Damber Karki, who was on his way home Beldangi along with KB Khadka, discribes the real scene of Khadka’s attack. He is the only living eye-witness. In the second half, Tek Nath Rizal speaks seriously on fragile security situation in camps.
17 thoughts on “'Who said there is security in camp ?'”
Comments are closed.
Mr. Rizal, it is ridiculous to hear that you have distributed Rs.5000.00 each to the refugees going to the camp. Will you let the same people(the people you claimed have received money from you) know that how you amashed that money? Is it not in the name of the same people? If so, then why did you say that you have given money from your own pocket? Common, atleast feel shame to utter such spitful words if you think that you are a leader of the same downtrodden people.
We have seen a tragic incedent in Beldangi .Since than people have opened their eyes still further and stepped ahead to IOM for prompt ressettlement to all bhutanese .
Yes! there are no security in the camps.This is the best chance to get through another country.Who ever is there either maoist or khaoist people have to see their own choice.
No body takes risk of such incident.Teknath has no option to make people to keep in the camps sending his own son abroad.Hai Tek nath dont make people fool!The day will come to hear soon about you if u really go agaainst IOM and people’s wish and intrests
[……..all defaming comments will be deleted like this……..]
Dear administrator, I have been closely working with the Bhutanese refugee problem since more than a decade. Also I am a regular visitor of BNS and APFA news. Today I was shocked to read that Bhutanese refugees are blaming their veteran leader hiding their ID, and I felt writing something to speak on his behalf
Replying to Kamal
Respected Kamal as you mentioned that it is useless to meet with Nepalese leaders to talk about Bhutanese refugees’ issues but Nepal is the host country to give shelter for refugees so refugee community must make happy to the Nepalese authorities and political leader for their safety, security of the refugees. Due to the continuous effort of Bhutanese refugees leader in Nepal, recent government is giving priority to the Bhutanese refugees issues to its common minimum program and policy and program of the government. In the recent visit of Madhab Kumar Nepal to India, he raised the issues of Bhutanese refugees to his counterpart due to the request of the Bhutanese refugees’ leader.
Those people who don’t see the contribution of refugee leader they must ask themselves, what they did for the movement. I request all of you to come with real ID to debate on the refugee problem and our debate must pressurize the dictator king of Bhutan to bring him the international criminal court to charge crime against humanity.
Replying to bhotangey
Respected Bhotangey, Of course UNHCR is the only source of hope of the refugees but one important things is UNHCR in Nepal is not only to feed and resettle the refugee, its main objective is to provide safety and security of the refugee. People are killing day by day and UNHCR is not ready to send any fact finding mission and even it is not ready to issue press statement. We must request UNHCR to be serious in such type of case coz UNHCR can pressurize the concern stake holder easily. However our demand should be very diplomatic.
Replying to Nilik
Respected Nilik, We simply imagine the hand behind the murder of refugees’ leader in different way but we shouldn’t forget that the agent of Bhutanese kings’ presence in Nepal is terrible. I have found many people working for Bhutan. Few months before I have met the Nepalese guy who tell me that he get more than fifty thousand rupees per months just sending the archive of news publish in Nepali media regarding Bhutanese issues.
As you know that Nepal is in the transitional stage and security situation is fragile and hardcore criminal are enjoying with red carpet of impunity. Professional killers may use by Bhutanese authority to murder the people. As I found numbers of Bhutanese agents in Nepal even I am not feeling safe in my soil.
Replying to Abinash
Please be careful to choose language before blaming anybody. We should respect the honor and dignity of individual. Mr. Rizal is the only Bhutanese refugees who got Especial consultant (ECOSOC) status from UN human rights committee.
So the entire world know that he is not only the refugees leader but alo the human rights leaders of the world
Replying to Kalpa and Saila
I think most of you are there due to the TCR program. But have you ever think that how the concept of TCR started? Mr. Rizal started sit-in-demand program in front of UN building and SAARC secretariat in Kathmandu for more than 7 months and probably it was the longest sit in demand program in front of UN around the world. Hearing this news many journalist delegates and other international stakeholders visit Nepal and they homework themselves and they come to conclusion to resettle the refugee. However Rizal was only advocating in the favor of repatriation. But it was not possible at that time and they decided to resettle the refugee. Indirectly the credit of the TCR goes to Mr. Rizal.
