WITH HUMILITY ON YOUR DOORSTEP
By Akash
Much like the father in ‘The Parable of the Prodigal Son’, if King Khesar were to invite with open hands everyone that was a citizen of that tiny Himalayan Kingdom prior to the 1990 uprising – Bhutan could thrive in the community of nations.
Dear Mr Bunting, with humility, on your doorstep! I hope you will give my views due consideration though you might have been offered a lot of ‘Ema Datshi’ while in Thimphu. Sensing the political instability in Nepal and the resultant lacklustre in their diplomatic zeal to protect their pride and national interest, you have wrongly chosen to single out that feeble nation and stab it right at the back when it has already been bleeding so profusely. However, I must remind myself of my limitations in not being overzealous in protecting Nepal’s interest though the misleading article has targeted everyone of that ethnicity. Lifting the veil in which the Bhutan Foundation is racially wrapped in – going by the names of its office bearers, it is understandable that it could involve in a vilification campaign against Nepal but how could a pristine society such as the Asian Society allow using its name in the campaign.
With great humility, I once again beg your pardon sir, if that article has just been ascribed to you to mask the real face and intentions!
The Foundation, Trust or Charity, flies into the air the moment you work for an oppressor not the oppressed. Ema Datshi and delicacies will not and should not win over a statesman of your stature. A dictator, an autocrat or a racist regime should be condemned as it is. Be it Gaddaffi, Mubarak, Saleh, Ben Ali, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Kim, Castro, Chavez, Saddam, Thein Sein, Rajapaksa or Gyanendra. Though comparatively smaller in nature, primarily due to the size of its population (just about 0.6 million), the political problem in Bhutan makes me instinctively draw up a parallel in modern history whom the International community collectively got rid of, and that is no other than Milosevich! Great liberal democratic nations such as the United States, Britain, Australia or Canada who are the symbols of freedom and democracy should not be swayed away by the undue influence of dictatorial regimes, when it comes to protecting the rights of the oppressed. The regime at the Helm of Affairs with all the financial might at its disposal has so openly managed to systematically evict or forced to leave, one sixth of its population (largest in terms of ratio of population in the modern world history) that has traumatised the lives of thousands of youths and children and the elderly so much that the wound is unlikely to heal that easily. You know, they are voiceless oppressed and innocent victims. You very well know that they’ve been deprived of their homes, properties and identity by the very people you have talked so high of in the news item. Where are their homes – where have the about 20,000 houses vanished when the country has so much housing problem. As against this, imagine the hue and cry when just about 22 houses have been destroyed by fire in Chamkhar – Kuenselonline 26 May 2010. Furthermore, what about the properties of the exiles, their human rights (at least minority rights) and freedom that Great nations like the US, Britain or others speak so much about?
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” Article 1 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights mentions. The declaration further elucidates in Article 2 “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status…..” Article 13 (2) reads “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country…..” Article 15 (2) bars any member nation from depriving its citizens’ nationality or citizenship when it states “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality …….” The preamble to this document states “Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of Universal respect for and observance of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms”.
In addition, it is an overwhelmingly accepted principle in modern times that if an individual resides in a particular country for a reasonable length of time say 10 years (USA) or 5 years residenceship being touted in the European Union, he/she establishes a right to live permanently in that country.
In this global era of trans- and post-national dimensions with the evolution of the likes of the European Union, African Union, American Federation or South Asian Regional Association we have to ponder upon the viability of trying to forcibly maintain a purely indigenous and homogeneous citizenry be it in any country. The traditional model of ‘National-Citizenship’ based on a mythical homogeneous population, namely its incapacity to deal with difference is obsolete and would not help resolve problems relating to citizenship. There appears to be a legitimation conflict between the universality of human rights and the particularism of Nationality. There is no dispute that the concept of citizenship is vague and complex. Initially, as the concept of citizenship was limited mainly to political rights, it was strictly related to nationality. The protagonist of the movement for social citizenship, H T Marshall has written that ‘citizenship is by definition national’. There is a legal link between citizenship and nationality. However, today the general acceptance of the universality of human rights tends to dissociate citizenship and nationality, except in the field of political rights. Hence, nationality and citizenship must be dissociated for a fairer system. Of the two dimensions of citizenship, passive and active; people of Nepali origin still residing in Bhutan have acquired just the former and have practically no participation in a social and political community, otherwise called the political, the ‘living-together’ citizenship. The multicultarist paradigm of citizenship – based on 10 years ‘residenceship’ and not ‘nationality’ will best suit countries like Bhutan with a mixed population. In Bhutan, as elsewhere in the world, we must promote a notion of citizenship based on ‘residence’ qualified by loyalty to the country, rather than ‘nationality’ so that the minority rights and the multiculturist character of the society is preserved for the lasting peace and prosperity of the country.
