|
This report can be found at
Amnesty International's following website:
Amnesty
International's Website Links
Printer
friendly PDF format
______________________________________________
amnesty
international
______________________________________________
BHUTAN
Ten
years later and still waiting
to go home
The case of the refugees
September 2002
AI-index: ASA 14/001/2002
01/09/2002
Distr:
SC/CO
INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT: 1 EASTON STREET,
LONDON WC1X 0DW UNITED KINGDOM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
1. Forced exile 1
2. The experiences
of Aita Singh Gurung and his families
3
3. The experiences
of Ganga Adhikari and her family
4
4. Bilateral talks
between Bhutan and Nepal
6
5. Remaining
obstacles
7
5.1 Categorization 8
5.2 Harmonization 8
5.3 Repatriation 9
6. Reintegration
9
7. Bhutans
obligations under international treaties
12
8. Conclusions and
recommendations
12
I see Bhutan in my dreams. There I am working in the paddy fields
and looking after the cows.
We were very sad when my father was made to sign the Voluntary
Migration Form. The official said we would have to leave
Bhutan within fifteen days. We sold our cows, goats and sheep
and came to Nepal. All we brought were four boxes, mattresses,
clothes, three pots and some other utensils. When we arrived
we were given rations and plastic [sheeting] by an agency. My
house in Bhutan is now covered by jungle. Nothing in the world
can erase my sweet dream to go back to my motherland, Bhutan.
I hope one day I will go back to my country.
Aita Singh Gurung (who describes one of his dreams above),
Ganga Adhikari (see below) and tens of thousands of other
members of the ethnic Nepali community in southern Bhutan have
been living in refugee camps in eastern Nepal for the last ten
years.(1) As someone born in Bhutan who left at the age of 12
in 1992, he is at risk of statelessness. Under Article 7 of
the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC), to which Bhutan became a party in 1990, children have
the right from birth to acquire a nationality and states have
to ensure the implementation of this right "in particular
where the child would otherwise be stateless".
This document describes the experiences of Aita Singh Gurung
and Ganga Adhikari as illustrations of the problems facing the
people in the refugee camps. They are waiting for the
governments of Bhutan and Nepal to come to an agreement on
their right to return to Bhutan. But ten years after they
first arrived at the refugee camps, there is little prospect
of an early return.
1. Forced exile
The practice of forced exile took place in the context of
opposition by the Nepali-speaking population in the south of
Bhutan against the governments policy of national integration.
This policy was based on the northern Bhutanese traditions and
culture, and the application of the 1985 Citizenship Act,
which makes provision for the deprivation of nationality in
circumstances which Amnesty International considers to be
arbitrary. Particularly in the period after demonstrations
against the governments new policies in September 1990, the
Nepali-speaking community was labelled as anti-national and
its members were forced to leave the country, by various
means. These included coercing them into applying for
voluntary migration or by arresting community leaders and
releasing them on condition that they and their family left
the country.(2) While the government maintains that people
left voluntarily, the refugee community insists that people
were compelled to leave by physical abuse, coercion, threats,
harassment and intimidation. Amnesty International estimates
that people who were put under pressure to sign Voluntary
Migration Forms (VMFs) form the majority of the people in the
refugee camps.
2. The experiences of Aita Singh Gurung and his families
Aita Singh Gurung and his family have been living in Beldangi
camp, one of the seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal run by
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
together with a total of about 100,000 other people, the large
majority of whom arrived in 1992. According to the Bhutanese
government most of the people in the refugee camps are not
Bhutanese nationals and those who had Bhutanese nationality
are deemed to have relinquished it on the basis of provisions
in the Bhutanese laws saying that those who leave the country
voluntarily lose their right to Bhutanese nationality.
However, most families who have left Bhutan claim that they
were put under pressure by the authorities to apply for
voluntary migration.
According to Aita Singh Gurung, the army came to their home at
Taklai in Sarbhang district one afternoon, just as the family
was returning home from shopping in the nearby town of
Geylegphug. They questioned his mother claiming there were
weapons and documents criticizing the government hidden in the
house. They searched the house and left after some time,
having found nothing of interest.
Around the same time, the Dungpa (sub-district officer)
of Geylegphug, Dungpa Chhimi Dorji was killed at Taklai.
A former Dungpa of Samchi district then took over in
Geylegphug sub-district office. Soon after he took office, he
reportedly called meetings at village level where he accused
the villagers of being involved in the killing of his
predecessor. He stated that he would avenge this death. He
also reportedly said that all the people in the area had to
leave the country and that anyone not complying with his
orders would be imprisoned.
