|
Amnesty
International in its report titled "Bhutan: Forcible
Exile" (AI Index - ASA 14/04/94 dated August 1994) has
elaborately described the practice of forcible exile including
forced eviction of Nepali-speaking Bhutanese citizens from
southern Bhutan. The report is reproduced below:
BHUTAN
: Forcible Exile (AI Index - ASA 14/04/94 dated August 1994)
by AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Table
Contents
-
Introduction
-
Concerns
about the four-fold classification
-
Cases
illustrating different aspects of forcible exile practised
by the Bhutanese authorities
-
Forcible
exile as a consequence of the census operation
Forcible exile of village communities as a form of collective
punishment for the crimes of others
-
"Voluntary"
migration
-
Action
taken by the Government of Bhutan following allegations
that Nepali-speakers
-
Were
being forcibly evicted from southern Bhutan.
BHUTAN:
FORCIBLE EXILE
Introduction
By
mid-1994 approximately 86,000 people were resident in refugee
camps in Nepal, the great majority of whom were Nepali-speaking
people from southern Bhutan. [1] Their fate remained uncertain.
Talks had started in November 1992 between the Governments
of Bhutan and Nepal on the issue, but had not yet reached
a conclusion. In October 1993 the two governments had agreed
four categories into which these people would be classified
with a view to some of them returning to Bhutan, but no agreement
had been reached by
mid-1994 about the criteria or mechanism which would be used
to decide which categories people would be placed in. Meanwhile,
people continued to arrive in Nepal from Bhutan, apparently
believing that they had no choice but to do so.
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. Indeed, the first category of
the four which were agreed by the two governments is "Bonafide
Bhutanese who have been forced into exile", which in
itself provides an acknowledgment by the Government of Bhutan
that some southern Bhutanese, at least, may have been forced
into exile. Amnesty International opposes the practice of
forcible exile when it is imposed as a formal measure on account
of people's non-violent expression of their political, religious
or other conscientiously-held beliefs or by reason of their
ethnic origin, sex, colour or language. It believes that many
of those in the camps in Nepal have been forcibly exiled from
Bhutan on account of their ethnic origin or political beliefs.
People
interviewed in the camps in Nepal by Amnesty International
in November 1991 and November 1993 gave various reasons for
their departure from Bhutan, including formal measures taken
by the authorities to make them leave, as described below.
These measures were employed in the context of unrest among
the Nepali-speaking population in southern Bhutan about two
main issues. The government's policy of national integration
on the basis of northern Bhutanese traditions and culture
(driglam namza), which King Jigme Singye Wangchuck decreed
in January 1989, gave rise to fears that the government intended
to erase Nepali culture in Bhutan by requiring everybody to
adopt distinctive northern Bhutanese practices. Secondly,
the census operation to identify illegal immigrants and Bhutanese
nationals, which started in 1988 and still reportedly continues,
gave rise to fears that those not recognized as Bhutanese
nationals would be forced to leave the country. These fears
were exacerbated by the arbitrary manner in which the census
was conducted, and by the manner in which opposition to government
policy among sections of the southern Bhutanese population
was suppressed by government forces.
Unrest
at government policies on national integration and the application
of the Citizenship Act spread in southern Bhutan from early
1990, culminating in a series of demonstrations throughout
southern Bhutan in September 1990 during which some acts of
arson and vandalism were reportedly committed. The first allegations
of violent activities by government opponents in the south,
whom the government call ngolops or "anti-nationals",
had been reported in February 1990. These were said to involve
extortion and stripping of people wearing northern Bhutanese
dress. From mid-1990 the "anti-nationals" were said
to have stepped up their activities to include more serious
crimes such as murder and kidnapping of civilians and attacks
on public facilities in the south. Some attacks were directed
at census officers and other officials, including teachers
[2]. Attacks on officials and civilians continue to be reported
from southern Bhutan and in some cases it is alleged that
the perpetrators have made forays into Bhutan from the camps
in Nepal. There is not always clear evidence of a political
motive for particular crimes attributed to "anti-nationals".
In addition, it is now also alleged by the government that
"anti-nationals" themselves have intimidated and
threatened some southern Nepali-speakers into leaving their
homes and going to live in the camps.