The news item (Informing Americans about Bhutan) in the very first sentence states that Bhutan is no exception to economic and political migrants which to a large extent is true. Bhutan like United States of America is a land of migrants as there was no ancient civilization or proof of human habitation there prior to say about a thousand years ago and there is no controversy about it. The virgin jungles south of Tibet known as Lho mon and the hilly terrain north of India remained undefined or politically un-demarcated until the recent past. In fact some parts of the southern border were demarcated as recently as in 1970’s. My intention is not to delve on the issue of boundaries but I am only trying to draw home the point that the people in this region were, loosely speaking living in a almost an undefined political boundary (Land tax paid to the Kalimpong Agent as evidenced in the land tax receipts possessed by most of the people living in the south of the country or in exile and or the third queen’s origin – Kalimpong, India). There are predominantly three groups of people that inhabited the then Lho mon. Apparently, the first group to enter were the Sarchops who have established themselves in eastern part of the country. They are Indo-Mongoloid in origin and constitute about 40% of the total population. Their resemblance or proximity with the present day people of Arunachal Pradesh cannot be denied. However it would be wrong to classify them as Indians simply because of their similar culture and background to the original places in India they are believed to have come from.
The second group that started occupying the virgin un-demarcated jungles of the Lho Mon a couple of centuries ago were the people of Tibetan Origin who moved south after civil strife in mainland Tibet. They are known as Ngalongs, the present day elites of the western part of the country and count to about 20% of the total numbers. Their religious, cultural and lingual proximity with Tibetans is not denied which of course would be wrong to dub them as Tibetans and to direct them back to their ancestral homeland.
The third group of people politically nomenclatured by the previous regime as Lhotshampas (southerners) of Nepali origin were gradually encouraged to settle in the virgin malaria infested jungles of the south since their first known migration to Bhutan in1624.They constituted about 38 % of total population at the time of the 1990 uprisings. Apparently, their movement into the southern foothills of the Lho Mon went unhindered until 1958 largely because, as explained earlier, of the undefined southern boundary, political control or encouragement and lack of national legal enactments until then. We must remind ourselves of the fact that Thrimzung Chhenmo the first national legislation in the history of modern Bhutan was published in 1957.
The argument that people of different origin and ethnicity immigrated to the Lho Mon a mountainous region in the eastern Himalayas at different points in time from different places of origin appears credible as it is also concurred by the former King of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck in his forward written for the Royal Government’s publication in1979 “Bhutan: Himalayan Kingdom”, pp 14 where he has unequivocally said “Bhutan’s people fall into three broad ethnic groups. The first, the Sarchops are believed to have been earliest inhabitants of the country. Apparently, Indo –Mongoloid in origin, the question of where they came from, or exactly when they reached Bhutan, remain unsolved. Today the Sarchops live largely in the eastern regions. The second group, known as the Ngalongs, are the descendant of Tibetan immigrants, who came to Bhutan from about the 9th century onwards, settling primarily in the west. The third section of the population is the (ethnic) Nepalese, who began to settle in the South towards the end of the last century.”
Migration is a worldwide phenomenon as has been rightly pointed out in the news item and that Bhutan is no exception to it. However, to classify just one of the groups, that is the people of Nepali origin as ‘economic migrants’ is not appropriate because firstly, all three prominent groups discussed above are migrants as there was no ancient civilization in Bhutan, the only difference being the arrival of the one group prior to that of the other(s).
Secondly, it is evident that the people of Nepali origin were encouraged to settle in the ‘vacant’ lands of southern Lho mon bordering India, by the British Raj for strategic and security reasons. Having said that, I find it pertinent to quote here an excerpt from a letter by British Viceroy Lord Curzon (1899-1905) to the Secretary of State for India, in the UK given in the book “The Dragon Kingdom” by Nirmala Das, which corroborates the above argument “We cannot afford to let the Chinese establish influence in Bhutan. Bhutan rolls down on the south in the low hills and shades away over a mere geographical line to the Duars. However, it is fast becoming a Nepali State. Already ¾ of the population of Sikkim are Nepalese, and the Gurkhas who are multiplying fast are streaming over into the vacant places in Bhutan. For obvious reasons, it is of real importance to keep Gurkha State under our control”.
Thirdly, there is no dispute that Bhutan was among the few poorest and least developed countries in the world until the recent past and sometime in the early 1980s it was even dubbed as the poorest country in the world. Now even after the eviction of 20% of its citizens and the consequential tall claims of peace, progress and economic prosperity, it still is one among the 41 least developed countries in the world (UNDP 2011). Thus, the regime’s allegation of ‘economic migrants’ to its citizens of Nepali origin appears to be baseless and politically motivated.
