Refugees

Background of Bhutanese Refugees

The Bhutanese refugee crisis has its roots in the history of migration to Bhutan, the resulting ethnically diverse make-up of the country’s population, and the harsh policies of Bhutan’s absolute monarchy towards its ethnic Nepali minority.1 The politically and culturally dominant Ngalongs, who live mainly in the central and western regions of Bhutan, are of Tibetan descent; their ancestors arrived in Bhutan in the eighth and ninth centuries. The Ngalongs speak Dzongkha and follow the Drukpa Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism, which is Bhutan’s state religion. Bhutan’s king, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, is a Ngalong. The Sharchhops, who live in eastern Bhutan, are descendants of the earliest migrants to arrive in Bhutan; they are of Indo-Burmese origin, speak Tshangla (which is closely related to Dzongkha) and follow the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism. Together the Ngalongs and Sharchhops are known as Drukpas. The third major group, who differ greatly from the Drukpas in terms of culture, language, and religion, are ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan; they speak Nepali and are predominantly Hindu.
Ethnic Nepalis first began migrating to Bhutan in the nineteenth century. Many became eligible for Bhutanese citizenship under the 1958 Nationality Law. Moreover, from the mid-1950s ethnic Nepalis began to be admitted into the bureaucracy, the army and the police, and were made members of the cabinet and the judiciary. However, by the late 1970s the Drukpa establishment had come to see the ethnic Nepalis’ growing numbers and influence as a threat to Bhutan’s cultural identity and the Drukpas’ own privileged position. Increasingly, Bhutan’s ruling elite asserted that the majority of the ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan were not in fact citizens but illegal immigrants who threatened Bhutan’s “survival as a distinct political and cultural entity.”
The government invoked these perceived threats as justification for a series of discriminatory measures aimed at the political, economic, and cultural exclusion of Bhutan’s ethnic Nepalis. Two new Citizenship Acts were passed in quick succession, in 1977 and 1985, each tightening the requirements for Bhutanese citizenship.7The 1977 Citizenship Act increased the residency requirement for citizenship by 10 years: from five to 15 years for government servants and from 10 to 20 years for all other foreigners. The growing concerns about the threat posed by ethnic Nepalis to Bhutan’s cultural identity were reflected in an additional requirement for applicants for Bhutanese citizenship to have “some knowledge” of the Dzongkha language and Bhutanese history. The 1977 Act also provided that citizenship would not be granted to anyone who was related to any person involved in activities against the people, the country, and the King. Bhutan’s first national census from 1979 to 1981 used the criteria set out in the 1977 Act to identify residents as citizens or not. Following the census, only those identified as citizens according to the 1977 Act were issued citizenship identity cards.
The 1985 Citizenship Act tightened the requirements for Bhutanese citizenship still further. Under the 1985 Act, a child only automatically qualifies for citizenship if both parents are Bhutanese. The 1985 Act raised the bar higher for naturalization. The 1985 Act also provided for citizenship by registration if one had been permanently domiciled in Bhutan on or before December 31, 1958, and one’s name had been registered in the Ministry of Home Affairs census register.
The 1985 Citizenship Act was followed by a new census in 1988. This census amounted to a selective, arbitrary, and retroactive implementation of the 1985 Act. First, the government only conducted the census in southern Bhutan. Second, the authorities excluded ethnic Nepalis from becoming naturalized citizens, as provided for under the 1985 Act; instead, the authorities restricted Bhutanese citizenship to ethnic Nepalis who had records, such as tax receipts, to prove residence in Bhutan in 1958—30 years before the census. Bhutanese officials refused to accept residency records from 1957 or earlier, or from the years 1957 and 1959 (indicating residency in 1958) to establish citizenship. They disregarded the citizenship identity cards issued after the previous census: the authorities classified people who could not prove residence in 1958 as non-nationals, “returned migrants”, or other illegal immigrant categories, even if they possessed a citizenship card.
The census caused considerable anxiety among the ethnic Nepali population in southern Bhutan. A series of “Bhutanization” measures in line with Bhutan’s “one nation, one people” policy exacerbated this state of fear and resentment by trying to impose a distinct national identity. On January 16, 1989, the king issued a decree requiring all citizens to observe the traditional Drukpa code of values, dress, and etiquette called driglam namzha. Then in February 1989 the government removed the Nepali language from the curriculum in all schools in southern Bhutan.
Ethnic Nepalis perceived these policies as a direct attack on their cultural identity. This led to growing unrest in southern Bhutan, culminating in mass demonstrations in September and October 1990. The government response was swift. The authorities classified all participants in the demonstrations as ngolops (“anti-nationals”), and arrested and detained thousands of people accused of taking part in the demonstrations. Many were subjected to ill-treatment and torture; a number of people reportedly died in detention. The security forces staged frequent raids on the homes of ethnic Nepalis, and there were numerous accounts of women and girls being raped in the course of these raids. Following the demonstrations, the government closed all schools in southern Bhutan and suspended health services.
By the end of 1990 the Bhutanese authorities coerced the first ethnic Nepalis to leave Bhutan. They released some ethnic Nepalis from prison on condition that they would leave the country, while giving others who were categorized as non-nationals under the 1988 census the “choice” to leave the country or face imprisonment. Some fled to avoid falling victim to arbitrary arrest and detention. The security forces harassed many ethnic Nepalis, in some cases destroying their homes. The authorities forced the majority of those who became refugees into exile by intimidating them into signing so-called “voluntary migration forms.”A young man’s testimony was typical of the accounts refugees gave to Human Rights Watch of the circumstances of their departure from Bhutan:
The army took all the people from their houses. The army came to my house many times. My father left the house and went to India. My brother and two sisters worked in the government service. The army sent us the form issued by the government [voluntary migration form]. They said that we had to go out. They said if you go now you will get some money. Some people got a little money. On the way [as we left Bhutan] there were many police. We were forced to sign the document. They snapped our photos. The man told me to smile, to show my teeth. He wanted to show that I was leaving my country willingly, happily, that I was not forced to leave. Only one member of my family signed. My mother gave her thumbprint.
Some of the ethnic Nepalis who fled or were expelled from Bhutan settled in India, but most refugees ended up in Nepal. UNHCR has provided assistance to the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal since 1992.There are currently more than 106,000 Bhutanese refugees living in seven refugee camps in Nepal.

Since 1990, over 106,000 Bhutanese refugees are living in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) managed seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal. Bhutanese refugee
population as per the latest report on world's refugee population included in the UNHCR STATISTICAL YEAR BOOK 2002 - Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions are as follows: (Pages: 399 and 227) The UNHCR Statistical Year Book 2002 was released in July 2004. The UNHCR Statistical Year Book 2003 (provisional report) can be found at UNHCR website

Year and Population of Refugee

1993 : 85,334.................1994 : 103,265
1995 : 104,740................1996 : 106,801
1997 : 108,674................1998 : 105,651
1999 : 107,571................2000 : 108,897
2001 : 110,780................2002 : 112,263

In the year 2002, there were 112,263 Bhutanese refugees registered with the UNHCR (as per the above report). Approximately, 25,000 Bhutanese refugees were living outside of the UNHCR managed refugee camps in Nepal and India. Thus, there were a total of approximately 137,263 Bhutanese refugees living in the UNHCR managed camps in Nepal and outside of the refugees camps in Nepal and India in 2002.

Main location in Nepal


Refugees have high birth rate

The birth rate among the Bhutanese refugee population has been found to be double than that of the local people. About 80,000 Bhutanese including children have taken refuge in Nepal since 10 years ago. There are 101,283 Bhutanese refugees at Beldangi, Goldhap, Timai and Khudunabari of Jhapa district and Sanischare (Pathari) of Morang district. A report made public by head of the United Nations High Commission for Refugee (UNHCR) in Jhapa John Andrew states that 21 per cent of the total refugee population has been born in the camps. Among the total refugee population 44, 783 are women, 46,022 men and 10,487 children below the age of five. The Bhutanese seldom use family planning methods as they wish to get maximum relief and facilities.
Various reports on the violation of human rights in Bhutan and Bhutanese refugees have been published. Please Click on BHUTANESE REFUGEES to read them. This website provides complete and authentic information on the origin, causes, and current situation about Bhutanese refugees.

New Home for Bhutanese Refugees

Nestled between India and China, the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan seems an unlikely starting point for large-scale ethnic displacement. But since the early 90s more than 100,000 members of the Nepalese-speaking Bhutanese population have been living in refugee camps in eastern Nepal, evicted from Bhutan for their pro-democratic activities. This year almost 5,000 Bhutanese refugees will leave their camps for resettlement in the US, according to a report by the UNHCR. Kishor Pradhan, who has been in exile since 1990, hopes to become one of them


>The Ti Mai Bhutanese refugee camp in eastern Nepal

It was in 1986, while I was in high school, that I first felt discriminated against because of my ethnicity. I was a Lhotshampa, which meant I was from the south of the country and spoke Nepalese. My other ethnic Nepalese friends and I wanted to celebrate Dashain, the biggest Hindu festival, so we bunked class. When the school principal berated us for our behaviour we apologised to him – little did I know that far greater repression was yet to come.

After finishing school I went to college in eastern Bhutan. At that time it was the only higher education institute in the nation. I wanted to take science but couldn’t because I had only scored 59%. So I studied commerce.