As
arbitrary arrests of southern Bhutanese, accompanied by torture
and rape, escalated in 1991, southern Bhutanese began to flee
from Bhutan, fearing that they would become victims of such
violations. From about mid-1992, however, there were significantly
fewer reports of these kinds of gross human rights violations
being committed, and the nature of the action taken by the
authorities to make people leave the country seemed to have
changed. Many of the people interviewed who arrived in the
camps in this later period described primarily administrative
measures taken to force them to leave, including being required
to sign so-called "voluntary migration forms", often
accompanied by threats of large fines or imprisonment if they
failed to comply. Signing these forms is taken to mean that
the person concerned will not return to Bhutan, and there
is some provision - which is not always fulfilled - for compensation
to be paid for their lands. Some people had left Bhutan for
another reason: this was that their village communities were
required to leave en masse as a collective punishment inflicted
by the local authorities following a murder or robbery in
the locality attributed to
"anti-nationals".
Many
of the people whom Amnesty International interviewed, and
who said they had been forced out of Bhutan, said that they
would like to return to Bhutan when it is safe for them to
do so, and the talks between the Governments of Bhutan and
Nepal are intended to lead to decisions on who will be permitted
to return. It appears from the four-fold classification agreed
by the two governments, however, that the question of whether
a person is deemed a national, or citizen, of Bhutan will
be treated as the determining factor in establishing his or
her right to return. If citizenship is used to determine whether
or not a person may return, the guarantees provided under
international law may not be fulfilled.
Under
international human rights law everyone has the right to return
to his or her own country.[3] While obviously including citizens
of a country, the right to return can also be exercised by
those who have not been formally recognized as citizens by
the country to which they wish to return, provided that it
is their "own country". Nepali-speaking people from
Bhutan who have been forced to leave the country, and those
who have left voluntarily, have a right to return to Bhutan
unless it is established in an individual case that a person
has another country of nationality. As far as Amnesty International
is aware, the "own country" of the majority of the
ethnic Nepali people in refugee camps in Nepal is Bhutan since
few of them are known to be nationals of any other country.
The largest section of the population of southern Bhutan,
now known as the "southern Bhutanese", are the descendants,
mostly Hindu, of Nepali settlers who came to work in the southern
Duar valleys in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Such
migration into Bhutan was banned by Bhutan in 1959, and the
current situation in the south can be seen in the context
of a series of measures used by the government since that
time to curb the influx of Nepali settlers, and to regularize
citizenship procedures. The exceptions to those for whom Bhutan
is their own country might be ethnic Nepali people who have
recently migrated to Bhutan from India or Nepal. The Government
of Bhutan says that there are also people in the camps who
did not originate from Bhutan, but who came to the camps from
elsewhere.
Several
additional problems can be anticipated if citizenship alone
is used to determine who is entitled to return to Bhutan.
The 1985 Citizenship Act of Bhutan contains a number of vague
provisions, and appears to have been applied in an arbitrary
manner, as described below. 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. Amnesty International
is also concerned that some people in the camps still fear
persecution if they are
required to return to Bhutan. It is essential that all such
people are given an opportunity to have their asylum claims
fully considered, as required under international law. No
such person should be returned to Bhutan before it has been
determined that they would not be at risk of serious human
rights violations if returned. These concerns are reinforced
by the fact that Nepali- speakers from southern Bhutan continue
to arrive in
Nepal[4] and reportedly continue to describe measures directed
at Nepali-speakers in southern Bhutan amounting to forcible
exile. The case of over 280 people from Dorokha in Samchi
District, who arrived in Nepal in April 1994, is described
below to illustrate this point.
Amnesty
International believes that a full, independent assessment
of the human rights situation in southern Bhutan is necessary
to ensure that those who return will not fall victim again
to the kinds of violations that originally made them leave.
Concerns about the four-fold classification
In
October 1993, the Governments of Nepal and Bhutan agreed to
classify all of the people in the camps into four categories:
1)
Bonafide Bhutanese if they have been forcefully evicted
2) Bhutanese who emigrated
3) Non-Bhutanese
4) Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts
Amnesty
International fears that this classification may not allow
for the return of all those who have beenforcibly exiled and
who have a right to return to their own country. There could
be people in all four categories who have the right under
international law to return to Bhutan, provided that it is
their own country. No clear information has yet been published,
to Amnesty International's knowledge, about the use to which
this
classification will be put nor the methods by which people
will be classified. Before any screening of the people in
the camps takes place with a view to some returning to Bhutan,
Amnesty International believes that certain crucial issues
need to be addressed in order to ensure that the guarantees
of international human rights law are fulfilled.
