The Crisis
Various ethnic groups and peoples have lived in perfect communal, religious and ethnic harmony for centuries in Bhutan.
Never before, any instance of ethnic conflict, communal or religious clash at the people's level has occurred in Bhutan,
which has become the hallmark of many South Asian nations and destroyed the very basic fabric of democracy in these
countries. Tolerance, co-operation and compromise, had been the basic values of Bhutanese society. But since the 1980s
the present Government has started sowing the racial seeds among its people. It has formulated and implemented a number
of racist policies and programmes to depopulate and evict the Lhotshampa citizens of southern Bhutan. It is the
present medieval, autocratic and despotic Government that has nurtured racist and discriminatory practices and
attitudes to perpetuate in power. This has destroyed the very basis of existence of Bhutan as a peaceful nation.
More than 125,000 Nepali-speaking Lhotshampas of Southern Bhutan, nearly a sixth of the kingdom's total population
of approximately 782,548 have been forced to leave or forcibly evicted from the country by the Government. This has
made Bhutan as one of the highest per capita refugee generators in the world. As on March 2001, 98,886 Bhutanese
refugees are living in seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal managed by the UNHCR. Rest live scattered in other
parts of Nepal. About 25,000 Bhutanese refugees are living in Indian territories with out any help.
The roots of the current political crisis in Bhutan and the refugees lie in Bhutan's geopolitics and population
politics. A study of various policies of the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) in the last two decades reflects the
Ngalung/Drukpa dominated government's motive to uproot Nepali speaking Lhotshampa population from Bhutan and reduce
their number by all means. Be it Drukpanization or Bhutanization programmes, Citizenship and Marriage Acts
or NOCs/PCCs,all are directed against Lhotshampas of the south. It was a long standing and intrinsic ruling elites'
security perception that the domestic demand for political change (democracy) would come from the Lhotshampas in the
south. The south is bordered by the democratic India.
Moreover, the Lhotshampas are economically well-off and more
educated than their brethren in the north and east. The northern border with China is closed. In order to pre-empt
the demand for democracy, the government devised a clever strategy to depopulate the Lhotshampas from southern Bhutan.
Hence, the Lhotshampas suddenly became the geopolitical scapegoats and security threat to the absolute monarchy. Thus,
the government devised various strategies to bring about a favourable demographic balance favouring a Drukpa/Ngalung
nation by reducing the number of Lhotshampas to around 25% and to prevent the demand for democracy from southern
Bhutan. The failed implementation of the forced assimilation policies reinforced this insecurity. This resulted in
denationalization, deprivation and virtual confiscation of Lhotshampa citizenship rights through manipulation of the
Citizenship Act and through changing the definition of citizenship.
The current political crisis and the refugee problems owe their origin to the enactment of two racist and discriminatory
laws, viz., Citizenship Act of 1985 and Marriage Act of 1977 and implementation of a number of racist and discriminatory
policies. These laws and policies were designed to reduce the number of Lhotshampa population and their mass eviction.
Citizenship Act Question of nationality and methods employed to determine citizenship form a backdrop of all other
issues and events in southern Bhutan. Bhutan's first attempt to define its citizenship came with National Law of Bhutan,
1958. The regime enacted a new Citizenship Act, 1985. This Act was given a retrospective implementation of thirty
years, that is, from 1958. It declared 31 December, 1958 as the cut-off year for granting citizenship.
The Act was forcefully implemented in 1988. The wives of Bhutanese citizens married from outside the country and children born
of such parents were not granted citizenship and were deprived of their legitimate citizenship status. This Act
defined three criteria for granting of citizenship: by birth, by registration, and through naturalisation. This
Act is the origin of the refugee problems and the looming danger of statelessness for Lhotshampas. The National Law,
1958 prescribed 'fatherhood' as the criteria for granting citizenship-which is normal. But the new Act repealed the
previous citizenship law and prescribed 'parenthood' as the sole criteria for grant of citizenship by birth, thus
denying citizenship to anyone whose mother was married from outside the country, even if the mother was granted
citizenship according to previous law.
Since the Act was given a retrospective implementation of 1958, all children
born of a marriage between a Bhutanese father and a non-Bhutanese mother, between 1958 to 1988 were declared
non-citizens and so-called 'illegal' and 'economic migrants'. The National Assembly in1988 confirmed 14,442
marriages between a Bhutanese citizen and a non-citizen during last twenty years. The number was too insignificant
for the government to grant citizenship rights. Article 3 of the Act codified a new basis for granting citizenship
- a proof of residence in Bhutan since before December 31, 1958 was required. It says that " A person permanently
domiciled in Bhutan on or before 31st December, 1958, and, whose name is registered in the census register
maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs shall be deemed to be a citizen of Bhutan by registration".
