Update on April 16,  2004

 For MJC press Release please click on MJC Press

Fourteenth MJC Meeting:   The fourteenth round of  Nepal Bhutan Ministerial Joint Committee (MJC) Meeting  was held in Kathmandu, Nepal on May  19-22, 2003.  It was scheduled to announce the result of nearly 12,000 verified refugees of Khudunabari camp, withheld the results. This meeting   expected to  offer a breakthrough in the resolution of Bhutanese refugee imbroglio, instead,  yielded  enormous legal implication of international and regional dimension. The refugee issue has now been engulfed into a very deep regional complexities after this meeting. If Khudunabari result is any  barometer for  the dignified return of 110,000 Bhutanese refugees, then  95% of  refugees will be turned into a state of  perpetual statelessness, even if repatriated. The MJC finally agreed on their joint stand on  four categories and issued a statement on Agreed Position on the Four Categories (APFC). Please read original  official Press Release and APFC document.

Nepalese delegation was led by Foreign Minister Mr. Narendra Bikram Shah and Bhutanese delegation by Bhutanese Foreign Minister Lyonpo Jigmi Y. Thinlay.

The Nepal-Bhutan Joint Verification Team ( JVT) formed to verify the documents of refugees and to interview them  started the work on March 26, 2001, and  completed  the verification work on December 15, 2001. Following, this there was a hiatus of  two years until the  12^th MJC meeting  held on  February 06, 2003, directed the JVT to undertake the categorization of the verified refugees. Thus, the JVT completed the categorization of 70 percent of  verified refugees by the first week of May 2003,  and the rest unresolved cases were  left for the  MJC  to decide  through political decision. It submitted the report to the MJC, which adopted the report  of the JVT and considered and categorized the unresolved cases.

The JVT and  MJC applied the APFC to determine the category status of Bhutanese refugees and the repatriation process. The  APFC will be the  main principles and guidelines for categorization and  repatriation process.  The MJC also directed the JVT to undertake the verification and categorization of about 600 absentees ( who were absent during verification) of the Khudunabari Camp within two weeks. Upon its completion, the  JVT will  officially release and make public the results of the completed categories of  Khudunabari Camp. The MJC directed the JVT  to inform   the camp residents  about the terms, procedures and facilities regarding voluntary repatriation/reapplication and similar information for those seeking to remain in Nepal  simultaneously.  The MJC also agreed on the implementation schedule on the outcome of categorization.  A  refugee can appeal against his or his family’s categorization within fifteen days after the release of categorization results. However, ‘appeals will be considered only upon the presentation of new material evidence or determination of clear error in this process’. The MJC decided to hold its  next fifteenth meeting in Thimphu from August 11 to 14, 2003

Bhutan has agreed to take back only category 1 refugees. According to the  media reports,  only 3% (360 persons ) of 12,000 refugees of Khudunabari camp fall under this category and thus, will be qualified to return home as bonafide Bhutanese citizens. Bhutan  has categorized 20% of the refugee  population under the category 3 of non-Bhutanese. What  criteria  were applied to denationalize such a high number of  population as non-Bhutanese. Bhutan wants to arrest the refugees under category 4 of criminal Bhutanese refugees.  Refugees have no faith in Bhutan’s legal and court system. The draconian National Security Act (NSA) and the Law of Thrimsung (Penal code) declare any act of  "making conversation and correspondence" criticizing the king and his government by citizens as a treasonable offence. The dissidents’ activism and their  literature, articles, reports etc. exposing the abuses of human rights by the Royal Government of Bhutan ( RGOB)  are deemed as ‘waging a war against the RGOB’.  These acts are regarded as legitimate conduct in a democratic country like Nepal and India. The case of Tek Nath Rizal is an example. The criminality of refugees’ offence, if any,   must be established in an international tribunal and not in a Bhutanese court. The question of any country handing over this category of refugees does not arise as there is a well-documented case of persecution in Bhutan.

Category2 - Bhutanese who emigrated: This is the most contentious category and deserves  critical  analysis. The APFC statement envisages   that, ‘ … people under this category  and  desiring to return, will be given the option to re-apply for citizenship”. This means that the refugees of  category 2 will have to re-apply for citizenship  under naturalization process  under Article 4  of the draconian  Bhutan Citizenship Act, 1985, as  fresh immigrants, like any other aliens seeking naturalization. This Act envisages, iteralia  that “ a person desiring to apply for Bhutanese citizenship  must have resided in Bhutan for 20 years; the applicant must be able to speak, read and write Dzongkha proficiently; the applicant must have no record of having spoken or acted against the king, country and people of Bhutan in any manner whatsoever’. 