After this, the security officials regularly visited all homes
in the area, telling the families to go to Dungpa's
office to apply for voluntary migration. Relenting to this
pressure, Aita Singh Gurungs father, Bhakta Bahadur Gurung,
went to the sub-district office to meet the Dungpa on
29 June 1992. He requested to be allowed to stay. But the
Dungpa ordered him to fill in a VMF immediately and submit
it to him. Aita's father felt he had no other alternative but
to submit the VMF.
The Dungpa instructed him to return to the office the
next day to calculate the amount of compensation money owed to
the family. However, Aitas father did not do so. Then the
Karbari (village headman) informed him that the Dungpa
had sent instructions to bring Bhakta Bahadur Gurung to the
office with all the documents his family possessed. They
reported to the Dungpa as ordered. Bhakta Bahadur
Gurung submitted all the identity cards and most of the land
tax receipts except Aita's mother's identity card and a few
land tax receipts claiming that those papers had been lost.
The officials then calculated that the amount of compensation
owed to him for his land and house was Ngultrum 11,000
(approximately $225). Because Aita's mother's identity card
was missing, the Dungpa ordered that Ngultrum 1,000 had
to be deducted from the compensation money as a fine for
losing the identity card. At the time Ngultrum 10,000
compensation money was handed over to the family, a government
official reportedly took photographs.
The family left their village on 14 July 1992. They travelled
to the nearby town of Geylegphug and stayed there for five
days while arranging for transportation to travel to the
refugee camps in Nepal. On 19 July 1992 they left Bhutan.
Photo caption: Aita Singh standing in front of one of his
paintings © Rose Class / Photovoice
3. The experiences of Ganga Adhikari and her family
Ganga Adhikari, who was seven years old at the time, also left
Bhutan in 1992. Her eldest brother, Dilliram Adhikari, was
serving as a village representative in Danabari, Sarbhang
district. He was reportedly involved in organizing the
demonstrations in September 1990.
In late 1991, the army frequently conducted raids in the
surrounding villages apparently to pressurize people to leave
the country accusing them of being anti-nationals. On 3
November 1991 several dozen army personnel came to the family
home and took away Dilliram Adhikari. Similarly several other
young people from the area were rounded up. They were taken to
the Mau river bank by evening. According to Dilliram Adhikari,
the army asked all those rounded up to promise that they would
leave the country with all the members of their families. The
security officials sought verbal agreement from each person
that they would leave the country voluntarily by applying for
migration with the local administration. Anyone who declined
to give such assurance was severely beaten and a few were
taken away to prison. When he initially declined to give such
assurance, Dilliram Adhikari was beaten. However like most of
the people, he eventually promised and was subsequently
allowed to go back home late that evening.
The army then visited the family home regularly asking for
Dilliram who often avoided staying at home. The security
forces threatened his family members. They told the father to
bring Dilliram and get him to apply for voluntary migration or
apply himself. The district administration officer of Sarbhang
also sent a similar message and promised people they would be
offered good compensation for their property. Amid the
increasing pressure and harassment by the security forces,
Dilliram Adhikari made an application for voluntary migration
sometime in June 1992.
On 7 July 1992 Diliram Adhikari and his family moved to nearby
Geylegphug town. On 10 July 1992 the Dungpa called the
head of the family to his office requiring him to bring all
the family papers in order to settle the compensation. After
he handed over their documents (identity cards and a few land
tax receipts), he was told to return the next day to receive
the compensation money. But when the family went the following
day, they were told that as King Jigme Singye Wangchuk was
visiting the area soon, they had to wait for his visit to
receive the compensation money.
The King visited Geylegphug on 14 July 1992. During a mass
meeting, many villagers appealed to him to take action against
the local administration and the security people who were
forcing them to leave the country. They emphasized that they
did not wish to leave. But as soon as the King left the town,
the local administration and the security officials
intensified their harassment and told all the families to
leave the country immediately. The family of Ganga Adhikari
and a few other families, despite trying for two days, were
denied any compensation apparently because they were suspected
of having incited people to oppose the voluntary migration.
Ganga Adhikari and her family left Bhutan on 17 July 1992 and
arrived in Goldhap refugee camp on 18 July 1992. After about
six months, they were transferred to the refugee camp at
Beldangi Extension, where they still live to this day.
