Last Updated: Tuesday, = 30 September=20 2008, 14:52 GMT

=20

Text size | | | =20
Email this document=20
Printable version

Title	The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern Bhutan
Publisher	WRITENET
Country	Bhutan=20
Publication Date	1 April 1995
Cite as	WRITENET, The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern = Bhutan, 1=20 April 1995. Online. UNHCR Refworld, available at:=20 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6a6c08.html [accessed = 1=20 October 2008]

The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern Bhutan

1. INTRODUCTION

In 1988, citing concerns about the possibility of a rapidly = increasing=20 illegal immigrant population, the Bhutanese authorities began to carry = out a=20 census in southern Bhutan to determine citizenship. Shortly after the = census=20 began, the Government also introduced a series of measures ostensibly = designed=20 to integrate ethnic Nepalis more fully into Bhutanese society. As a = result, a=20 series of demonstrations, unprecedented in the country's history, took = place in=20 southern districts of Bhutan in September 1990 as thousands of ethnic = Nepalis=20 protested about the census and the Government's so-called = 'Bhutanization'=20 policies. The Government's response to the demonstrations was reportedly = swift=20 and harsh, and the months that followed saw widespread arbitrary = arrests,=20 ill-treatment and torture, followed by an exodus from the country of = thousands=20 of ethnic Nepalis from southern Bhutan.[1]

2. OVERVIEW OF THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Bhutan is a monarchy, with sovereign power vested in the King. The = present=20 King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck (who ascended to the throne in 1972 at the = age of=20 16 and was formally crowned two years later[2]2) is the fourth king of the Wangchuck dynasty in = Bhutan.=20 The country has no written constitution.

2.1 The National Assembly

A partially elected National Assembly was established in 1953. It = usually=20 meets once or twice a year for a two-week period, although since the = problems in=20 the south began it has only met annually, if at all. The last meeting of = the=20 National Assembly, its 72nd session, was held in July 1993. As of the = time of=20 writing there was no indication of when the 73rd session would take = place.

The number of National Assembly members fluctuates around 150. There = are=20 usually between 105 and 110 members elected by limited franchise, 12 = appointed=20 from the monastic establishment, and the remainder, about 35, are = high-level=20 government officials appointed by the King.[3] In the 1991 elections the body consisted of 154 = members:=20 105 indirectly elected representatives, 39 representatives of the = Government and=20 10 representatives of the monastic establishment.[4] Members of the National Assembly serve = three-year terms=20 (recently changed from five-year terms), although members can, and often = do,=20 serve one or more consecutive terms.[5]

The main functions of the National Assembly are to enact laws, = approve senior=20 government appointments, and advise the King on matters of national = importance.=20 It also provides a forum for presenting grievances and rectifying cases = of=20 maladministration. The King is not in a position to formally veto = legislation,=20 but he may return bills to the Assembly for further consideration. The = members=20 occasionally have rejected the King's recommendations or delayed their=20 implementation, but in practice the King retains sufficient influence to = ensure=20 approval of legislation he considers essential or the withdrawal of = proposals he=20 opposes. Government officials may be questioned by the Assembly, and = ministers=20 may be forced to resign by a two-thirds majority vote of no = confidence.[6]

Representation in the National Assembly of Nepali speaking southern = Bhutanese=20 is low. In 1990 the National Assembly is reported to have had just = sixteen=20 southern Bhutanese members.[7] In an interview in October 1990 in the Indian = newspaper,=20 Sunday, the King conceded that there was insufficient = representation of=20 southern Bhutanese in the National Assembly and that the ethnic = composition=20 needed to be changed in order to better reflect the ethnic composition = of the=20 country,[8] although no such changes appear to have been = made to=20 date.

2.2 The Royal Advisory Council and the Council of Ministers

The official functions of the Royal Advisory Council (RAC) are to = advise the=20 King on all matters of national importance, to promote the welfare of = the people=20 and the country's national interests, to develop good relations between = the=20 Government and the people and to ensure that the laws and resolutions = passed by=20 the National Assembly are implemented.[9]

Since its establishment in 1965 there have been between eight and ten = members=20 in the Royal Advisory Council, and membership currently stands at ten. = Of these,=20 six are elected from the National Assembly, two are representatives of = the=20 Buddhist clergy and two are appointees of the King. Two of the six = National=20 Assembly members are members from southern districts.[10]

Three years after the formation of the RAC the Council of Ministers = was=20 established. Presided over by the King, the Council is made up of = ministers,=20 deputy ministers (who since 1978 have been appointed by the King) and = all=20 members of the RAC.[11]

2.3 Local Administration

Local administration is organized into 20 districts each headed by a = district=20 chief appointed by the King and directly responsible to the Ministry of = Home=20 Affairs.[12] In 1981, District Development Committees = (DDCs) were=20 established as part of a decentralization programme. There are currently = twenty=20 such DDCs in the country, encompassing a total of some 560 elected = members.[13]

All districts are divided administratively into blocks, which in turn = are=20 made up of several villages. Block Development Committees (BDCs) were=20 established in 1991 in all the 196 blocks of villages in the country to = promote=20 further decentralization. The 196 BDCs have a total of 2,589 elected = members.[14]

Prior to National Assembly sessions, meetings take place at block = level,=20 where heads of households are entitled to put forward issues of concern. = Issues=20 that cannot be addressed at block level are passed on for discussion at = the=20 district level by the DDCs. Issues deemed by these committees to be of = national=20 importance are then forwarded for inclusion in the National Assembly = agenda.[15]

2.4 International and Domestic Instruments

Bhutan is not a state party to the International Covenant on Civil = and=20 Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and = Cultural=20 Rights; the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide; the=20 Convention on Statutory Limitations of War Crimes; the Convention = against=20 Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, = nor the=20 Geneva Conventions, and has not signed the 1951 Convention Relating to = the=20 Status of Refugees.[16]

The country is, however, a state party to the 1979 Convention on=20 Discrimination Against Women; the Convention on the Elimination of = Racial=20 Discrimination; and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[17]

Criminal cases and a variety of civil matters are adjudicated under a = 17th=20 century legal code, revised in 1959. Judges are responsible for all = aspects of a=20 case, including investigation, filing of charges, prosecution and = judgment. The=20 legal system does not provide for jury trials or the right to a court = appointed=20 defence counsel. It has no provision for lawyers or solicitors, although = it does=20 allow for the appointment of a jabmi (a person well versed in = law) if=20 the defendant so desires.[18]

Minor offenses are adjudicated by village headmen and appeals can be = made to=20 the district court.[19] More serious cases are dealt with in district = courts, of=20 which there are 20, presided over by a magistrate appointed by the King = and=20 aided by assistants.[20] There is one high court in the capital, = Thimphu. This=20 consists of the chief justice and seven other judges, out of whom three = are from=20 southern Bhutan.[21] The high court serves both as a court of = appeal against=20 district court decisions and as a special court for matters involving = state=20 security. Proceedings are brought before the high court by the Public=20 Prosecutor's office which comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs.[22] There is no law school in Bhutan and during = its visit to=20 Bhutan in October 1994 the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found = that none=20 of the judges has a law degree.[23] After appeal to the high court a final appeal = may be=20 made to the King.[24]

2.4.1 The Nationality Law of Bhutan, 1958

In 1958 the King granted Bhutanese citizenship to Nepali settlers = living in=20 Bhutan by virtue of the Nationality Law of Bhutan, enacted that = year.

Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the 1958 Nationality Law set out the = conditions for=20 obtaining Bhutanese citizenship, as follows:

3. Any person can = become a=20 Bhutanese national:

a) If his/her father = is a=20 Bhutanese National and is a resident of the Kingdom of Bhutan; or

b) If any person is = born=20 within or outside Bhutan after the commencement of this law provided the = previous father is a Bhutanese National at the time of his/her = birth.

4 (1) If any foreigner who has reached the age of majority and is = otherwise=20 eligible, presents a petition to an official appointed by His Majesty = and takes=20 an oath of loyalty according to the rules laid down by the Government to = the=20 satisfaction of the concerned official, he may be enrolled as a = Bhutanese=20 National, provided that:

a) The person is a = resident=20 of the Kingdom of Bhutan for more than ten years; and

b) Owns agricultural = land=20 within the Kingdom.

