Lhotshampas to leave the country so that the ethnic Nepalese population couldcome back as a political force.
In 1993 the two Governments settled down to bilateral talks when the then two Home Ministers, Sher BahadurDeuba and Lyonpo Dago Tshering, held their first meeting in Thimphu and signed a formal agreement in Kathmanduin 1994 during the first Ministerial Joint Committee (MJC). With Bhutan maintaining that the people were notall refugees, the two Governments decided to divide the people into four categories: Bhutanese who had beenevicted; Bhutanese who had emigrated; non Bhutanese; and Bhutanese who had committed criminal acts.
The next 12 years saw this process move forward, watched by a largely skeptical audience. What many peopleoverlook today is that there was visible progress in the talks. The decision to categorize the people wasfollowed by the establishment of a Joint Verification Team (JVT) of five officials from each Government toexamine the case for all the people in the camps, and then by the actual process of verification from theDamak-based JVT office.
The progress was slow and painful. The media, the involvement of numerous NGOs, concerns of the internationalcommunity, and internal politics maintained pressure on both governments. Nepal, with its volatile domesticpolitics, saw a number of changes in Government during this period, and the Bhutanese National AssemblyMembers kept up relentless pressure on their Government not to compromise. A total of 11 Home and ForeignMinisters held the succession of MJC meetings that alternated between the two capitals.
The often-protracted bilateral process saw many hitches, not to anyone's surprise given the complexity of theproblem. The initial lack of progress was widely believed to be a result of the directly opposing views widelyreported in both countries. Nepalese lobbyists initially wanted to send all 100,000 people to Bhutan.Bhutanese Assembly Members did not want even one person. Bhutan insisted that the people should first beplaced in the four categories to take a systematic approach, while Nepal wanted the categories reduced to justtwo: Bhutanese and non Bhutanese.
But, step by painful step, the two Governments made notable progress, most of it in the past year. It waseventually political concurrence and a broader perspective at the bilateral level that drove the technicalprocess along. Nepal's Ambassador at Large described it as the establishment of "a new chord ofdetermination to move ahead, based on a sense of goodwill and determination…"
The JVT had categorized the 12,183 people in the first camp, Khudunabari, in 2001 and, during the 12th MJCmeeting in March, 2003, the two Governments 'harmonized' their views on the four categories. Bhutan wouldrepatriate people in Category 1, those in Category 2 would be given the option to apply for Bhutanese orNepalese citizenship, the people in Catetory 3 should return to their own countries, and suspected criminalsin Category IV would be governed by the laws of the two countries.
The 15th MJC in October agreed on a time-schedule to start the process of repatriation, settlement, andresettlement of the refugees. The delegates said they hoped it could start by February and then verificationcould start in the second camp, Sanischare.
The two Governments may have expressed their full commitment to solve the problem but it is critical at thisstage that the politicians around the camps, as well as NGOs and the international community, now encouragethe process. As much as a majority of the regional and the international community wants a solution, there aresome who do not, for political reasons. Meanwhile, the politics in the two countries will continue to affectthe process - not always for the better. Nepal's political turbulence looks set to continue and the politicalreformation in Bhutan will strengthen the stand of those opposing the Government.
The international audience has an important role to play at this stage. Largely dominated by the views ofNGOs, particularly human rights groups, both genuine and those with hidden agendas, many observers have beencondemning the bilateral process and, consequently, obstructing rather than analyzing the issue orfacilitating progress. In a situation where small countries can easily be pressured into hasty decisions,misguided pressure could easily derail the process.
For Bhutan there is very little room for compromise. "We are talking about the country's survival,"one Assembly member said in July. "We cannot succumb to any pressure when our sovereignty is atstake."
The October MJC came as a relief to most observers. The Ministers reportedly applied political pressure toovercome a bureaucratic stalemate over forms and figures. Nepal's Foreign Secretary said, after the meeting inThimphu on October 23, 2003: "We are sometimes inching forward, sometimes leaping forward, but we aremoving forward."
And it is expected that, with the JVTs experience in the first camp, the process will be faster in the sixothers, although nobody expects the process to move without hitches. Bhutan, more than anyone else, has alwayswanted to move forward in the process because it has also been dealing with the serious threat posed by Indianmilitants who are camped in its south eastern districts.
As the JVT heads back to Jhapa in the last week of November, concerned observers have reason to be optimistic.The approach of the two Governments has proved to be increasingly realistic, thus raising hopes for asolution. They have also insisted on the bilateral process. Former Nepalese Foreign Minister, Narendra BikramShah, said that it was in the power of the two countries to find a solution to the problem. In response tocalls for the problem to be 'internationalised', Nepal's Ambassador at Large, Dr. Bhekh Bahadur Thapa, pointedout to journalists in October that it was already internationalised. The entire world knew about the problemand was following it. The two Foreign Ministers pointed out at their meeting in Thimphu in October that it wasmore important to maintain the momentum in the bilateral process.
Today there is general agreement that, in seeking a solution, it is important for the societies involved notto be disrupted. In a region that has proved to be potentially unpredictable, stability is critical in thecommon interest. It is not a secret that Bhutan, the smallest player in this difficult game, is concernedabout its stability. It is the basis of the country's primary goal, survival.
It is also important, at this crucial stage, to allow the refugees themselves to make their choices withoutpressures, without raising false hopes or fears, as is being done every time individuals or organisations orGovernments visit the camps and make pronouncements they cannot deliver.
Advertisement
Kinley Dorji is Editor, Kuensel, Thimpu. Courtesy, the South Asia Intelligence Review of the SouthAsia Terrorism Portal