After Zangley Dukpa (now minister of health) became the college principal, the atmosphere became tense. He introduced stringent rules that were intended to repress my minority Nepali-speaking community. He closed down our Nepali Literary Association, which organised recitals of Nepali poems. We were required to wear the national dress (called Gho, a knee-length robe tightened at the waist by a belt) instead of our ethnic Daura Suruwal, a long double-breasted garment flowing below the waist, worn with trousers.

Then in 1989 Principal Dukpa issued an order that prohibited Lhotshampa students from celebrating Dashain. We saw this as discrimination and decided to celebrate anyway. A debate ensued and the security forces were summoned. Our photos were taken, and later the security forces came to our hostel and arrested my classmates.

When I heard that Lhotshampa people were being arrested and tortured, I left for my home in southern Bhutan. When I got there I found that the area had already become a hotbed of peaceful pro-democratic protest. Soon I was told that the security forces were searching for me, and in February 1990 I left for India. I walked for two hours to Kulkule and from there I rode a bus to Jayagaon in West Bengal, India. In Jayagaon I met a lot of Bhutanese refugees. As the crackdown continued in Bhutan, the number of refugees grew.

In the Indian border town of Garganda, refugees were being relocated to temporary camps. Various refugee forums were established there. I joined a group of like-minded refugee youths and in 1990 we formed the People’s Forum for Human Rights. Some of the refugee leaders went to eastern Nepal looking for a place to shelter the refugees. Nepal, which doesn’t share a border with Bhutan, was generous and provided us with land on the bank of the Mai River in the south of the country. I shuttled between India and Nepal, transporting the refugees – mostly children, elderly people and women.

We were able to draw the attention of non-profit organisations and donor agencies. Caritas Nepal, Oxfam and Lutheran World Service were the first to help us. Then, towards the end of 1991, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) started to manage the camps. To this day, my fellow countrymen still live in these seven sprawling camps.

I was registered in one of the camps, but my desire to learn and explore kept leading me to the outside world. I won a scholarship to a college in Kathmandu, the capital city of Nepal. It felt like my dream had come true when I was accepted to study science. After two years I won another scholarship to study for a bachelor’s degree in Calcutta, India.

In 1999, I married my long-time sweetheart, who was also a refugee. We left for Kathmandu, where I taught accounting in a number of schools. I wanted to teach because I didn’t like depending on the rations provided by the World Food Programme.

Life was good in Kathmandu, but the homelessness, lack of identity and the bitter past always came back to haunt me. Again, I and a few other professional Lhotshampas banded together to form an organisation – this time it was the Bhutanese Refugee Youth Forum.

In 2005 we were invited to attend a UN conference in New York, so I and one other member of our forum flew to the US. While we were there we met others from Bhutan who had sought refuge in America. They advised us to seek asylum. It sounded convincing. After all, the 15 rounds of talks between Nepal and Bhutan had failed to bring any hope to the 100,000-plus refugees languishing in camps in Nepal.

A year after I applied for asylum I was interviewed by the US Department of Homeland Security. But I have not been given asylum and no one has contacted me to tell my why. I have done several odd jobs while I’ve been here. For the past couple of years I have been working in New York, in software quality assurance. But every year I have to renew my employment authorisation card and life is still in limbo.

I am happy that the US has offered to resettle 70,000 Bhutanese refugees. Many of them are still trickling into the cities and communities of the US. I just hope that I will be granted the right to stay here – and I hope my wife and nine-year-old daughter will be able to join me. I hope that eventually we will have a place to call home.

Bhutanese Refugee

Background of Bhutanese Refugees

The Bhutanese refugee crisis has its roots in the history of migration to Bhutan, the resulting ethnically diverse make-up of the country’s population, and the harsh policies of Bhutan’s absolute monarchy towards its ethnic Nepali minority.1 The politically and culturally dominant Ngalongs, who live mainly in the central and western regions of Bhutan, are of Tibetan descent; their ancestors arrived in Bhutan in the eighth and ninth centuries. The Ngalongs speak Dzongkha and follow the Drukpa Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism, which is Bhutan’s state religion. Bhutan’s king, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, is a Ngalong. The Sharchhops, who live in eastern Bhutan, are descendants of the earliest migrants to arrive in Bhutan; they are of Indo-Burmese origin, speak Tshangla (which is closely related to Dzongkha) and follow the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism. Together the Ngalongs and Sharchhops are known as Drukpas. The third major group, who differ greatly from the Drukpas in terms of culture, language, and religion, are ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan; they speak Nepali and are predominantly Hindu.
Ethnic Nepalis first began migrating to Bhutan in the nineteenth century. Many became eligible for Bhutanese citizenship under the 1958 Nationality Law. Moreover, from the mid-1950s ethnic Nepalis began to be admitted into the bureaucracy, the army and the police, and were made members of the cabinet and the judiciary. However, by the late 1970s the Drukpa establishment had come to see the ethnic Nepalis’ growing numbers and influence as a threat to Bhutan’s cultural identity and the Drukpas’ own privileged position. Increasingly, Bhutan’s ruling elite asserted that the majority of the ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan were not in fact citizens but illegal immigrants who threatened Bhutan’s “survival as a distinct political and cultural entity.”
The government invoked these perceived threats as justification for a series of discriminatory measures aimed at the political, economic, and cultural exclusion of Bhutan’s ethnic Nepalis. Two new Citizenship Acts were passed in quick succession, in 1977 and 1985, each tightening the requirements for Bhutanese citizenship.7The 1977 Citizenship Act increased the residency requirement for citizenship by 10 years: from five to 15 years for government servants and from 10 to 20 years for all other foreigners. The growing concerns about the threat posed by ethnic Nepalis to Bhutan’s cultural identity were reflected in an additional requirement for applicants for Bhutanese citizenship to have “some knowledge” of the Dzongkha language and Bhutanese history. The 1977 Act also provided that citizenship would not be granted to anyone who was related to any person involved in activities against the people, the country, and the King. Bhutan’s first national census from 1979 to 1981 used the criteria set out in the 1977 Act to identify residents as citizens or not. Following the census, only those identified as citizens according to the 1977 Act were issued citizenship identity cards.
The 1985 Citizenship Act tightened the requirements for Bhutanese citizenship still further. Under the 1985 Act, a child only automatically qualifies for citizenship if both parents are Bhutanese. The 1985 Act raised the bar higher for naturalization. The 1985 Act also provided for citizenship by registration if one had been permanently domiciled in Bhutan on or before December 31, 1958, and one’s name had been registered in the Ministry of Home Affairs census register.
The 1985 Citizenship Act was followed by a new census in 1988. This census amounted to a selective, arbitrary, and retroactive implementation of the 1985 Act. First, the government only conducted the census in southern Bhutan. Second, the authorities excluded ethnic Nepalis from becoming naturalized citizens, as provided for under the 1985 Act; instead, the authorities restricted Bhutanese citizenship to ethnic Nepalis who had records, such as tax receipts, to prove residence in Bhutan in 1958—30 years before the census. Bhutanese officials refused to accept residency records from 1957 or earlier, or from the years 1957 and 1959 (indicating residency in 1958) to establish citizenship. They disregarded the citizenship identity cards issued after the previous census: the authorities classified people who could not prove residence in 1958 as non-nationals, “returned migrants”, or other illegal immigrant categories, even if they possessed a citizenship card.
The census caused considerable anxiety among the ethnic Nepali population in southern Bhutan. A series of “Bhutanization” measures in line with Bhutan’s “one nation, one people” policy exacerbated this state of fear and resentment by trying to impose a distinct national identity. On January 16, 1989, the king issued a decree requiring all citizens to observe the traditional Drukpa code of values, dress, and etiquette called driglam namzha. Then in February 1989 the government removed the Nepali language from the curriculum in all schools in southern Bhutan.
Ethnic Nepalis perceived these policies as a direct attack on their cultural identity. This led to growing unrest in southern Bhutan, culminating in mass demonstrations in September and October 1990. The government response was swift. The authorities classified all participants in the demonstrations as ngolops (“anti-nationals”), and arrested and detained thousands of people accused of taking part in the demonstrations. Many were subjected to ill-treatment and torture; a number of people reportedly died in detention. The security forces staged frequent raids on the homes of ethnic Nepalis, and there were numerous accounts of women and girls being raped in the course of these raids. Following the demonstrations, the government closed all schools in southern Bhutan and suspended health services.
By the end of 1990 the Bhutanese authorities coerced the first ethnic Nepalis to leave Bhutan. They released some ethnic Nepalis from prison on condition that they would leave the country, while giving others who were categorized as non-nationals under the 1988 census the “choice” to leave the country or face imprisonment. Some fled to avoid falling victim to arbitrary arrest and detention. The security forces harassed many ethnic Nepalis, in some cases destroying their homes. The authorities forced the majority of those who became refugees into exile by intimidating them into signing so-called “voluntary migration forms.”A young man’s testimony was typical of the accounts refugees gave to Human Rights Watch of the circumstances of their departure from Bhutan:
The army took all the people from their houses. The army came to my house many times. My father left the house and went to India. My brother and two sisters worked in the government service. The army sent us the form issued by the government [voluntary migration form]. They said that we had to go out. They said if you go now you will get some money. Some people got a little money. On the way [as we left Bhutan] there were many police. We were forced to sign the document. They snapped our photos. The man told me to smile, to show my teeth. He wanted to show that I was leaving my country willingly, happily, that I was not forced to leave. Only one member of my family signed. My mother gave her thumbprint.
Some of the ethnic Nepalis who fled or were expelled from Bhutan settled in India, but most refugees ended up in Nepal. UNHCR has provided assistance to the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal since 1992.There are currently more than 106,000 Bhutanese refugees living in seven refugee camps in Nepal.