First,
as noted above, international human rights law guarantees
people the right to return to their own country, whether or
not they have been formally recognized as citizens of that
country. Clarification is needed as to whether this guarantee
will be enforced to ensure everybody whose own country is
Bhutan is able to return there should they wish to do so.
If, instead, it is the citizenship laws of Bhutan alone which
will be applied to determine who will return, as implied by
the four categories, then the categorization gives cause for
concern because it is unlikely that the guarantees provided
under international law will be fulfilled.
It
is not yet known how it will be decided whether a person is
"Bhutanese" (categories one, two and four) or "non-Bhutanese"
(category three). If the determining factor is whether the
person is entitled to Bhutanese citizenship, as defined under
the 1985 Citizenship Act, this is of concern because of the
act's vague provisions and the sometimes arbitrary ways in
which it has been applied. For example, in many cases it will
now be impossible to establish if a person was resident in
Bhutan in 1958, which is a requirement for citizens under
the act. This is because census registers are incomplete,
some people have had their status as citizens altered, some
people have had their names deleted from the census records,
and many people who might otherwise be able to prove residence
in the country by producing their land tax receipts and other
relevant documents have had them confiscated by local government
authorities. These factors are described more fully below.
Secondly, while the law allows for citizenship by naturalization,
it excludes anyone from gaining citizenship in this manner
if they have a record of "having spoken or acted against
the King, country and people of Bhutan in any manner whatsoever".
This can include the non-violent expression of opposition
to government policies. Applications for citizenship can be
refused "without assigning any reason" under the
act. Finally, the requirements that citizens be proficient
in Dzongkha (the language of the northern Bhutanese) and knowledgable
about the culture, customs, tradition and history of Bhutan
could be used to exclude many Nepali- speaking people in southern
Bhutan from gaining citizenship.
Category
two (Bhutanese who emigrated) may give cause for concern depending
upon the fate of those included in this category. If emigrants
from Bhutan have no other citizenship, they have the right
under international law to return to Bhutan regardless of
whether they left voluntarily. Amnesty International is not
aware of any provision in the 1985 Citizenship Act which qualifies
the right to return of citizens who have left Bhutan. However,
an earlier act - the 1958 Citizenship Act (as amended in 1977)
- required citizens who left the country and then wanted to
re-enter to go through a two-year probation period upon re-entry
before having their citizenship renewed. One ground for refusing
to renew citizenship was that the person "was responsible
for any activities against the Royal Government". An
assurance is therefore needed from the Government of Bhutan
that no restrictions on return would apply to Bhutanese who
had voluntarily emigrated and wished to return, as a refusal
to permit people in this category to return would amount to
forcible exile.
Category
four is also of concern because the concept of "criminal
acts" has been left undefined, and because if it is intended
to exclude people in this category from returning to Bhutan,
it might contravene international law. Bhutanese law draws
no distinction between violent and non- violent opposition
to the government and so Nepali-speaking Bhutanese who opposed
government policy by non-violent means might be prevented
from returning to their country. Furthermore, under international
law citizens have an unqualified right to re-enter their country
regardless of whether they have committed a criminal act.
They can be tried and punished for their crimes, but not exiled.
Cases
illustrating different aspects of forcible exile practised
by the Bhutanese authorities
Many
people interviewed by Amnesty International said they had
previously held Bhutanese Citizenship Identity Cards issued
following an initial census exercise which reportedly took
place between 1979 and 1981, and had believed their status
in Bhutan was secure, but found during the latest census that
they were classified as non-
nationals, or "illegal immigrants", and required
to leave the country. Other interviewees said they had been
told verbally by the census team that they were considered
to be Bhutanese citizens, but were later told they were considered
"illegal immigrants" and had to leave the country.
Yet others had been classified as Bhutanese nationals, but
were then pressurized by local authorities to migrate "voluntarily"
because they already had relatives living in refugee camps
in eastern Nepal, or because they were related to political
prisoners. In some instances, interviewees described whole
village blocks [5] of Nepali- speaking Bhutanese families,
who were recognized as Bhutanese citizens but forced out en
masse, apparently in retaliation for a robbery or attack on
a local government official attributed by the authorities
to "anti-national" elements. According to the Government
of Bhutan, some people have left Bhutan because of intimidation
from "anti- nationals" who threaten Nepali-speakers
who remain in southern Bhutan as part of their international
campaign to discredit the government.
