Editorial»
Refugees’ scepticism and Nepal’s obligation
DEC 09 - Should all go well, in about two months’ time we would be witnessing the first batch of Bhutanese refugees heading back home, sweet home? The news of “home-going” certainly seems a legitimate reason to “party on” not just for camp inhabitants, but equally for the host Nepali government and the provider agency, the UNHCR — a major win after thirteen long years of diplomatic shambles.
But unfortunately that is not the case. The expected euphoria, the pre-supposed overwhelming jubilation is missing in the narrow alleys between clusters of closely built thatched huts of Khudunabari camp. The happiness seems subdued somewhere under the debris of growing mistrust and skepticism. Such is the level of distrust regarding Thimpu’s real motive that there is a conspicuous lack of commitment. Everyone is non-committal about jumping on the bandwagon of repatriation.
Garima Adhikari, convener of Refugee Women Forum (RWF), sees the repatriation ‘fuss’ as another ‘Bhutani ploy’ to fool the international community. “Thimpu is only interested in closing down camps from eastern Nepal to escape the mounting international embarrassment. It is not genuinely committed,” she says. And much to their chagrin, copies of draconian guidelines issued by the Bhutani JVT for the acquisition of citizenship all save category I has only strengthened their cynicism. The guidelines among others, stipulates two year minimum probation, Dzongkha proficiency and no record of ever having maligned the Bhutani Monarch, country and People as a prerequisite to qualify for the citizenship application.
During the initial days of bilateral negotiations, Bhutan refused to acknowledge even a single refugee as Bhutanese and now thirteen years later it dramatically commits itself in taking back more than 75 percent of Khudunabari camp inhabitants.
Has there been a change of heart? We certainly don’t know. But without a shadow of doubt, Thimpu has started to feel the heat inescapably and that it can no longer play a cat-and-mouse game through its dilly-dallying tactics.
Breaking the defeatist trend, Nepali mandarins this time around have succeeded in getting Bhutan ink down its commitment on repatriation, but much like their predecessors, they could not help themselves fumbling on terms and conditions. Our knowledge about the much hailed ‘Thimpu accord’ simply presents an incomplete picture, unprecedented and against the established international norms and practices. No provision about international monitoring by any agency, let alone UNHCR, no words on where the temporary transit camps will be built inside Bhutan, who will supervise it? Nothing is clear.
A US embassy official during her visit to the camps last month could not hide her frustration regarding how the Nepali officials bypassed the issue of safety, rights and dignity of refugee returnees. The agreement, the official said, for the most part, is laden with verbal and hollow assurances and hedged on crucial issues like providing residential permit, access to health care, education and welfare facilities.
Jean Mary Phukuri, director at UNHCR’s Asia Pacific Bureau, during her trip to Damak earlier this month, cautioned refugees vis-à-vis conditions inside Bhutan while synchronically not failing to underscore it as a great opportunity to return.
Understandably, dichotomy in her speech was reflective of exhaustion on the one hand and the scepticism they share with refugees, on the other. UNHCR desperately wants to “phase-out” its involvement, and the process has already started modestly with closing down of activities like child play centre, kindergarten and deleting turmeric powder from the ration list.
Each refugee gobbles up an estimated $ 120 annually which means if the Khudunabari camp is dismantled this February, it will cost UNHCR approximately 1.5 million US dollar less in its operation. However, on humanitarian ground they continue to maintain that they won’t actively encourage refugees to sign up for repatriation.
The impression about Nepali government among the refugee intelligentsia, of late, is that it is hell-bent and only motivated on dumping refugees in the ragged hinterland of Drukland and get rid of this perennial headache without worrying whether they get citizenships and confiscated property. Maybe these allegations are not true, nonetheless they’re being reverberated through the camps and the Nepali government for its part has done very little to dispel those fears and skepticism.
Needless to say, everybody wants the planned voluntary repatriation to succeed but in the absence of minimum trust-building measures, many doubt whether the number of returnees will be more than just a handful.
The Nepali government as the official negotiator (in the bilateral process) on behalf of refugees, has the obligation in minimum to ensure that returnees can live a safe and dignified life back home. For now Nepal must at least get Bhutan to declare a general amnesty. Nepal should not only try to put a brick of confidence building measure in otherwise a thorny and suspicion-laden relationship between the Thimpu regime and refugees, but also make sure that no renewed persecution is unleashed in the name of judicial proceedings and undo some of wrongs committed by it during the bilateral negotiations.Posted on: 2003-12-10 04:27
Headlines
Advertisements