Since 1990, over 106,000 Bhutanese refugees are living in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) managed seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal. Bhutanese refugee
population as per the latest report on world's refugee population included in the UNHCR STATISTICAL YEAR BOOK 2002 - Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions are as follows: (Pages: 399 and 227) The UNHCR Statistical Year Book 2002 was released in July 2004. The UNHCR Statistical Year Book 2003 (provisional report) can be found at UNHCR website

Year and Population of Refugee

1993 : 85,334.................1994 : 103,265
1995 : 104,740................1996 : 106,801
1997 : 108,674................1998 : 105,651
1999 : 107,571................2000 : 108,897
2001 : 110,780................2002 : 112,263

In the year 2002, there were 112,263 Bhutanese refugees registered with the UNHCR (as per the above report). Approximately, 25,000 Bhutanese refugees were living outside of the UNHCR managed refugee camps in Nepal and India. Thus, there were a total of approximately 137,263 Bhutanese refugees living in the UNHCR managed camps in Nepal and outside of the refugees camps in Nepal and India in 2002.

Main location in Nepal


Refugees have high birth rate

The birth rate among the Bhutanese refugee population has been found to be double than that of the local people. About 80,000 Bhutanese including children have taken refuge in Nepal since 10 years ago. There are 101,283 Bhutanese refugees at Beldangi, Goldhap, Timai and Khudunabari of Jhapa district and Sanischare (Pathari) of Morang district. A report made public by head of the United Nations High Commission for Refugee (UNHCR) in Jhapa John Andrew states that 21 per cent of the total refugee population has been born in the camps. Among the total refugee population 44, 783 are women, 46,022 men and 10,487 children below the age of five. The Bhutanese seldom use family planning methods as they wish to get maximum relief and facilities.
Various reports on the violation of human rights in Bhutan and Bhutanese refugees have been published. Please Click on BHUTANESE REFUGEES to read them. This website provides complete and authentic information on the origin, causes, and current situation about Bhutanese refugees.

Background

Background of Bhutanese Refugees


The Bhutanese refugee crisis has its roots in the history of migration to Bhutan, the resulting ethnically diverse make-up of the country’s population, and the harsh policies of Bhutan’s absolute monarchy towards its ethnic Nepali minority.1 The politically and culturally dominant Ngalongs, who live mainly in the central and western regions of Bhutan, are of Tibetan descent; their ancestors arrived in Bhutan in the eighth and ninth centuries. The Ngalongs speak Dzongkha and follow the Drukpa Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism, which is Bhutan’s state religion. Bhutan’s king, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, is a Ngalong. The Sharchhops, who live in eastern Bhutan, are descendants of the earliest migrants to arrive in Bhutan; they are of Indo-Burmese origin, speak Tshangla (which is closely related to Dzongkha) and follow the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism. Together the Ngalongs and Sharchhops are known as Drukpas. The third major group, who differ greatly from the Drukpas in terms of culture, language, and religion, are ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan; they speak Nepali and are predominantly Hindu.
Ethnic Nepalis first began migrating to Bhutan in the nineteenth century. Many became eligible for Bhutanese citizenship under the 1958 Nationality Law. Moreover, from the mid-1950s ethnic Nepalis began to be admitted into the bureaucracy, the army and the police, and were made members of the cabinet and the judiciary. However, by the late 1970s the Drukpa establishment had come to see the ethnic Nepalis’ growing numbers and influence as a threat to Bhutan’s cultural identity and the Drukpas’ own privileged position. Increasingly, Bhutan’s ruling elite asserted that the majority of the ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan were not in fact citizens but illegal immigrants who threatened Bhutan’s “survival as a distinct political and cultural entity.”
The government invoked these perceived threats as justification for a series of discriminatory measures aimed at the political, economic, and cultural exclusion of Bhutan’s ethnic Nepalis. Two new Citizenship Acts were passed in quick succession, in 1977 and 1985, each tightening the requirements for Bhutanese citizenship.7The 1977 Citizenship Act increased the residency requirement for citizenship by 10 years: from five to 15 years for government servants and from 10 to 20 years for all other foreigners. The growing concerns about the threat posed by ethnic Nepalis to Bhutan’s cultural identity were reflected in an additional requirement for applicants for Bhutanese citizenship to have “some knowledge” of the Dzongkha language and Bhutanese history. The 1977 Act also provided that citizenship would not be granted to anyone who was related to any person involved in activities against the people, the country, and the King. Bhutan’s first national census from 1979 to 1981 used the criteria set out in the 1977 Act to identify residents as citizens or not. Following the census, only those identified as citizens according to the 1977 Act were issued citizenship identity cards.
The 1985 Citizenship Act tightened the requirements for Bhutanese citizenship still further. Under the 1985 Act, a child only automatically qualifies for citizenship if both parents are Bhutanese. The 1985 Act raised the bar higher for naturalization. The 1985 Act also provided for citizenship by registration if one had been permanently domiciled in Bhutan on or before December 31, 1958, and one’s name had been registered in the Ministry of Home Affairs census register.
The 1985 Citizenship Act was followed by a new census in 1988. This census amounted to a selective, arbitrary, and retroactive implementation of the 1985 Act. First, the government only conducted the census in southern Bhutan. Second, the authorities excluded ethnic Nepalis from becoming naturalized citizens, as provided for under the 1985 Act; instead, the authorities restricted Bhutanese citizenship to ethnic Nepalis who had records, such as tax receipts, to prove residence in Bhutan in 1958—30 years before the census. Bhutanese officials refused to accept residency records from 1957 or earlier, or from the years 1957 and 1959 (indicating residency in 1958) to establish citizenship. They disregarded the citizenship identity cards issued after the previous census: the authorities classified people who could not prove residence in 1958 as non-nationals, “returned migrants”, or other illegal immigrant categories, even if they possessed a citizenship card.
The census caused considerable anxiety among the ethnic Nepali population in southern Bhutan. A series of “Bhutanization” measures in line with Bhutan’s “one nation, one people” policy exacerbated this state of fear and resentment by trying to impose a distinct national identity. On January 16, 1989, the king issued a decree requiring all citizens to observe the traditional Drukpa code of values, dress, and etiquette called driglam namzha. Then in February 1989 the government removed the Nepali language from the curriculum in all schools in southern Bhutan.
Ethnic Nepalis perceived these policies as a direct attack on their cultural identity. This led to growing unrest in southern Bhutan, culminating in mass demonstrations in September and October 1990. The government response was swift. The authorities classified all participants in the demonstrations as ngolops (“anti-nationals”), and arrested and detained thousands of people accused of taking part in the demonstrations. Many were subjected to ill-treatment and torture; a number of people reportedly died in detention. The security forces staged frequent raids on the homes of ethnic Nepalis, and there were numerous accounts of women and girls being raped in the course of these raids. Following the demonstrations, the government closed all schools in southern Bhutan and suspended health services.
By the end of 1990 the Bhutanese authorities coerced the first ethnic Nepalis to leave Bhutan. They released some ethnic Nepalis from prison on condition that they would leave the country, while giving others who were categorized as non-nationals under the 1988 census the “choice” to leave the country or face imprisonment. Some fled to avoid falling victim to arbitrary arrest and detention. The security forces harassed many ethnic Nepalis, in some cases destroying their homes. The authorities forced the majority of those who became refugees into exile by intimidating them into signing so-called “voluntary migration forms.”A young man’s testimony was typical of the accounts refugees gave to Human Rights Watch of the circumstances of their departure from Bhutan:
The army took all the people from their houses. The army came to my house many times. My father left the house and went to India. My brother and two sisters worked in the government service. The army sent us the form issued by the government [voluntary migration form]. They said that we had to go out. They said if you go now you will get some money. Some people got a little money. On the way [as we left Bhutan] there were many police. We were forced to sign the document. They snapped our photos. The man told me to smile, to show my teeth. He wanted to show that I was leaving my country willingly, happily, that I was not forced to leave. Only one member of my family signed. My mother gave her thumbprint.
Some of the ethnic Nepalis who fled or were expelled from Bhutan settled in India, but most refugees ended up in Nepal. UNHCR has provided assistance to the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal since 1992.There are currently more than 106,000 Bhutanese refugees living in seven refugee camps in Nepal.

Since 1990, over 106,000 Bhutanese refugees are living in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) managed seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal. Bhutanese refugee
population as per the latest report on world's refugee population included in the UNHCR STATISTICAL YEAR BOOK 2002 - Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions are as follows: (Pages: 399 and 227) The UNHCR Statistical Year Book 2002 was released in July 2004. The UNHCR Statistical Year Book 2003 (provisional report) can be found at UNHCR website

Year and Population of Refugee

1993 : 85,334.................1994 : 103,265
1995 : 104,740................1996 : 106,801
1997 : 108,674................1998 : 105,651
1999 : 107,571................2000 : 108,897
2001 : 110,780................2002 : 112,263

In the year 2002, there were 112,263 Bhutanese refugees registered with the UNHCR (as per the above report). Approximately, 25,000 Bhutanese refugees were living outside of the UNHCR managed refugee camps in Nepal and India. Thus, there were a total of approximately 137,263 Bhutanese refugees living in the UNHCR managed camps in Nepal and outside of the refugees camps in Nepal and India in 2002.