4 (2) If a woman, married to a Bhutanese National, submits a petition = and=20 takes the oath of loyalty as stated above to the satisfaction of the = concerned=20 official, and provided that she has reached the age of majority and is = otherwise=20 eligible, her name may be enrolled as a Bhutanese National.

4 (3) If any person has been deprived of his Bhutanese Nationality or = has=20 renounced his Bhutanese Nationality or forfeited his Bhutanese = Nationality, the=20 person cannot become a Bhutanese National again unless His Majesty the = Druk=20 Gyalpo grants approval to do so.

5 (1) If any foreigner submits petition to His Majesty the Druk = Gyalpo=20 according to rules described in the above sections, and provided the = person has=20 reached the age of majority and is otherwise eligible, and has performed = satisfactorily in Government service for at least five years and has = been=20 residing in the Kingdom of Bhutan for at least 10 years, he may receive = a=20 Bhutanese Nationality Certificate. Once the certificate is received, = such a=20 person has to take the oath of loyalty according to the rules laid down = by the=20 Government and from that day onwards, his name will be enrolled as a = Bhutanese=20 National.

5 (2) Any foreigner who has reached the age of majority and is = otherwise=20 eligible, can receive a Nationality Certificate provided that in the = opinion of=20 His Majesty the Druk Gyalpo his conduct and his performance as a = Government=20 servant is satisfactory.[25]

Under the law a person shall forfeit their Bhutanese nationality if = s/he:=20 becomes a national of a foreign country and lives in that country = (Article 6=20 (a)); has renounced Bhutanese nationality and settled in a foreign = country=20 (Article 6 (b)); claims to be a citizen of a foreign country or pledges = an oath=20 of loyalty to that country (Article 6 (c)); is registered as a Bhutanese = national but has left his agricultural land or has stopped residing in = Bhutan=20 (Article 6 (d)); being a bonafide national has stopped residing in the = country=20 or fails to observe the laws of the Kingdom (Article 6(e)).[26]

Citizenship is liable to cancellation if it is found to have been = obtained=20 under false pretences (Article 7(1)); for engaging in activities against = the=20 King or for speaking against the King or the people of Bhutan (Article = 7(2)(a));=20 for assisting the enemy in times of war (Article 7(2)(b)); or if, within = a=20 five-year period from being made a Bhutanese National, a person is = imprisoned in=20 any country for more than one year (Article 7(2)(c)).[27]

The granting of citizenship in 1958 was notified by royal = proclamation. It=20 was not, however, accompanied by any special certification process and = there is=20 little evidence that the enactment of the 1958 law made any real = practical=20 difference to the population.[28]

2.4.2 The Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1977

With the passing of the 1977 Citizenship Act, the basic principles of = the=20 1958 Act remained unchanged but amendments to the 1958 Act made = eligibility=20 criteria more stringent.

Under the 1977 Act the length of unblemished service required before=20 citizenship may be granted is increased to 15 years.[29] For persons not in Government service, = citizenship may=20 only be granted after twenty years of residency in Bhutan.[30]

The criteria for spouses of Bhutanese nationals to acquire = citizenship are=20 also tightened under the 1977 amendment and they are no longer = automatically=20 eligible for citizenship. Spouses who are not Bhutanese nationals are = allowed to=20 live in Bhutan, but citizenship has to be applied for.[31] The children of a Bhutanese father and a = non-national=20 mother are automatically granted citizenship,[32] but the children of a Bhutanese mother and a=20 non-national father have to apply for citizenship.[33]

New criteria were introduced in the 1977 legislation, namely that all = applicants should have some knowledge of both written and spoken = Dzongkha, as=20 well as some knowledge of the country's history.[34] This stipulation was especially difficult to = meet for=20 ethnic Nepalis in Southern Bhutan. Most ethnic Nepalis had very little = contact=20 with northern Bhutanese, and only a small minority of ethnic Nepalis = would have=20 any knowledge of the Dzongkha language, even though they may have lived = in=20 Bhutan all their lives.[35]

Citizenship can be revoked under the 1977 Act for involvement in = activities=20 against the King, speaking against the Government, or association with = others=20 involved in anti-government activities,[36] and for presenting false information when = applying for=20 citizenship.[37]

Two years after the 1977 Act came into force, the Government embarked = upon a=20 three-year census, carried out by district officials and village = headmen,=20 following which Citizenship Identity Cards began to be distributed. = However,=20 refugees report that distribution had still not been completed when the = 1988=20 census got underway.[38]

2.4.3 The Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1985

The 1985 Citizenship Act tightened up still further the regulations = on=20 eligibility for the automatic granting of citizenship. Under this = amendment,=20 citizenship by birth is only available to persons whose parents are both = Bhutanese citizens (Article 2). Those who have only one parent who is a=20 Bhutanese citizen must apply for citizenship by naturalization. = Additional=20 requirements introduced in the 1985 Act are that applicants for = citizenship must=20 demonstrate proficiency (i.e. "some knowledge" as required in the 1977 = Act is no=20 longer sufficient) in speaking, writing and reading Dzongkha (Article 4 = (d)) and=20 good knowledge (rather than "some" as required in the 1977 Act) of the = culture,=20 customs, traditions and history of Bhutan (Article 4 (e)). Anyone who = has been=20 imprisoned for criminal offenses in Bhutan or elsewhere or has spoken or = acted=20 against the King, country and people of Bhutan is not eligible to apply = for=20 citizenship (Article 4(f) and (g)).[39]

The most contentious provision of the Act is the one which = retroactively=20 makes 1958 the cut- off year for determining citizenship and limits the = granting=20 of citizenship to those who can prove residence since before 31 December = of that=20 year (Article 3).

2.4.4 The Bhutan Marriage Act, 1980

The Bhutan Marriage Act of 1980 sets out a number of conditions = concerning=20 marriage between Bhutanese citizens and non-nationals.

In addition to establishing requirements such as that the = non-national abide=20 by traditional customs and government orders,[40] the marriage itself is only recognised as = valid under=20 Bhutanese law provided two people are present at the wedding to act as=20 guarantors, one of whom must be a Bhutanese citizen.[41]

The Act provides strong disincentives to marriage to a foreigner = above and=20 beyond the restrictions on citizenship eligibility of non-national = spouses=20 provided for under the 1977 Citizenship Act. Under the 1980 Act, a = Bhutanese=20 citizen who marries a foreigner loses the right to government assistance = in the=20 form of land, seed, loans and livestock, as well as health benefits.[42] This stipulation was to prove especially = disadvantageous=20 in the predominantly ethnic Nepali populated south of the country where=20 agriculture is the primary occupation. If an individual is in the = service of the=20 Government, promotion is denied from the day of marriage,[43] and removal from service is mandatory for = Bhutanese=20 citizens working in the national defence department or the Ministry of = Foreign=20 Affairs who marry a non- national.[44] All government funding for education and = training=20 terminates upon marriage to a non-national and any expenses incurred up = to the=20 day of the marriage must be refunded.[45]

Ethnic Nepali refugees in Nepal contend that this act is = discriminatory=20 because of the disparate impact on ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan = who,=20 because of strict cultural and caste restrictions concerning marriage, = commonly=20 seek spouses outside of their home communities, often in Nepal and = India.=20 Refugees have also pointed to the unequal application of the act, citing = cases=20 of high ranking Drukpa officials who have foreign spouses but who appear = to have=20 been exempted from the penalties set out in the Act.[46]

3. GOVERNMENT POLICY TOWARDS ETHNIC NEPALIS IN SOUTHERN BHUTAN

3.1 Ethnicity and Population

The three main ethnic groups in Bhutan are the Ngalongs, the Sarchops = and the=20 ethnic Nepalis. The Ngalongs live mainly in the west of Bhutan and are = the=20 dominant political group, while the Sarchops are primarily located in = the east.=20 The ethnic Nepalis, known in Bhutan as Lhotshampas (meaning = "southerners"), live=20 primarily in the southern districts of Samchi, Dagana, Chirang, = Sarbhang,=20 Chhukha and Samdrup Jongkhar. Other ethnic groups include Khengs (often = grouped=20 together with the Sarchops), Adhivasi, Birmi, Brokpa, Doya, Lepcha, = Tibetan and=20 Toktop. Together, these latter groups are estimated to make up = approximately 10=20 per cent of the population.[47]

