Triumph of ethnic cleansing ?
Despite deep lamentation, yelling and prying for the help to repatriate the Bhutanese refugees, they are under tremendous pressure to accept the third country settlement and local assimilation from all corners. The move spearheaded after the UNHCR failed to comply with the racist Druk regime and its protector India for repatriation.
In the beginning Nepal's country representative for UNHCR, Abraham Abraham was at the fore-front to advocate the local assimilation and the third country resettlement followed by Judi Chang, Deputy chief (operation) for UNHCR from Geneva. Now, the Republican Senator of Pennsylvania in the United States Arlen Specter is supporting them. According to the senator, " 'many ' of the Bhutanese refugees languishing in camps in eastern Nepal are to leave so that they could be resettled in the USA. We are willing to take many of these refugees living in the camps for 16 years (to resettle in the US). This year, the USA is accepting up to 75,000 refugees from various parts of the world ". This statement has raised various queries.
First, of the 106 thousand registered refugees in Nepal, how many will get the share among 'many ' and '75,000 refugees from various parts of the world' ? In case the resettlement in the US is agreed, then will the settlement of only a few hundred or couple of thousands be enough? The fate of remaining refugees numbering about 100 thousand rejected on the grounds of old-age, handicap, insane, underage, uneducated etc is a matter of great concern.
Furthermore, the agony of unregistered Bhutanese who are compelled to live outside the camps is another concern. In addition, the fate of the relatives of refugees living in Bhutan who are blacklisted and excluded in the census or voters' list for the so-called democratic election conducted before 2008 is a means to continue its ethnic cleansing policy.
Although the anxiety of the UNHCR, the United States and the European Union on the issue due to increasing armed-insurgency in least developed/developing countries or in South Asia is praiseworthy, but the remedy of third country settlement of the dissident groups has no sufficient grounds for appreciation. This will encourage the administrators of the region to adopt the same method of solution and continue discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities without even addressing the problem in relation to politics, racial identity, citizenship, the rights of salvation from poverty etc.
In case of any uprising demand for justice on the above issues, the readymade military solution, age-old method of extra-judicial killings, red corner notice, fake encounters, treaty of extradition, capturing the properties, imprisonment and forced exile are habitual instruments in the name of defusing the crises.
But these methods have never succeeded in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Myanmar or even in India in relation to the Nagas, Ulfas, Bodos and the Kashmiries. The dissident groups either exiled or settled in America and Europe have not ended the armed-insurgency in those countries but are intensifying it. Why is it so?
The resentment of the Druk regime is not only just with the Nepali Bhutanese but also with over 30,000 Tshanglas and Ngalungs who have been living in exile in the Indian states of Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh since 1963. Also, the step-mother and brothers of the Bhutanese monarch are in exile with thousands of associates in India who are anxiously waiting / working for the appropriate time to express their dissatisfaction against the Druk establishment that is responsible for confiscating thousand of hectares of land and other assets registered to these royal relatives until 1974 that is now illegally registered in the name of new royalists.
The indulgence of seizure of the property by the Druk regime did not even spare the monastrial bodies. The vivid example lies in the periphery of land of the oldest Takstang Monastery built in the 12th century (which was gutted by fire and was reconstructed with the help of the UNESCO). It is now registered in the name of the Royal relatives.
Thus, instead of resettling the handful of Bhutanese refugees abroad, the UNHCR should seek the option of non-military sanction against Bhutan and compel the government to stop the state sponsored-terrorism and accept the repatriation of all the Bhutanese in exile.
Until the arrival of appropriate time for safe and dignified repatriation, the tactics of dole-reduction with respect to essential commodities (which is already insufficient) of survival like rice, other edible commodities, repairing materials of makeshift huts and latrines, education of refugee children, medical facilities of chronic diseases, immediate and appropriate hospital facilities to all patients, availability of qualified doctors and distributions of clothes must resume. The registration of the victims of torture, who have arrived late from the Bhutanese jail must be initiated.
Furthermore, the distribution of "coal brackets" that is proven for causing environment pollution and health hazard should be stopped and the alternate source of energy should be designed. Bluntly speaking, the refugees have opined that the reduction of relief materials is mere an attempt to coerce the refugees with no other option but to accept third country settlement or assimilation in Nepal or elsewhere other than Bhutan.
Indeed, if the rights to repatriation in their motherland is diluted by any pretext, the commitment of human rights, democracy, covenants of the UN and its associated organs will transform to be instruments just to protect the interest of bigger powers according to their will instead of protecting the needful individuals.
Therefore, the powerful countries like the United States and India has to draw their attention towards the matter and protect the world from the victory of state sponsored-terrorism, ethnic cleansing and religious intolerance persisting in Bhutan.
(The writer is former National Assembly Member and general secretary of Bhutan National Democratic Party-BNDP)
Source: eKantipur.com