Main location in Nepal


Refugees have high birth rate

The birth rate among the Bhutanese refugee population has been found to be double than that of the local people. About 80,000 Bhutanese including children have taken refuge in Nepal since 10 years ago. There are 101,283 Bhutanese refugees at Beldangi, Goldhap, Timai and Khudunabari of Jhapa district and Sanischare (Pathari) of Morang district. A report made public by head of the United Nations High Commission for Refugee (UNHCR) in Jhapa John Andrew states that 21 per cent of the total refugee population has been born in the camps. Among the total refugee population 44, 783 are women, 46,022 men and 10,487 children below the age of five. The Bhutanese seldom use family planning methods as they wish to get maximum relief and facilities.
Various reports on the violation of human rights in Bhutan and Bhutanese refugees have been published. Please Click on BHUTANESE REFUGEES to read them. This website provides complete and authentic information on the origin, causes, and current situation about Bhutanese refugees.

"Refugee children working for small pocket money"

Bhutanese girls and women refugees spin thread on wheels at the Refugee Camp in the Jhapa district of eastern Nepal on March 20, 2008. As the isolated Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan prepares for historic elections, many of the 100,000 refugees languishing outside the country are appealing for a chance to return and take part in the country's general election on March 24. More over 100,000 Bhutanese refugees have been living in seven UNHCR - run refugees camps in Nepal's far eastern district of Sunsari and Jhapa since 1990, after they were forced to leave their home land in southern Bhutan. The Buddhist kingdom will conduct elections for a lower house on March 24, 2008, bringing an end to absolute rule by the immensely popular King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk, who took over the kingdom from his father in 2006.

"The need for a durable solution"

One of the core components of international protection for refugees is finding durable solutions. The refugee regime offers three durable solutions for refugees: voluntary repatriation, local integration in the region of displacement, or resettlement in a third country. The principal objective of each durable solution is to restore national protection to refugees. Sixteen years after the first ethnic Nepalis fled or were expelled from Bhutan the Bhutanese refugees are still awaiting a durable solution.
While the Bhutanese refugees have found basic protection in Nepal, the continuing confinement of more than 100,000 refugees to camps is clearly not sustainable either for the refugees or for the international community. As discussed earlier, the protracted nature of this refugee crisis is taking a heavy toll on the refugees. Being reduced to a state of complete dependency is a source of immeasurable frustration, and has given rise to increased levels of depression and psychosocial problems in the camps. Refugee parents despair of their inability to provide a future for their children, while in the past few years refugee youths have been growing increasingly restless in the face of the ongoing uncertainty about their prospects. Time and again refugees indicated to Human Rights Watch that while they are grateful for the support they receive from the international community, their only true desire is to be restored to the status of full citizens, with full respect for their political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. A young refugee man expressed his frustration with his situation as follows: “I cannot live in the camp anymore. I will go to any country where they will give me citizenship, even if it is Afghanistan.” A 45-year-old refugee said:
We want to live in an atmosphere where we can eat our own bread earned from our own sweat. We don’t want to be dependent on others. We no longer want to have the tag of “refugee.” Half our lives have been spent as refugees. We don’t want that tag on our children’s forehead. We want them to be proud citizens.
In interviews with Human Rights Watch, some refugees said that they have vested their hopes in political changes in Bhutan leading to their Bhutanese citizenship being restored, while others said that they hope for Nepal or a third country to offer them citizenship. But what all those interviewed have in common is their urgent desire to regain their independence and to be allowed to become productive members of society, able to take care of their own needs and to offer a future to their children. As a 25-year-old refugee man said, “I don’t want a golden plate. I want freedom. “The camp secretary of Timai camp spoke for many refugees when he said, “People in the camps are very frustrated. They look for an end to their refugee existence. They need a solution. It can be any of the three solutions [repatriation, resettlement or local integration], but we do not want to continue as refugees anymore, that is the general plea of the refugees.”

"The need for a durable solution"

One of the core components of international protection for refugees is finding durable solutions. The refugee regime offers three durable solutions for refugees: voluntary repatriation, local integration in the region of displacement, or resettlement in a third country. The principal objective of each durable solution is to restore national protection to refugees. Sixteen years after the first ethnic Nepalis fled or were expelled from Bhutan the Bhutanese refugees are still awaiting a durable solution.
While the Bhutanese refugees have found basic protection in Nepal, the continuing confinement of more than 100,000 refugees to camps is clearly not sustainable either for the refugees or for the international community. As discussed earlier, the protracted nature of this refugee crisis is taking a heavy toll on the refugees. Being reduced to a state of complete dependency is a source of immeasurable frustration, and has given rise to increased levels of depression and psychosocial problems in the camps. Refugee parents despair of their inability to provide a future for their children, while in the past few years refugee youths have been growing increasingly restless in the face of the ongoing uncertainty about their prospects. Time and again refugees indicated to Human Rights Watch that while they are grateful for the support they receive from the international community, their only true desire is to be restored to the status of full citizens, with full respect for their political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. A young refugee man expressed his frustration with his situation as follows: “I cannot live in the camp anymore. I will go to any country where they will give me citizenship, even if it is Afghanistan.” A 45-year-old refugee said:
We want to live in an atmosphere where we can eat our own bread earned from our own sweat. We don’t want to be dependent on others. We no longer want to have the tag of “refugee.” Half our lives have been spent as refugees. We don’t want that tag on our children’s forehead. We want them to be proud citizens.
In interviews with Human Rights Watch, some refugees said that they have vested their hopes in political changes in Bhutan leading to their Bhutanese citizenship being restored, while others said that they hope for Nepal or a third country to offer them citizenship. But what all those interviewed have in common is their urgent desire to regain their independence and to be allowed to become productive members of society, able to take care of their own needs and to offer a future to their children. As a 25-year-old refugee man said, “I don’t want a golden plate. I want freedom. “The camp secretary of Timai camp spoke for many refugees when he said, “People in the camps are very frustrated. They look for an end to their refugee existence. They need a solution. It can be any of the three solutions [repatriation, resettlement or local integration], but we do not want to continue as refugees anymore, that is the general plea of the refugees.”

Bhutanese Refugees make St.Louis home

Ganga Ram Upreti fusses with his hair, combing it back with his fingers. He can't find an oil here that he is accustomed to using, so strands fall into his eyes as he shows off his new home.

Of all the things he has had to deal with in his first month in America — food, housing, caring for his wife and young daughter — keeping his thick, dark hair out of his face has been the most annoying, though he readily admits, not a big deal.

Otherwise, he says in limited English, acclimating to the United States after 17 years in a refugee camp of thatched-roof huts in Nepal has gone quite well.

Upreti, his wife and daughter are the first Bhutanese refugees to be resettled in the metro area. Already, Upreti, 23, is finding his way around his new neighborhood, a cluster of well-kept, four-family buildings southwest of South Grand Boulevard and Chippewa Street.

The second-floor apartment Upreti shares with his wife, Nar Maya, 24, and their toddler Hretika, is a spacious but sparse four rooms. The furniture, including the compact plaid couch and round dining table with two chairs, came with the apartment. So did the small TV with a built-in VCR. Hretika jams a tape the wrong way into the slot, pulls it out, then looks at her father. He smiles. She laughs and does it again.

"She doesn't like dolls," Upreti said.

The Upretis will be joined this summer by more than 100 Bhutanese, including some members of his family, who also have been living in refugee camps in Nepal.

Threatened by cultural and religious differences, the Bhutanese government expelled the ethnic Nepali population that had been living for more than 100 years in the southern part of the country. After 17 years, with little hope of returning to Bhutan, the refugees are seeking a fresh start.

By the end of the year, as many as 60,000 exiled Bhutanese will be in the United States.

They face a challenge that other refugees often do not — a lack of family or immigrant community ties. Only about 150 Bhutanese are thought to be living in the United States, scattered among Atlanta, New York, San Francisco and Washington.

The Upreti family and other arrivals are a new ethnic group taking root in a country where they hope to shed the tag of foreigner for citizen. Over time, they will be able to connect with other refugees with whom they share commonalities. Exiled Bhutanese, for example, share parts of their culture with the Nepalis, a population more prevalent in the U.S. And, like the Nepalis, the Bhutanese refugees are Hindu.

Still, Upreti's happiness is subdued. He sees the promise of a good life, but is eager to get settled so he can help relatives expected to join him.

"I'll be happy when all my family is here, here with me," he said.

When that might be, he does not know. Neither do those who helped him resettle here.

LONG 'TO-DO' LIST

The apartment is a five-minute walk from the International Institute, an agency that has been resettling refugees in the area since the fall of Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War in 1975.

Upreti is taking English and job readiness training classes at the institute. He and his family received their health screenings there shortly after arriving.

From the moment the plane hit the ground, the South Asian refugees have been immersed in modern American life.

The Upretis were introduced to money — something they did not have in the camps. Electricity, plumbing and television were new, too. They applied for Social Security cards. Upreti must register for Selective Service, or he will be denied citizenship.