The Ngalongs and the Sarchops are Buddhists and the two groups are = together=20 called Drukpas (in reference to the followers of the Drukpa Kagyu school = of=20 Tibetan Buddhism). Ngalongs and Sarchops speak closely related = languages,=20 although the language of the Ngalong, Dzongkha, is the national = language. Only a=20 minority of ethnic Nepalis are Buddhists, while the majority practise=20 Hinduism.[48]

Population statistics for Bhutan are a source of considerable = controversy and=20 the accuracy of available population data is unclear. No reliable = independent=20 data is available and government figures have varied widely over the = last=20 fifteen years. In 1979, the Government estimated that the population of = the=20 country was 1.2 million. The estimate rose to 1.375 million in 1988, but = in 1991=20 the figure was drastically reduced to 600,000.[49]

The ethnic breakdown of these figures is equally controversial and, = although=20 the three main ethnic groups are accepted as together comprising 85-90 = per cent=20 of the population, estimates of the percentage of the population = represented by=20 each of these groups varies considerably. As an example of the lack of = clarity=20 on this issue, Michael Hutt (who believes it is probable that none of = the main=20 ethnic groups is in a majority) points out that estimates of the Ngalong = population vary from 10 to 28 per cent, the Sarchops from 30 to 40 per = cent and=20 the Nepalis from 25 to 52 per cent.[50]

Ethnic Nepalis began to settle in Bhutan in large numbers at the end = of the=20 19th century, when the Dorji family was granted permission to settle = immigrants=20 in the south of the country in order to open up the land for = cultivation. Most=20 of the settlers were Nepali-speaking Hindus and by 1932 a British army = officer=20 is reported to have estimated that about 60,000 had settled in Samchi = and=20 Chirang districts in southwest Bhutan.[51]

According to the Government, ethnic Nepalis remained in these two = districts=20 until the early 1950s, when they began to occupy the areas of Sarbhang,=20 Geylegphug and Samdrup Jongkhar.[52] The timing of the arrival of Nepalis in Bhutan = since=20 then is a highly contentious issue. Most of the refugees in camps in = Nepal claim=20 to have settled in the southern districts of Bhutan before 1958 or to = trace=20 their ancestry to those early settlers to derive claims of = citizenship.[53] However, the government argues that large = numbers of=20 Nepalis came to Bhutan as a result of the development activities = undertaken=20 under the first Five Year Plan, launched in 1961. The Government = suggests that=20 they were brought in either to work on development projects and road=20 construction, or entered as illegal immigrants attracted by better = economic=20 prospects in Bhutan. The Government stresses, however, that it was = unaware of=20 the scale of immigration until the 1988 census was carried out.[54]

Until the 1950s the Government appears to have paid little attention = to=20 developments in the south of the country. It was then that it began to = introduce=20 policies which granted ethnic Nepalis greater recognition and = involvement in=20 political and administrative life. Some observers suggest that the = impetus for=20 this may have come from political developments in neighbouring countries = as well=20 as the formation in Assam of the Bhutan State Congress by ethnic Nepalis = in=20 1952.[55] Regardless of the Government's motives, = however, the=20 mid- to late-1950s saw a distinct change in the Government's policy = towards=20 ethnic Nepalis living in the south of the country, at the same time as = the King=20 began to bring Bhutan out of its isolation and to implement development=20 policies. Not only were they for the first time granted citizenship, but = ethnic=20 Nepalis were also represented in the National Assembly.[56] In addition, ethnic Nepalis began to be = admitted into=20 the bureaucracy, the army and the police, and were made members of the = cabinet=20 and the judiciary.[57] Recognition was also given to the Nepali = language, as=20 well as to the festivals, customs, dress and traditions of ethnic Nepali = southern Bhutanese.[58]

From the late 1970s there was another shift in the Government's = approach=20 which signalled a growing unease among the political leadership of = Bhutan about=20 the ethnic Nepali population in the south of the country. Legislation, = such as=20 the 1980 Marriage Act and the 1977 and 1985 amendments to the = Citizenship Act,=20 focused on deterring further immigration, while other policies became = more=20 integrationist, with the emphasis on encouraging ethnic Nepalis to adapt = to=20 northern Bhutanese practices. For example, in 1978 the National Assembly = adopted=20 a policy which provided for a payment of 5,000 ngultrum (Nu.) as an = incentive=20 for marriage between ethnic Nepalis and northern Bhutanese (this figure = was=20 increased in 1990 to Nu. 10,000, although the low take-up rate led to = the policy=20 being stopped the following year.)[59] And in the early 1980s ethnic Nepalis in = government=20 service began to be required to undergo training in driglam = namzha (a=20 code of values, dress and etiquette based on northern Bhutanese = traditions),=20 learn some Dzongkha, and wear the Ngalong dress when engaged in official = duties.

Despite these efforts by the Government, by the late 1980s the ethnic = Nepali=20 population in southern Bhutan remained culturally distinct from the rest = of=20 society, and there was no indication that the Government's = integrationist=20 policies were achieving the desired effect. It was in this context that = the=20 Government initiated a census to determine citizenship, and to implement = a=20 series of more rigorous policies to integrate ethnic Nepalis into the = northern=20 Bhutanese culture.

3.2 The 1988 Census

The census of 1988 which was carried out only in the southern = districts of=20 Bhutan, used the criteria set out in the 1985 Citizenship Act to = identify=20 Bhutanese nationals. The census placed the population into one of seven=20 categories:

F1 Genuine Bhutanese = citizens.

F2 Returned migrants = (people who=20 left Bhutan and then returned).

F3 "Drop out" cases, i.e. = people=20 who were not around at the time of the census.[60]

F4 A non-national woman = married to=20 a Bhutanese man.

F5 A non-national man = married to a=20 Bhutanese woman.

F6 Adoption cases (children = who=20 have been legally adopted).

F7 Non-nationals, i.e. = migrants and=20 illegal settlers.

Although the way in which the census was conducted varied in = different areas=20 (some districts and villages are said not to have experienced the = complications=20 and harassment that others did) the census ran into controversy almost=20 immediately.[61] Not only was there no clear indication given = by census=20 officials about the implications of being placed in any of the seven=20 categories,[62] there were also consistent reports that the = census was=20 being carried out in an arbitrary fashion,[63] and that the standards being applied for proof = of=20 citizenship were unduly rigorous.[64]

In accordance with the 1985 Citizenship Act the census required = ethnic=20 Nepalis to provide documentary evidence of their residence in the = country in=20 1958. The standards set for proving residence were extremely strict and = in some=20 areas no account appears to have been taken of the difficulties that the = production of appropriate documentation would pose for a largely = illiterate=20 people in a country that has only recently adopted basic administrative=20 procedures.[65] In some cases it has been suggested that = appropriate=20 documentation simply would not exist. It has also been pointed out, for = example,=20 that the Home Ministry did not exist until 1968, and that prior to this = census=20 records were held by village headmen who did not keep accurate and = comprehensive=20 records.[66] Although comprehensive systems for enumeration = in the=20 census records only date back to 1972, it was only in 1977 that proper=20 documentation providing proof of payment of land taxes was instituted.[67] Furthermore, in some districts and villages no = provision=20 was made for village elders and headmen to vouch for people they knew to = be=20 citizens but who lacked the relevant paperwork, as had been permitted in = the=20 past.[68] Census teams are also said to have refused to = accept as=20 evidence of residence relevant documentation for the years prior to = 1958.[69]

Even those ethnic Nepalis who were able to produce what they believed = to be=20 evidence of their eligibility to be granted F1 status were exempted = under the=20 very strict guidelines used by the census teams. Many ethnic Nepalis who = possessed citizenship certificates issued by district officials under = the=20 provisions of the 1958 Nationality Law found these declared null and = void unless=20 they could produce documents proving at least residence, and often land=20 ownership, prior to 1958.[70] Others who possessed the citizenship identity = cards that=20 had begun to be distributed following the previous census, were = similarly=20 classified as non- nationals or "illegal immigrants".[71] Many refugees have complained that when they = provided=20 relevant documentation it was frequently seized or confiscated by the = census or=20 other local officials.[72]