Both these children have grown up in the refugee camps. Aita
Singh Gurung, now 22 years old, joined the Rose Class project,
a photography, arts and writing project set up by Photovoice
in 1998.(3) The project aims to provide the young population
in the refugee camps with concrete skills and a means of
creativity and self-expression. Aita Singh Gurung has proved a
talented artist. Ganga Adhikari, who is now 17, joined the
Bhutanese Refugee Childrens Forum originally set up in the
refugee camps by Save the Children (UK). She was selected to
attend the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children in
May 2002 in New York. There she met with, among others, the UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees. She explained to them that like
tens of thousands of other children in the refugee camps in
Nepal, unless Bhutan allows her and her family to return, she
will be stateless.
4. Bilateral talks between Bhutan and Nepal
In November 1992, Bhutan and Nepal began negotiations
regarding the return of the people in the refugee camps to
Bhutan. Since then, eleven ministerial-level meetings,
so-called Joint-Ministerial Committee (JMC) meetings, have
taken place.
At the first JMC meeting in October 1993, both sides agreed
four categories into which the people in the refugee camps
would be classified:
1) Bona fide Bhutanese if they have been forcefully
evicted;
2) Bhutanese who emigrated;
3) Non-Bhutanese;
4) Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts.
This classification has subsequently represented a major
obstacle to the return of those in the refugee camps who,
under international law, have the right to return to Bhutan.
By making Bhutans citizenship laws one of the main criteria
for classification of the people in the camps, both
governments have increased the risk of these people becoming
statelessness and being denied the right to enter their own
country.
In December 2000, when both governments at the 10th JMC agreed
to proceed with a verification process , the hopes of the
refugees were raised high. A team of officials from Nepal and
Bhutan (Joint Verification Team, JVT) started verifying the
12,500 people living in Khudunabari camp on 26 March 2001.
Under this verification process, each head of family was
required to complete a form giving details of the family, thus
validating relationships. The verification process proceeded
slowly.
In August 2001, the Foreign Ministers of both countries met
for the 11th time. They agreed to accelerate the verification
process, including by increasing the size of the JVT from six
to 12 members and split into two sub-teams in order to
increase from 10 to 20 per day the number of families
interviewed. In addition, only the head of the family was
required to be interviewed and interviews were made more
structured. In the following months, each side added one
additional member to their delegation. The structure of the
interviews was also modified. This increased the average
number of families interviewed per day from about ten to
sixteen.
On 14 December 2001, the verification process of the 12,500
refugees in Khudunabari camp was finally completed,
representing approximately 12.5 per cent of the total refugee
population in the refugee camps. Observers saw this as a first
step in the direction of an agreement on the categorization of
the people in the refugee camps and the ultimate repatriation
of those found to have the right to return to Bhutan. However,
as time passed, pessimism on the part of the refugees has set
in again, as there have been no moves towards repatriation.
The Bhutanese members of the JVT returned to Bhutan in
December 2001 taking with them the forms filled in by the
people of Khudunabari camp and, as at the time of writing, had
not returned.
Since then, little or no further progress has been reported.
The Foreign Secretaries of both countries met in November 2001
and August 2002 but failed to reach an agreement on the
categorization. A proposal by Nepal to reduce the four
categories to two (Bhutanese and non-Bhutanese) was reportedly
rejected by Bhutan in November 2001.
5. Remaining obstacles
While the start of verification in one of the seven
refugee camps was a welcome development, a calculation of how
long it would require to verify the remaining refugees at the
same pace as in Khudunabari camp comes to approximately six
years. In addition, there remain many obstacles to the return
of the people from southern Bhutan currently living in the
refugee camps.
One of the main hurdles is the fact that both governments have
not agreed how those who have been verified will be classified
into the four categories agreed upon in 1993 and what will
happen to the people in each of the categories (a process
referred to by both governments as harmonization). In
addition, the modalities of repatriation are also still
to be negotiated with the international community.
5.1 Categorization
At the 11th JMC meeting in August 2001, it was agreed that
categorization would be undertaken by the JVT. But there
remained a significant difference between the two sides on how
to categorize those verified. Nepal would like to see the four
categories agreed in 1993 reduced to only two - Bhutanese and
non-Bhutanese. This would mean that three of the four
categories (those forced to leave Bhutan, those who had
migrated, and those who had committed crimes) would return.
Only non-Bhutanese would remain. Bhutan however insisted that
the four agreed categories should be retained.
Amnesty International is concerned that if the categories
agreed upon in October 1993 are used to determine whether a
person may return, guarantees provided under international law
may not be fulfilled. For instance, in relation to category
four (Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts), there is
concern because the concept of "criminal acts" has been left
undefined and because, if it is intended to exclude people in
this category from returning to Bhutan, it clearly contravenes
international law.