"Resettlement is very difficult for the client because they are asked to do many things in a short amount of time," said Ariel Burgess, director of social services at International Institute. "Get a job, learn English, get kids in school and acclimate to American ways."

The federal government gives each refugee a one-time $425 stipend. It has to go to rent, food, utilities and transportation.

Once a three-day job readiness class is completed and a refugee is employed, federal matching grants supplement income for four to six months.

In Upreti's first job class, he and 10 other students were taught how to introduce themselves to a prospective employer.

When instructor Rene Kreisel greeted Upreti during a mock interview, Upreti stuck out his hand and gave a confident handshake. He smiled and looked Kreisel in the eye.

"I'm happy to meet you. My name is Ganga."

In the camp where Upreti lived since age 6, he learned some English in school.

"Learning English will provide you better job opportunities," Kreisel told the class.

'CULTURE SHOCK'

Upreti, like many of those living in the camps, refers to himself as Nepalis. Those working in human rights refer to the latest resettlement group as Bhutanese refugees of Nepalese origin.

The camps set up in the lowlands of Nepal in the early 1990s are basically communities of thatched huts. There is no fencing, but those living there are not allowed to work or live outside of the camps. Still, relationships between refugees and Nepalis occur, sometimes producing children. This makes resettlement more challenging.

Charcoal is used for cooking and heat. There is a constant black, smoky haze over the camps. Such conditions would explain Upreti's first impression of St. Louis.

"It's clean. Too much pollution in Nepal," he said.

The differences between the camps and a city such as St. Louis are astounding, said Bill Frelick, refugee policy director of Human Rights Watch, a New York-based group.

Here, they adjust to the sounds of sirens, buses and bass-thumping cars. In Nepal, days can go by without seeing a vehicle. Views from the camp are of water buffalo and rice paddies.

"They will be in a state of culture shock," Frelick said. "Even Kathmandu, the biggest city they have probably ever been in, is still a much poorer place."

FOOD EXCURSION

The Upretis have been able to walk to get everything they need so far. Last week, with their Electronic Benefits Transfer (food stamps) card activated, it was time to stock the kitchen.

Inside the Aldi market, the Upretis picked up a gallon of milk, a large bunch of grapes and bags of apples and oranges. Eggs and a 12-pack of soda also filled the cart.

Upreti swiped the debit card at the checkout. Wrong way. Again. Declined. The third time, the bill for $36 was approved. At the bag-your-own grocery, the Upretis came empty-handed. He walked back to the cashier, who told him the bags were 11 cents each. He tried to pay her. To the back of the line, she said.

Once outside, they seemed satisfied with their first shopping experience. They found almost everything (Still no hair oil for Upreti.) Food stamps don't cover hair products. Once Upreti or his wife gets a job, he'll shop in earnest for hair care.

"When I have money, I'll buy," he said.

Upreti shrugged and smiled. Then his hair fell into his eyes.

From Bhutan to Nepal and to Bronx

Kina Maya is 50

She has lived in a refugee camp since she fled Bhutan with her husband and son in the early 1990s.
Now she is in New York.

Imagine, from a camp in Nepal to New York. Culture shock doesn't even begin to describe it.

"We can't understand anyone, and they can't understand us. We walk on the street, and everybody is a giant. It's scary. We go into the subway it's strange, getting into a lift is odd," she says."Everything is strange."

She giggles as she describes her new life. It's all alien, but so full of hope. For the first time in 17 years the family have a proper home.

The tiny Buddhist kingdom, Bhutan, sits between China and India. More than 100,000 ethnic Nepali Bhutanese fled or were expelled from the country in the early 1990s.

The majority have been living in camps in Nepal ever since.

As well as America, some are now going to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway.

Kina Maya's son Banu shows me around the spacious one-room apartment in the Bronx, just north of Manhattan.

They are proud of their little domain: it's squeaky clean, carefully protected. The plastic is still on the dining room chairs.

Coming to grips

It is a far cry from the world they left behind at the camp.

"The situation was very horrible, the home we lived in was not good at all," she says.

Now the family is coming to grips with living in an entirely different environment.

It's the basics that are challenging: what do you do if there's a fire? You call 911. Of course, it's obvious, but only if you know.

The organisation involved with bringing them over, International Rescue Committee (IRC), ensures that details such as this are covered, along with how to use a fire extinguisher, how to use the cooker, how to use the subway and where to buy groceries.

America has agreed to take in 60,000 refugees

For now the family have some new arrivals staying with them.

Tika Maya is 28 years old, her son Suraj is seven. He was born in the refugee camp, it's all he has ever known.

For her America is centred around her son; she is hopeful but scared.

"The most exciting thing is now we're in New York, now we'll get a lot more opportunities. My son will get a better education and he will work more, and he will earn for me. The most frightening thing is how to get a job, how to enrol my child to school."

At the IRC, as well as helping with basic information, they run a series of orientation programmes.

The aim is to ease the refugees into the patterns of a new life. School enrolment is one of them.

Challenging

"There's naturally a period of transition and adjustment once they arrive to the US, especially for children. Some of these kids have known nothing but refugee camp life, so when they come to the US they're expected to sit in a classroom, follow a routine they may not be used to," says Christine Petrie of the IRC.

"Whilst many refugees work in a camp setting, working in a structured work environment can be challenging."

The first step is the language.

Almost every day, the two families travel into central Manhattan to learn English.
Banu helps his parents with the alphabet. He is the only one of the two families who can speak English.

Getting a job, being independent is a priority. Banu is confident that with his language abilities he'll get something fairly quickly.

The IRC says most refugees become self-reliant within four months.

Mingled with this urge for forging ahead, is sadness for the death of a dream - of one day returning to Bhutan, but it's one they accept has to be given up.

They have had almost two decades without an identity - as Banu explains, the concept of citizenship, is precious.

"For the first couple of days we are feeling very lonely, very upset. Now here for 15 days, everything going smoothly. The goal is to earn money, to be a citizen of a country, to earn a house, and to get freedom and rights and everything that is the goal."

Banu's family, Tika Maya and her son belong to the first wave of the 60,000 refugees the US has agreed to take in.

There is no doubt it's going to take a while to adjust.

But although this is a foreign land, for the first time in 17 years they have a place to call their own, they have a country that is home.

Third-country resettlement of Bhutanese refugees to increase

More than 1,400 Bhutanese refugees living in Nepal have been resettled in the USA and six other countries, with numbers expected to grow in the coming months, says the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR).
The Bhutanese refugees, who were initially against the idea of third-country resettlement, hoping instead to be repatriated to their homes - were expressing stronger interest to UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) for third-country resettlement.
The two agencies have been facilitating their resettlement since 2007.
The first batch of 100 refugees left for Arizona in March 2008. By 25 June, a total of 1,255 refugees had departed for the USA, with 169 to Canada, The Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, UNHCR reported.
The refugees are Bhutanese citizens of Nepalese origin - known as “Lhotsampas” in Bhutan.
The Lhotsampas have been living in seven camps in eastern Nepal for the past 17 years since being evicted from their homes by the Bhutanese government, which introduced a law stripping them of their citizenship and civil rights because of their ancestry.

Pro-resettlement feeling growing




“It is expected that within a few months, some 2,000 refugees will be able to leave each month. The offers for resettlement have been made for a period covering some four to five years,” UNHCR Nepal representative, Daisy Dell, told IRIN.
More countries in Europe have shown interest in housing refugees from Bhutan but so far there has been no confirmation of additional offers, she added.
To date, more than 38,500 Bhutanese refugees have registered their desire for resettlement - nearly one-third of the total 107,000.
“Other families have still not decided what is best for them and may need additional information from those already resettled,” explained Dell.
“The numbers could grow immensely as they become aware of better lives [abroad] rather than the hardship of living in the camps,” refugee Ashok Gurung said.
Gurung, a member of the Nepal-based Refugee Rights Coordinating Committee, said the past 17 years of hardship had affected their lives so badly that mental health and depression problems were spreading among the population.
“We know the political reality. For how long can we refugees deal with this suffering?” Gurung asked.
However, while most experience culture shock when they move, they gradually adjust to “new and better lives”, according to relatives and friends of resettled refugees.
“They are treated with care and provided with good facilities. There is no more suspicion over refugees just dumped in some foreign country,” said Thakur Mishra, a Bhutanese journalist and editor of the online Bhutan News Service.

Security concerns



However, there remain security concerns due to constant threats by underground organisations run by some refugees who advocate for repatriation and against resettlement.
“One of them includes the Bhutan Communist Party-Marxist Leninist Maoist [BCP-MLM], which has often been blamed for intimidating refugees against applying for resettlement,” said one refugee activist who declined to be identified.
He added, however, that as more refugees declared their desire to leave openly, the threats had decreased.
In fact, several of those who supported the BCP-MLM had left the party and applied for third-country resettlement themselves, he explained.
“Refugees must be able to exercise their freedom of decision regarding durable solutions,” said UNHCR’s Dell, adding that the agency was working closely with local authorities and police to protect refugees from harassment, intimidation and the use of force.

Big welcome for Bhutanese Refugees in Newzealand

Excited waves greet a group of Bhutanese refugees as they arrive in Palmerston North yesterday. Their reception committee was made up of earlier arrivals and volunteers who will help the newcomers settle into their new homes.

