Longing to repatriate or resettle? Bhutanese refugees in Nepal
By Mishra Vidhyapati, Manager of Bhutan Media Society in Nepal and General Secretary of Association of Press Freedom Activists Bhutan.
The third country resettlement programme of the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal is ongoing, and over 80 percent of these refugees should depart within a few years. By 15 December 2011 the refugees had already witnessed the resettlement of over 58,000 fellow countrymen. UNHCR is processing another 41,300 camp residents, who were forcefully evicted from Bhutan in late 1980s and early 1990s. The current population in the five remaining refugee camps is 54,900, with around 1,500 refugees departing for various third countries under the resettlement programme every month. Although it has been advocated as a humanitarian solution, resettlement has sharply divided refugees into two groups: those for and those against.
For those refugees who are not convinced by the offer, resettlement is paralysing their democratic struggle for repatriation to Bhutan. They recall tyrannical suppressions they were made to undergo by their rulers in Bhutan, but are determined to exercise their right to return. According to them, the international community is accepting refugees for relocation but ignoring the two other options: repatriation and local integration.
Others want to relocate at any cost, stating that a longer stay in the camps will further ruin their lives. Most of the younger generation is eager to accept the resettlement package, taking it as a temporary solution for their long-standing problem. They believe settlement in developed countries like the United States and Australia will help them attain better education and enhance their economic conditions.
‘Life in the camp has not allowed me to realise my dream for good education and improved standard of living’, explains J.K. Education in the camps is free but limited to tenth grade. His five-member family is waiting for departure to Canada, having completed all the procedures. Family reunification is also a factor to consider, with J.K.’s father stating, ‘I must join my three children in Canada since they have already decided to get resettled’. However, some family members who were farmers in Bhutan are not happy about leaving Nepal. For them, remaining in the camps is the best option to allow them to demand dignified repatriation at a later date.
I.B.S., a 108-year-old registered refugee from Beldangi-I camp, was only four years old when the British institutionalised the Bhutanese monarchy in 1907. He walked from a nearby camp to Beldangi-II to attend the 104th National Day Celebration on 17 December, and stated: ‘Life as a refugee is bitter in every sense. I have seen all the five kings of my country. I am a genuine Bhutanese and still have a dream to die in my own soil’.
There are several youths who accuse senior citizens of the community of standing in the way of the third country resettlement programme. When family members fail to reach a consensus regarding resettlement, some households have serious disputes. ‘Certainly, elderly members in the refugee camps know the pain and suffering they were made to undergo while in Bhutan, but they still desire to return’, says S.R. He also pointed out that while some parents have been publicly opposing resettlement they have been secretly allowing their children to apply. ‘I know a few of them. They claim their family is against the resettlement, without letting others know that their children have already been relocated’.
Meanwhile, exiled surgeon Dr Bhampa Rai, chair of the Bhutanese Refugee Representative Repatriation Committee, said that not only the elderly, but all refugees have the desire to return to their own hometowns. ‘I know youths are accusing their parents of standing in their way, but, if doors for repatriation open, even those who are ready to fly to America or other countries will cancel their process and return to Bhutan’, he clarifies.
A member of the Senior Citizens’ Group, H.J.S. (69) is of the opinion that many parents were forced to accept resettlement as they could not convince their children otherwise. ‘It was a hard decision for them to opt for resettlement. The process has undermined their desire to return home with dignity and honour’, claims S., who is sternly against resettlement, but has nonetheless allowed his children to relocate to the United States of America.
For C.B.G., a former soldier of the Royal Bhutan Army, Bhutan will never be allowed to evade its responsibility to accept its citizens back home. ‘I have my citizenship card and weapon license issued by the Royal Government of Bhutan. No foreigners can present these documents’, states Giri, producing his documents in front of the camera. ‘Resettlement will never be my choice. I am a Bhutanese and have the right to return home’.
Some refugees want local integration into the Nepalese community instead of resettlement to any developed country. Local integration would be easier for them since they share language, culture and dress with the Nepalese. Others have not yet decided whether they want to go for resettlement, but similarly have not expressed a decision regarding integration or repatriation.
As well as registered refugees, the camps have over 3,000 unregistered asylum seekers who have been demanding refugee status for a long time. Refugee status is a must to qualify for resettlement, repatriation or local integration. Some of these unregistered asylum seekers were absent during the official registration process in 2007, and some avoided registering but now want refugee status. Others still are part of a group which consists of new arrivals from Bhutan, whose claims for refugee status have not yet been heard by the Nepalese government.
There are several cases of rejection for resettlement on different grounds. These reasons are not disclosed to the individuals in most cases. The rejection has even separated families, leaving behind a single or a few members in the camps after relocating others. Refugees convicted of gender-based sexual violence and other forms of crimes are among those likely to be excluded from the resettlement.
The ongoing resettlement will terminate by 2015, downsizing UNHCR’s longtime investment for the Bhutanese refugees, whose population prior to the resettlement was around 110,000. According to UNHCR’s Country Representative in Nepal, Stephane Jaquemet, the population in camps will be reduced to 10,000 by mid-2015; the remaining refugees will be those who are against resettlement, are unregistered, or have been excluded from resettlement for various reasons. The fate of those who are not resettled is an issue that no one is currently discussing.