The two sides had agreed that there would be an appeal
available to those who disagreed with their categorization. As
yet no mechanism had been established to examine such cases.
There is a need for such an appeal procedure to be set up.
5.2 Harmonization
A crucial decision is what will happen to those families who
can be expected to be classified in Category 2 (Bhutanese who
emigrated), such as the families of Aita Singh Gurung and
Ganga Adhikari. What will be the definition of voluntary used
for the purpose of interpreting who left the country of its
own free will (and thus lost their right to Bhutanese
citizenship, as per the 1985 Citizenship Act). Will a
mechanism be instituted to independently verify the
circumstances prevailing at the time these families left the
country? And, if so, will this mechanism be given a mandate to
refer to current international human rights norms and
practices in its deliberations?
5.3 Repatriation
There was no agreement at the 11th JMC meeting on the
practicalities of repatriation. However the Ministers did
reportedly agree that repatriation from Khudunabari would
commence immediately following verification and
categorization, and before verification began in other camps.
However this remains subject to satisfactory resolution of the
categorization and harmonization issues.
Nepal has stated that it would not force refugees to return to
Bhutan. But little thought has been given to durable solutions
for those refugees that do not qualify for repatriation.
It is not clear whether Bhutan is making arrangements to
resettle those qualifying for repatriation. In the report of
the Minister of Finance to the National Assembly presented in
July 2002, no mention was made of any budget allocation for
the resettlement of the refugees.
It is vital that Nepal and Bhutan lend their attention
immediately to arrangements for those to be repatriated, and
for those to remain in Nepal.
6. Reintegration
The sustainability of repatriation in safety and with dignity
is inextricably linked to the returnees access to a wide range
of human rights on a non-discriminatory basis, such as the
rights to housing, health care, education and work. The people
in the refugee camps are particularly concerned about possible
difficulties they may face on return on the basis of reports
that the remaining ethnic Nepalese in Bhutan are still
discriminated against. The latter are often refused a security
clearance certificate -- a document required to apply for
work, business licenses, travel abroad or access to education
-- on the basis that the applicant had contact with or was
related to anti-nationals living in the refugee camps in
Nepal. They are also concerned about obstacles to repossession
of the homes and land they owned before they left Bhutan,
particularly in light of the Bhutan governments ongoing policy
of resettling landless people from other parts of the country
in the south.
During a visit by an Amnesty International delegation to
Geylegphug and other areas in southern Bhutan in late 1998,
the remaining Nepali-speaking community in the south appeared
alienated from the rest of the population. Amnesty
International urged the government to open up a dialogue with
the remnant Nepali community to lay the groundwork for return
of the refugees and long-term reconciliation and
reintegration.
A visit to a resettlement scheme in progress found a few
positive signs of a community trying to rebuild amid the
northerners and easterners being resettled there. Amnesty
International urged that the resettlement of landless people
from other parts of the country be carried out in such a way
that it would not further complicate the negotiating process
with Nepal, by jeopardizing the return of people currently in
the refugee camps to land that they may have legitimate claim
to. This concern also arises from Clause 2(4) of the Land Act
which provides that if land not registered in anyones name is
registered by someone under a new land deed and this person
pays tax on and tills the land for five or more than five
years, the latter shall continue to retain the ownership of
the said land even if another person acquires a kasho
(decree) from the King of Bhutan regarding the ownership of
the same land.
There appeared in 1998 to be a lot of confusion surrounding
land title, partly due to the original pattern of illegal land
clearance and partly due to the difficulties of surveying land
that has become heavily revegetated. In 2002, resettlement is
reported to be continuing, including in Sarbhang and Samchi
district.
Photo caption: Team of surveyors measuring up plots of land
for resettlement in 1998, Taklai, Bhutan. © AI
Amnesty International has also been concerned at the
compulsory retirement of civil servants with alleged links to
"anti-nationals" in the refugee camps. These included some
doctors, nurses and teachers. The grounds on which the
retirement orders were made appeared to relate solely to the
fact that the person had relatives living in the refugee
camps; and not to their activities or the sensitivity of the
functions they performed. The government assured Amnesty
International in 1998 that no further retirements were being
considered. Amnesty International urged that people who win
their appeal against the decision be reinstated.