The government subsequently brought all Lhotshampas under the purview of citizenship by registration only.
They were considered citizens by registration and not by birth, even though they were born and reared in Bhutan
since the 17th century much before the establishment of the current ruling Wangchuchk dynasty in 1907 and granted
citizenship by previous laws. De-nationalization The Act arbitrarily imposes an impossible burden upon the
Lhotshampas of providing the documentary evidence of their presence in Bhutan on 31 December, 1958, while the
other ethnic groups did not have to prove anything to retain their citizenship. The government insisted on
production of documents such as land tax receipts only of 1958. Documents of earlier years including the
citizenship certificates issued on the basis of previous laws were arbitrarily rejected. The proper census
record maintained by Chief District Officer was arbitrarily rejected.
The government was fully aware that the requirements of the new Act just did not exist then in Bhutan and that most
of the Lhotshampas would not be able to fulfil them. The Act demands that the person concerned must prove that his name
was registered in the census register, though the register was maintained by the government. The government demand is
not only ridiculous but totally unjustified since, the Council of Ministers including the Ministry of Home responsible
for maintaining the census register was itself created in 1968. The enumeration in the census record was started only
in 1972. Following the first census of 1981, all citizens were issued with citizenship identity cards. The Foreigners
were issued with alien cards and the non-national labours were issued with contract permits.
By 1982 all people in
Bhutan were registered. Bhutanese 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 later the government
contended that payment of property tax in itself is hardly a proof of Bhutanese citizenship. This is especially
unfair since some of the documentary proof required by the census team just did not exist in the year 1958, i.e.,
enumeration in the census records. Those who could not produce the documentary evidence of their presence on 31
December, 1958 were declared illegal immigrants. How is it possible for illiterate villagers to keep documents
that will be demanded by the government after 30 years.
Moreover, government had already issued citizenship
certificates to all Lhotshampas making the safe keeping of the documents unimportant. The Act was also
discriminatorily enforced against the Lhotshampas and not at all against other ethnic groups. Many Ngalungs
have Italian, English, Chinese and Singaporean wives, but they do not have to prove anything. However, the
law prescribes a number of discriminatory criteria against the wives of Lhotshampas from Nepal or India and
their children. They are treated at par with aliens seeking for naturalisation.. Under the naturalisation process,
these wives must prove their prior residence of 15-20 years in Bhutan. A child born of such mothers needs to reach
the age of fifteen when he/she may apply for naturalisation.
Naturalization again, is not a matter of law but subject
to government approval The Act was applied in an arbitrary manner to create mass statelessness. The dissidents
accused of speaking or criticising the king's government was stripped of citizenship. Many Lhotshampas were
deprived of their nationality for having fled Bhutan to escape suppression, because their fleeing amounts to
disloyalty to the state according to the regime. The Act enabled the government to claim that the refugees are
not Bhutanese citizens. The authorities confiscated the documentary evidences, particularly the citizenship
identification card and land documents issued to them by the government. It was a well planned strategy and
conspiracy of the government to depopulate and reduce the number of Lhotshampas. No appeal on the subject was
allowed. The Act also forbids the return of citizens leaving the country. Since the government alleges that
refugees have voluntarily immigrated to Nepal, their return will not be possible until this Act is repealed.
Even, the European Parliament's resolution has urged Bhutan to amend this Act for the return of refugees.
Marriage Laws After enacting a draconian Citizenship Act in 1985 to reduce the Lhotshampa population, the government
simultaneously introduced the new Marriage Act which had an even larger content of discrimination against Lhotshampa
women and their children. The Act declared all foreign wives of the Bhutanese citizens as non-citizens, even though
most of them were granted citizenship under previous citizenship laws. In contravention of all international norms
and civilised behaviour, the Royal Government denied several thousand children (born out of marriages between Lhotshampa
husbands and Nepali speaking wives from Nepal or India) of their right to nationality. They were evicted along with
their parents. This Act was only enforced against the Lhotshampas. The Marriage Act was enacted in 1980 and was
forcefully implemented in 1988 to especially target the wives of Lhotshampas.
This discriminatory law imposes a
number of denials of benefits to those who married non-Bhutanese wives. The Lhotshampas who married non-Bhutanese
wife did not have the right to vote in (became ineligible for election to) the National Assembly (Parliament)
elections, they were to be denied promotion in civil services, denied training and fellowships and medical treatment
abroad, they were also denied business and agricultural grants and loans given by the government and could not avail
of government supplied fertilisers, seeds and farm machineries on subsidies. They could not get jobs in the Foreign
Service and Armed Forces. This posed enormous problems for the Lhotshampas. There are many reasons as to why the
Lhotshampa chose foreign wives of their own ethnic groups from Nepal and India. Some reasons are enumerated as
follows: Bhutan stepped out of its isolation in the mid-sixties.
