Question Of Refugee Repatriation

Source: The Rising Nepal

By: T P Mishra

Human beings are social ani-mals who are po- litically influenced, and they are certain to get involved in political demonstrations aimed at raising voices for the stablishment of their rights. Though it is one of the fundamental rights, Bhutanese refugees in Nepal are barred from staging a peaceful campaign or other programmes for the return to their original homeland.

Restrictions
In fact, it is unfair and unjustifiable to restrict the refugees from holding peaceful demonstrations in the name of controlling crime-related activities inside the refugee camps. Undoubtedly, there has been a rise in crimes and unruly activities inside these camps, most of them said to be instigated by the underground revolutionary outfits. Perpetrators should not allowed to go scot free, but it is not wise on the part of the local authorities to restrict innocent peaceful demonstrators from raising their voice for repatriation.

Following the option of Third Country Resettlement (TCR), other options, in particular the repatriation process of Bhutanese refugees, is getting overshadowed. In recent times, the different media in Nepal have been reporting that the local authorities in Jhapa and Morang districts are clamping restrictions on peaceful demonstrations and protests in favour of repatriation inside the refugee camps.

Nepal’s frequent claim that it supports and gives priority to the repatriation process sounds contradictory. Actually, the Government of Nepal has failed to convince Thimphu to accelerate the repatriation process while the local authorities are opting measures to restrict the refugees from holding peaceful demonstrations inside the UNHCR-administered camps.
In the last week of May last year, thousands of refugees who staged peaceful protests were stranded at the Indo-Bhutan border on the Mechi Bridge by the Indian security forces while demanding passage to Bhutan. The Indian police intervened to stop the demonstrators, and in the scuffle, an innocent refugee youth Shah Bahadur Dewan was shot dead. Not only this, hundreds of those who sustained injuries are still undergoing medical treatment.
The local authority’s decision to restrict peaceful demonstrations inside the refugee camps clearly shows its intention to suppress the refugees’ sentiments to return to their home, Bhutan. This sort of behaviour from the local authorities at a time when Nepal has already become a republic with a pledge to enter a ‘New Nepal’ leaves a number of unanswered queries.
Bhutanese refugees being of Nepali ethnic origin are certainly close to Nepal. Moreover, the refugees have high hopes that their issue will be solved with the efforts and support from the Government of Nepal. Nepal should, thus, become ‘liberal’ and allow the refugees to at least demonstrate their feelings and demands through peaceful means.

However, it is equally necessary to maintain good vigilance by the Armed Police Force (APF), deployed in each of the seven camps, to see that there is no infiltration by untoward elements in such demonstrations. The refugees should also ensure that they abide by the law of the host country while staging such peaceful protests. Any violent attempts from refugees to raise their voice - be it for repatriation, resettlement or local assimilation - would certainly be a criminal acts. Only in such cases should the local authorities try to disband the refugees’ protests. Or else it is unfair not to allow peaceful protest programmes.

Meanwhile, those refugees and groups favouring the option of repatriation should not obstruct the resettlement process as there is increasing number of people from the same community wishing to opt for it. A sense of mutual cooperation and understanding between the divided opinions among the refugees is a must to ensure that all possible options are unlocked.

Initiatives
Now-a-days the efforts to press the Druk regime to accelerate the repatriation process are limited to ‘issuing media statements’. None of the concerned authorities, including the Government of Nepal, are opting for practical measures to bring Bhutan to the negotiating table. As a result, those refugees who wish to return to Bhutan have started making efforts on their own, particularly through peaceful protests inside the refugee camps.
It should be clearly understood that suppressing such efforts of the refugees by no means will discourage them from raising their voice for repatriation. Rather it will only add fuel to the refugee problem. The authorities concerned should take urgent and necessary initiatives to address the demands of the refugees.


(Editor of BNS, Mishra is also president of the Bhutan Chapter of Third World Media Network and can be reached at: mishratp@gmail.com)

Opening All Options For Refugees

Source: Gorkhapatra.org.np

By T. P. Mishra

The United States' offer of third country resettlement for the Bhutanese refugees has finally gained height, engaging both people and the authorities concerned in hot debates. The offer is likely to put an 'end' to the 17-year-long stalemate following the formal announcement to the refugees to fill up the resettlement forms available in dozens of places, including the Armed Police Force (APF) office.

US commitment
A senior U.S. official has said that if all things proceed smoothly, the first planeload of Bhutanese refugees is likely to land on U.S. soil by late January 2008. Ellen Sauerbrey, the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, during her recent visit to Nepal and, in particular, the refugee camps, has really geared up the resettlement process of the refugees.

Meanwhile, Sauerbrey has also stated that the U.S. government would recognise the desire of the refugees for repatriation to their original homeland even after their resettlement process. During her visit to two of the refugee camps, Sauerbrey assured the rights of the refugees to return to their home country.

Still a significant portion of the refugees want to be repatriated right now, they do not want third country resettlement. The obvious question at this hour is, what would be the future of those refugees who want to be repatriated under any circumstances? Will the Bhutanese who wish to get locally assimilated in the host country get that chance?

With the U.S. offer for third country settlement, division and polarisation of opinion among the refugees have been distinctly noticed. The incident in Beldangi camp on May 27-28 regarding a 'controversial' interview of Hari Adhikari Bangale, the then camp secretary of Beldangi-II, is a bitter illustration of the division among the refugees.

Even two innocent youths from Beldangi camp were killed in police firing during the latter's attempt to bring the situation under control. This incident occurred simply because Bangale advocated for third country resettlement. In another incident in Beldangi-II extension camp, a few huts belonging to those in favour of third country resettlement were vandalised. Some of them were even manhandled by a mob. All of these incidents leave a clear message that opening only one option would further derail the process of ending the refugee imbroglio.