The third country resettlement programme of the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal is ongoing, and over 80 percent of these refugees should depart within a few years. By 15 December 2011 the refugees had already witnessed the resettlement of over 58,000 fellow countrymen. UNHCR is processing another 41,300 camp residents, who were forcefully evicted from Bhutan in late 1980s and early 1990s. The current population in the five remaining refugee camps is 54,900, with around 1,500 refugees departing for various third countries under the resettlement programme every month. Although it has been advocated as a humanitarian solution, resettlement has sharply divided refugees into two groups: those for and those against.
For those refugees who are not convinced by the offer, resettlement is paralysing their democratic struggle for repatriation to Bhutan. They recall tyrannical suppressions they were made to undergo by their rulers in Bhutan, but are determined to exercise their right to return. According to them, the international community is accepting refugees for relocation but ignoring the two other options: repatriation and local integration.
Others want to relocate at any cost, stating that a longer stay in the camps will further ruin their lives. Most of the younger generation is eager to accept the resettlement package, taking it as a temporary solution for their long-standing problem. They believe settlement in developed countries like the United States and Australia will help them attain better education and enhance their economic conditions.
‘Life in the camp has not allowed me to realise my dream for good education and improved standard of living’, explains J.K. Education in the camps is free but limited to tenth grade. His five-member family is waiting for departure to Canada, having completed all the procedures. Family reunification is also a factor to consider, with J.K.’s father stating, ‘I must join my three children in Canada since they have already decided to get resettled’. However, some family members who were farmers in Bhutan are not happy about leaving Nepal. For them, remaining in the camps is the best option to allow them to demand dignified repatriation at a later date.
I.B.S., a 108-year-old registered refugee from Beldangi-I camp, was only four years old when the British institutionalised the Bhutanese monarchy in 1907. He walked from a nearby camp to Beldangi-II to attend the 104th National Day Celebration on 17 December, and stated: ‘Life as a refugee is bitter in every sense. I have seen all the five kings of my country. I am a genuine Bhutanese and still have a dream to die in my own soil’.
There are several youths who accuse senior citizens of the community of standing in the way of the third country resettlement programme. When family members fail to reach a consensus regarding resettlement, some households have serious disputes. ‘Certainly, elderly members in the refugee camps know the pain and suffering they were made to undergo while in Bhutan, but they still desire to return’, says S.R. He also pointed out that while some parents have been publicly opposing resettlement they have been secretly allowing their children to apply. ‘I know a few of them. They claim their family is against the resettlement, without letting others know that their children have already been relocated’.
Meanwhile, exiled surgeon Dr Bhampa Rai, chair of the Bhutanese Refugee Representative Repatriation Committee, said that not only the elderly, but all refugees have the desire to return to their own hometowns. ‘I know youths are accusing their parents of standing in their way, but, if doors for repatriation open, even those who are ready to fly to America or other countries will cancel their process and return to Bhutan’, he clarifies.
A member of the Senior Citizens’ Group, H.J.S. (69) is of the opinion that many parents were forced to accept resettlement as they could not convince their children otherwise. ‘It was a hard decision for them to opt for resettlement. The process has undermined their desire to return home with dignity and honour’, claims S., who is sternly against resettlement, but has nonetheless allowed his children to relocate to the United States of America.
For C.B.G., a former soldier of the Royal Bhutan Army, Bhutan will never be allowed to evade its responsibility to accept its citizens back home. ‘I have my citizenship card and weapon license issued by the Royal Government of Bhutan. No foreigners can present these documents’, states Giri, producing his documents in front of the camera. ‘Resettlement will never be my choice. I am a Bhutanese and have the right to return home’.
Some refugees want local integration into the Nepalese community instead of resettlement to any developed country. Local integration would be easier for them since they share language, culture and dress with the Nepalese. Others have not yet decided whether they want to go for resettlement, but similarly have not expressed a decision regarding integration or repatriation.
As well as registered refugees, the camps have over 3,000 unregistered asylum seekers who have been demanding refugee status for a long time. Refugee status is a must to qualify for resettlement, repatriation or local integration. Some of these unregistered asylum seekers were absent during the official registration process in 2007, and some avoided registering but now want refugee status. Others still are part of a group which consists of new arrivals from Bhutan, whose claims for refugee status have not yet been heard by the Nepalese government.
There are several cases of rejection for resettlement on different grounds. These reasons are not disclosed to the individuals in most cases. The rejection has even separated families, leaving behind a single or a few members in the camps after relocating others. Refugees convicted of gender-based sexual violence and other forms of crimes are among those likely to be excluded from the resettlement.
The ongoing resettlement will terminate by 2015, downsizing UNHCR’s longtime investment for the Bhutanese refugees, whose population prior to the resettlement was around 110,000. According to UNHCR’s Country Representative in Nepal, Stephane Jaquemet, the population in camps will be reduced to 10,000 by mid-2015; the remaining refugees will be those who are against resettlement, are unregistered, or have been excluded from resettlement for various reasons. The fate of those who are not resettled is an issue that no one is currently discussing.