Some
people in the camps were themselves local officials who had
been ordered to participate in the eviction and exile of villagers.
For example, a village headman from Sarbhang District said
he had been threatened with imprisonment if he did not comply
with orders to collect up villagers' citizenship identity
cards after a local official had been murdered. This case
is described below. Others had refused to obey orders from
the local authorities to demolish the houses of people who
had already left the country, and had been ordered to sign
"voluntary migration forms" and leave the country
themselves.
Forcible
exile as a consequence of the census operation
The
illustrative cases included below demonstrate that people
whose own country is Bhutan, and who have no other nationality,
were classified as non-nationals during the census and subsequently
forced to leave the country. The 1985 Citizenship Act of Bhutan
requires that for a person to be registered as a Bhutanese
citizen, they must
prove that they were resident in Bhutan in 1958. During the
census operation which began in 1988, proof of residence in
1958 had to be given to the census team for a person to be
recognized as a Bhutanese citizen.
People
from southern Bhutan whom Amnesty International interviewed
in Nepal described how the census teams had worked. They said
that when the census team arrived in a village, the head of
the family was requested by the village headman to present
him or herself to the team with their documents, including
Bhutanese Citizenship Identity Card, marriage certificate,
land ownership documents including land tax receipts and their
certificate of origin (which is a document similar to a birth
certificate). Those people who were able to produce a land
tax receipt for 1958, or a certificate of origin showing that
both their parents were born in Bhutan, were classified as
genuine Bhutanese citizens (F1, in the seven-fold classification
system used for the census). Those people who could produce
a certificate of origin proving only one parent had been born
in Bhutan were classified as F4 or F5,and their citizenship
status remained unclear. Those people who were unable to produce
either document were classified as non-nationals (F7). The
head of the family was told orally what category he and his
family had been put into, but in the majority of cases the
census team did not give the head of family any documentation
showing which category each individual family-member had been
assigned to.
Although
the government has said that any documentary evidence whatsoever
showing that a person was resident in Bhutan in 1958 is accepted
as proof of citizenship, the people from southern Bhutan whom
Amnesty International interviewed in Nepal said that this
was not the case, and that if they could provide documentation
from an earlier year, but not for 1958 itself, it was not
accepted. People who possessed land tax receipts for 1956
or 1957, for example, but not for 1958, said they had been
classified as non-nationals. In some cases a person who possessed
an identity card but had no land tax receipt for 1958 or no
certificate of origin were classified as non-nationals. Identity
cards were often seized or confiscated by the census team
or other local officials.
People
who were classified as non-nationals said that they were told
by local officials or the census team to leave the country
within a short time or pay a fine or go to jail. Some of those
who left in the earlier period (1991 - 1992) said that they
were harassed and threatened by army personnel or witnessed
other villagers being beaten and women molested and decided
to leave before they themselves fell victim to the same treatment.
Those who left later described less brutal, but no less effective,
methods of making them leave.
A
28-year-old farmer from Chhukha District who left Bhutan for
Nepal in July 1993, gave the following testimony:
My
father and uncle migrated to live in Bhutan, and I was born
there. Our family went together to the census team on two
occasions. The first time I did not take my citizenship identity
card with me. The second time, the census team asked for my
land receipt of 1958 and my identity card. The land tax receipt
was in my uncle's name. The census team said that I could
not have my identity card returned because the 1958 land tax
receipt was in my uncle's name. I was categorized F7 [non-
Bhutanese], and the census officer told me that I had to leave
the country within 6 days or pay a fine of 6,000 rupees or
go to jail for 6 months. Since I am a poor person, I left
the country.
A
factory worker from Chhukha District described what had happened
to her:
During
the census operation in Chhukha District in 1993 I was classified
as F7 [non-national] because I did not have a land tax receipt
for 1958. I surrendered the land tax receipts that I did have
in my possession to the census team. I was born in Bhutan,
but I do not know whether my parents were born in Bhutan or
not. I was a factory worker and I was due two weeks' wages
which is why I remained in my house. One day five soldiers
came to my house and asked me why I had not left. They grabbed
me and pushed me to the ground. My 15- year-old daughter was
so afraid that she ran away into the forest. I was so scared
that I left Bhutan immediately with my three children.