Mr. Rizal strongly respects the rights of individual, and he don’t interfere the personnel life of the other people, including his relatives, friends, and family members.
He just gives advice but not dictate anybody. You are in the western world and you know the value of the individual rights. After crossing 18 years one can do whatever he/she like, there are no any roles of parents’ guardian to son and daughter. Same things you can see in the life of Mr. Rizal.
As far as people are alleging that Rizal is earning money in the name of refugees, we are closely working with him for more than half decade and we know how he is surviving. He had hard life before, but we suggested him to write some books. He wrote mind blowing books and he is able to sell more than fifteen thousand copies of his three books and this money is sufficient to advocate him for the Bhutanese cause. Due to his transparent nature we the Nepalese community build a social network of more than hundreds peoples and raise the levy three hundreds a months to help him and his cause. Our small contribution and his sales of publications survive the sit in demand program for such a long time. How we feel happy to assist Mr. Rizal because of his transparency of his every sphere of works. Even till this date he is honestly inform us even if he get support of a kg of rice from his well wishers. We are struggling for life with more than 2.5 core of Nepali and I don’t know any single Neplease leaders who are transparent as like Mr. Rizal. That’s why we are happy to support him. Please come with your real ID that if he misuses any fund of refugees and the fund allocated for the refugee till this date. Otherwise dont blame in such a balseless way.
Regarding his house cases in Anarmani, he got profit from his sixth edition of Nirvanas and he used that money to build two rooms with Jasta pata roof top.
Mr. Rizal is not only the property of Bhutanese refugees; he is also the property of South Asian block. Today every political leaders of the world who take interest about south Asian block know the contribution of Mr. Rizal. You guys must generate some innovative idea to cash his popularity to advocate refugees’ problem
Replying to Leopard
If you are married and if you have son and daughter of the age of 18 they are not in your control and they can do whatever they like. That is their individual rights. You don’t have rights to interfere their life. This is the beauty of human rights and it applied also to the Rizal’s case. Until and unless Mr. Rizal resettles it is illogical to blame in that way.
Raju Thapa,
You wrote what is dictated by Rizal but I don’t agree with you or your arguments in support of Rizal. Tell us in very specific terms what is the use of meeting Nepali leaders who are not able to find out a solution to the problem in last almost twenty years. Don’t you think 20 years is a long time. Meeting Girija, MK Nepal, Chakra Bastola time and again what’s the use. How many times did Girija become Prime Minister and Chakra Foreign Minister and Ambassador? But what they did for the suffering people, just issue press release.Stop justifying and supporting a […Rizal]. I know you are not Raju Thapa and don’t play dirty politics.
I dont know who this Raju Thapa is..but we actually tried to write the truth and the sufferings of us all this years…but https://www.apfanews.com has always rejected to publish our comments on those matters and we feel very disgraced…its seems that the news and medias are more like unders our leaders observation…there is no freedom rights…so dont care to write anything…this happaned in Bhutan and is still happaning in Nepal too..Mr. T.N ji just do what you wanna do and what you like…this is your world….
Does this news agency has any one else except Tek Nanth Rizal to be interviewed?
What ever he speaks affable is all to create illusions in the mind of honest camp dwellers.
He is probably making his final efforts as to keep his income generating source, the refugees. I am saying this as he was always willing to make money launching so called Back to country campaigns. he was lured by that kind of campaigns. if you closely examine his activities after being released from jail in the Bhutan you can easily decipher his motives.
It would be great if this news agency can stop interview such a beast that makes money out of suffering of the class the media proclaims to speak for. Jai Bhutan
Well,it is always easy to pass comments and everyone is entitle to do so in this free world except Bhutan.Perspectives and perceptions do vary with individuals but passing personal comments in unethical manners doesn’t sound great.”Xerox, in this free world I would like to reserve my right to call you a moron”.Probably you will question my ethics but I do have an answer for that.I would definately like to read your response.Let me question you about your contribution to this ongoing struggle.It isn’t a joke to be imprisoned for more than a decade in a Bhutanese jail.
I definately agree what bhutani has to say,yes, people in refugee camps did have a difficult life and nothing is big enough to compensate the pain,but MR.Rizal did suffer for us, if we cannot appreciate his sacrifice let’s not criticize it too. “live and let leave”
jai Bhutan
i aggried all the comands given above person who gives a commands.
