The Bhutanese Refugee Crisis

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

ABSTRACT *

This article applies the method of mindful reflection to the Bhutanese refugee crisis, in which more than one hundred thousand Nepali speaking people were forced out of Bhutan between 1990 and 1993. After outlining the One Nation, One People policy, the restrictions on language and dress, the protests and the state response, and the situation of those who remain in camps in Nepal, the author develops reflective questions addressed to the government of Bhutan, the government of Nepal and the ethnic Nepali community respectively. The author concludes that all parties acted without mindfulness, while stating a personal view that the minority has suffered disproportionately. The assessments, including the comparison drawn in the conclusion, reflect the author’s own perspective; this journal’s editorial position is neutral as between the parties.

KEYWORDS *

Bhutan, Nepal, Lhotshampa, refugee crisis, One Nation One People, statelessness, citizenship, mindful reflection, resettlement, minority rights, restorative justice

INTRODUCTION

According to Erdmann, conflict means two or more viewpoints, attitudes, expectations, or strategic approaches collide. Conflicts are a part of human relationships, on personal, industrial, community, national, or international levels. A dispute is a normal part of life and is found in political parties, friendships, relationships, family, church, and social organizations. Some conflicts are open; some are hidden. Additionally, a conflict is a chance for change and can lead to a more productive future. Every battle is unique in its structure. Core problems and minor problems need to be identified. Often, finding the core reason for conflict can be challenging and time-consuming. Reaching the core conflict can cause feelings like discomfort or stress among the parties. Therefore, setting an external framework of rules before starting the process is critical (Erdmann 2018).

More than 100,000 Nepali-speaking Bhutanese people were forced out of Bhutan between 1990 and 1993. Many of the refugees are staying in camps there to date. The conflict between Bhutan and Nepal has not been resolved, and restorative justice remains a hope (Schultz 2016). Mindfulness as a tool might add value to overcoming conflict.

This report will briefly introduce the refugee crisis of Nepali-speaking people from Bhutan. Furthermore, mindful questions for the conflict parties for reflection will be developed, which should help the reader to analyze the conflict critically. Also, a short personal conclusion will be given.

MAIN CORPUS

THE BHUTANESE REFUGEE CRISIS

Amnesty International calls the refugee crisis of Bhutan ‘one of the most neglected refugee crises in the world’ (Schultz 2016). In the early 1990s, the government of Bhutan felt increasingly threatened by the growing ethnic Nepali community in Bhutan. The country adopted in the 1980s a ‘One Nation, One People’ policy, defending the culture and political dominance of ethnic Bhutanese people. As a part of this policy, teaching Nepali as a language for ethnic Nepali children was banned in Bhutan. Nepali people were, from then on, forced to wear the traditional Bhutanese Drukpa dress. As a result, many Nepali Bhutanese communities started anti-government protests. Therefore, the government of Bhutan reacted by imprisoning demonstrators. Human Rights Watch found out that many cases of ethnic Nepali people were tortured in prisons in Bhutan. Government militant forces destroyed the houses of Nepali Bhutanese people. Communities were forced to leave their home and abused in different ways.

Some Nepali Bhutanese claim that most of their protests were peaceful; however, some turned violent. Ethnic Nepali people have been living in Bhutan for generations; nevertheless, their land was taken away. More than 18,000 Nepali Bhutanese refugees live in camps in Nepal (Schultz 2016).

In the mid-1980s, the Government of Nepal also passed a citizenship law, which forms the basis for declaring Nepali Bhutanese people as non-nationals of Nepal. Many refugees in the camps are resettled in other countries with the support of UNHCR (European Resettlement Network 2013).

MINDFUL REFLECTION

The behavior of the Government of Bhutan, the Government of Nepal, and the ethnic Nepali people in Bhutan can be critically reflected with a focus on mindfulness. I believe that all actors did not act mindfully throughout the ongoing conflict. Therefore, mindful questions should be asked as a tool of reflection and shared understanding.

The Government of Bhutan could ask itself:

• Why do we, as a government, not want the Nepali Bhutanese communities to live in Bhutan?
• Where are the cultural differences between Bhutanese and ethnic Nepali people living in Bhutan?
• Why do we perceive them as a threat to ‘our’ culture? What is ‘our’ culture, and where does it come from?
• What is an appropriate reaction to protests against the laws implemented against the ethnic Nepali people?
• Why do ethnic Nepali people think that they are Bhutanese?
• Are there factors for the government’s behavior related to socialization, upbringing, or other personal factors? If so, how do these factors influence the government?
• Is our acting according to Buddhism?

The Government of Nepal could ask itself:

• How can we treat the Nepali Bhutanese people in our country fairly?

