A glaring instance of gross negation of truth radiates from Bhutanese Premier Jigme Y. Thinley in an interview published in Kantipur (May 11, 2010) in relation to “the people in camps in eastern Nepal”, to borrow his own phrase. It’s become a creed of modern Bhutanese nationalism to demonise these refugees with whatever possible means and methods. The interview would, therefore, surprise no one. With a huge refugee population settled abroad and many more preparing to leave, the Bhutanese government is rejoicing today.
The premier’s interview contained a bundle of lies. Let’s begin with what he has said. Branding the Bhutanese refugees “people in the camps”, the premier spoke on four themes:
(1) Bhutan’s supposed desire to settle the issue bilaterally (2) Failure of bilateralism owing to Nepal’s political upheavals (3) Voluntary decision of the refugees as the basis of solution and (4) Alleged infiltration of the camps by Maoists. Suffused with these themes was Bhutan’s image of a “just state” capable of wronging none evidenced by the premier’s statement that “the refugee camps contain persecuted and traumatised people and attempts to exacerbate their woes should be discouraged”. He was silent as to who has traumatised or persecuted them, but the answer is too obvious to warrant clarification. However, an alien to the complexes of the Bhutanese refugee generation and its underlying truth is easily misguided by the premier’s erudition and, in the process, gloss over the exasperating demagoguery of Bhutan vis-à-vis the treatment meted out to a huge section of its citizens.
(1) Bhutan’s supposed desire to settle the issue bilaterally (2) Failure of bilateralism owing to Nepal’s political upheavals (3) Voluntary decision of the refugees as the basis of solution and (4) Alleged infiltration of the camps by Maoists. Suffused with these themes was Bhutan’s image of a “just state” capable of wronging none evidenced by the premier’s statement that “the refugee camps contain persecuted and traumatised people and attempts to exacerbate their woes should be discouraged”. He was silent as to who has traumatised or persecuted them, but the answer is too obvious to warrant clarification. However, an alien to the complexes of the Bhutanese refugee generation and its underlying truth is easily misguided by the premier’s erudition and, in the process, gloss over the exasperating demagoguery of Bhutan vis-à-vis the treatment meted out to a huge section of its citizens.
Let’s unearth some realities. The premier’s version is impeachable in the very use of the phrase “people in the camps”. This is tantamount to denial of the refugees’ identity as Bhutanese citizens, which has been Bhutan’s premise in its bilateral engagement with Nepal. There are questions over which Bhutan should introspect. If the “people in the camps” were truly non-Bhutanese, why would Bhutan agree to engage with Nepal in the first place in relation to a populace with whom it has nothing to do? Why should it have “humanitarian concerns” about people with whom it has absolutely no connection? There are many refugee groups elsewhere in the world, and Bhutan seems to be prepared to participate in all these issues and seek solutions to perhaps add to its “gross national happiness”.
The reality, however, remains that the refugees are Bhutanese citizens who have been hounded out by Bhutan pursuant to its diabolical agenda of “one nation, one people”. This position has been amply corroborated, the latest instance being resettlement of the refugees abroad not as “people in the camps” but as Bhutanese refugees.
The premier’s maintenance that Bhutan consistently willed to settle the issue bilaterally but failed owing to Nepal’s domestic upheaval warrants an inquiry. While it’s true that Nepal could not accord the priority that the refugees deserved owing to its domestic concerns, it never wavered from its commitment to bilateralism. Bhutan eventually somersaulted, overwhelmed by the number of refugees who would qualify to return notwithstanding its stringent examination conducted through verification and classification. Repatriation was never its goal as that would have frustrated its “one nation, one people” agenda.
Bhutan was in quest of an alibi to upset bilateralism and pre-empt repatriation. The ex parte conditions that Bhutan imposed on possible returnees which were made public amid a gathering of anxious refugees at Khudunabari camp and which triggered a scuffle is an attempt towards that direction. A glance at the conditions makes manifest Bhutan’s villainy, which include completion of a probation period of two years post-repatriation wherein the individual’s loyalty towards the king and the country would be tested. The tenets of Bhutan’s loyalty examination included knowledge of the country’s culture, customs and traditions apart from one’s ability to speak Dzongkha.
More acrimonious tenets stated that the individual “shall not be associated with any antinational activities” and that one should have “no record of having spoken or acted against the king, country and the people of Bhutan in any manner whatsoever”. The government reserved the prerogative to define what each of the criteria meant. It was further non-committal about the “grant of citizenship” even upon fulfillment of the said subjective criteria, among others. These conditions were undeniably requiring the impossible from the refugees. The purpose — pre-empt their return.
While correctly maintaining that the basis of a durable solution is the voluntary decision of the refugees, the premier exhibits utmost ignorance in that voluntariness is ensured only in a circumstance of choice and not in one of submission. The former involves the opportunity of return in an environment free from fear of persecution, discrimination and duress. Having sealed the door of repatriation, Bhutan exterminated the possibility of a voluntary option to the refugees. If the premier retains any residual honesty, he should immediately effectuate the return of all willing refugees, despite the third-country settlement offer.
The premier’s allegation that the refugee camps were “infested with Maoists” and that such a politically motivated population could not be “contained” by Bhutan forms the latest of the many tactics that Bhutan has employed in the last two decades to stigmatise the refugees. There are aspersions and stigmatisations galore in various terms like “contractual labourers who overstayed their contract, anti-nationals, proponents of greater Nepal, a ferocious immigrant community hell bent on carving out of Bhutan a sovereign state, agglomerate of poor people from neighbouring India and Nepal” and at times “terrorists”. The latest term seems to have sprung from the Indian situation wherein “the menace of Maoist insurgency is considered the largest internal security threat” there, and Bhutan has readily found it expedient to manufacture a common cause with that Indian concern.
Let not Bhutan mistake third-country resettlement as granting of international legitimacy to its refugee policy. The solution does not become permanent unless the resettled refugees reintegrate themselves within the national mainstream of the host country, which begins with acquiring citizenship of that country. One does not know how many refugees are actually ready for that, which is a question of their individual volition. Should they remain in each of the countries as “Bhutanese refugees”, Bhutan’s mala fide claim of referring to them as “people in the camp” gets systematically exposed. It thence cannot fiddle with so many advanced countries as it has done with Nepal. Culpable of serious international delinquency, Bhutan will need to face the day of judgment sooner than later. The Bhutanese premier’s art of diplomacy will be no immunity then.
(The author is an assistant
professor, Kathmandu School of Law
No comments:
Post a Comment