The author has indeed been objective in his article on the refugee issue. As has always been the stand of many posters in this forum, these are no refugees in the first place. They are just Nepalese immigrants (from Nepal) who after failing to achieve their ulterior motive of taking over Bhutan had returned to Nepal. Ogata, Koirila, the so called refugee leaders acted in collaboration with the biased media in Nepal and the result – Bhutan’s image was tarnished.
Like someone pointed out, Bhutan should push for an investigation on the roles of the UNHCR headed by this woman Ogata. UNHCR had never been a solution to the problem but was part of the problem. UNHCR and the Nepalese government were the one who created this so called Bhutanese refugee problem so that both could benefit from it. Luckily for Bhutan, countries like Australia, Canada, USA some European countries who have agreed to settle these people seem to have known the true intention of these people and their so called leaders and the genuine concern of the Bhutan.
Pelden Drukpa Lhagello!
This month, the first batch of 25,000 refugees left camps in seven United Nations-supervised camps in eastern Nepal, and the vast majority of the 86,000 remaining have signed up for resettlement in the West; most of them are heading for the United States.
The origin of the crisis, which has exposed bureaucratic bungling and nationalist fervor at their worst, lies not so much in Bhutan as in Sikkim, which provided a foreshadow of what could have been the fate of Bhutan.
With porous borders and a weak state apparatus, the diminutive kingdom of Sikkim had become a destination of choice for a creeping ongoing uncontrolled immigration from nearby Nepal.
As the Nepalese slowly increased in number they also brought with them the political factionalism and dissent that plagued their country of origin. By 1975, the local Sikimese Bhutia had become a minority in their own country and the level of political unrest had become such that New Delhi had to step in and annex Sikkim.
The lesson was not lost on the Bhutanese, who were also exposed to similar immigration pressure from Nepal and where government circles had come to the conclusion – a view shared by many Western specialist of the region – that Bhutan was destined for extinction if decisive measures were not taken to bring to a stop what had become a process of creeping demographic encroachment.
Thus, by the early 1980s, the government of Bhutan started to tighten rules regarding immigration. Likewise, residency requirements regarding the acquisition of citizenship, though still relatively liberal in comparison to those of many Western countries, were made more stringent. Admittance to government service was also restricted to nationals and the use of the national language, Dzongkha, was made mandatory for official business.
These measures were increasingly badly received by the immigrant community and with unrest spreading in southern Bhutan, where most of the newcomers had congregated, the authorities decided to resort to a more radical solution – the wholesale expulsion of immigrants. Thus, between the end of 1990 and 1992, some 100,000 illegal immigrants were expelled from Bhutan.
While there was considerable debate as regards the precise composition of the group, the fact that some 70,000 moved to Nepal, which had no common border with Bhutan as it is separated by a strip of land that is part of India, made a compelling case for them being of Nepali origin. As for the remaining 30,000, they moved to India, where they joined the some four million strong Nepalese community.
While the expulsions were at times brutal, for the half million indigenous inhabitants of Bhutan what was at stake was the cultural survival of the last Tantric Buddhist kingdom in the Himalayas.
Had events been permitted to run their course, the 70,000 who arrived in Nepal would have faded away and the impact of their arrival in a country of some 28.5 million inhabitants which, for all practical purposes was their own, would have passed unnoticed. That events took another turn was due to an odd set of circumstances, namely the failure of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN refugee agency, to properly address the Kurdish crisis in northern Iraq in 1991.
In the wake of the first Gulf War in 1991, the US government encouraged the Kurds in northern Iraq to revolt against Saddam Hussein. When, however, Saddam turned against the Kurds, Washington did not come to their help and the result was a massive population displacement which saw hundreds of thousands of Kurds seek refuge in areas in northern Iraq not under Saddam’s control, while others sought refuge in Iran and Turkey.
The exodus caught the then-high commissioner for refugees, Madame Sadako Ogata, completely unprepared and exposed her to a wave of criticism both from Western governments and the non-governmental organization community.
To mitigate censure for her failure, Ogata created, within the UNHCR bureaucracy, a so-called Emergency Response Unit allegedly responsible for ensuring that the refugee agency be capable of responding at short notice to a sudden refugee crisis anywhere in the world.