Consequently, a legal issue that instinctively comes to my mind is a billion dollar question? Does a group of people that settled within a particular political or geographical (in some cases) boundary before the other(s) have the absolute right to dominate & impose (its dress language and culture) and preclude the other groups of their rights, identity, and from having a say in the national affairs of that state where they live together? Should we accept this “Theory of Preclusion” as I would prefer to call it as the citadel of modern jurisprudence upon which the guiding principles of intra- country migration be based? This would be catastrophic! I can conjure up numerous ‘flash points’ in almost all countries as I write this article. For their sensitivity I do not wish to trump them up at the moment. A racist, dictatorial regime should not be allowed to make it a precedence which if followed by similar regimes would be as mentioned earlier “catastrophic!” in toto.
Since childhood, because of my background I have deeply looked into the issue of migration and citizenship in Bhutan and have clearly understood how those in power have played with the citizenship laws in particular, to stick on to power. How effectively they have managed to brainwash the international community under various pretexts and preclude the about 38% people from having a say in the national decision making process and determination of their own future as equal citizens of a sovereign nation.
You have opened the Pandora’s box by raising the draconian ‘Citizenship Act of 1985’ without understanding the devious designs entrenched in it by the rulers to annul the ‘Bhutanese status’ of the southern Bhutanese and thus create turmoil and make it an excuse to evict them from the country either directly or indirectly.
Section 3 of the Citizenship Act of 1985 which provided for naturalization, arbitrarily fixed 31st December 1958 as the cut off year for citizenship to all Southern Bhutanese. The argument of the regime (Mr. Dago Tshering the then Deputy Home Minister in particular) was that Southern Bhutanese were given citizenship as kidu (welfare) as a once –and –for all measure on 31st December 1958. Consequently, whoever became Bhutanese after 1958 is an illegal immigrant. However, if we look narrowly at the 1958 Citizenship Law we come across a provision for Naturalization which belie the above explanation. So, look at how insidious the designs are of these racist power hungry rulers of ours, how the laws have been manipulated and interpreted at their convenience. Really! Austin “Law is the command of the sovereign” how true! how relevant!! even in the 21st century Bhutan.
Worst, NGA 3 of THE BHUTAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 1977 which had the potential of being interpreted to thwart any ill conceived design of the regime to evict its citizens or political opponents en masse, but said to have been superseded by the draconian Citizenship Act of 1985, has been madly manipulated by the rulers to evict or to pressurise the people of Nepali origin into leaving the country after the 1990 uprising.
In light of the above, I have no doubt that about 90 % of the people as enumerated by the UNHCR in the Bhutanese Refugee camps in Nepal after the 1990 apprising are genuine Bhutanese citizens and can prove the above claim in one or the other way. One is through documentation and for those who do not have documents for various reasons through the declarations or supporting witness statements of their neighbours in Bhutan. Well, it must be accepted that there certainly must have been some people who managed to enrol themselves as Bhutanese in the UNHCR supported Refugee camps in Nepal. This is not unusual; it is prevalent anywhere in the world. There are people in every community or country who take advantage of the opportunities around them.
We know that the onus is on the people in exile to prove that they are the citizens of that country but it is equally important to let the perpetrators prove to the contrary. Let the racist regime working under the cover of religion and the recently drummed up concept of Gross National Happiness come up with details as to who all are illegal immigrants broadly taking the international law into consideration as discussed above.
Meanwhile, please note that I have personally seen and witnessed the uprising of 1990 followed by the reign of terror let lose by the regime through the imposition Martial law in that the arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and then the subsequent insidious scheme of forced volunteer migration.
So far as I know I was born in Bhutan, my parents were born there and so were my maternal as well as paternal grandparents. Even the draconian Citizenship Act of 1985 and its racist implementation of 1988 which had the intention of disenfranchising thousands to people of Nepali origin did not have the potential of proving our family as non-nationals. We had to be verified as ‘F1’. It does not imply that I support the draconian 1985 Act and its retrospective implementation by 30 years from 1958. The retrospective implementation of this draconian Act is against any civilized law and deserves international condemnation. Thousands of those in exile have the same immigration status as mine and none is a lesser Bhutanese than those pompously covering themselves with yellow or red shawls in Thimphu. Hence, the issue is more of the exercise of ‘the Birth and Citizenship Rights’ of the people in exile than that of ‘illegal or economic immigration’. The issue is also the avarice for perpetual power by a group to the exclusion of other(s).
