It was just two weeks ago that some Bhutanese political leaders in exile rushed to Nepal’s Ministry of Home Affairs seeking political asylum and personal security. Their complaint was that they were not allowed to operate political activities freely in Nepal and felt very insecure.
Personal security is important for all individuals, including refugees, to survive. But their demands were pushed to the government of Nepal when an underground outfit, the Liberation Army of Bhutan, distributed pamphlets in the refugee camps in east Nepal on July 15. These wide-spread pamphlets threatened the political parties of physical action should they fail to initiate the necessary steps towards repatriating the Bhutanese refugees.
Warnings
Logically, it is not bad to warn them to energize and activate the exiled leaders, most of whom stand against resettling the refugees abroad and want to keep them in the camps for some more years. When initiatives towards repatriation are showing some promise, such warnings are likely. However, warning of physical action against them is a matter of serious concern in a fragile host country like Nepal where refugees are liable to follow the law of the land.
Rajan Bhattarai, who is the foreign affairs advisor to Nepalese Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, questions the motive of the refugee leaders and wants this issue discussed seriously. “They have asked for political asylum and security after 18 years of their stay in Nepal,” he said. (Listen to Rajan Bhattarai)
If the Nepalese bureaucrats share the same sentiments as Bhattarai, the exiled political parties have certainly created confusion in Nepal as to what they really want.
On the other side, camp secretaries from all the seven camps have requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) to arrange their trips to countries where their fellow-countrymen are being resettled.
In a letter addressed to the UNHCR and IOM on August 18, the secretaries said, “Give us an opportunity to visit the resettlement countries to know the facts, and convince the refugees till the last refugee gets resettled from Nepal.”
They trumpeted that a vast number of refugees in the camps who voted for them during the camp management elections approached them seeking assurance and guarantee while opting for resettlement. According to them, the third country resettlement programme is a historic opportunity for the Bhutanese refugees. However, they forgot to mention that there are also refugees in the camps who can never accept resettlement at any cost and will rather choose to remain in the camps until the doors back home are open.
An interesting thing that needs mention here is that the Communist Party of Bhutan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) was not happy with the decision of the camp secretaries. The party’s coordination committee in exile on August 25 sent a circular to the local media asking the camp secretaries to withdraw their decision to visit the resettling countries. According to the party’s statement, the resettlement programme is aimed at tarnishing the ‘democratic’ struggle in
Bhutan, and is only a temporary relief for the refugees in the camps.
For sure, this statement brought changes in the thinking of the camp secretaries. The following day, they wrote to both the UNHCR and IOM that they had taken such a decision in haste and regretted over it. They even lamented that they would continue to look after the camp businesses and keep on fighting for their right to return home. This time, they have not told the UNHCR to arrange trips to America or other countries, but made requests to initiate other options – local integration or repatriation, which, according to them, are the demands of the refugees.
What I want to stress here is that the political parties and other organisations formed and operating in exile must respect the sentiments of all the Bhutanese citizens, inside Bhutan or outside. History has shown that during movements carried out in exile, these refugee leaders remained mum when the whole community wanted them to speak. Hundreds of refugees left their huts to resettle abroad without knowing its pros and cons since their leaders did not say what was a better option – to stay in Nepal until repatriation takes place or go for resettlement. Instead, the laymen in the camps heard their leaders opposing the resettlement programme while sending their family members and relatives across the seas.
The camp secretaries elected by the refugees also did not furnish information about the resettlement programme
when it was just announced. They chose to take a safer side by saying individual refugees needed to make independent decisions. Indeed, it is sad to know that the camp secretaries want to make luxurious trips to study the real situations abroad, where the resettled refugees are having a hard time due to lack of employment opportunities and the difficulty of adjusting in a new community.
Resettlement option
These people’s representatives had said that they wanted to assist the UNHCR in resettling all the refugees. My concern here is, what right do these secretaries have to force all the Bhutanese in the camps to go for resettlement when there are thousands of refugees unwilling to choose this option? Instead, they can urge the concerned authorities to keep all three options open so that each refugee can make his own decision.
Note: The article is reproduced from The Rising Nepal of September 1, 2009.
Surely I shall comment on this news when I have the time.
Let me start from camp secretaries’ propaganda- most of the time we hear doldrums from them as mentioning that they are elected by public. But I don’t understand who and how they’re elected. I have no ideas whether the refugee mass have the voting rights or not. If they are allowed to franchise then why are they termed as refugees? If the so called secretaries are elected by majority vote than they can form a government and rule the refugee camp. That will function as an independent and autonomous region. If that is true than their role and responsibilities would be other way round that will serve their purpose. Why are they insisting that they are bigshots? If you just go deep into the tides of time and review each camp secretary, no one is capable enough to serve the community both by winning the contentment of the people as well as inherited educational backing. They just wanted to take the advantage of the situation and play the fishy game. They need to remember that cunningness will be too dangerous and need to pay heavily.
Insecurity is an issue be it the life and property or the future. Most of the illiterate and unexposed lots felt this issue many years earlier and time and again requested their so called leaders to do something. Leader is a person who needs to show the path to the common people and not the people showing them the path. Updating the current situation and building their capability is totally zero among the leaders and filled up with pre-occupied pride and prejudice. A system of proclaiming self as best and others as nothing, that person was……… made everything mess. No one could unite for the common cause after all their suffering and wounds were common.