However, with no further crises in sight but an unemployed emergency unit at hand, the UNHCR bureaucracy became a solution in search of a problem. That problem suddenly emerged in 1992, when the government of Nepal asked the UNHCR to take charge of the group expelled from Bhutan on the grounds that these were “refugees”, that is, foreign nationals who had fled persecution in their country of origin.
Normally, the UNHCR, before intervening, would have undertaken a survey of the caseload to determine exactly their nationality and reasons for departure. Had this been undertaken, the inescapable conclusion would have been that the overwhelming majority were actually Nepalese and hence, by the fact that they were in their own country, did not qualifying for refugee status.
But Ogata did not run a tight shop and spurred by the urge to be perceived as active, the UNHCR opened seven camps without undertaking even a semblance of a survey of the arrivals. Over subsequent years, as the UNHCR kept on pouring money into the camps, Bhutan and Nepal embarked on a series of protracted and fruitless discussions as to how to deal with the group.
While Bhutan acknowledged that among the camp population there might be a few bona-fide Bhutanese citizens whom they could accept back, they where wary of exposing themselves to a massive return. Conversely, the Nepali authorities, already embroiled in a major internal crisis, were insisting on the wholesale return of the group. By then, the camps had become hotbeds of opposition to the Bhutanese government and were in part controlled by various Marxist groups, including some of Maoist extraction.
In 1996, a senior UNHCR official on a visit to Bhutan acknowledged that the UNHCR should never have opened the camps in the first place, with the extenuating explanation that the decision to do so derived from plain stupidity rather than evil intent. But Japanese Ogata was not one to acknowledge her mistakes, and though she visited Bhutan in November 2000, she remained impervious to any recommendations to close the camps.
By the time Ogata left the UNHCR in December 2000, the situation in the camps had undergone a thorough Palestinization and with Nepal dead-set against local integration schemes, no solution appeared in sight other than the prospect of an unending financing for the camps.
Within the UNHCR, it was not a situation with which the hardcore bureaucracy found fault. With the agency’s existence justified by the existence of refugees, the incentive was in opening camps rather than closing them and the more refugees to care for so much the better. And when the beneficiaries were not exactly “refugees”, the temptation to stretch the rules and thus increase the number of the organization’s constituents proved irresistible.
It was only in 2004, with the nomination of a new director for Asia, that the UNHCR started to reconsider the issue. With neither repatriation nor local settlement in the cards, resettlement appeared as the only viable option. Thus, by 2006, following a Canadian initiative, the so-called “Core Group” of countries which had monitored the problem and that included Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and the US, decided that they would all offer resettlement slots to the camp population. With the US ready to accept up to 70 000 and a resettlement rhythm of some 20,000 a year, it was estimated that in four to five years the problem could be solved and the camps closed.
The announcement of the resettlement scheme provoked a major outcry throughout the camps. Fearful of losing their captive constituencies, the various political factions active in the camps, such as the Bhutan Communist Party, the Bhutan Peoples’ Party and the Democratic Socialists, supported by exiled movements, launched a massive campaign against resettlement. Riots erupted and in May 2007 three camp inhabitants who had volunteered for resettlement were killed. As for the Nepal government, for whom the camps represented a source of income, it was only after severe pressure from the “Core Group” that it agreed to deliver exit permits to those who had been accepted for resettlement.
While the resettlement selection process proved laborious for most of the camp inhabitants, the opportunity to move to a developed country finally proved irresistible. Thus, this December, the UNHCR announced that 25,000 refugees had signed up for resettlement in the West. The Nepal office of the UNHCR said the US had so far accepted the largest number, 22,060, followed by Australia (1,006), Canada (892), Norway (316), Denmark (305), New Zealand (299) and the Netherlands (122).
With the trend towards resettlement now irreversible, it is only a matter of time before the Bhutan “refugee” issue is brought to its final conclusion.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
UNCHR is responsible for the creation of the Nepalese issue in Bhutan and now they must resolve the issue. Every western or donor partners were always misinformed by these people of nepali origin. They always painted a bad picture of Bhutan whenever the opportunity came their way. Our belief is that the TRUTH will prevail in the end. We wish our few misled people to do well wherever they go but never be ungrateful like you all did to Bhutan. We also hear stories like a refugee woman resettled in Denmark had infact not set foot on the Bhutanese Soil. We are confident that most of the so claimed to be refugees fall in that category. The truth is difficult to digest and the truth is these people are ungrateful and cancerious.