Their aircraft was late, the weather cold and wet, but the smiles were warm as three families of Bhutanese refugees arrived in Palmerston North yesterday to sample freedom, New Zealand-style.
They were greeted by a happy throng of earlier refugees now settled in the city and then introduced to volunteers who will help them get settled into their new lives during the next few weeks.
As with earlier arrivals they had spent years in refugee camps after conflict in their homeland and six weeks in an orientation centre in Auckland.
In all, the city gained 16 new residents - the Mohan Raut family (four members), the Tek Bir Rai family (seven) and the Nir Maya family (five).
There were several reunions at the welcome. For example, Beda Quirala now resident in the city, was reunited with Mr Rai, a friend whom he hadn't seen for 20 years and resident Bal Krishna Ghimire met Mr Raut with whom he had once played marbles.
Mr Ghimire, the secretary of the newly formed Bhutanese Nepali Society of New Zealand, arrived in Palmerston North with an earlier group three months ago.
"We are all doing well," he said. "I am learning computers at UCOL and others are learning English. Even those who were not literate are already starting to speak English.
"I would like to thank Heather Tanguay, the ex-mayor - she is the person who gave us a lot of inspiration..We should not forget the volunteers and friends who spent their time helping us to become settled in Palmerston North.
" I now want to go to teachers' college. I have filled out all the forms for a BA and hope that I will be able to do the work."

Bogey of Illigal Immigration

Bhutan is a nation of immigrants. There is no indigenous groups in Bhutan. In late eighties, the Royal Government of Bhutan alleged that around 125,000 (or one fifth of the total population of Bhutan) Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa citizens in the southern Bhutan were illegal immigrants. After declaring this group of population as illegal immigrants, it forcefully evicted them, who are now living as refugees in Nepal and India. It says that all Bhutanese refugees living in Nepal and India are illegal immigrants. The roots of the current political crisis in Bhutan and the refugees lie in Bhutan's geopolitics and population politics. The regime devised various strategies to bring about a favourable demographic balance favouring a Drukpa nation by reducing the number of Lhotshampas to around 25% and to prevent the demand for democracy from Southern Bhutan. This was criminal in intent and was designed to deprive the Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa and their children of their fundamental right to nationality.

The government in order to create a favourable international opinion for its sinister design, went on a vigorous propaganda war in all major regional and international media against its own citizens by branding the refugees as illegal immigrants.. The bogey of illegal immigrants is nothing more than a ploy of diverting the international attention from the real issue of demand for the replacement of the current despotic and autocratic political system with Constitutional Monarchy, human rights, democracy and rule of law.
The government bogey of so-called illegal immigrants needs to be judged in the right context so that truth is unveiled to the world. It is well necessary to ascertain whether such a phenomenon exists in reality in modern-day Bhutan. The Bhutan story of 'illegal immigrants' is in no way comparable to the menacing problems faced by some of the European and North American countries. During the Seventh Round Table Meeting (RTM) of development partners for Bhutan was held in Thimphu on 7-9 November 2000, Austrian diplomat said that "commercial refugees" in the context of Europe should not be confused with the 'status of minorities' (Lhotshampas), residing in the country for many years and respecting its leadership and the government.
It is indeed important to look into the economic resources, availability of economic opportunities, agricultural land and process of granting citizenship certificates in Bhutan that normally encourage the illegal immigrants to prove that whether Bhutan really provided an "economic attraction' for new immigrants. These issues are discussed below.

Process of Granting Citizenship Certificate

It is simply impossible for an outsider to obtain Bhutanese citizenship both legally or illegally because of the rigorous standards for obtaining citizenship. The king had delegated the authority of issuing the nationality/citizenship certificates to Dzongda (Chief District Officer or District Magistrate) as per the provisions of the National Law of Bhutan. 1958 and the then existing policies. In most South Asian countries, the District Magistrate is responsible for issuance of such certificates.
A Bhutanese applicant is required to submit his/her application for citizenship to the office of Dzongda. The Dzongda checks whether or not the name of applicant's father or the head of the root household is registered in the land record register (Thram) maintained in the District Office. The Dzongda forwards the application to the village headmen or (Gups) to further verify whether the name of the father of the applicant under his village, is registered in the land records and census register of village or not. The village headman would check the entire records maintained by him.
The land record register contains the names of the head of the joint family of the root household, his wife, children, brothers and sisters, the land holding number and the number of the house. For obtaining citizenship certificates, all households are required to posses ( Sathram) land holding number, the house number issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and these should be enumerated in the land records register maintained by the district administration and the Home Ministry. Possession of land in the name of the head of the root household is the only criteria for obtaining the citizenship identity cards. The citizenship certificate is given only if the name of applicant's head of the family is found in the land register. If the village head man is satisfied with his records, he will write his remarks that name of the father of applicants is found in his register. He will then forward it to the Dzongda with his remarks. The whole process would be minutely undertaken.

As per the government regulations, all Bhutanese citizens are required to posses the following for all purposes and for obtaining citizenship certificates :
The Sathram ( land records) number, i.e., a record of registered land holdings issued by the Department of Land Records of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

* The Shatram contains the census records of each household in every village. Shatram is registered in the name of the head of the family (father) and contains the name of his wife and all children by name and age.
* The House number issued by the District Administration and Department of Registration of the Ministry of Home Affairs in each village.
* The enumeration in the census records maintained by the village headmen and the district administration and updated annually.
* Bhutanese citizens are required to fulfil certain national obligations, such as compulsory labour contribution or payment of cash in lieu of labour contribution for the development projects for local as well as central schemes. They are called as Saptolemi, Chunidom and Goongdawoola etc
* Payment of taxes in cash for land, house, cattle, cash crops and fruit orchards etc.

The Dzongda then re-checks it with the main land records register maintained by his office, which include the above information. After tallying the records, the Dzongda approves the application for citizenship and issues the citizenship certificates. The records in two offices must be tallied and matched.
It is noteworthy that the foreigners acquiring citizenship through naturalisation are not required to fulfil the above obligations as they are mostly settled in urban areas. Therefore, all those people, who possess the above documents, irrespective of the date of their entry to Bhutan are Bhutanese citizens.
The then established procedures for acquiring citizenship made it virtually impossible for any non-citizen or outsider to acquire Bhutanese citizenship. The Land Act of Bhutan stipulates that no foreigner is allowed to purchase land in Bhutan. Citizenship certificates are issued by the authorities on the basis of land registration and house ownership records. In other words, to qualify for Bhutanese citizenship, one must own land in one's own or in the name of head of his family. Therefore, the question of the illegal immigrants acquiring citizenship, which the government often claims to mislead the foreigners by branding Lhotshampas does not arise.

ENUMERATION/REGISTRATION OF PEOPLE

A proper population census together with the land survey was carried out for the first time in 1972. The census of 1972 then served the basis for issuance of nationality certificates to the people by the local district authorities, who would check the Sathram number, house number and the census records to enable them to issue the nationality certificate. Another major census to identify and record the Bhutanese citizens was completed in 1980. Teams of census officials led by the Department of Registration were deputed to all over the country to carry out the exercise. Thus, the government had completed a huge task of distributing the citizenship identity cards to all Bhutanese nationals.
In early eighties, the government made it mandatory for all people in Bhutan, both Bhutanese and non-Bhutanese to register with the Department of Registration and later the Department of Census and Immigration, and obtain identity cards issued by the Department of Registration.
Foreigners in Bhutan can be categorised into (a) International staffs of the UN agencies, diplomats, foreign experts, consultants, international and bi-lateral volunteers and tourists from other countries. Visas were issued to them during their stay in Bhutan (b) Civil service workers and their dependants recruited from India including those on deputation from the government of India. They were issued with non-national identity cards during their stay in Bhutan (c) Construction labourers recruited from India and Nepal through contractors. They were issued six-monthly renewable non-national identity cards and (d) Tourists from India including visitors. They were issued with permits for fixed duration. By early eighties, virtually every one in Bhutan, whether foreigners or Bhutanese was registered and issued identity cards.
Following the first census of 1981, all citizens were issued with citizenship identity cards. But now the government claims that these cards were forged. The government initially claimed that any documentary evidence whatsoever, land ownership deeds or documents showing sale, gift, and inheritance of land, tax receipts of any kind etc., showing that the person concerned was resident in Bhutan in 1958 is taken as conclusive proof of citizenship. But now the government contends that payment of property tax in itself is hardly a proof of Bhutanese citizenship as there were many illegal immigrants in the country, who had acquired property.
To the utter dismay of the Drukpa rulers, the 1980-81 census results showed a strong majority of Nepali-speaking population of over 50 percent. ( Though the report was never published), a figure the political implication of which could not be underestimated. Therefore, discreet plans were designed to reduce this majority through the introduction of various manipulative policies and legal measures. The strategy adopted was to enact new legislation and the political conspiracy was to create fake ' illegal immigrants' and get rid of them. The enactment of Citizenship Act, 1985 and its implementation from the retrospective date of December 31, 1958 ( of thirty years) was such sinister game plan.
If the level of illegal immigrants into southern Bhutan after 1958 had been as high as 20% of the total population of around 600,000, as claimed by the government, it was understandable that some actions were required to be taken, but this was not the case. Normally, illegal immigrants are those who live in a country without the notice and knowledge of authorities.
The so-called Bhutanese illegal immigrants have lived in Bhutan for years, owned houses and properties, paid taxes to the government and contributed to the nation-building of Bhutan. Some of them had served in high government offices, armed forces and police and studied abroad under government scholarship. They were genuine citizens until 1987, but were made illegal immigrants in 1988 because southern Bhutan had to be depopulated to pre-empt any dissidence and demand for democratic reforms. How could illegal immigrants acquire landed properties in a small country like Bhutan and remain undetected for thirty or forty years?

