Bruises of two decades

It has almost been two decades we spent our days in Nepal. To review our fight for identity and nationality, it is harder for us to calculate what we achieved beneficial. However, we have the reasons to keep our pride high up since we spent our life struggling to establish a free society that benefited those still living inside the country. We fought for the greater interest of the country, yet we remained empty handed.

Leaders might claim many achievements of this long struggle but they are worthless for those passing life in camps with two meals a day. Can our achievement to turn Bhutan from absolute monarchy to constitutional democracy brings any changes in the lives of these general Bhutanese in exile? We cannot expect any substantial changes in Bhutan with the promulgation of the constitution that has been formulated to hoodwink the international community. The process it has been formulated is not appropriate, says a lawyer Narayan Sharma.

"There are principles for making of a constitution and institutionalizing a democracy. Bhutan's constitution making process lacks inclusion. No one should have confusion that the constitution in Bhutan was made to confiscate people's right, not to give them. It institutionalizes the power of the king and to exclude that community who fought for democracy for a long time."

We were divided in thoughts and conscience when we were evicted. We are at the same point to this day. It is our failure to get united even at the very difficult circumstances. The greatest fault on our part is the failure to continue our struggle in unity. The days we are expecting will be more disastrous for us, we wonder how alert our leaders are and how prepared are they to face the challenges.  

Migration to third country for resettlement has become compulsion for us. We have made several efforts in the past for repatriation but all collapsed because of the lack of united leadership to keep us together for the fight. As a youngster, Tej Man Rayaka, wish to say so:

"What I feel is that democracy in Bhutan would have been very old by this time, if they (leaders) had worked with sincere spirit identifying what the crux of the issue is, how can it be solved and what should have been their effective role. Initiatives and activities of our leadership are at very low profile."

We spent all these years smearing blames on role of Indian installment, and is harder to count our curses to Bhutanese regime. Between these lines, we, however, failed to determine where we made mistakes. We disowned our faults, our weaknesses. During these years, our efforts were feeble. Opportunists benefited from our division, segregation, disunity. 

It is the Nepal that should shoulder more responsibility for lengthening the problem for it failed to counter the Bhutanese claims, failed to compel that tiny kingdom take back its citizens. Nepal overwhelmingly welcomed us to give asylum and made fruitless effort to end our status as asylee.

Soon after the creation of problem, Bhutanese King Jigme Singye had said 33 percent of those taking asylum in Nepal are original Bhutanese. The Joint Verification Team formed by Bhutan and Nepal governments had identified over 70 percent of us have valid documents to prove Bhutanese nationality. It is shame for Nepal not being able to put pressure on Bhutan for repatriation despite proving so many of us to be true Bhutanese. Yet, Nepal defends its incapability, as in the words of former foreign minister K. P. Oli:

"Though Bhutan is small, we cannot send armies to fight. How can you compel Bhutan when it internally intends to evict its citizens and not to take them back at any cost? It always puts obstacle to the bilateral processes. Bhutanese rulers have vowed not to settle this problem. It is easy to criticize. We had not sat for talks just for talks as friends say. I told press at the airport while returning from Thimphu talks in 1995 that it has not been halted yet no progress is made."

For the last few years, our struggle concentrated within Nepal. International advocacy on our part declined drastically making us more inferior in fighting with the Druk regime. This is what Tek Nath Rizal has to say on this issue.

"We cannot say that leaders have not attended the international forums for advocating our cause. If leaders had not gone, how would the governments from seven countries arrive here to work here (for resettlement)? All countries, where we are required to go and advocate, have come here in Jhapa. So, where should we go?"

The greatest blunder that we did in our course of struggle was sending Indians and Nepalese to western countries as Bhutanese in disguise. This led to further derailing in our efforts for repatriation.

We fought for justice, and we will continue to do that. However, India who claims to be the biggest democracy in the world to speak for justice and equality, failed to speak in our case. The international community also kept mum. This compelled us to revise our strategies to conclude justice is for those who have power, who have gun and who control the government. The international community that remained silent over the brutal suppression or killing of citizens in Bhutan came up to appraise the steps taken by the Bhutanese autocrats towards what is called 'democratization'. We also regret to mention that international community also did not speak in support of those 80,000 people have been categorized as non-nationals by the Druk regime.

Soon after being enthroned as the first elected prime minister of the country, Jigmi Y. Thinely said the foremost task of his government is to give continuity of the works initiated by the king Jigme Singye. This hinted at continuing an autocratic regime under the disguise of democratic changes. The citizens from southern and eastern districts will have to face discriminatory behavior from the government even after these changes. Can we really call it a democracy?

That is the reason, some of our fellowmen concluded justice will not prevail unless we take up arms. However, with steps on philosophy that encourages to attack on enemy, acting against the interest of the Bhutanese taking asylum in Nepal by these groups of people has made us think that path ahead for repatriation will be further consecrated. One of them, who wish to call himself a revolutionary says:

"The package (third country resettlement) itself is wrong, which seems to meant for a human trade. This must end."

The irksome reaction is not only against the Druk regime but also against the UNHCR and the resettling countries, who never sat for discussion with the Bhutanese leaders in exile before beginning the process. Former UNHCR representative to Nepal Abraham Abraham even said UNHCR is not concerned with leaders but with general exiled Bhutanese. This brought coldness in their relation, creating hindrances in the resettlement process now. The other major reason for the Bhutanese leadership to get displease with UNHCR and the resettling countries is due to their decision for resettling exiled Bhutanese without making enough efforts for repatriation. Tek Nath Rizal says further:

"We should be allowed to go our country. We aren’t here to be sold to third country. I don't meant, we shouldn’t go there, it's not good in America, Canada, Australia or other countries. But we wish to step a leg in that country for at least a day from where we were evicted, where we have left our properties, where thousands of people are expecting from us, where many are passing jail days for being involved in the struggle for equality. Should we leave them and run away to west countries? We would be very much grateful for humanitarian support to those countries if they express interest to resettle us once we receive citizenship in Bhutan."

Above all, the Bhutanese leadership must take responsibility for all these results due to their unclear thoughts, unmanaged activities and divided opinion. The need of the hours is to gracefully send those willing to go third countries and work towards generating fund for Bhutanese struggle in long run. This would be intellectually correct.

In the last two decades, we reached the extent of our poverty where we lack ability to contribute penny for our struggle. What we need now is money. Our efforts will get into successes only once we are stronger enough financially. The fact is always correct: our mission is Bhutan and establishing equality in that country. To see an alternative way is our compulsion of the hour. In long run, we cannot alter our mission. If we do it, it will be foolishness on our part.