Even when people were able to supply the documentation required, = refugees in=20 Nepal complain that impossibly strict standards were set for their = acceptance.=20 For example, some said that documentation was rejected for minor = spelling=20 differences, or because middle names were spelled out on one document = and were=20 given simply as initials in another.[73]

Refugees report further that the results of the categorization were = liable to=20 change. In most cases families were advised orally of the decision, and = despite=20 being advised initially that their citizenship had been confirmed, in = some cases=20 they were subsequently told that they had been declared "illegal = immigrants" or=20 non-nationals.[74]

Despite the problems associated with the census, the Government has = given no=20 indication that it will be discontinued. In late October 1993 there were = reports=20 that the administration had begun evicting alleged non-nationals = detected in=20 Chhukha district, and it was announced that another census in Samchi = district=20 was to be carried out.[75] Three months earlier, the Home Minister = estimated that=20 the census would be continuing until at least 1998.[76]

3.3 "Bhutanization" Policies

There is no doubt that the census caused considerable anxiety among = the=20 ethnic Nepali population in southern Bhutan. But this was not the only = concern=20 of ethnic Nepalis in the late 1980s. The Government also introduced a = series of=20 policies as part of the promotion of the distinct national identity and = the "One=20 Nation, One People" theme of the sixth five-year plan, aimed at = instilling a=20 greater sense of unity among the population as a whole. Whether or not = this was=20 the true intention of the authorities, the policies have had a very = different=20 result. In practice, the measures which include the requirement that = southern=20 Bhutanese wear traditional northern Bhutanese dress, and the withdrawal = of the=20 Nepali language from school curriculums in the south, engendered a = growing sense=20 of anxiety, resentment and alienation among the ethnic Nepali = population,=20 culminating in unprecedented demonstrations in the south of the country = in late=20 1990.[77]

In January 1989, the King issued a decree which required all citizens = to=20 observe driglam namzha, the traditional northern Bhutanese code = of=20 values, dress and etiquette. The most controversial element of this was = the=20 requirement that everyone wear the traditional costume of the Drukpa = people (for=20 men this means wearing the gho, a one-piece tunic, while women = have to=20 wear a kira, a one-piece dress) clothes commonly worn in the = north, but=20 seldom seen in the south of the country.[78]

The introduction of this requirement was regarded by ethnic Nepalis = as a=20 clear attack on their cultural identity. Resentment quickly grew as the = policy=20 was implemented. On-the-spot fines or imprisonment for a week were the = penalties=20 for failure to comply with the new dress code, and the police, who were=20 permitted to keep 50 per cent of the fine as an incentive to enforce the = policy,=20 did so rigorously. The Government has since accepted that the policy was = overzealously applied, and enforcement of the decree has since become = lax,=20 although it is still being observed during office hours in southern = towns like=20 Phuntsholing and Geylegphug.[79]

Concern among ethnic Nepalis about the threat to their cultural = identity=20 implied by the application of driglam namzha was heightened = still=20 further in February 1989 when the Nepali language was removed from the=20 curriculum in schools in the south of the country.[80] The Director of Education claimed that the = decision was=20 taken on purely educational grounds, in response to a UNICEF report = which=20 suggested that the requirement for southern schoolchildren to study = three=20 languages -- Nepali, Dzongkha and English -- was hampering overall = levels of=20 achievement.[81] Nevertheless, the timing of the decision = ensured that it=20 was perceived as a further attack on ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese=20 culture.

4. RESPONSE BY THE ETHNIC NEPALIS

4.1 Petition to the King and Demonstrations

As the census went on and the "Bhutanization" programmes continued, = unrest=20 grew as a result of what was perceived by the population in the south as = an=20 attempt by the Government to oust ethnic Nepalis and impose an alien = culture.=20 The widespread anxiety about the census was formally voiced in a = petition to the=20 King, submitted in April 1988 by two southern Bhutanese members of the = Royal=20 Advisory Council, Tek Nath Rizal and B. P. Bhandari. The petition raised = concerns about the way in which the census was being carried out and = about the=20 retroactive application of the 1985 Citizenship Act, and urged the = intervention=20 of the King to remedy the situation. Far from achieving the desired = result, the=20 petition was declared seditious and against Tsa-Wa-Sum (the three = elements of=20 King, Country and People). Tek Nath Rizal was briefly detained, and the = census=20 operation continued as before. (Tek Nath Rizal was sentenced to life=20 imprisonment in November 1993. Three days after he was sentenced he was = granted=20 a pardon by the King. However, the pardon is conditional on the = Governments of=20 Bhutan and Nepal resolving the issue of ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese = refugees living in refugee camps in Nepal.)[82]

Disaffection among ethnic Nepalis also resulted in the politicization = of at=20 least a small sector of the ethnic Nepali population, and various = political=20 groups were formed, both in Bhutan and in Nepal, which set up discussion = groups=20 and circulated anti-government literature. One of the first of these was = the=20 Peoples Forum for Human Rights (PFHR), established in Nepal by Tek Nath = Rizal=20 and others in July 1989.[83]

By early 1990 discontent was widespread in the south of the country = and the=20 Government began to attribute criminal acts to people whom the = Government=20 labelled ngolops or "anti- nationals". Initially, their = activities are=20 reported to have centred on extortion and the stripping of people = wearing=20 northern Bhutanese dress. From mid-1990 the "anti-nationals", said by = the=20 Government to include members of the Bhutan People's Party (BPP), are = alleged to=20 have engaged in more serious crimes such as the murder and kidnapping of = civilians, including census officers and other government officials.[84]

In September and October 1990, resentment of government policies = erupted in a=20 series of unprecedented public demonstrations throughout the south by = thousands=20 of ethnic Nepalis. The demonstrations, which in some districts continued = for=20 days, were reportedly organised by the BPP, together with the PFHR and = the=20 Students Union of Bhutan.[85] Although in the main peaceful, there were = incidents=20 involving material damage and violence, such as the destruction of = census=20 records and the stripping of local officials wearing ghos.[86] The Government responded by calling the = protesters=20 "anti-nationals" who were guilty of treason,[87] and banning the BPP, accusing it of = responsibility for=20 violent attacks on people and property.[88]

4.2 "Anti-National" Activities

Following the demonstrations there were increasing reports in the = country's=20 only newspaper, Kuensel, of criminal acts being committed in = the south=20 of the country, attributed to "anti- nationals". These ranged from = murder,=20 kidnapping and rape, to threats to local officials, harassment of = teachers and=20 students, and robbery and assaults on civilians. In addition, "anti- = nationals"=20 were blamed for attacks on property in the south of the country, = including=20 schools and private homes.[89]

It is generally accepted that a wide range of crimes have been = committed in=20 southern Bhutan since the beginning of the unrest.[90] In some cases so-called "anti-nationals" do = appear to=20 have been responsible for these acts. However, it is by no means clear = that=20 government opponents are to blame in all cases, and the Government's = claim that=20 "most of the terrorist raids are being carried out by terrorist groups = sent from=20 the refugee camps in Nepal"[91] is not substantiated. In fact, as the U.S. = Department of=20 State points out, it appears that a large number of the attacks the = Government=20 has identified as incidents of terrorism have in fact been the work of = criminal=20 gangs taking advantage of unsettled conditions on the Indo-Bhutan = border.[92]

5. CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEMONSTRATIONS

5.1 Arbitrary Arrest, Ill-Treatment and Torture

In the aftermath of the demonstrations there were consistent reports = of=20 widespread human rights violations, including arbitrary arrest, = ill-treatment=20 and torture, being committed against ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese. = Anyone=20 suspected of involvement in, or support of, "anti- national activity" = was a=20 target, as were the families of people thought to have been involved in = protest=20 of any kind. In some cases the violations were simply carried out in = retaliation=20 to the protests. In others, the violations, or the threat of such, = appear to=20 have been deliberately aimed at forcing ethnic Nepalis to leave the = country.