The government did not encourage cultural
socialization of various ethnic groups. Some ethnic groups were not allowed to own properties in the Ngalung
dominated areas. Even in-country migration and in-country travel were restricted for some ethnic groups. The
transport and communications were also not developed. This led to the cultural isolation of various ethnic groups.
Thus, each ethnic group developed their own intra-ethnic group matrimonial alliances. Lhotshampas had a wide ethnic
area in Darjeeling, Sikkim and Nepal to choose their spouse from. As a result many Lhotshampas got their spouses
from their own ethnic groups from these places. The most important factor that prevented the encouragement
of inter-ethnic group matrimonial alliances is culture. The Lhotshampas are by and large Hindus. Culturally
and traditionally, they are entirely different from ruling Ngalungs. Their language is a dialect of or is derived
from Sanskrit, the oldest language. They prefer to live in the hot climate of the southern foot hills. The Ngalungs
are nurtured in Drukpa Kargyupa Buddhist culture. They speak Tibetan stock Dzonkha language which is entirely
different from Nepali. They wear robe like dresses and prefer to live in cool climate of the north. While strict
cultural values of the Lhotshampas triggered the search for wives from outside Bhutan, limited domestic society
and geography also facilitated such marriages.
The lack of communication and infrastructure within Bhutan were
also factors which made Lhotshampas get their wives from neighbouring Indian states and Nepal as it was easier
to travel to neighbouring countries than to visit other districts of Bhutan. Because of the lack of roads,
Bhutanese are still required to travel through India to reach from east to west in the south and south to north.
Darjeeling district had excelled as a centre of education during the British rule in India. It is still regarded
as the best place for education in the entire region of Bhutan, Nepal and Northeast India. Jesuit fathers and
Christian missionaries established the best schools in Darjeeling. Due to the absence of good schools and
colleges throughout the sixties, seventies and the eighties in Bhutan, the government used to send young
Bhutanese for studies to Darjeeling on Indian government scholarships.
Most Lhotshampa students married with their schoolmates of their own ethnic community from Darjeeling, Sikkim and
Nepal.. Bhutan does not have enough colleges to cater to the need of students. Its only college is affiliated with
Delhi University. Bhutanese students had to go to Darjeeling as it is less expensive to study in neighbouring
Darjeeling than in Delhi or Calcutta. As a consequence of increasing developmental activities after 1960 more
opportunities were being created for educated people in the government services and in the private sector. Bhutan had
a very low female literacy rate. The available manpower was not sufficient to meet the demand. As a result, educated
Lhotshampa took educated and conscious wives of their own ethnicity from neighbouring countries, which could work in
the offices or do businesses and earn money.
In 1988, the government reported of 11,442 marriages between Bhutanese
and non-Bhutanese during the preceding 20 years. There was neither a Marriage Act nor Citizenship Laws forbidding a
Bhutanese marrying a foreign wife then. The laws were enacted later with retroactive effect. Had there been such laws,
probably no Bhutanese would have married a foreign spouse. The Royal Government's senseless action of implementing
these laws shows its irresponsibility and indifference towards its citizens' difficulties. It is a well-planned
conspiracy to depopulate southern Bhutan. In any case, marriage is too personal a matter for the state to intervene.
Both the Citizenship Act and the Marriage Act are racist, biased and discriminatory against Lhotshampa of southern
Bhutan.
Moreover, the law is also implemented in a discriminatory manner; very rigidly against the Lhotshampas and
not at all against Drukpas, who for example have Chinese, English, Italian or American wives. For example, Mr. Ugen
Tshering, a Drukpa married to an Italian wife in the early eighties has today been promoted as Foreign Secretary.
Similarly, the then Chief Justice of the High Court was promoted even though he had an English wife. Today, of
course, aside from bringing about a denial of benefits, marriage to non-Bhutanese wife has resulted in the very
denial of citizenship rights to the Lhotshampa husbands. Both the Citizenship Law, 1985 and the Marriage Acts have
stripped several thousand Lhotshampas of their nationality.