75 % of verified refugees ( 9,000) reportedly fall under this category. The refugees falling under category 2 will have to wait for 20 years in a state of statelessness  to claim Bhutanese citizenship and not in two years as have been made known. Till then they will be deprived of their basic rights as citizens.  The  refugees cannot claim naturalization as a matter of law but as a prerogative of   RGOB  and even after 20 years,  their citizenship status will not be guaranteed. Majority of refugees cannot speak Dzonkha language as a result of their exile. Similarly most refugees have spoken against the king and his government, they have taken part in the rally, demonstration in support of their human rights in and out of Bhutan, which will disqualify them for naturalization even after 20 years and they will face persecution inside Bhutan. Once, inside Bhutan, the RGOB will apply its draconian and discriminatory   laws against them and  no one can protect their  citizenship and human rights. So this agreed position is not feasible or viable for the realistic resolution of refugee issue. The criteria adopted to bring about 75% of refugees under this category is questionable and not acceptable to  the refugees. They were forcefully driven away from their homes and as such should be placed under category one. Why should Bhutanese people migrate voluntarily  to a poor country like Nepal, when Bhutan had/has better living conditions and better economic opportunities. Normally emigration is towards the rich  from the poor countries.

The APFC (d) states  that people under this category, not wishing to return to Bhutan, will be given the option to apply for Nepalese citizenship.  This is the most contentious clause in the agreement, and a  deliberate provision kept at the insistence of Bhutan to discourage the return of  majority of  refugees to Bhutan.  The Lhotshampa refugees  were driven from their homes as a result of  their human rights abuses by the RGOB. Persecution, indiscriminate arrest,  torture, killings discrimination and the reprehensible practice of ‘ethnic cleansing’ generated the  flow of Bhutanese refugees. The issue of human rights and the problems of refugees are inextricably linked. The conditions back in Bhutan, which made them refugees have become more harsher against Lhotshampas.  Their homes and lands have been  given away to others. Several thousand Lhotshampas in Bhutan, who have relatives in the camps have been denationalized by the RGOB in recent days. Majority of  refugees, if given the option of Nepalese citizenship will never  want to return to Bhutan under the present condition and terms of reference for repatriation and their settlement in Bhutan. No one  would like to remain stateless knowingly for  20 more years and live in transit camps inside Bhutan, if they have other better options. The legal responsibility of granting citizenship to Bhutanese refugees now  has been  shifted to Nepal from Bhutan. This will create enormous legal problems for the host country, Nepal. Why should Nepal take the burden of providing citizenship to the refugees, who are citizens of  Bhutan. Would this not open floodgate for others in a similar situation in  future, since more than 10 million people of Nepali ethnicity  live  in the region outside of Nepal?.  There are tens of thousands of  the inhabitants in southern Nepal, whose citizenship are not resolved yet. Will this not encourage them to launch a movement to claim the Nepalese citizenship? Can Nepal afford to grant the citizenship to 100,000 Bhutanese refugees without any national  or regional  consequences? Why should then Nepal accept refugees as citizens? Whom does it intend to appease? A precedent of this kind will bring dangerous security and geopolitical implications for Nepal in future.

The  14^th MJC has categorized only 5% of refugees as genuine Bhutanese citizens and 95 % as non-bonafide citizens  Bhutan wants to take back less than 5,000 refugees in total. Through the application of APFC agreed during the  14^th MJC, Bhutan   has created   a number obstacles and conditions  for  the repatriation of all refugees impossible. The refugee activists condemn  the entire verification  process  done in secrecy,  without transparency and without their or international monitors’ involvement.  What were the basis for de-categorization of such a large number of refugees from bonfide Bhutanese citizens to other non-citizen categories?  

Bhutan  wants to divide the refugees and disrupt their economic, social, political  and community life. It has  created a dangerous precedence for the  host country,  forced to  grant citizenship to the asylum seekers, who are forced to leave their homes. This will discourage the countries from granting asylum to the refugees in future putting them at the mercy of the perpetrator states. This situation needs to be reversed. There is the need of re-working  the entire process of verification and categorization in full transparency. There must be an international tribunal for the appeal and not the JVT or MJC. The UNHCR and international community  must play active role  to reduce the statelessness of Bhutanese citizens in and out of Bhutan.