In
another case, also involving a person who left Chhukha District
in 1993, the person concerned was classified as a non-national
apparently because his parents and brother had already left
Bhutan for Nepal. He said that because they had left, the
district administrative officer had confiscated his citizenship
identity card and his land tax receipts and told him to leave
for Nepal as well. He said he left eleven acres of land behind
him.
In
some cases people who had been told during the recent census
that they were classified as genuine Bhutanese citizens were
then apparently deprived of citizenship on the basis of a
decision by a local government official. One woman described
her case to Amnesty International as follows:
During
the census operation in my district in June 1992, I went to
the census office in Phuntsholing. I was asked by the team
where my husband was and I told them that I was divorced three
years ago. They asked me to bring my parents and present them
to the census team, but I told them they had already left
Bhutan. Then they asked why I didn't go to Nepal as well since
my parents are already there, and I replied that I did not
want to because it is not easy for a woman on her own. They
also asked me for details about my shop and my identity card.
I then went to see the village headman who told me that I
could get a certificate of origin from the village elders
since my father had been an assistant village headman. I gave
my certificate of origin to the census team who classified
me as F1 [Bhutanese national] and my three children as F4
[children of a Bhutanese mother and foreign father] because
my ex-husband was born in Sikkim. Then in mid-September 1993
we were called to a meeting at the village headman's house
and he said that he had received a letter from the dungpa
[sub-district administrator] with a list of people's classifications
and I had been classified as F7 [non-national]. When I asked
why, the village headman said there was nothing he could do
about it. Next day I returned to the village headman's house
to ask if I could take my possessions with me. He told me
that the village elder risked arrest if I was seen there,
and that the army or police would arrest me if I stayed any
longer in the country. So one month later I left and came
to Nepal.
In
some cases married couples were put in different categories
by the census teams and even when one of them was a Bhutanese
citizen, the family consequently had to leave Bhutan. [8]
A farmer from Samrang village, Samdrupjongkhar District, for
example, was classified as a genuine Bhutanese citizen but
his wife was categorized as F4 because she had been born in
India. He was then told that, because his wife was F4, he
would have to pay a fine of 8,500 rupees. He could not afford
to pay, so he, his wife and seven children left the country.
In another case, a carpenter from Samchi District who could
not produce his 1958 land tax receipt was classified, along
with his children, as F5 (Bhutanese mother and non-Bhutanese
father), while his wife, who was able to produce her certificate
of origin, was classifed as a Bhutanese citizen. The family
was told by the sub-divisional officer that they would have
to leave the country because they had been classified as F5
and that if they did not leave, they would face a large fine.
The family felt it had no option but to accept compensation
and go.
Forcible
exile of village communities as a form of collective punishment
for the crimes of others
Some
interviewees described to Amnesty International how, in some
cases, large numbers of Nepali-speaking people from a particular
village had been forced to leave Bhutan as a form of collective
punishment, after a crime had been committed which was attributed
by the authorities to "anti- nationals".
For
example, a large-scale eviction was reported following the
assassination, attributed to "anti- nationals",
of the sub-divisional officer (dungpa) Chhimi Dorji in Sarbhang
District in May 1992. Amnesty International interviewed some
of those from Geylegphug, Sarbhang District, who said they
had been forced into exile in this incident. They said that
the new dungpa had said they would have to leave the country,
and had threatened them. According to their account, in June
1992 all the villagers of their block had been forced to hand
all their documents and identity cards to the local authorities
and sign "voluntary migration forms". The next month
the King of Bhutan had visited the area and tried to persuade
the villagers not to emigrate. But after the King had left,
the villagers were allegedly threatened by the army and police
and told by the newly-appointed dungpa that they should go
peacefully, or otherwise they would be forced to go "by
any means possible". The village headman was said to
have been threatened with imprisonment if he did not comply
with orders from higher officials to collect up the villagers'
citizenship identity cards. While waiting to receive their
compensation, the villagers moved to the town where they stayed
until a notice was issued which threatened to jail anyone
found loitering. The villagers hired some trucks and left
the country, despite the fact that only about half of them
had received the compensation that was due.
The
Government of Bhutan has published a different account of
the background to the departure of villagers from Geylegphug.[9]
It said that the families had not applied to emigrate in the
normal manner, but had given an ultimatum to the District
Administrator that they would be leaving for the refugee camps
in Nepal within two days regardless of whether their applications
had been processed in time. The authorities are said to have
persuaded the families to remain until a high-level investigation
team from the capital, Thimphu, arrived, comprising two High
Court Judges, the Chairman of the Royal Advisory Council and
the Dzongkhag (District) Coordination Division officer in
the Home Ministry. According to the government, the investigation
team found the allegations of forcible eviction made against
the local authorities to be false and to form "part of
a propaganda campaign aimed at gaining international sympathy
and support for the anti-national cause".