The ethnic Nepali people of Bhutan could ask themselves:

How should the protest look? Was our form of protest in Bhutan appropriate? What could we have done differently? What was our motive? Which factors influence our behavior?

SUMMARY *

The author presents a case in which a state’s concern for the preservation of its own culture produced measures against a community that had lived within its borders for generations, and in which the resulting displacement has never been resolved. Three decades on, part of the displaced population has been resettled in third countries while a remainder continues in camps, without either return or citizenship in the country of asylum. The reflective questions are addressed to all three parties, though the author acknowledges that the burden of the questions falls unevenly, as does the burden of the events themselves.

CONCLUSION

Analyzing the Bhutanese refugee crisis with a focus on mindfulness is a beneficial tool for conflicting parties to reflect on their behavior but also to understand the other stakeholders’ perspectives better. It is not up to me to judge who was right or wrong. Still, in my viewpoint, the Bhutanese minority with Nepali ethnicity has significantly suffered, and justice is not foreseeable. I think this example can almost be called ethnic cleansing, similar to the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar. Governments urgently need to rethink their behavior: the Nepali government treats refugees with respect and ensures equity, while the Bhutanese governments need to understand that protests against a law that is perceived discriminatory can not be responded to with killing, torture, and deprivation of land.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

This case exposes a structural problem that reflective questions alone cannot reach. The people at its centre are not party to the negotiations that concern them. Bhutan and Nepal held sixteen rounds of bilateral talks over a decade, and at no point were the refugees themselves represented; the resettlement programme that followed was arranged between UNHCR and third countries. A conflict in which those most affected have never had a seat is one in which no agreement can be evaluated against what they actually want, and any renewed process should begin by correcting that, through elected representation from the camps and structured consultation with the resettled diaspora.

Verification is the second obstacle, and it is more tractable than it appears. The dispute between the two states turned on categorisation, whether those in the camps were Bhutanese nationals, voluntary emigrants or Nepali migrants, and it stalled because each side controlled the criteria. An independent verification mechanism, jointly mandated and applying agreed evidentiary standards suited to a population without documents, would settle the factual question on which everything else depends. This is unglamorous work, but disputes over identity and belonging rarely move until the facts are established by someone neither party appoints.

The remaining population needs a durable solution now rather than a settlement later. Three routes exist and none excludes the others: voluntary return with restitution or compensation for those who wish it and can safely go; naturalisation in Nepal for those with family and community ties there, which requires the citizenship framework the article mentions to be revisited; and continued third country resettlement for the rest. What matters is that each person chooses, since a solution assigned collectively reproduces the original wrong in a milder form. In the meantime, statelessness is itself an ongoing harm, and interim documentation permitting work, travel and education costs little and changes lives immediately.

The deeper question the article raises concerns what a state may do to preserve its culture. Bhutan’s anxiety about demographic change is not unique and not in itself illegitimate; nearly every small state with a large neighbour shares it. What is at issue is the means. A state may promote its language, protect its heritage and set immigration policy; it may not strip settled residents of nationality or expel them. Reframing the dispute in these terms offers something to both sides: recognition that the concern was real, alongside clarity that certain instruments are closed. Constitutional guarantees for minority language and culture, combined with confirmed citizenship for long resident communities, address the anxiety and the injustice at once.

Finally, a note on process. Neither government has an incentive to reopen a file that has been quiet for years, and pressure is unlikely to produce one. What can be built in the meantime is the groundwork: documentation of claims, contact between the diaspora and communities inside Bhutan, and quiet regional facilitation, so that when a political opening appears, the work of establishing who is who has already been done.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Erdmann, Daniel. “Section: B) – Syllabus 3 – World Mediation Organization.” 2018. https://worldmediation.org. Accessed March 16, 2020.

European Resettlement Network. “Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal | European Resettlement Network.” 2013. https://www.resettlement.eu/page/bhutanese-refugees-nepal. Accessed March 16, 2020.

Schultz, Erika. “Bhutanese Refugee Crisis: A Brief History,” 2016. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/bhutanese-refugee-crisis-a-brief-history/. Accessed March 16, 2020.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

Citizenship Act of Bhutan, 1985, and the census of 1988 in southern Bhutan.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, documentation on the Bhutanese refugee situation in Nepal and the resettlement programme, Geneva and Kathmandu.

Human Rights Watch (2003). Trapped by Inequality: Bhutanese Refugee Women in Nepal, New York; and (2007) Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal and India.

Amnesty International, reports on Bhutan and the situation of the Lhotshampa, London.

Hutt, M. (2003). Unbecoming Citizens: Culture, Nationhood, and the Flight of Refugees from Bhutan. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 1954, and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 1961.