Amnesty International reports that from late 1990 raids on the homes = of=20 Nepali speaking southern Bhutanese became common. During the raids = families were=20 questioned about their involvement in the September 1990 demonstrations = and=20 about their links with the BPP. Suspects were arrested. Those detained = were held=20 in poor conditions either at the district jail or local school (all = schools in=20 the south were closed following the demonstrations and many of them were = converted into army barracks or detention centres) and kept for periods = ranging=20 from one week to 12 months without charge or trial. Upon release former=20 prisoners report being warned against involvement in "anti-national" = activity=20 and threatened with rearrest. Others say that they were released only on = condition that they leave the country.[93]

In some cases the Government is said to have arrested and ill-treated = prominent figures in local communities to intimidate others into leaving = the=20 country so as to avoid a similar fate. For example, following the = refusal in=20 late 1991 by the inhabitants of Lamidara in Chirang district to leave = the=20 country, three respected community figures were arrested and tortured. = Following=20 this, some 500 households in Lamidara, almost the whole population, = filled out=20 emigration forms.[94]

Many of those detained were ill-treated and tortured and several = prisoners=20 are reported to have died in detention during 1991 as a result of = ill-treatment=20 or torture or due to receiving either inadequate medical treatment or no = treatment at all for illnesses contracted during imprisonment.[95]

In a survey carried out in the refugee camps in Nepal between May and = July=20 1993, 95 male torture victims confirmed that severe beating and kicking = was the=20 most common method of torture. Beatings were frequently carried out with = bamboo=20 canes or wooden sticks, but also with iron rods, electric wire, belts, = whips,=20 rifle butts, bayonets, roots of trees and thorn branches. The men also = described=20 being subjected to a variety of other torture techniques, as well as = cruel,=20 inhuman and degrading treatment.[96]

From the evidence it appears that abuse by government forces peaked = during=20 the eighteen months following the September 1990 disturbances. Amnesty=20 International points out that reports of gross human rights violations = declined=20 "significantly" from about mid-1992 onwards.[97] The findings of the survey appear to bear this = out, with=20 86 of the 95 torture victims interviewed claiming to have been tortured = during=20 1990 and 1991.[98]

Following the demonstrations another form of gross human rights abuse = being=20 perpetrated was rape. Amnesty International reports having received = numerous=20 allegations of rape of women by army personnel. Some of the victims are = said to=20 have died as a result of being raped.[99]

5.2 Other Human Rights Violations

For approximately eighteen months after the demonstrations ethnic = Nepalis=20 were at the greatest risk of gross physical abuse. Experience of such = treatment,=20 or the threat or fear of being subjected to it, was commonly cited by = refugees=20 who left the country during this period as the primary motivation for = doing so.=20 Since then, the level of serious physical abuse has declined = significantly,=20 although cases of torture and ill-treatment in police stations and = prisons in=20 the south continue to be reported.[100] The arrest of ethnic Nepalis also continues, = albeit on=20 a much smaller scale, but refugees state that many of those who are = detained are=20 released only after specifically agreeing to leave the country.[101] As of late 1993, in spite of the release in = amnesties=20 of over 1500 suspected government opponents, about 200 "anti-nationals" = were=20 still in detention pending trial on charges related to political unrest = in=20 southern Bhutan.[102] During their visit to Bhutan in October 1994 = the=20 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited Chemgang Central Jail which = then=20 held 148 prisoners. Of these 36 had been convicted under the National = Security=20 Act, 1992, 51 were charged with having committed offenses under the Act = and the=20 other 61 were awaiting commencement of proceedings against them under = the Act.[103] The Working Group reported that in the = course of its=20 interviews at Chemgang Central Jail it found that in many instances = people had=20 been detained for years without having been charged and that persons who = had=20 been charged had not been brought before a judge for trial. In most = instances=20 those charged did not know when they might be tried.[104]

In the main, however, the methods of persecution of ethnic Nepalis = have=20 changed. Where previously they were at risk of arbitrary arrest, = ill-treatment=20 and torture, including rape, from about mid-1992 onwards ethnic Nepalis = were=20 increasingly coming under different forms of pressure to leave the = country.=20 Reasons for departure now more commonly cited include forcible eviction, = the=20 destruction of houses and harassment and intimidation by local = authorities. This=20 despite a royal decree issued in January 1992 making it a criminal = offence to=20 force any genuine citizens to leave the country, and reports that some = district=20 officials in the south have been prosecuted for intimidation and = corruption.[105] The continuing denial of public services, = increasing=20 depopulation in the south of the country, and the wish to be reunited = with=20 family members who have already left the country are also reasons for = departure=20 given by refugees arriving in Nepal.

The census operation, which is continuing in southern Bhutan, is = another=20 reason why ethnic Nepalis are still leaving the country. Refugees = interviewed by=20 Amnesty International in November 1993 reported that the census = continues to be=20 carried out unfairly and improperly and described a variety of abuses = associated=20 with the census. These include the confiscation of citizenship identity = cards=20 and land tax receipts, and being threatened with imprisonment or a fine = for=20 failure to leave the country within days of a negative citizenship = decision=20 being made. The census also continues to be carried out arbitrarily. For = example, one refugee reported being classified as a non-national simply = because=20 his parents and brother had left the country. In some cases people who = were told=20 that they were classified as genuine Bhutanese citizens have = subsequently been=20 deprived of citizenship on the basis of a decision by a local government = official. In others, married couples have been forced to leave Bhutan = after they=20 were put in different categories by the census teams, even when one of = them was=20 confirmed as a Bhutanese citizen.[106] In 1993 there were also reports that = additional=20 administrative obstacles, such as alterations to the way in which land = deeds are=20 numbered, have been placed in the way of ethnic Nepalis seeking to = provide proof=20 of land ownership to the census teams.[107]

Another means by which ethnic Nepalis are being forced to leave the = country,=20 and a method cited by an increasing number of refugees during 1993, is = the=20 revocation of their citizenship under the provision of the 1985 = Citizenship Act=20 concerning citizens who have been "shown by act or speech to be disloyal = in any=20 manner whatsoever to the King, country, and people of Bhutan" (Article = 6(c)).[108]

Refugees also report being coerced into signing so-called "voluntary=20 migration forms", stating that they are selling their land and leaving = the=20 country of their own free will, under the threat of large fines or = imprisonment=20 if they failed to comply.[109] Many acknowledge that they did receive some=20 compensation for their land, although others did not, but almost all = stress that=20 any money they received was well below the market value. More = importantly,=20 though, they all confirm that they felt they had no choice but to sign = the=20 forms. Occasionally, refugees report that they were videotaped signing = the=20 forms. One refugee said that after the camera was turned off officials = made=20 various "deductions" which left him with no money.[110] Another refugee, who was told during the = census that=20 he could not stay in the country because his brother had already left, = said that=20 a pistol was held against his back while he made a statement in front of = the=20 video saying he would not return to Bhutan.[111] Amnesty International reports that = journalists and=20 visitors to Bhutan have been shown videos of ethnic Nepalis signing the = forms as=20 proof that those involved left the country of their own volition.[112] Human rights organizations report that the = practice of=20 the forced signing of "voluntary migration forms" continues.[113]

There are also reports of ethnic Nepalis being forced by the = authorities to=20 leave Bhutan in retaliation for criminal activities perpetrated by = others. In=20 some instances interviewees described whole village blocks (a group of = between=20 three and six villages) of families, who were recognised as Bhutanese = citizens,=20 being nonetheless forced out en masse, apparently in retaliation for a = robbery=20 or an attack on a local government official attributed by the = authorities to=20 "anti-national" elements.[114]

On a day-to-day basis ethnic Nepalis are also liable to be subjected = to lower=20 level harassment, such as the repeated checking of documents. For = example,=20 during December 1993 there were reports of security forces visiting = houses in=20 Gaylegphug, Sarbhang district, at night and demanding to check = identification=20 documents.[115]

As the number of ethnic Nepalis who have left Bhutan has increased, = so the=20 depopulation of villages in the south of the country has become an = increasingly=20 serious problem for those who remain. Without community support, such as = the=20 joint maintenance of irrigation canals and assistance with sowing and=20 harvesting, and the lack of common security against criminals, it can be = extremely difficult for isolated households to survive on their own, = with the=20 result that in some cases they opt to leave and seek refuge in Nepal.[116]

Although depopulation is causing considerable hardship for ethnic = Nepalis in=20 southern Bhutan, the Government's response, through the settlement of = northern=20 Bhutanese in areas formerly inhabited by ethnic Nepalis, is a matter of = some=20 concern, and could have serious implications for any future repatriation = programme. Resettlement does not yet appear to be happening on a large = scale,=20 but there is evidence that resettlement is already taking place in some = parts of=20 southern Bhutan, for example in Samdrup Jongkhar district. There have = also been=20 reports that land in Samdrup Jongkhar, Chirang and Samchi districts, = left vacant=20 by ethnic Nepalis who have sought refuge in Nepal, is being made = available to=20 northern Bhutanese at very low prices.[117] The statement by the Home Minister in the = 1993 session=20 of the National Assembly, when he confirmed that a nationwide survey of = suitable=20 land for resettlement of landless people was then in progress,[118] indicates that the Government plans to = increase the=20 rate of resettlement.