"Voluntary"
migration
Several
people Amnesty International interviewed in the camps in Nepal
said they had been forced by local government officials to
sign a "voluntary migration form" which said they
had agreed to accept compensation for their land and were
leaving the country willingly. Some of these cases are described
below. Some of those interviewed said that because the form
was in Dzongkha, the official language of the northern Bhutanese,
which they did not speak or read, they had no idea what the
form said and its content was not explained to them by the
local government officials. Others knew the content of the
form but felt that they had no option but to sign, having
already been threatened with large fines or imprisonment if
they failed to comply. In some instances, the signing of the
form and payment of compensation was said by the interviewee
to have been recorded on video by government officials. Since
then, Amnesty International has learned of journalists and
other visitors to Bhutan who have been shown such videos by
the authorities in order to "prove" to them that
these migrations were undertaken voluntarily.
Some
interviewees who said they had felt compelled to sign "voluntary
migration forms" said that the compensation they had
received did not match the real value of their land. Some,
despite signing the form, said they received no compensation
at all. It has also been alleged that officials took deductions
from the compensation money as payment for education, medical
services and, in some cases, the cost of being maintained
while in jail. In some cases, the houses of those who have
left the country were demolished on the orders of the local
administration. People who have refused to participate in
such demolition have themselves been forced to sign "voluntary
migration forms" and leave the country. One farmer from
Chirang who had left Bhutan in January 1993 told Amnesty International
that he and five other villagers had been forced to sign "voluntary
migration forms" because they had refused to comply with
an order from the village headman to dismantle the houses
of people who had left the country. They had asked to see
the official orders for demolition, but the headman said he
had been asked to give a verbal order only. The six villagers
who refused to comply were called to the dzong (district administrative
office) where the district magistrate told them that as they
had refused to carry out the order to demolish houses, they
would have to sign "voluntary migration forms" themselves
and accept compensation for their lands. If they refused to
do this, he said they would face a large fine or be jailed
for three years. The farmer said he was given far less than
the value of his land, and that his Citizenship Identity Card
and land tax receipts were also confiscated. All six villagers
were similarly treated, he said, and they all had to leave
the country.
Another
farmer whom Amnesty International interviewed had left Bhutan
in October 1993 after he, too, had been required to sign a
"voluntary migration form". In 1990 he had been
imprisoned for two and a half months on suspicion of participating
in the September 1990 demonstrations and having given a donation
to an "anti-national" party. He was released under
an amnesty from the king. After his release he had returned
home and cultivated his land; but the village headman had
taken his orange crop each year, promising that he would be
paid 25 per cent of its value. The farmer said he never received
this money. In the latter part of 1993 he said he was called
several times to the police station or army camp and asked
why he was still living in Bhutan; after his release from
prison, they said, he had been expected to leave the country.
The district administrator and his block headman told him
to sign a "voluntary migration form", and threatened
that he would be "blown away" if he did not leave
the country. Fearing that he would be killed, he left with
his family.
Others
have been required to sign "voluntary migration forms"
and leave the country simply because they are related to people
who have already left. For instance, a 67-year-old man from
Sibsoo in Samchi District, whose testimony has been supplied
to Amnesty International, who had two sons who had participated
in demonstration in 1990 and had subsequently left Bhutan,
was himself forced to leave. According to his testimony, his
son's names had been deleted from the census records in 1991.
During 1992, he says he was ordered through five written notices
and verbal commands to fill in a "voluntary migration
form" and leave, because his sons had already left. He
did not comply, and was arrested on 22 June 1992. After 15
days in Sibsoo jail he was released, after having signed a
form saying that he intended to leave the country voluntarily.
He was required to submit his land tax receipt and citizenship
identity card to the authorities, in the presence of several
local officials, and this event was filmed on video camera.
He says that he was required to face the camera specifically
when he picked up his compensation money from the table. Nevertheless,
he did not wish to leave Bhutan, and decided to go to the
capital, Thimphu, to appeal directly to the King of Bhutan.