At the time of the Amnesty International visit in 1998, there
was a lot of confusion about the use of security clearance
certificates for entrance to schooling. Different versions
were given by teachers, dzongdhas, parents and others
involved in this process but it was clear that clearance was
asked for in some schools and at some levels. In June 2001,
the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the body of
independent experts monitoring states compliance with the
Convention, examined the initial report of Bhutan under the
CRC. In its final conclusions and observations, the Committee
inter alia expressed concern about the impact on
children of reports of discrimination against individuals
belonging to the Lhotshampas. In particular, it is concerned
about reports that these children face de facto
discrimination in access to education and other services and
on the basis of status, activities, or opinions of their
parents, or relatives. (4)
The Committee recommended that Bhutan
Take effective measures, including enacting or rescinding
legislation where necessary, to prevent and eliminate
discrimination, in accordance with article 2 of the
Convention, in all fields of civil, economic, political,
social and cultural life;
Establish accessible, prompt and effective mechanisms to
monitor, receive and address complaints of discrimination
(e.g. prompt appeal in circumstances of denial of school
enrolment); and
Take all appropriate measures, such as comprehensive public
education campaigns, to prevent and combat negative societal
attitudes towards different ethnic groups.
Amnesty International is urging that clear directives be issued to
all relevant authorities to ensure an end to discrimination in
admission to schools.
It is of paramount importance that the Bhutan government
addresses these issues to ensure the reintegration of the
returnees into Bhutanese society.
7. Bhutan’s obligations under international treaties(5)
Bhutan is party to two international human rights treaties:
the CRC and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women.(6) The CRC in its concluding
observations (paragraph 53) recommended that Bhutan makes
... greater efforts to expedite the verification process and
consider the possibility of repatriating individuals within a
reasonable time following individual verification.
The CRC also recommended that Bhutan considers acceding to the
1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, its
1967 Protocol, and the Convention on Statelessness and in the
best interest of the children, consider seeking assistance
from UNHCR.
In 1988 the UN Sub-Commissions Special Rapporteur on the right
of everyone to leave any country, including his own, and to
return to his own country, stated:
In view of Human Rights Law, denationalization should be abolished.
It constitutes a breach of international obligations, ...
There is also a growing tendency to require the acquisition of
another nationality as a precondition for the validity of
denationalization. The recognition of the right to nationality
as a basic human right, in effect, limits the power and
freedom of a State arbitrarily to deprive its citizens of
nationality (7)
8. Conclusions and recommendations
Despite the fact that ten years have gone by since they left
Bhutan, the plight of the tens of thousands of people in the
refugee camps in eastern Nepal remains very uncertain. Major
obstacles remain to be solved before those who have the right
to return to Bhutan under international law can do so. The key
issues of categorization and harmonization and the modalities
of repatriation remain to be solved. Unless these are solved
soon, many of these people, including thousands of children
such as Aita Singh Gurung and Ganga Adhikari, will be de
facto stateless.
Amnesty International recommends that:
-
Nepal and
Bhutan should consider acceding to the 1951 Geneva
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, its 1967
Protocol, and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness;
Bhutan and Nepal should take all necessary measures to find
an early and constructive solution to the categorization and
harmonization issues;
-
Bhutan should draw on the experience of UNHCR in
facilitating voluntary repatriation of refugees and their
reintegration into Bhutanese society;
-
Nepal should draw on the experience of UNHCR in assuring the
futures of those remaining in Nepal;
-
In order
to protect its citizens from arbitrary deprivation of
nationality in the future, Bhutan should review its
legislation to ensure that it is consistent with fundamental
principles of international law, in particular by
eliminating the provisions in the existing legislation that
permit the renunciation of a nationality without the prior
possession or acquisition of another nationality;
-
Bhutan
should ensure that the resettlement of landless people from
other parts of the country is carried out in such a way that
it will not jeopardize the return of people currently living
in the refugee camps to land that they have legitimate claim
to;
-
The
international community should use its good offices to urge
the governments of Nepal and Bhutan to implement the
recommendations as set out above
.********
(1) These people are also often referred to as Lhotsampas,
literally meaning people from the south.
(2) See Amnesty International report: Bhutan: Forcible exile
(AI Index: ASA 14/04/94) of August 1994 for more details on
the policy and its implementation.
(3) See
http://www.photovoice.org
for more information on the project.
(4) See UN document: CRC/C/15/ADD.157 for full text of the
concluding observations and Comments of the CRC. This document
can be accessed via the following website:
http://www.unhchr.ch.
(5) For more details on applicable international standards,
see Amnesty International report: Nationality, Expulsion,
Statelessness and the Right to Return (AI Index: ASA 14/01/00)
of September 2000.
(6) In addition, Bhutan has signed but not yet ratified the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. However, their signature is a statement of
intent and they should uphold the provision of the treaty
prior to ratification.
(7) See UN Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/35, para.107.
Amnesty International's Website Links
Printer
friendly PDF format
|