5.3 Denial of Public Services

A number of other government initiatives that discriminate against = ethnic=20 Nepali southern Bhutanese have created additional hardship for them = since the=20 1990 demonstrations. Many of these are still in operation today.

One of the most controversial of these initiatives was the = introduction of=20 "No Objection Certificates" (NOCs), documents issued by the police which = confirm=20 that the bearer has no involvement in "anti-national activity". = Following the=20 unrest in the south of the country prompted by the census operation and = the=20 Government's "Bhutanization" policies, possession of an NOC became = mandatory for=20 ethnic Nepalis who wished to gain admission to schools, be eligible for=20 scholarships to study outside Bhutan, get jobs in the civil service and = places=20 on training courses, as well as in order to obtain business and trading = licenses=20 and travel documents. Farmers also required an NOC in order to access = their=20 earnings from cash crops, the sale of which is government controlled.[119] Refugees report that it was virtually = impossible for=20 ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese to obtain NOCs.[120]

The Government claims that, on command of the King, the NOC = requirement for=20 school admissions was dropped in 1992.[121] However the NOC is still reported to be = required for=20 ethnic Nepalis seeking government employment and training, or to travel=20 abroad.[122] Ethnic Nepalis are also said to be denied = the=20 necessary documents to enable them to travel within the country, thereby = denying=20 them educational and employment opportunities.[123]

It is unclear to what extent public services in the south of the = country,=20 many of which were suspended in the wake of the 1990 demonstrations, = have been=20 restored as Government statistics on this are challenged by refugee = groups. For=20 example, as of mid-1993 the Government claimed that sixty-four schools = had been=20 reopened,[124] but refugee sources claim that only = twenty-four=20 schools were then in operation. According to these sources, of the = twenty-four,=20 nine are in parts of the south without ethnic Nepali populations, while=20 admission to the remainder is said to be restricted to children of = members of=20 the security forces, government officials, etc.[125]

6. NEPAL-BHUTAN TALKS

Talks between the governments of Bhutan and Nepal on the refugee = issue have=20 been continuing since November 1992, although progress has been slow and = the=20 signs are that it has by and large been Nepal that has made the = concessions=20 necessary to keep the talks going. The first major breakthrough in the = talks=20 occurred in July 1993 when a joint statement was signed announcing the = formation=20 of a six-member Joint Ministerial Level Committee. The joint statement = gave the=20 Committee the mandate to "determine the different categories of people = in the=20 refugee camps who are claiming to have come from Bhutan" and "to arrive = at a=20 mutually acceptable agreement on each category, which will provide a = basis for=20 the resolution of the problem".[126] It took a further two months before the = committee=20 members were announced.

Progress since then has been disappointing. The first meeting of the=20 Bhutan-Nepal Joint Ministerial Level Committee, headed by the home = ministers=20 from both countries, took place in Kathmandu in October 1993. At the = meeting the=20 two sides agreed that all the people in the refugee camps in Nepal would = be=20 grouped into one of four categories. Since then there have been three = more joint=20 ministerial meetings (in February, April and June 1994) but little = concrete=20 progress has been made. The Government of Bhutan has refused to agree to = Nepal's=20 proposal that an independent panel be set up to categorise the refugees, = and=20 instead a bilateral joint verification team is to be established. As = yet,=20 however, no agreement has been reached about the criteria that will be = used to=20 categorise the refugees, and the fifth meeting, scheduled for September = 1994,=20 was postponed because of general elections in Nepal held in = November.

A sixth meeting of bilateral talks which was held in April 1995 = concluded=20 without an agreed date for the next meeting.

The four categories of refugees that have been agreed are:

1. Bonafide = Bhutanese, if=20 they have been evicted forcefully

2. Bhutanese who=20 emigrated

3. Non-Bhutanese

4. Bhutanese who have = committed criminal acts

Refugee groups and human rights organizations have expressed serious=20 reservations about the agreement on categorization that has been reached = between=20 the two governments and about the methods that appear likely to be used = to=20 implement it.[127] If eligibility for return is based on = Bhutanese=20 citizenship laws (and the nature of the four categories clearly implies = that=20 this is so) this will certainly raise serious problems, not least = because some=20 of the provisions contained in Bhutan's citizenship laws conflict with=20 international law. Therefore, if Bhutan's domestic laws are used to = define=20 eligibility, they are likely to result in people who are entitled under=20 international law to return to their own country (for example, those who = signed=20 "voluntary migration forms" and so-called "anti-nationals", who would = presumably=20 be placed in category 2 and category 4, respectively) finding themselves = denied=20 citizenship and therefore the right to return. Clarification of the = criteria to=20 be used to classify refugees into the four groups must therefore be = sought at=20 the earliest opportunity.

Even as far as category 1 is concerned, there is no clarity about the = criteria that will be used to determine who will be defined as belonging = to this=20 category. If the criteria are the same as those used during the census = operation=20 to define citizenship then all the problems associated with that will = arise=20 again. Indeed the difficulties will be compounded for refugees, many of = whom=20 have had what documentation they possessed confiscated prior to leaving = the=20 country.

Finally, if Bhutanese law is used to determine eligibility for return = to=20 Bhutan a crucial question that needs to be addressed is what will happen = to=20 ethnic Nepali southern Bhutanese who are denied the right to return and = who will=20 have no claim to nationality or right to live in any other country. = There is=20 thus a very real danger that the process as it now stands is likely to = result in=20 a large number of refugees being rendered stateless.

7. CONCLUSION

The slow pace of progress of the Nepal-Bhutan government talks means = that=20 there is still some way to go before an end to the refugee crisis will = be in=20 sight. However, the situation as it stands leaves considerable room for = an=20 unsatisfactory resolution to the crisis unless certain key issues are=20 addressed.

First, as far as the refugees in Nepal are concerned, the priority = must be to=20 clarify the categorization process agreed by the Bhutan and Nepal = governments=20 before any screening of refugees begins, and to ensure that eligibility = will be=20 defined according to international law and not simply in accordance with = Bhutanese domestic legislation. However, for as long as talks continue = on a=20 bilateral basis only, it is questionable whether this will be achieved. = Bhutan=20 seems to be under no great pressure, and is therefore in no great rush, = to=20 resolve the matter, while Nepal would no doubt like to see the refugee = crisis=20 resolved as soon as possible.

If a third party were introduced into the equation, there is a chance = that=20 further backsliding could be avoided and a fair and safe resolution to = the=20 crisis could be achieved. The Government of Nepal has, since talks with = Bhutan=20 on the matter began, indicated that it would seek India's good offices = to=20 resolve the issue in the event that Nepal and Bhutan were unable to = resolve the=20 matter bilaterally, and this was reiterated in October 1994 by the then- = prime=20 minister (of Nepal) Girija Prasad Koirala. Most observers argue that = India holds=20 the key to the solution of the crisis and that its considerable = influence over=20 both Bhutan and Nepal can be used to press for progress to be made. = However, it=20 does not appear that India is prepared to get involved, and indeed it = has=20 repeatedly stressed that it regards the issue as a bilateral one, to be = sorted=20 out by the governments of Bhutan and Nepal. A solution to the issue at = hand may=20 thus be to engage the involvement of either a third government to act as = arbiter, or an independent third party to act as intermediary.