It will be too ridiculous to mention the name of persons either from political of apolitical groups that worked for the benefits of the refugee mass without their personal or family interest. The conflict in their interest ruined many hopes. TCR would be bread and butter for movement to destiny but unwanted threats and attacks by the politically colored activist made the gap wider among the refugee mass.
Party’s leaders if visionary need to review the offer and prepare accordingly. Many things and scenarios have changed and it is not too late to come to the foreground and work together.
Awesome work Vidhyapati Mishra.
These people so called neta, all camp secretaries are […]
So all people make your own decision.
I fully agree and support the arguments posted by Mishraji.Kudos .
It is almost two decades now that more than 110,000 Bhutanese are languishing in the cramped and dilapiated huts in eastern Nepal as refugees.In these 18 winters refugees moved nook and corners seeking support for the dignified repatriation to their original homeshed.Every winter we saw new Camp Secretary in each camp,thanks for their good work for some of them had the previlege to be in the same post for more than one term.There was a time when the innocent folks in the camps agreed to what their C/S (s) told.Now things have taken a different twists and turns,youths empowered themselves (few with Aids)and managed somehow to come out from the ignorance and that made a big impact in the the Bhutanese refugee community.People started asking explanations for all. Whats? When? How?…..????
As far as I know Camp Secretaries are supposed to deliver immediate available services to the refugees as per their need,help to enhance and empower the physically vernerable groups from within.With the lapse of time Camp Secretaries became corrupt(there are cases where Secretaries charged money from fellow refugees to get their work done).As time passed Political groups (under different ideological brands )Human Rights and social groups mushrommed within the refugee community and capatilised the innocence of the refugees.Camps were made as political playfield to meet their vested interests and in the process many innocent refugees lost their lives.Camp Secretaries became the focal point and …………finally the camp secretaries forgot their responsibilities.On the other hand brands with “COLOURED IDEOLOGY” made the hell in a hell.Frequent threatenings,intimidations and killing of innocent lives made the situations worse.Who gave the liscence to these ‘COLOURED DOGS”to kill the innocent refugees? What they think of themselves? Don’t they realise coloured ideology lost significance in this era.
These dogs have no right to threaten the innocent people in the refugee camps.Do these guys ever know most of the so called maosits leaders (ones who threatened most refugee youths working outside the camps with huge donations)in the name of the Revolution against the Bhutanese King were the first to get resettled (Most of them surrundered and appologised with the UNHCR before they applied for TCR).
Do these guys want to be dictator in the camp??
what is their intentions to threaten the innocent refugees who are often confused with the changing situations.
I want to tell these guys to mind their own business and let the refugee make their own decissions.Just keep off.
What a surprising and bit funny news.thanks for publishing this news.its a kind of funny news that secretaries requesting UNHCR and IOM to visit the countries by them where their fellow voters are resettled. This is kind of shameful attempt that they have initiated and I hope that this is premature and inappropriate decision.
It is good if they were to be given permission but im pretty sure that it is like” MAN KO LADU GHIU SAGA KHANU”.
if i was to be UNHCR chief I would have suggested them to visit on their own.
Glad to go through the news. It is still surprising to learn that people are playing dirty politics in the camp as it used to be before. It seems these people will never ever realise that things have changed but these coservatives are still with the same thoughts. No way….how can these people be trusted>>> and their recent appeal to UNHCR for tour is not acceptable at any cost. Let me tell them that we are not a puupet in the hands of few. How come they decide as to what people should do in regards to resettlement. My question is; Is the decesion of tour based on peoples’ consent?? Did they have a dicussion with people before coming out with such proposal??? i personally dont think they had coz i know these people.So their dream of making a tour abroad is base less and i dont think their appeal should be taken into consideration. Moreover, these self vested people might jeoparadise our future as we have had these experiences in the past.Readers may check the application where u can find few signatories which clearly reveals that they want to fool us.
Wah!
Camp secretaries became what they are coz oprfugees wanted them to deliver rather act as a leader.Secretaries are considered as a popular figure in terms of delivering the services to the people when required and not just making hue and cry with the media.This is just artificial.Kick them out.
no one need to go around the world to know about the world.
Every one in this 21st century can know about everything of the world sitting in a place.
Anyway they r trying to take advantage of their duties and responsibilities.
good try but bad effect
The camp secretaries proposal of visiting the resettlement countries ;
1) ONE MORE QUESTION TO THE SECURITY OF THE VISITORS AFTER THE VISIT.
2) UNNECESSARY EXPENDITURE
3) CONVINCING SEEMS TO BE ADEQUATE ALREADY IN THE CAMP
4) COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE CAMP DWELLERS AND RESETTLED IS PROVIDING NECESSARY
CONVINCING TO THE PEOPLE INTERESTED.
5) THE AGENCIES CONCERNED’S INVOLVEMENT IN SHARING ABOUT RESETTLED SITUATION
WOULD BE MORE BENIFICIAL.
It came with great surprised regarding the appeal submitted by the camps secretary requesting for the visit.I think they have not stop daydreaming.Most of the camps secretary were against the programe in 2007, so how they can say that they are working on behalf of the programe and doing good to the resettled refugees.
I have had nothing but problems when I try to add the blog feed to my feed reader. Unfortunately I am not too tech savvy. Any ideas on what I could do differently?
Your writing served me with my academy project at time. I think I will give my project next week.