2.9.1 Bhutan-Nepal Talks

The Punakha representative asked for a briefing on the progress of talks on the people in the camps in Nepal. At the same time, the Zhemgang representative submitted that on 22 February, six anti-nationals from Jhapa raided Idi in Kanamakara, Bhutan. The public, he said, was concerned that this could be indicative of raids resuming, and they too requested a briefing on the talks with Nepal.

The Foreign Minister submitted the following to the National Assembly:
From 1998 onward, Ministers from the two countries had held five rounds of talks on this issue as well as two official-level talks. He pointed out the difficulties in negotiating with the Nepalese because of frequent changes in the Government of Nepal. Differences in stances also existed, he said; Bhutan had wanted the positions of the four categories⁷to be finalised before verification, while Nepal wanted verification to proceed first.

Ministerial-level talks were held in Kathmandu last September 13-16, he reported. It was agreed that the problem would be settled by talks between the two countries only, with no involvement of third countries or parties, and that all measures agreed to till that time would be held valid. The two countries agreed that a solution agreeable to both countries would be found and that responsibility would be borne jointly. It was further agreed that the finalisation of the four categories and the verification would be decided on simultaneously.

Nepal touted the idea of a mediator, but Bhutan refused, saying that they should work in an atmosphere of trust and friendship. Bhutan understood that Nepal might be asking for a mediator, fearing dispute, and therefore the Bhutanese proposed that the method be made so sound as to remove cause for dispute.

The next meeting was held in New York and Thimphu last November, where it was decided that the verification process would be made stronger.

In February and March 2000, discussions were held on the joint verification team and its modalities. The modalities referred to the following: the number of members the team would hold, the work/responsibilities/power of the team, and the procedures to be followed.

Following these meetings, the Government in power in Nepal changed. After the Foreign Minister held a telephone conversation with his new counterpart, it was agreed that they would meet abroad at the site of a common meeting.

On May 22-25 the two Ministers met and spoke at length. They resolved to adhere to previous agreements and that verification would start in July 2000, according to the agreed process.

However, verification could not begin as scheduled because there was a difference of opinion over the verification process. Bhutan wanted verification conducted for all adults, while Nepal wanted it for the head of family only. This was not agreeable to the Bhutanese, who noted that there were no limits to family size and that this could include people who were not legal family members. While Bhutan respected that families should be kept together, it also

7 The four categories refer to the division of the people in the camps into the following: bona fide citizens who have been evicted from the country; citizens who have left voluntarily; non-Bhutanese, and Bhutanese who have committed crimes in Bhutan.

wanted verification conducted individually. Ministers of both countries were continuingdialogue to ensure a successful conclusion to the issue.

The Foreign Minister also said that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ms S. Ogata, had visited both Nepal and Bhutan to view progress on the issue. She had been apprised of the situation by the Bhutanese Government. During her visit to Bhutan, she had an audience with His Majesty the King, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, members of the Council of Ministers and other officials. She had stated that UNHCR would support negotiations for a solution.

The Chairman of the Council of Ministers, who is also the Head of Government, stated that the Foreign Minister had acted with the full support and knowledge of members of the Cabinet. Before and after each meeting with Nepal, briefings were held in the Cabinet, he noted.

The Punakha representative requested the Government to keep in mind the resolutions of the National Assembly in pursuit of a solution.

The Speaker concluded that the Bhutan-Nepal talks had been conducted in keeping with resolutions of the National Assembly and previous agreements reached with the Government of Nepal.

2.9.2 Appreciation to the Indian Government

The public of Punakha submitted its appreciation to the Indian government for not allowing India to be used as a base for terrorist activities.

The Trongsa representative then joined in, voicing his appreciation and hopes that the friendship between the two countries would continue.

In a presentation touching on various aspects of the issue, the Home Minister stated that the relationship between India and Bhutan was many-faceted and stretched over different levels, including inter-departmental and inter-Ministerial. He referred to several anti-nationals who had committed crimes against the country and people, including Man Bahadur Moktan, Dan Bahadur Moktan, Sri Bahadur Gurung and Harka Bahadur Gurung, who had committed crimes against people such as Ap Dorji and Ap Kesang, houses in Haa and Kalikhola, and so forth.

The Indian Government had supported Bhutan vis-à-vis handling demonstrations at the border, the Minister said. He described demonstrations as also attempts to get non-nationals to enter the country. However, he added, they did not succeed thanks to the blessings of the guardian deities and the efforts of His Majesty the King, the Armed Forces, the people and the Indian police/residents of Jaigaon and the Government of North Bengal. He stated his appreciation to all of the above-mentioned parties.

The house then voiced its appreciation to India for not allowing its territory to be used by anti-nationals for crimes against Bhutan.

2.9.3 Ban on Return of People Who Have Left the Country

This ban was submitted by Samtse, Samdrup Jongkhar, Gasa, Tsirang, Sarpang, Dagana, Trongsa, Trashigang and Bumthang Dzongkhags. The various submissions mentioned that the people had left of their own accord, even though His Majesty, the King himself had pleaded with them not to go. The people had engaged in acts, it was further stated, that harmed development of the country and were therefore viewed as a security hazard. Because the people had left of their own free will, there was no reason for them to return, the representatives said.

All submissions stated that people who had left the country should not be allowed to return to Bhutan. Individual submissions were as follows:

The BCCI representative submitted that the people had left because they no longer wanted to be governed by the laws of Bhutan and had left saying that they were returning to their true homeland. Many in the National Assembly were of the opinion that these people should not be allowed to return. For his part, he asked that the four categories that had been decided on be strictly adhered to.