Even if this were to occur, and in the event that a determination = process=20 gets under way that accords with international law, the matter of the = human=20 rights situation in Bhutan still needs to be resolved. From the evidence = of=20 refugees arriving in the camps it is clear that the persecution of = ethnic=20 Nepalis by the Bhutanese authorities continues. Before any of the = refugees are=20 repatriated it seems imperative that the Government of Bhutan undertakes = to end=20 state-sanctioned persecution and to offer guarantees for the safety and = security=20 of returning refugees and of ethnic Nepalis who remain in the country. = Before=20 repatriation begins the problems associated with the on-going census = operation=20 should also be addressed, and there should be an immediate halt to = continuing=20 forcible eviction of ethnic Nepalis. The resettlement of northern = Bhutanese in=20 areas formerly inhabited by the refugees should also cease.

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

AHURA (Association of Human Rights Activists, Bhutan). =	Bhutan: A Shangri-la Without Human Rights. Jhapa = [Nepal], June=20 1993
Amnesty International.	Bhutan: Human Rights Violations against the Nepali-speaking = Population in the South. AI Index: ASA 14/04/92. London, = December=20 1992
Amnesty International.	Bhutan: Appeal for the Release of Tek Nath Rizal. AI = Index:=20 ASA 14/02/94. London,
March 1994
Amnesty International.	Report 1994. London, 1994
Amnesty International.	Bhutan: Forcible Exile. AI Index: ASA 14/04/94. = London, August=20 1994
Aziz-al Ahsan, Syed and Chakma, Bhumitra.	"Bhutan's Foreign Policy: Cautious Self-Assertion, Asian=20 Survey, vol. XXXIII, no. 11 (November 1993)
Bhutan Department of Information.	Anti-National Activities in Southern Bhutan: An Update on = the=20 Terrorist Movement. Thimphu [Bhutan], 12 August = 1992
Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs.	The Southern Bhutan Problem: Threat to a Nation's = Survival.=20 Thimphu [Bhutan], May 1993
The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, Nepal],	"Schools Reopened in Southern Bhutan?". May 1993
The Bhutan Review Monthly,	"Build-Up to the 73rd Session of the National Assembly". August = 1994
The Bhutan Review Monthly,	"'Amnesty' to Prisoners". September 1994
Dhakal, D.N.S., and Strawn, C.	Bhutan: A Movement in Exile. Jaipur: Nirala = Publications,=20 1994
Dubble, C.	Survey of Victims of Violence in the Bhutanese Refugee = Camps in=20 Eastern Nepal (May-July 1993). N.p., July 1993
Far East and Australasia 1994,	Europa Publications Ltd
HUROB (Human Rights Organization of Bhutan).	Annual Report 1992. Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December=20 1992
HUROB.	Annual Report 1993. Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December=20 1993
HUROB.	Letters to the author, 27 August 1994 and 5 October = 1994
Hutt, M.	"Bhutan's Crisis of Identity" in The World Book Year = Book.=20 London. 1994
Hutt, M.	"Refugees from Shangri-la" in Index on Censorship, = vol. 22,=20 no. 4, (April 1993)
INHURED (International Institute for Human Rights Environment = and=20 Development).	Bhutan: An Iron Path to Democracy. Kathmandu, January=20 1992
INHURED.	Bhutanese Refugees: Destitutes without Destination. A = Documentation=20 of Human Rights Violations in the Kingdom of Bhutan. = Kathmandu,=20 February 1993
The Kathmandu Post.	"Bhutanese Refugees: One Year of Talks". 30 April = 1994
Kuensel [Thimpu],	National Assembly Supplement, "The Proceedings and Resolutions = of the=20 72nd Session of the National Assembly (8-30 July 1993), 7 August=20 1993
Parmanand.	The Politics of Bhutan: Retrospect and Prospect. = Delhi:=20 Pragati Publications, 1992
SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation). =	The Bhutan Tragedy When Will It End?. Kathmandu, May=20 1992
Thronson, D. B.	Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct National Identity and the = Refugees=20 from Southern Bhutan. Kathmandu: INHURED, August = 1993
UN Commission on Human Rights.	Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan=20 (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994
U.S. Department of State.	Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993: = Bhutan.=20 Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic = format].

The views expressed in the papers are those of the authors and are = not=20 necessarily those of UNHCR.

[1]Although the flow of refugees has diminished = considerably=20 since 1993, the slow but steady trickle of ethnic Nepalis into Nepal, = and the=20 testimonies they provide, are evidence that they continue to face = persecution in=20 Bhutan, albeit the methods have changed.

[2]Far East and Australasia 1994, Europa Publications = Ltd, p.=20 134.

[3]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement = in=20 Exile, (New Delhi, 1994), p. 88

[4]According to the Bhutanese newspaper, = Kuensel, 28=20 September 1991, quoted in D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, p. 88

[5]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement = in=20 Exile, p. 93

[6]U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on = Human Rights=20 Practices for 1993, Bhutan. Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic = format]

[7]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la' in Index on=20 Censorship [London] (April 1994), p. 11

[8]Parmanand, The Politics of Bhutan: Retrospect = and=20 Prospect, (Delhi: Pragati Publications, 1992), pp. 60-61, citing=20 Sunday [Calcutta], 'The People will Decide: King Jigme Singye = Wangchuck=20 on the future of Bhutan', 28 October 1990

[9]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A Movement = in=20 Exile, p. 99, citing Dorji, Rigzin. 1989. A Brief Religious, = Cultural and=20 Secular History of Bhutan. Asia Society Galleries: New York, p. 13

[10]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, p. 98

[11]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, p. 100 quoting Parmanand, p. 54

[12]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group = on=20 Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). = Geneva, 16=20 December 1994, paragraph 10

[13]Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs, The Southern = Bhutan=20 Problem: Threat to a Nation's Survival, (Thimphu [Bhutan], May = 1993), p.=20 20

[14]Ibid.

[15]Parmanand, The Politics of Bhutan: Retrospect = and=20 Prospect, p. 60

[16]UNHCR/CDR Legal Databases, April 1995

[17]UNHCR/CDR Legal Databases, April 1995

[18]U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on = Human=20 Rights Practices for 1993, Bhutan. Washington D.C., 1994 = [electronic=20 format]

[19]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group = on=20 Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). = Geneva, 16=20 December 1994, paragraph 14(a)

[20]Ibid, paragraph 14(b)

[21]Bhutan Department of Information, = Anti-National=20 Activities in Southern Bhutan: An Update on the Terrorist Movement, = p. 43.=20 These figures do not tally with those given in the report of the Working = Group=20 on Arbitrary Detention which states that the high court consists of six = judges.=20 See UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on Arbitrary = Detention.=20 Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 December 1994, = paragraph=20 14(c)

[22]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group = on=20 Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). = Geneva, 16=20 December 1994, paragraph 14(c)

[23]ibid., paragraph 27

[24]Ibid, paragraph 8

[25]The text of the Nationality Law of Bhutan, 1958, = is=20 reproduced from the text as it appears in Bhutan Ministry of Home = Affairs.=20 The Southern Bhutan Problem, Appendix Two. References are to = numbered=20 paragraphs (articles) in this text.

[26]Ibid.

[27]Ibid.

[28]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct = National=20 Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED = International, August 1993), pp. 14-15

[29]The text of the Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1977, is = reproduced=20 from the text as it appears in Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs. The = Southern=20 Bhutan Problem, Appendix Two. References are to numbered paragraphs = within=20 sections identified by letter combinations (KA, KHA etc.). Conditions = Required=20 for the Grant of Citizenship, KA 1".

[30]Conditions Required for the Grant of Citizenship, = KA 2.

[31]Procedure for Acquisition of Citizenship, CHA 1 = and 2.

[32]Procedure for Acquisition of Citizenship, = CHA2.

[33]Procedure for Acquisition of Citizenship, CHA = 1.

[34]Conditions Required for the Grant of Citizenship, = KA 3.

[35]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, pp. 172-173

[36]Penalty for Violation of Rules, TA 1

[37]Penalty for Violation of Rules, TA2

[38]HUROB (Human Rights Organization of Bhutan), = Annual=20 Report 1992 (Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December 1992), p. 2

[39]The text of the Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1985, is = reproduced=20 from the text as it appears in Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs. The = Southern=20 Bhutan Problem, Appendix Two. References are to numbered sections=20 (articles) in this text.