Polarised Ideology
The literate youths among the Bhutanese refugees are for third country resettlement. The elderly, illiterate groups want to get repatriated. Meanwhile, what cannot be ignored is that a portion of the youths are in favour of a 'revolt' under the banner of the Communists Party of Bhutan (CPB-MLM).
Not only this, a section of the people living inside the refugee camps have already obtained Nepalese citizenship identity cards. This figure has been hiked with the issuances of citizenship cards to four million people in Nepal prior to the Constituent Assembly polls. This ironically leaves a clear message that a portion of the refugees are even willing to get locally assimilated.

It is still a doubt whether those refugees, who have already obtained Nepalese citizenship, would be eligible for third country resettlement.

Majority of the so-called frontline leaders in exile, most of the political and a few apolitical organisations have been frequently opposing the offer of third country resettlement, claiming it would not do justice to the suppressed Bhutanese people. Since there is divided opinion among individuals, the question of driving everyone to a common consensus is difficult.

Thus, not only third country resettlement, the authorities concerned should work towards unlocking all possible options, including repatriation to their original homeland, Bhutan. The long-standing issue will get a safe landing only when all possible options are opened at a time.

It is equally necessary to note that any option, whatsoever it be, shouldn't be made a 'compulsory option' for the refugees. This will invite violence in the refugee camps.

Dignified Repatriation
It is true that options besides third country resettlement, such as dignified repatriation and local integration, are, with the flow of time, getting overshadowed. If the authorities concerned are truly committed to finding a durable solution to the Bhutanese refugee stalemate, then they should be working to promoting the refugee's sentiment by unlocking all options.

An individual's right to expression and, in particular, their right to choose any of the options should be promoted.

(Editor of Bhutan News Service, Mishra is also president of Third World Media Network, Bhutan Chapter)

Let Individual Refugees Decide

Source: Rising Nepal

T. P. Mishra
Of late, the offer of third country resettlement of the Bhutanese refugees has been gaining momentum, shadowing other options viz repatriation and local assimilation. Following the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Government of Nepal and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), the resettlement option has been opened.

Solution
Hot debates have already begun as to whether third country resettlement is a lasting solution to the long-standing Bhutanese refugee crisis. The fact that resettlement can only be a step towards a durable solution and not a permanent outlet in itself to the Bhutanese political problem cannot be denied.

The increasing violence inside the UNHCR-sponsored cantonments in Nepal since the last few months, particularly concerning the resettlement offer, clearly hints that the authorities concerned should work towards creating a favourable and intrepid atmosphere so that individual refugees can decide their future.

Refugees have had long experience with politics inside and outside the host country. Thus, there is divided opinion among the refugees. Considering all these factors, individual refugees must be given a chance to decide on the options available - repatriation, resettlement or local assimilation.

More interestingly, the refugees' divergent opinions have only baffled the concerned bodies. Each of the organisations or political parties formed inside the camps to work for a solution to the crisis has always strived to manipulate the people in their own way. Be it the Tek Nath Rizal-led Bhutanese Movement Steering Committee or Hari Bangaley-led Bhutanese Refugee Durable Solution Co-ordinating Committee (BRDSCC), they have their own stance on resolving the crisis.

On the other side, the Communist Party of Bhutan (CPB-MLM) has recently warned the concerned authorities not to begin the process of third country resettlement. Organising a press conference at an unknown place, Binod, a member of the CPB-MLM's Co-ordinating Committee in Exile, had warned that they would come up with protest programmes and also take physical action if the UNHCR begins the resettlement process by using organisations from within the Bhutanese community.

Manipulation and internal intimidation by the Bhutanese organisations themselves pose a challenge to security in the camps. No matter how the situation proceeds, a favourable atmosphere should be created for individual refugees to decide their fate. Unlocking a single option - whether repatriation, resettlement or local assimilation - cannot deliver a suitable outlet as there is divided opinion among the refugees.

In the name of establishing democracy in Bhutan, a few political parties as well as dozens of other apolitical organisations have come into existence. But most of these organisations that claim to be working for the welfare of the Bhutanese people are making zero progress especially in the context of fighting for democracy in Bhutan.
The political and apolitical organisations formed in exile do only paperwork. The question of a unified ideology towards finding a solution to the refugee stalemate is a farce. And these days it is growing even harder. There visibly exists three groups - one favouring repatriation through peaceful means, the other preferring a revolt to establish democracy in the country, and another favouring third country resettlement. The possibility of bringing all these groups to a common point, however, is difficult. All this is leading the people to more confusion.

The offer of third country resettlement itself may not be a bad option, but it cannot be a solution to the Bhutanese political problem. The Bhutanese people's struggle towards democracy should continue under any circumstances and regardless of wherever they resettle or assimilate.

Actually, the refugees are fed up with the activities of some of their leaders. The ideological differences within these groups have, in fact, left the general people in a quandary. This difference has created havoc inside the Bhutanese refugee camps. Thus, this trend should not be allowed to continue to ensure that individuals have the right to decide their future on their own without manipulation and intimidation by a third party.

Sentiments
Meanwhile, all the political and apolitical organisations in exile must work to create an environment of consensus. They must understand the sentiments of the general people in the camps. The refugees shouldn't be forced to adopt any of the options available on the table. The concerned authorities should provide adequate and reliable information on the options available so that the people are well informed to take informed decisions.
(Mishra is Editor of Bhutan News Service)