With members of three other families from nearby villages
who had also been ordered to leave the country, as well as
one friend, he applied in March 1993 for a travel permit to
go to Thimphu. All five of them were arrested. One escaped
after one night, and the four others spent three days in prison
and then signed a form in front of the district administrator
saying they would leave the country within 15 days. This man,
however, returned home. On 25 November 1993 he said he was
interrogated by the security forces about the whereabouts
of his sons, and that when the officers left the village,
they instructed the villagers to demolish his house. He pleaded
with them not to do so, but on 28 November the officers returned
and did the demolition themselves, getting villagers to take
the usable timbers back to their camp. About two weeks later,
the security forces burned down the remains of the house.
The man moved into a shed, but was told by village volunteers[10]
that they were under pressure from the authorities to make
him leave the country as he had already signed the forms.
He left.
That
these practices have continued into 1994 is illustrated by
the arrival in the refugee camps on 9 April 1994 of 284 people
from Denchuka and Myona blocks, Dorokha sub-division, Samchi
district. Among them were twenty- seven heads of families
from Denchuka who claimed that on 24 March 1994 they were
told by assistant village headmen that on instruction of the
district authorities they and their families had to vacate
their houses by the next day. According to a copy of a circular
letter of 24 March 1994 from the village block headman addressed
to ten assistant- headmen, police would be sent to drive them
out of their houses if they had not left by the next day.
The
majority of the heads of the 27 families reportedly had been
registered as "returned migrants" (F2) during the
census. Many of them claimed, however, to be in possession
of land tax receipts for the year 1958. One of them, Tek Nath
Adhikari, said he was called to the office of the dungpa (sub-divisional
officer) and told he could not stay in the country because
his older brother had already left. He was served with an
individual notice to leave the country by the headman of Denchuka
on 25 March 1994, a copy of which was obtained by Amnesty
International. The others claimed that from January onwards
they had been called to the sub-divisional administration
office and pressurised into signing applications for voluntary
migration (of which they had not been given copies). Several
people said that they were told they had to leave because
they could not produce their certificate of origin; one was
told he had to leave because his brother was an "anti-national".
After
leaving their houses on 25 March, they gathered in Samchi
town as instructed by the dungpa. There on 7 or 8 April about
a dozen heads of families were individually videoed after
being instructed by the dungpa that when questioned about
their reasons for leaving, they should say they were leaving
of their own will or else "they would be dealt with accordingly".
Tek Nath Adhikari said he was taken aside and a pistol held
against his lower back while he made a statement in front
of the video saying he would not return to Bhutan.
The
accounts given by the people who arrived in the refugee camps
differ from that given in a press report of 9 April 1994 in
the government newspaper, Kuensel. There, it was alleged that
the district administrator had advised the families not to
leave and had pointed out that they would no longer be citizens
once they had left the country.A decree from the King dated
26 March urging these people not to leave had been read out.
The article quoted individual people saying they were leaving
the country but pointed out that they did not give clear reasons
for doing so.
The
heads of these families said that the decree was only read
out to them on 7 April. This resulted in five families and
two individuals deciding to stay in Bhutan. Those who left
acknowledged that they made statements, as reported in the
Kuensel article, saying that they were leaving Bhutan permanently
or that they were leaving on their own free will. They said
they made these statements under pressure or out of frustration.
People who have visited Bhutan since have been shown a video
of these people being urged not to leave Bhutan, but ultimately
leaving in a truck for the border.
Action
taken by the Government of Bhutan following allegations that
Nepali-speakers were being forcibly evicted from southern
Bhutan
Testimony
gathered from people from southern Bhutan now living in the
camps in Nepal gives a consistent picture of official measures
being taken to evict them. However, this picture of persistent
action by local officials to drive Nepali-speaking people
out of Bhutan contradicts the impression given by the central
government authorities, who have claimed repeatedly that they
do not wish to see the southern Bhutanese leave the country,
and that they have taken numerous measures to try to stem
this emigration.
Some
allegations of forcible eviction, such as that from Geylegphug
mentioned above, have been subject to investigation. The first
investigation known to Amnesty International was held in January
1992 on the orders of the King of Bhutan, and investigated
allegations of forcible exile and harrassment by soldiers
and police, as well as by local administrative officers, in
Chirang and Daga Districts. Its report has not been made public,
but was forwarded to the High Court for further investigations.