As a consequence of not granting citizenship to the
foreign wives of Lhotshampa husbands, more than 60,000 children were deprived of their rightful claim to Bhutanese
citizenship. This is more than 20 percent of the total children population of Bhutan. Refugee children constitute
about 10 percent of the country's total population of around 700,000 of Bhutan. More than 10,000 Lhotshampa wives
are deprived of their right to nationality. The government must repeal the discriminatory Citizenship Act, 1985
and the Marriage Act. It must enact new citizenship and marriage laws conforming to the international standards,
and protect the right to nationality of all its citizens. "The 1985 Citizenship Act of Bhutan contains a number
of vague provisions, and appears to have been applied in an arbitrary manner. It also contains provisions which
could be used to exclude from citizenship many people who are not members of the dominant ethnic group,
as well as those who oppose Government policy by peaceful means" according to Amnesty International's report,
"Bhutan : Forcible Exile", August, 1994.
The Citizenship Act 1985 came into force in 1988, when the government initiated a population census in southern Bhutan
in that year. Both the Citizenship Act and Marriage Act, while being racist and discriminatory against Lhotshampa women,
were made all the more unpalatable due to the high handed manner of its implementation and explicit expression of the
Government desire to eliminate as many Lhotshampa citizens as possible, during the census of 1988. In conformity with
the Acts, a totally biased and manipulative population census was carried out in all the districts of southern Bhutan
to deliberately evict the Lhotshampas. To further compound the problem, however, despite the provision in the Act for
regularising marriages with non-Bhutanese wives prior to 1977, upon Government instruction the official of census teams
declared all non-Bhutanese wives of the Lhotshampas married after 1958 as illegal immigrants. The census teams started
questioning the people with undue threat and classifying them into various categories.
The teams were ordering even
the old people with grandchildren born in Bhutan to produce evidence of their arrival in Bhutan before 1958. They
insisted on the production of evidence particularly of 1958 even though many had the evidence 1954 or even the
preceding years, but they were rejected outright. The Census team armed with the totally discriminatory and biased
mandate set out to determine the citizenship status of all Lhotshampas by randomly categorising them into seven
categories, F1 to F7, which affected status of many citizens though the law itself is silent on
categorisation.
F1: Genuine Bhutanese.
F2: Returned migrants, people who had left Bhutan and then returned.
F3: Drop-out cases, people who were not around at the time of the census.
F4: A non- national woman married to a Bhutanese man.
F5: A non-national man married to a Bhutanese woman.
F6: Adoption cases. This clause was massively misused by the government to include Indian citizen of Ngalung ethnicity.
Many Ngalungs having Indian nationality were enlisted as adoption case by the government.
F7: Non-national, migrants and illegal immigrants.
Only F1 was declared genuine Bhutanese. Widespread panic and confusion among the Lhotshampa women followed as Census
officials began to threaten deportation of anyone not categorised as F1. During the 1988 census, the census team
categorised one Mrs. Sita Mothey as F4 [an Indian citizen married to a Bhutanese citizen] and was threatened with
deportation from Bhutan. Out of the agony at the thought of family separation, she committed suicide. Officially,
the 1988 census implemented the Citizenship Law, 1985, with its three methods of attaining citizenship: by having
two Bhutanese parents, by registration of residence since 1958 and by naturalization. In practice, however,
naturalization has not been accepted. The census exercise provided justification to expel people who no longer
met government criteria on citizenship. In many cases, citizenship cards already issued were withdrawn.
The village
Headmen and the Member of National Assembly (MPs) formerly considered knowledgeable and authoritative were never
consulted. Some of them were even reprimanded when they raised their voices. The illiterate and innocent villagers
were coerced into signing documents, the contents of which were not known to them. The whole census exercise were
planned to harass and eliminate the actual and true ethnic Lhotshampa citizens of southern Bhutan to reduce their
numbers. The census rules required that the Lhotshampas must provide proof of residence in the country during 1958,
the cut- off year. The only valid document acceptable to the census team was the land tax paid receipts for the
particular year 1958. The receipts issued before 1958 were not accepted. On these grounds several thousand
Lhotshampas were declared as ' illegal immigrants' and 'stateless'.
For in- country migration, people were asked
to produce certificate of origin (C.O) from the district authorities which created more obstacles. Those who lost
their documents due to natural calamities were simply tested as illegal immigrants. Those declared illegal immigrants
were forcefully evicted, even though they were born and reared in Bhutan through several generations. Government
bogey of illegal immigrants and the government claimed that there were around 120,000 illegal populations
(20% of the total population) in southern Bhutan. This was a well thought-out strategy of the government
to reduce the population of Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa by 100,000. 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?
Bhutan is not an oil-rich country like some of the middle-east nations,
it is not industrialised like the western countries, where employment opportunities are abundant and it is neither
an agriculturally prosperous, then how could the illegal immigrants enter into Bhutan with the prospect of better
opportunities? The whole motive of the government 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. This was criminal in intent and was designed to deprive the Lhotshampa and
their children of their fundamental right to nationality. In any case, all the Lhotshampa of southern Bhutanese 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.
|