Bhutan is described as a green, exotic country where people enjoy peace and happiness. Is it true that people in all parts of the country are truly happy as portrayed or are they the innocent victims of lack of knowledge of modern technological advancement? Who would like to live in darkness rather than living in a house lit with electricity? Who would like to walk or carry big sacks of salt on his back (for tens of miles) all his life and not take a bus or car home, so far away from the town? A trip or two on foot is a joy but surely not the whole of your life. If the world has got the technology, which is so wonderful and if they are so graciously willing to share it, why not make use of it to illuminate your life? I am sure this innocent poor hearts living in rural Bhutan are a deprived lot for the political perpetuity of their masters in Thimphu in the name of uniqueness, happiness or selflessness.
It is natural that a place will become green and exotic if it is uninhabited for a long period of time. If an area as vast as 46,000 sq kilometres is occupied by just 6 – 6.3 hundred thousand people after displacing or evicting the rest, it will naturally become cleaner, greener and more exotic.
Switzerland, with which we the Bhutanese love to compare our country is approximately of the same size but houses about 80 hundred thousand people, approximately 11 times more than that of Bhutan’s. However, there has been no unnecessary fuss about it being inundated with too many people. So, what is the gimmick of the Bhutanese government in making so much fuss about having to effectively administer and satisfy just about 7 hundred thousand people (including those in exile), if they show their unflinching loyalty towards the country?
Say, if India evicts the 2 hundred million people that is 20% of its total population (equal percentage as that of the Bhutanese in exile) belonging to the minority community (Muslims) alleging them to be more loyal to Pakistan, will it not become cleaner, greener and less crowded – plus more secure from the homogeneity point of view of the population and economically viable for an over populated country? Then, does it mean that for the sake of uniqueness, we should let such catastrophic incidents happen, round the world? Are we bent upon undoing the multicultural societies and dismantling the modern civilizations that have so beautifully evolved over the past few centuries?
Callous! It is on your part to so ludicrously argue for the racist regime that has created the largest number of refugees in proportion to the population in modern history, by creating negative conditions of living and then systematically evicting one sixth of its total population.
While racial and ethnic discrimination, through the imposition of the dress, culture and language of the ruling elites upon others created a lot of resentment in the minds of the common people of Nepali origin. The ban on teaching ‘Nepali language’ (the mother tongue of the Lhotshampas) in the schools in southern Bhutan, was seen as a direct attack on their very identity and culture. This became the immediate cause of the 1990 uprising against the ill-conceived policies of the regime.
However, the infamous Notification dated 17th August 1990 by the then Deputy Home Minister Dago Tshering, supported by a reign terror, let loose through the imposition of Martial Law wherein the man in uniform were given a free hand to arrest, torture, rape or evict, is the main reason for the exodus of the people into India and then to the UNHCR supported refugee camps in Nepal. Careful analysis of the Notification makes it abundantly clear, how even relatives of the pro-democracy activists were stripped off their citizenship by making them vicariously liable for the crimes (if espousing the ‘cause for Democracy and Human Rights’ is a crime and if so, whether one can be made vicariously liable for the crimes committed by others are legal issues worth noting) of their Kith and Kin. The notification reads: “……..any Bhutanese national leaving the country to assist and help the anti –nationals shall no longer be considered as a Bhutanese citizen. It must be very clear that such people’s family members living under the same household will also be held fully responsible and forfeit their citizenship”.
Why then is it not an issue of ethnicity or discrimination – it surely is. How has the resettlement resolved the issue? Who will give us the 20,000 houses that have been illegally demolished by a dictator of an impoverished nation who depends on UNICEF to feed its school children or on Japan to donate fire engines and ambulances or medical drugs even of the most ordinary composition or quality? Where there is a hue and cry in the whole country when just 22 houses are destroyed by fire (Chamkhar fire – Kuenselonline.com 26 May 2011). We want to live in our own houses not the houses provided by the banks on hefty mortgages. Who will give us back our properties illegally taken over by the regime? Who will give us the benefits associated with the ‘birth right’ of an individual among other things? Moreover, nothing can compensate one’s subconscious attachment to his place of birth, the social milieu in which he has been brought up and where he has spent most part of his life – the friends and relatives with whom he has got an eternal binding.
When thousands of people born in that country have been rendered homeless, and are struggling to survive, leading a stateless life due to the misadventure of the regime, King Khesar is busy showing a cheerful face to the cameras and has declared his intention of marrying, through the parliament. We have no cheers in his marriage so long as he refuses to acknowledge the problem and sit round the table with us. Prime Minister Thinley’s flagrant, blatant and incredible lies before the world community on various occasions has rendered him totally unworthy of such negotiations.
His Majesty Khesar, please be advised that your ‘Omission to perform the state responsibilities as the head of the state could amount to Commission’ in criminal law – do not feign happiness! Do not omit us and do not omit the issue because it is a burning issue!!
(The writer is a Bhutanese Lawyer in exile who can be reached at akash_ashman777@yahoo.com)