NO ECONOMIC PARADISE

In its propaganda materials, Bhutan says that it has been a favoured destination for many Nepalese economic migrants who flee their impoverished homes in the thousands every year in search of a livelihood. Bhutan ludicrously describes itself as an economic paradise for migrants, an El Dorado
Since Bhutan is not an oil-rich or mineral-rich country like some of the middle-east nations, nor is it an industrialised like the western countries, where employment opportunities are abundant and it is neither an agriculturally fertile and prosperous, then why should illegal immigrants enter into Bhutan with the prospect of better opportunities? Bhutan falls under the category of the Least Developed Countries ( LDCs), where roads were built as late as 1965. It is more heavily dependent on foreign aids than Nepal, for its survival. If it was a paradise why did next door Indians not migrate to grab the golden opportunities? The Lhotshampas migrated was long ago, not recently. And their migration was not influenced by economic factors as alleged by the Bhutanese regime. It is also noteworthy that till late eighties ( even today), Bhutan's main economic activities were centred around the services sector manned by around 13,000 civil servants.
On the other hand, there has been out-migration from Bhutan. More than 20,000 Sharchops from eastern Bhutan migrated to neighbouring Darjeeling District and Arunachal Pradesh of India and some, even to Nepal in the sixties. These out-migrations shatter the myth of Bhutan's self-proclaimed economic paradise status. Bhutan was never an economic paradise for immigrants.

HISTORICAL FACTS

In any case, all the Lhotshampa of southern Bhutane were in Bhutan much before 1958. The history of the Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa dates back to around 1625 A.D., much older than the present ruling Wangchuck Dynasty (1907), which is just 84 years old. In the name of eviction of illegal immigrants the government started deporting even the genuine southern Bhutanese.
In 1898, southern Bhutan, the habitat of Nepali-speaking citizens, was accorded a special administrative status under the authority of the Dorji family. "In 1898, for instance, the Kazi (Ugen Dorji) was given full administrative authority over the whole of southern Bhutan, including the right to settle Nepali immigrants in what was then a virtually uninhibited section of the country" (Rose, Leo, The Politics of Bhutan, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1977 - the most authoritative book on Bhutan). By then 'some districts in eastern and southern Bhutan faced more severe population pressures on the land and by 1950s in both southern and eastern Bhutan, population pressure upon land resources was becoming a problem in these areas (Rose Leo ). This is a telling pointer to the fact that significantly large number of Lhotshampas already existed in Bhutan at that time.
This confirms that: a) Lhotshampas had settled in southern Bhutan prior to the installation of the hereditary monarchy in 1907, b) Lhotshampas settled in virgin territory without displacing the original inhabitants, and c) Southern Bhutan suffered from population pressures even before the 'cut-off' year of citizenship i.e. 1958.
Bhutan has the least percentage of agriculturally suitable land in the whole of South Asia. Only 7.7 percent of the total land is potentially able to be used for agriculture and cultivation ( Planning Commission's Statistics 2000). This also proves that there was no land in Bhutan to accommodate new immigrants after the turn of 1900. Again, until late seventies, the government did not allow the Lhotshampas to buy landed properties and build houses in the capital, and in the north-western districts. They were also required to obtain a prior permission from the government even for in-country travel.
The British Empire in India too encouraged the settlement of Lhotshampas in southern Bhutan. Their motive was to establish a fully loyal population to the Bhutanese throne, which they were backing. Irrespective of other reasons advanced, such as safeguarding the borders of Bhutan, the British Raj wanted a long-term stability in the body politics of Bhutan, which depended on the strength of the institution of monarchy. It was also hoped that with the new Hindu settlers, culturally respecting and recognising the institution of monarchy, even the Buddhists in the long run would be accustomed to respect and live under monarchy. Unlike the Hindu religion, Buddhism does not recognize the sanctity of monarchs. It was expected that a blend of support coming from both the Hindus and the Buddhists would provide the much-needed legitimacy to the monarchy - which until 1907 was an unknown phenomenon in the political history of Bhutan.

The whole motive of the government bogey of 'illegal immigrants' was to prevent the demand for democratic rights from the southern districts, which have open borders with democratic India and to bring about a favourable demographic pattern by reducing the population of Lhotshampas.

Myth of Voluntary Immigration

The Royal Government of Bhutan insisted in placing Bhutanese refugees in the camps in Nepal into four categories during the first Bhutan-Nepal Joint Ministerial Committee Talk (JMLT) held in Kathmandu on October 4-7, 1993. Nepal, eager to bring elusive Bhutan to the negotiating table for resolution of Bhutanese refugees issue, had no choice but to accept the categorization of refugees into following four categories:

*Bonafide Bhutanese, if they have been evicted forcefully;
*Bhutanese who emigrated;
*Non- Bhutanese people; and
*Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts.

The Royal Government of Bhutan now contends that the refugees under category of "Bhutanese who emigrated" are in fact, those who have "voluntarily" emigrated from the country. It says that they have fulfilled all official formalities, legal procedures and obligations to emigrate to Nepal. Bhutan contends that these people have applied for voluntary emigration to Nepal and not evicted under coercion.
There was no external aggression, civil war, famine etc. in Bhutan, then why did the Nepali-speaking Lhotshampas suddenly decide to emigrate en-mass to Nepal? Under normal conditions, why would people choose to leave their homeland in thousands to live in refugee camps? Why did so many people decided to seek out-migration from Bhutan only after the first-ever pro-human right peaceful demonstration in Southern Bhutan in 1990?.
The truth however, is that they did never ask for "voluntary migration" or "voluntary emigration" form Bhutan, rather they were coerced to sign documents and papers saying that they were voluntarily migrating from Bhutan under gun-point. The people were coerced to leave the country under direct physical abuse, intimidation, threats and harassment. The bogey of "voluntary migration" is also a conspiracy of the government to forcefully evict the Lhotshampas.
The bogey of "Voluntary Migration" is a corollary/sequence of population politics - which aimed at depopulating southern Bhutan, by reducing the number of Nepali-speaking Lhotshampas to 25% of the total population. It is linked to the Citizenship Act, 1985, which too seeks to bring about a demographic balance in favour of the ruling Ngalung community. The politics of 'Voluntary Migration' has the tendency to create statelessness as it compels the people to leave the country forever. Bhutanese laws forfeit a person's right to return once he leaves the country, thus making mockery of international law - that allows any person to leave his country and to return to it.
The answers to these questions perhaps lies in the issuance of 'voluntary migration forms' - written in Dzongkha language, which ordinary people were forced to sign. "Voluntary Migration" is nothing but forcible exile. "Amnesty International believes that many people in the camps in Nepal have been forced out of Bhutan as a result of measures taken by the Bhutanese authorities. Many of those in the camps in Nepal have been forcibly exiled from Bhutan on account of their ethnic origin or political beliefs" (Forcible Exile, Amnesty International, London.).
PROCESS
The Dzongda (District Magistrate or Chief District Officer) and the Home Ministry were the main architect of so-called "voluntary migration" to reduce the population in Southern Bhutan. The government had already printed migration forms, compensation form etc., prior to peoples' leaving the country- shows that the government had craftily planned the so-called "voluntary migration". the procedure adopted for "voluntary migration" were as follows:
The Dzongda ( District Magistrate or Chief District Officer) instructs the Mandals ( village headmen) to call a meeting of villagers to submit "voluntary migration" form. In the meeting the Village headman declares that all the villagers must submit application stating that they wanted to lave the country. He warns that if they failed to submit the form, they will be severely dealt with. There is no appeal. Thus, the intimidated villagers are made to write an application that they were willingly seeking " voluntary migration" out of Bhutan, under threat. The Dzongda then sends the application to the District Court. The applicants are then made to fill up the Emigration Form issued by the Court. ( Form 1 below). The form is written in Dzongkha language, which the villagers do not understand.

Form 1. Emigration From
<strong>( Translated form Dzongkha)
Chirang Thrimkhang
TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PERSONS LEAVING BHUTAN
Date.................
Name of Head of Family......................
Age...................................................
Father's Name.................................
Village...............................................
Gewog.................................
Citizenship Card No...............
Thram Number...........................
House Number...........................
Reasons:-

The applicants are coerced to write that " He and his family members are seeking voluntary migration out of the country" in the reason for leaving column. The court then asks the village headman to present himself and the applicant. ( Form 2 below)

Form 2: Court's letter addressed to Gewog Gup (Village Headman)
ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Chirang Thrimkhang
Letter No. DCC [...(1273)-91/27] Date...............