Fifteenth  MJC Meeting: The  15th Nepal, Bhutan Ministerial Joint Committee (MJC)  meeting was  held in Thimphu, Bhutan on October 20-23, 2003. The Kathmandu Post dated October 24, 2003  reported as follows on the outcome of 15th MJC Talk:  The Nepali delegation of the Nepal-Bhutan Ministerial Joint Committee said today that the repatriation process of Bhutanese refugees would begin as early as the second week of February 2004.  "Bhutan has made a written commitment to begin repatriation of the first batch of refugees from the Khudunabari camp from February 15," Nepal’s ambassador-at-large Dr Bhekh Bahadur Thapa told reporters upon his arrival here this morning.At the three-day-long 15th ministerial meeting held in the Bhutanese capital Thimphu, the Druk government, dropping its earlier reluctance to allow entry to refugees other than those falling under category 1 – bona fide Bhutanese who were forcefully evicted – finally agreed to take back category 2 (those who emigrated) and category 4 (Bhutanese who committed criminal acts).In the Joint Verification Team report submitted last June, 293 of the total 12,183 refugees in the Khudunabari camp were put in category 1; 8,595 in category 2; 2,948 in category 3, and 347 in category 3. Dr Thapa said those people falling under category 3 would be given an opportunity to prove their claim as bona fide Bhutanese. The Joint Verification Team would review their appeals during its meeting in Damak, Jhapa by the end of January 2004. According to Dr Thapa, the refugees will be repatriated to Bhutan as per the harmonised position on those categories. And the ministerial committee itself would be monitoring the process of repatriation. "Besides, Bhutan has agreed not to prosecute innocent family members of those falling under category 4 on their return there," he said, adding that that the two governments had also agreed to look into appeals submitted by those in category 3 (non-Bhutanese).

"This is the beginning of the end of the Bhutanese refugee problem, especially in the case of the Khudunabari camp," said Dr Thapa, who led the Nepali team. He also informed that both governments agreed to appeal to their immediate neighbour India for a "set passage" for the repatriation process. He went on, "It has prepared the road map for verification process in other camps." The two governments have agreed to begin verification process in the Sanischare camp in Morang, where almost 20,000 people are taking refuge. Dr. Thapa said that the process would not be a plain sailing though, considering the complicated nature of the problem. "But officials of the two governments will stay in constant contact and meet as and when necessary, giving top priority to the implementation of the process."  But it has meant very little to the Bhutanese refugees.  "There’s nothing new to it," said Tek Nath Rizal, leader of the Bhutanese Democratic and Human Rights Movement, talking to The Kathmandu Post over telephone."However, we are studying the current development," he said, insisting that the longstanding refugee imbroglio could be resolved only if there were meaningful dialogue between the refugee leaders and the Bhutanese monarch. "We are disappointed," reacted R B Basnet, president of Bhutan National Democratic Party. "Our longstanding demands for an international tribunal for verification process, involvement of UNHCR into the process, remain outstanding."

The Nepali Times dated Oct 24 2003 commented that " In theory, the outcome of the Nepal-Bhutan 15th ministerial meeting on Bhutani refugees this week was a major breakthrough. It marked the first time in 10 years that Thimpu agreed to repatriate refugees under three categories-bonafide Bhutanis, Bhutanis who have emigrated and Bhutanis who have committed crimes. The fourth, non-Bhutani category, will not be Bhutan' s concern. But will Bhutan commit to action what it has inked on paper? Based on the Bhutani "nod" this time, Ambassador-at-large, Bhek Bahadur Thapa believes that the first trucks carrying refugees will start moving from eastern Nepal to the Dragon Kingdom by mid-February 2004. "We asked them to include all three categories in each lot they take back, and they agreed," Thapa clarified. That won't be an easy task. Consider the crux of the 15th ministerial agreement: "the people in the three categories who voluntarily apply to return to Bhutan will be repatriated as per the harmonised position on these categories." That position, decided at the 14th round of ministerial meetings in May this year, centres on the second category of those who have emigrated-a majority of the around 100,000 refugees. Voluntary immigrants will have to reapply for citizenship and stay in Bhutan for a two-year probationary period. It won't come with guarantees because Bhutan's law denies citizenship to those who emigrated without prior approval of the government. "Remember, the repatriation has to be voluntary and the Druk goverment will interpret the legal provisions liberally as agreed between Bhutan and Nepal," Khandu Wangchuk, the Bhutani Foreign Minister told Nepali Times. Should the refugees choose to return home, Thimpu can deny them citizenship based on their laws. Given the provision in the 14th round of talks that refugees unwilling to leave can apply for Nepali citizenship, the Bhutani government has a loophole. Bureaucratic hurdles are one thing, there are added fears about the kind of reception the refugees could receive once they reach home. "Do you think the refugees are fools to tread the minefield back home when they have an option to be safe in Nepal?" asks Rakesh Chhetri, a Bhutani human rights leader in exile. NGOs have reported that people from northern Bhutan have been resettled in the homesteads the refugees left. There are no simple solutions, and diplomatese has too many ifs and buts. The fate of the refugees languishing in the camps still hangs in the balance.

Please click on International Concern for continuity