The Dagana and Paro representatives voiced concerns and requested that the anti-nationals not be allowed to return. Despite His Majesty the King exempting the people from tax and pleading with them to remain in Bhutan, they had left, the Dagana representative noted; hence, they should not be allowed to return.

The Home Minister submitted that this was an issue of great concern, as evidenced by the numerous submissions and statements of support. He also recalled that despite being requested by His Majesty not to leave the Kingdom, the people had departed. Once outside the country, he said, they had tried to incite people of neighbouring areas like Kalimpong and had also made allegations against the Bhutanese Government in a bid to stop/disrupt aid from donors.

The Home Minister stated that there were about 100,000 people in the camps, and that not all were Bhutanese citizens. The anti-nationals were demanding that a multiparty system be instituted in Bhutan and that Acts/laws be changed, he added; they also were demanding, not requesting, that sentenced anti-nationals be freed. He said the aim of such demands was to gain political power and control over the country.

The Minister then briefed the house on the system of categorisation decided on so far:

1. Bona fide citizens who had been forcibly evicted;
2. Bona fide citizens who had voluntarily left;
3. Non-Bhutanese;
4. Bhutanese who had committed crimes within the country.

After verification, the first category would be offered recompense and allowed to return.

Those officials/persons guilty of evicting the bona fide citizens from Bhutan would be tried and punished as per existing laws. The second category would be dealt with in accordance to the citizenship rules of the country. The third category would not be allowed to come to Bhutan at all, because they are not citizens. The last category, if returning, would be tried according to the law.

The Chairman of the Council of Ministers stated that the Foreign Minister in his earlier address and the Home Minster just now had clearly informed the house on the issue. He hoped that the talks would be successful and said that all work was being done according to the resolutions of the National Assembly. He reiterated that the Cabinet was always concerned about this issue and deliberated it frequently. The Foreign Minister always proceeded with the consensus of the Cabinet behind him, he noted again. As the BCCI representative had said, progress would follow the path of the four categorisations. The concerns that the people felt on this issue were amply manifested by the repeated submissions from the public. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers called on the people to remain united and stated that the Foreign Ministry represented Bhutan in this matter.

The Punakha representative voiced concerns over the possible return of the anti-nationals, whom he said wanted to forcibly change the mode of governance. They had left despite His Majesty requesting them not to, he said. He wondered why they would want to return since they often alleged they had no human rights in Bhutan.

Meanwhile, a representative of the Royal Advisory Council thanked India for its help when the anti-nationals had tried to incite neighbouring people.

Also stating the people’s concerns, the Haa representative said those who had left had always been given equal opportunity in all walks of life, including the Government and the Army.

Being allowed to come and go as they pleased would make a mockery of the whole system, he contended. The Bumthang representative asked that resolutions of the previous Assemblies be followed. Until the trouble started in 1990, the Trashi Yangtse representative said, the south had always been given due status in development activities, with schools, industries and so forth started there to increase the people’s welfare. On leaving, the people had spoilt/sabotaged the efforts of development. The representative reiterated the four categories and asked that they be strictly followed.

The Paro representative touched on how the people had originally settled on the land and also recalled that the south had enjoyed great development activity and that the people had left despite being requested not to.

For his part, the Trongsa representative asked again not to allow the anti-nationals back, saying that these repeated requests reflected the concern of the people. He supported the four agreed-on categories.

Finally, the Punakha representative requested that no mediators be allowed since both Nepal and Bhutan, as sovereign countries, could decide and resolve the issue themselves.

The Speaker concluded that the house had deliberated on this since the 71st session, reflecting the concern of the people. He stated that the people in the camps had left of their own accord and that they had done so despite being requested not to by His Majesty the King. They had sabotaged development activities before leaving and had tried to create trouble in neighbouring areas and between other countries/agencies and Bhutan. Thus, he said, because most speakers were of one accord, it could be resolved to follow the path of the four categorisations as decided in earlier sessions.

2.9.4 Anti-Nationals Should Be Dealt With Strictly According to Chathrims (Law)

A submission by the Pemagatshel representative stated that anti-nationals who were apprehended should not be granted amnesty but should be punished in strict accordance to the law.

The Home Minster spoke on anti-nationals who infiltrated the country and committed acts of terrorism, reminding the house of the Changlimithang pavilion bombing in late 1998, which was an attempt to disrupt celebrations for His Majesty’s birthday. The Druk National Congress was responsible for that incident, adding that two apprehended anti-nationals were sentenced to prison terms of 25 years, 3 months, and 15 years, 3 months.

The Minister also spoke on anti-nationals robbing chortens (reliquaries) of their relics and selling the items in Nepal to fund their activities. Citing the example of Gelay Lhakhang (temple), which was robbed by members of the Druk National Congress, he said five people had committed the crime and two had been apprehended by police.

He said Khar Tobgay, also an anti-national, had been apprehended with weapons and stolen relics from Kadam Lhakhang in Mongar. Khar Tobgay had confessed to a variety of crimes such as robbery, and the Home Minster stated that the bombing of the house of the ex-Pemagatshel chimi, who had spoken against the anti-nationals, also had been masterminded by Khar Tobgay. The Minister thanked the police/Armed Forces for their role in apprehending anti-nationals, and he reiterated that all who had committed crimes against the nation, be it robbery, desecration of lhakhangs or terrorism, would be dealt with as per the law.

Because action had already been taken along these lines, no new resolution was passed. The proposal made in the submissions of the chimis was endorsed by the house.

|Introduction | Bhutan At a Glance | Background | Nationality | State Dept. Reports| Amnesty Reports | Picture Gallery | NA Resolutions | Human Rights Reports |International Resolutions  | Documents | Voluntary Emigration | News Update | International News Clippings | Testimonies  | Books on Bhutan  | The Camps |