[40]The Bhutan Marriage Act, 1980, Kha 2-10. = References in this=20 section are to numbered paragraphs (Kha 2-1 etc.), of the text of the = Act as=20 reproduced in D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing, Appendix 2. = Thronson=20 notes that this text is reproduced from SAARC, The Bhutan Tragedy. = When Will=20 It End? and is not an official translation by the Bhutanese = Government.=20

[41]Ibid.,Kha 2-1

[42]Ibid.,Kha 2-7

[43]Ibid.,Kha 2-4, Kha 2-5

[44]Ibid.,Kha 2-6

[45]Ibid.,Kha 2-8

[46]INHURED (International Institute for Human Rights=20 Environment and Development), Bhutan: An Iron Path to = Democracy,=20 (Kathmandu, January 1992), p. 9

[47]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, (New Delhi, 1994), pp. 44 and 49

[48]M. Hutt, 'Bhutan's Crisis of Identity', = in The=20 World Book Year Book, (London, 1994), pp. 65-66

[49]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, p. 48

[50]M.Hutt, 'Bhutan's Crisis of Identity', p. 66

[51]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 11

[52] Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs. The Southern = Bhutan=20 Problem, p. 3

[53]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A distinct = National=20 Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED = International, August 1993), p. 7

[54]Dawa Tsering, Bhutan's Foreign Minister, quoted in = Himal, July/August 1994, p. 22

[55]Ibid.

[56]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, p. 143

[57]Ibid, p. 151, citing Sinha, 1991, p. = 223

[58]Ibid, p. 152

[59]Syed Aziz-al Ahsan and Bhumitra Chakma, 'Bhutan's = Foreign=20 Policy: Cautious Self-Assertion', Asian Survey, vol. XXXIII, = no. 11,=20 (November 1993), p. 1050, citing Kuensel, National Assembly = Supplement,=20 2 November 1991, pp. 9-11

[60] Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights = Violations=20 Against the Nepali-Speaking Population in the South, According to = Amnesty=20 International, this category has been phased out and the people = originally=20 placed in this category have been allocated to others, London, December = 1992, p.=20 6

[61]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, p. 193

[62]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct = National=20 Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED = International, August 1993), p. 16

[63]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, pp. 193-194

[64] D.B.Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct = National=20 Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED = International, August 1993), p. 18

[65]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, pp. 192

[66]INHURED, Bhutan: An Iron Path to = Democracy, p.=20 4

[67]SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional = Cooperation),=20 The Bhutan Tragedy. When Will It End?, p. 9

[68]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, p. 193

[69]SAARC, The Bhutan Tragedy. When Will It = End?, p.=20 9

[70]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la, p. 10

[71]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible = Exile,=20 London, August 1994, p. 7

[72]AHURA (Association of Human Rights Activists, = Bhutan),=20 Bhutan: A Shangri-la Without Human Rights. (Jhapa [Nepal], June = 1993),=20 p. 24, citing Petition to the King of Bhutan, 9 April 1988

[73]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct = National=20 Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED = International, August 1993), p. 18

[74]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible = Exile, p.=20 7

[75]HUROB (Human Rights Organization of Bhutan), = Annual=20 Report 1993, (Lalitpur [Nepal], 10 December 1993), p. 9

[76]Kuensel [Thimpu], National Assembly Supplement, = 'The=20 Proceedings and Resolutions of the 72nd Session of the National Assembly = (8-30=20 July 1993), 7 August 1993, p. 8

[77]M. Hutt, 'Bhutan's Crisis of Identity', p. 69

[78]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct = National=20 Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED = International, August 1993), p. 20

[79]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on = Human Rights=20 Practices for 1993: Bhutan, Washington D.C., 1994 [electronic = format]

[80]Ibid.

[81]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 10

[82]Amnesty International believes Tek Nath Rizal to = be a=20 prisoner of conscience held for the peaceful exercise of his right to = freedom of=20 expression and association. For further information see Amnesty = International,=20 Bhutan: Appeal for the Release of Tek Nath Rizal, London, March = 1994

[83]The formation of the PFHR was followed in June = 1990 by the=20 establishment of the Bhutan People's Party (BPP) and, in February 1992, = the=20 Bhutan National Democratic Party (BNDP), which was led by former = government=20 officials. Both the BPP and the BNDP have been labelled by the = Government as=20 "anti-national organizations" aimed at achieving the political = domination of the=20 country by ethnic Nepalis, and they are not allowed to function in = Bhutan. Both=20 parties advocate a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary = democracy and=20 claim wide support in the south of the country. The most recently formed = political party, the Druk National Congress, was founded in Nepal in = June 1994.=20 It is unusual in that its membership is made up of northern Bhutanese. =

[84]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights=20 Violations, pp. 10-11

[85]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing: A Distinct = National=20 Identity and the Refugees from Southern Bhutan, (Kathmandu: INHURED = International, August 1993), p. 26

[86]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 12

[87]Ibid, p. 13

[88]U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on = Human=20 Rights Practices for 1993, Bhutan. Washington D.C., 1994 = [electronic=20 format]

[89]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights=20 Violations, pp. 10-11

[90]A "Summary of Terrorist Activities" updated as of = 17 October=20 1994, was given to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention by the = Government of=20 Bhutan. See UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group on = Arbitrary=20 Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). Geneva, 16 = December=20 1994, Annex 1

[91]Bhutan Ministry of Home Affairs, The Southern = Bhutan=20 Problem, p. 10

[92]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on = Human Rights=20 Practices for 1993, Bhutan, [electronic format]

[93]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights=20 Violations, pp. 13-14

[94]D.N.S. Dhakal and C. Strawn, Bhutan: A = Movement in=20 Exile, p. 259

[95]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights=20 Violations, p. 21

[96]C. Dubble, Survey of Victims of Violence in = the=20 Bhutanese Refugee Camps in Eastern Nepal (May-July 1993), (n.p., = July=20 1993), pp. 7-12

[97]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible = Exile, p.=20 3

[98]C. Dubble, Survey of Victims of Violence, = pp.=20 7-12

[99]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human Rights=20 Violations, p. 19

[100]Amnesty International, Report 1994, = London, 1994,=20 p. 74

[101]The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, = Nepal],=20 '"Amnesty" to Prisoners', September 1994, p. 1

[102]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on = Human=20 Rights Practices for 1993: Bhutan, [electronic format].

[103]UN Commission on Human Rights. Working Group = on=20 Arbitrary Detention. Visit to Bhutan (E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3). = Geneva, 16=20 December 1994, paragraph 20

[104]Ibid., paragraph 21

[105]M. Hutt, 'Refugees from Shangri-la', p. 14, = citing=20 Kuensel [Thimpu], 30 November 1992

[106]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible = Exile,=20 pp. 9-11

[107]HUROB, Annual Report 1993, p. 9

[108]U.S Department of State, Country Reports on = Human=20 Rights Practices for 1993: Bhutan, [electronic format]

[109]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible = Exile, p.=20 3

[110]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing, p. = 33

[111]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible = Exile, p.=20 15

[112] Ibid., p. 13

[113]Ibid., p. 15 and HUROB, Letter to the = author, 27=20 August 1994

[114]Amnesty International, Bhutan: Forcible = Exile, p.=20 7

[115]HUROB, Annual Report 1993, p. 9

[116]HUROB, Letter to the author, 27 August 1994

[117]HUROB, Letter to the author, 5 October 1994

[118]Kuensel [Thimpu, Bhutan], National = Assembly=20 Supplement, 7 August 1993, pp. 17-18

[119]HUROB, Annual Report 1992, p. 14

[120]D.B. Thronson, Cultural Cleansing, p. = 24

[121]Kuensel [Thimpu, Bhutan], National = Assembly=20 Supplement, 7 August 1993, p. 7

[122]HUROB, Letter to author, 27 August, 1994

[123]The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, = Nepal],=20 'Build-Up to the 73rd Session of the National Assembly', August 1994, p. = 4

[124]Kuensel [Thimpu, Bhutan], National = Assembly=20 Supplement, 7 August 1993, p. 7

[125]The Bhutan Review Monthly [Lalitpur, = Nepal]=20 'Schools Reopened in Southern Bhutan?', p. 4

[126]The Kathmandu Post, 'Bhutanese = Refugees: One Year=20 of Talks', 30 April 1994

[127]

Topics: Ethnic persecution, Ethnic discrimination, = Mass exodus,=20

Regions

=20

Countries

Countries