The [.. Lamidara ] Gup of Chirang Dzongkhag - according to your Chirang Dzongkhag's letter No. CDA/CENSUS [...-6/91-92/1421] dated [...27/12/91], [...Ran Bahadur Kharga] of [...Lamidara] Block has, of his own free will, applied to the country alongwith [....nine] members of his family. In this regard, the court requires those who have submitted such applications to be personally present in court in order to clarify the matter. Therefore, in view of [...Ran Bahadur Kharg's ] application, the Gup is called upon to be present alongwith him in this court without fail at 9 AM on [...31/12/91].
Copy to:
1. Chirang Dzongkhag
2. Superintendent of Police, Chirang
3. Applicant [..Ran Bahadur Kharga, through Lamidara Gup]
Date[....28-12-91]
(Rinchen Dorji)
Chirang Thrimpon

After the receipt of the emigration form by the court, the District Magistrate makes the so-called "emigrant" and the district official to sign an Agreement, which provides provisions for "compensation" by the government to the "emigrant". (Form 3)
Form 3. - Agreement between Dzongkhag ( District Administration) and Emigrant
Chirang Thrimkang
Agreement no. [..91/27] Date.....................

ROYAL GOVERNMENT OF BHUTAN
AGREEMENT FOR PEOPLE WISHING TO MIGRATE
Resident of [..Lamidara] Chirang, [..Lamidara] Block, House Number [...LD/139], bearing name [..Ran Bahadur Kharga] and Citizenship identity Card Number [..134406], having applied as per his own wish to leave the country through the Gup, and his case being duly forwarded by the Dzongdag, Chirang vide letter No. CDA/CESNSUS [..-6/91/92/1421] dated [..27/1/91] and the same being submitted to this court, the said person, [..Ran Bahadur Kharga], has admitted and declared to this court that he has no complaints whatsoever against anyone and that he has mentally decided on his own to leave the country and go to [..Hariya], Jhapa, [..Nepal] alongwith his other people belonging to [...Lamidara] Block, Thram Number [..114] and House number [..272].
From the Court's side, having considered, firstly, with regard to people wishing to leave the country, as per law ka)5-10 which does not restrict people from leaving, and as per Ministry of Home Affairs letter No. ka-(14)2/85/909 which states that people wishing to leave the country on their own can do so; secondly, with regard to the surrender of land to the government, as per the law ka-(10) 18(6)/91/1639 dated 2.9.91 which states that after paying all dues and taxes the payment for the land surrendered to the government will be made as follows;

1. Paddy Fields, Class 1.............
2. Paddy Fields, Class 2..............
3. Dry Fields, Class 1.............
4. Dry Fields, Class 2.............

The house and land under the ownership of the emigrant having been individually compensated for considering the land under Thram Number [...114], House Number [..272] valued at Ngultrum [..Forty One Thousand Six Hundred], and also having exempted, according to Home ministry's letter No. 909, the 10% tax that such transactions entail.
From today, the above person alongwith the other [..nine] persons included under his census have been deleted from the census records of Chirang,. Upon being deleted from the census records as Bhutanese citizens, anyone not abiding by this may be liable to a fine of Nu. 1000.00 and one year of imprisonment as per Agreement 0...11].
1. Signature of Head of family wishing to leave Bhutan
2. Land Compensation paying authority from Chirang Dzongkhag
Signatures/Thumb impressions of;
3. Ran Bahadur Kharga, 2. Dzongda, Chirang 4. Gup of Lamidara Block
Copy to:
1. Hon'ble Home Minister, Thimphu
2. Hon'ble Finance Minister, Thimphu
3. Deputy Minister, high Court, Thimphu
4...........7.
Date [..31/12/91] (Rinchen Dorji)
Chirang Thrimpon

The officials of District Administration then makes a video film of the handing over of compensation to the so-called "emigrants". The emigrants are coerced to smile and show happiness before the video camera. In many instances, the recipient were relieved of most of his "compensation' by officials as deductions on account of children's education, medical services, prison charges at a rate of Nu.2,000.00 per month etc. After completing all these formalities the applicants must leave Bhutan in three days, failing which he will have violated the Agreement and will be liable to a fine of Nu.1,000.00 and imprisonment of one year.

COMPENSATION

The government has printed a standard form for compensation to the 'emigrants'. The form contains the properties of the 'emigrants'. The emigrants are forced to sign stating that he is wiling to sell his properties registered in his name and as described in the compensation form ( Form No. 4). The compensation is far below the market value and even lower than the government's own approved rates Form No. 4
AGREEMENT FORM FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND FROM SOUTHERN BHUTANESE (Translated from Nepali)

AGREEMENT DATE.............
I, ........, resident of Block........ Thram No. .............., do hereby sign this agreement that I desire to willingly sell my land as described in the above Thram Number to the government at the prevailing government rates. In this regard, I have not been pressurized by anyone to sell; having received Nu......... in words .....in payment from the government, I am willingly leaving the land Description of land is as hereunder :-


Thram No.|Description of land|Class|Name of Place|Acre| Decimal|Remarks


The southern Bhutanese were paid the above rates as compensation for leaving the country. These rates are not keeping with the government's own approved rate for acquisition of properties. For example, the so-called 'emigrants' were paid Nu. 8, 000.00 per acre of Class I paddy fields. The government rate for Class I paddy fields was Nu. 30,000.00 per acre of land. ( Form 5-A below)
The rates for a acquisition of land belonging to the public by the government were approved by the Cabinet on June 26, 1986. These rates circulated by the Ministry of Finance vide circular No. MF/CAO/2/86/2034 date July 8, 1986 came into effect from July 10, 1986.
From 5. Government approved rate for acquisition of land

Class "A" Towns within Municipal area Nu. 65,300.00 per acre
outside Nu. 43,500.00 per acre
Class "B" Towns within Nu. 43,500.00 per acre
outside Nu. 30,500.00 per acre
Class "C" Towns within Nu. 30,500.00 per acre

There were 9, 14 and 9 towns classified as Class A, B, and C respectively, of which 3,5 and 6 were in southern Bhutan with almost wholly southern Bhutanese populations at the time these rates were approved. Outside Class "C" Towns and in Rural Areas, the approved rates were as follows; Form 5-A


Paddy Field (wet land) Class 1 Nu. 30,000.00 per acre
Class 2 Nu. 20,000.00 per acre
Class 3 Nu. 15,000.00 per acre
Paddy Field (dry land) Class 1 Nu. 15,000.00 per acre
Class 2 Nu. 10,000.00 per acre
Class 3 Nu. 8,000.00 per acre
Pangshi and Cheri (Dry land) Maximum of Nu. 3,000.00 per acre
Grazing Land Nu. 200.00 per acre

FRUITS To be paid for one tree and age of orchard basis
For Orange - Nu. 350.00 per tree from 7th year
CASH CROPS Areca Nut Nu. 130.00 per tree from 7th year
Cardamom Nu. 15,000.00 per acre from 4th year
HOUSES Compensation to be determined through evaluation.


It must be emphasized that the above government- approved figures only reflect rates enforced by the government to enable it to acquire land; it is not indicative of actual land values which, in the case of some of the towns, exceeds Nu. One Million per acre. In southern Bhutan, good irrigated paddy land is valued at over Nu. 200,000.00 per acre.


TESTIMONY

Name : Mr. Chudamuni Adhikari
Age : 49
No. of Family members : 10
Address in Bhutan : Katarey village, Nichula Block, Kalikhola Thram
( Land deed) No. 141. House No. KT/16
Refugee camp address : Sector B3. Hut No. 13/14, Beldangi II-Extn
Bhutanese refugee camp Nepal

On February 21, 1991, there was a meeting at our village headman's (Mondal) residence in Nichula. During the meeting the Mondal, Mr. Sun Man announced that all the villagers were to submit applications to the Dunga (Sub Divisional Officer) stating that they wanted to leave the country. He further warned that anyone failing to submit the same would be severely dealt with. The very day, I wrote an application to the Dunga stating that I would not leave the country. On March 1, 1991, I personally went to him and requested him to allow me to allow me to live in my homeland where generations of my forefathers had lived. But the Dunga angrily threatened me that I better followed what I asked to do by the mondal or else I would be punished. When I repeated my plea, policemen were called in, who then dragged me out of his office. I was then taken into police custody at around 11:00 AM. While I was left alone in the cell, three army men came in at about 5 PM and started coercing me to write the application for filling the VMF. When I denied, they started beating me mercilessly with wooden rolls until I lost my consciousness. When I opened my eyes the following morning; I discovered myself still in the police custody, all alone.

For the next five days, I was kept without food. On the fifth day, the soldiers came to the cell and began intimidating me to write the application. Tired and exhausted, I was not able to bear anymore torture and I wrote down the application. Soon after that, I was released and I came back to my house. After seven days, a group of police personnels came to my house to summon me to the office in Sarbhang. There they had the 'Voluntary Migration Form ` filled and forced me to sign on a document, the contents of which I did not understand. Out of sheer fear, I signed it. This was done in the Dunga's office in Sarbhang who then ordered me to submit the VMF to the District Officer (Dongda). The following day, I was given an utterly low compensation for my property. While I was being handed over the money, I was asked to smile and said that I was leaving my country on my own free-will, facing a video camera. When I refused to do so, the policemen who were managing the affair, under the supervision of the Dungpa and the Dzongda, beat me hard on my back. Out of extreme fear, I compiled to the order and the authority watches the scene mockingly. After the task was completed, the Dzongda, Mr. Penjor Dorji ordered me to leave the country within five days. For fear of persecution and in order to save the lives of my family members from the brutality of the local administration, I left the country, leaving my home and property behind. This was not just my fate, all our village folks fell prey to this grand design of forcible eviction and they now live like me as refugees in the camps in Eastern Nepal. ( Voluntary Migration Report by Bhutanese Refugee)