These resulted in the dismissal of the local judge of Chirang,
and the demotion of two local administrators, all of whom
were reported to have taken advantage of the situation to
buy property at unfair prices.
During
1992 the government introduced various measures apparently
intended to dissuade people from emigrating. In the 71st Session
of the National Assembly of Bhutan it was reported that the
development plans and programs finalized for the southern
districts were larger than ever before. The King had also
exempted all citizens of Nepali origin from rural taxes for
1992, and from the requirement to contribute their labour
for development works. The King had granted amnesty to thousands
of people imprisoned for "anti-national" activities,
and had issued a decree declaring it to be a punishable offence
for anyone to forcibly evict any genuine citizens from the
country.
During
its visit to Chirang and Daga, it was reported that the investigating
team distributed copies of the King's decree in Nepali and
English, and explained the points made in it to the district
development committees. The King had said that any Bhutanese
citizen who desired to give up his citizenship and emigrate
to another country was free to do so, but that it was a serious
violation of the law and a punishable offence for any administrative
or security official to force any Bhutanese citizen to leave
the country under duress. In the event of any Bhutanese national
being forced by any administrative or security officials to
leave the country under duress, the citizen concerned should
report their case immediately to the Ministry of Home Affairs,
the District Court, or the High Court. If necessary, petitions
could be submitted directly to the King.
According
to the Government of Bhutan, no complaints about forcible
eviction have been received by the government since the King
issued his decree. The King is reported to have visited villages
in southern Bhutan on many occasions to try to dissuade people
from emigrating. The King also instructed district administrators
not to accept applications for emigration routinely, but to
find out why people wished to leave and whether they genuinely
wished to emigrate. It was also reported that the King continued
to reject proposals from National Assembly members to evict
those people believed by the authorities to be "anti-nationals",
or government opponents.
Despite
these measures, Nepali-speakers continued to leave Bhutan
in mid-1994, and continued to report that they had left under
duress, as the cases described above illustrate.
FOOTNOTES/ENDNOTES
-
There
are also reported to be some ethnic Sarchop people from
eastern Bhutan in the
camps.
-
See
Amnesty International, Bhutan: Human rights violations
against the Nepali-speaking population in the south, December
1992, AI Index: ASA 14/04/92, for details of some of these
incidents. This report also gives more background to the
situation prevailing in southern Bhutan, and documents
the arbitrary arrests, torture and rape reported in 1990
and 1991, particularly.
-
For
example, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights reads: "Everyone has the right to leave any
country, including his own, and to return to his country."
-
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, 1,072 asylum-seekers were screened at the Kakarvitta
screening centre, Jhapa District, Nepal in the first five
months of 1994. Of these, about 90% were recognized as
asylum-seekers.
-
A
"village block" is generally referred to as
a group of between three to six villages.
-
Local
government officials whom Amnesty International delegates
met in Samchi, southern Bhutan, in January 1992, described
the process slightly differently. They said that a form
is filled out with each villager's details, which is signed
by the census team leader, the district administrator
and the village committee leaders. Four
copies are made and sent to the Home Office, the Sub-
Divisional office, the District Office and to the Block
Headman. Anyone who disagrees with their classification
can complain first to their Block Headman and then at
district level, where it becomes a judicial issue.
-
See,
for example, Anti-National Activities in Southern Bhutan,
dated 12 August 1992, published by the Department of Information:
Any documentary evidence whatsoever, (land ownership deeds
or documents showing sale/gift/inheritance or 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.
-
In
November 1988 the King had recommended to the National
Assembly that residence permits should be issued to foreigners
married to Bhutanese citizens so that parents and children
and husbands and wives need not be separated.
The National Assembly therefore decided that non-nationals
married to Bhutanese citizens (before the Citizenship
Act of 1985) would be entitled to a Special Residence
Identity Card that would entitle them to health, education
and other social welfare benefits available to bonafide
citizens. People from families divided between different
categories that Amnesty International interviewed had
not been given a Special Residence Identity Card.
-
See
the Government of Bhutan's Anti-National Activities in
Southern Bhutan, Department of Information, Thimpu, Bhutan,
August 1992, pp 13 - 17.
-
The
village volunteers form local groups for the protection
of their villages. Amnesty International has insufficient
details about the nature of these groups, and is seeking
this information from the authorities.
-
More details are given in Amnesty International, Bhutan:
Human rights violations against the Nepali-speaking population
in the south, AI Index: ASA 14/04/92, December 1992
|