Posted on: 2009/12/15 2:59
Hey Dorji, you sound like typical arrogant, dumb Bhutanese who think they are the smartest people and evrybodyelse are dumb.
1. For your information, Lepchas ans Limbus are the native people of Sikkim not Bhutias. Bhutias came to Sikkim from Tibet like you Drukpas did from tibet, your Shabdung too fled from Tibet. At least Sikkim and India have given due recognition to Lepchas and Limbus, they are protected as backward tribes. Native people of Bhutan are Doyas and Totas who live in remote isolated villages and your Government has done nothing to uplift them. So, for your information Bhutias in Sikkim and Drukpas in Bhutan are also immigrants like people of Nepali origin.Just because Drukpas are in power it don’t make you more Bhutanese than us.
2. How can you justify the resettlement of Bhutanese from other parts of Bhutan on the land of evicted southern Bhutanese. Your Gunda Boss, King Jigme Singye looted the land from us and distributed them in the name of Kasho, Kasho my foot. He is disgrace to Budhism, he will rot in hale. You hypocrates claim to be Budhists but you are the most materialistic people in the World. GNH, my foot, everybody is after money in Bhutan. Your PM goes around preachng GNH but as soon as he gets home he is into business of making money by granting big money minting projects to his nephew and son. You guys can only write about it in the forum but can’t raise your voice in your country for fear of being thrown in jail. While PM and MPs are in the race of looting the country you Bhutanese can only be silent witness, how do you like that. You go ahead keep doing Laso la , yes la.
3.
3. I have a joke for you, Bhutan’s King Jigme Gesar has four mothers because his father has four wives, therefore Bhutan has four Queen mothers. One King and four Queen mothers ??? that is confusing.How can four women give birth to a son ??? Come on , give respect to the woman who gave birth to your King, how about other women be called Queen Aunties ha ha !!!! that doesn’t sound that bad.I don’t even know which one of the women are your King’s biological mother.
4. All your big shots with lot of money are interconnected, Prime Minister is well connected with other rich and influential Bhutanese that he will get away with bloody murder while you ordinary Bhutanese keep sulking ad whining. He is connected to the King through marriage of his son.
5. I will be back with more when I have time. I need to go to work to earn my living and pay taxes to my Government so we can feed hungry and needy Bhutanese through our Government’s contribution to WFP and other UN agencies.One of you guys once said in the forum that western countries are taking Bhutanese refugees because they don’t have people to clean their toilets at the airport, to this I got to say ” HOW DO YOU LIKE BEING FED WITH THE MONEY CONTRIBUTED BY THE TOILET CLEANERS IN THE WESTERN COUNTRIES”
Dorji, Congratulations on the appointment of Sonam topgey as the judge of supreme Court of Bhutan despite the cries of ordinary Bhutanese. I just read Bhutan time forum and feel sorry for you guy pouring your heart out on this subject. Whine whine….. nothingelse you can do. Your King and your elected Government had already chosen ST as the supreme court judge as he was told to retire couple of months ago and be prepared for the post. You guys knew it but hoping that it is not true, our King can’t do this. It was just an eyewash that a commitee was formed to make a recommendation. This is called fooling the fools and making a mockery of Bhutanese democracy. Now, go ahead , hide behind the closed doors and kick yourselves on the rear bottom.Your King and DPT Government are hand in gloves.
Now, your Supreme Court judge who is a Class X fail from Dr. Graham’s Homes, Kalimpong will continue to impress Bhutanese with his colourful speeches with the quotes from Shakespears which he is known to do. He is empty in head, what kind of justice you expect him to deliver. I have an idea, you should have a shadow supreme court judge with proper Law Degree who will check and balance him.
This man, who was High Court judge for almost four decades could have taken step to train Bhutanese with proper Law Degree. By now at least the judges at the High Court should have been the ones with Law Degree. No, he would not do that on purpose because he didn’t like the idea of having someone with Law Degree in Bhutan because then he wouldn’t be able to bullshit Bhutanese.
Good Luck with your Class X fail Supreme Court judge !!! which is possible only in Bhutan.
I will come up with some more “Possible only in Bhutan” when I get time.