|
“
Additional information Submission to the UN Committee
on the Rights of the Child
NGO Response to Initial State Party Report:
BHUTAN
(CRC/C/3/Add.60)
under the Convention of the
Rights of the Child
Committee on the Rights of the Child
27th Session (21 May – 8 June 2001)
Submitted by:
Bhutanese Refugee Support Group, Ireland and UK
Co-sponsored by:
The Lutheran World Federation
DanChurchAid
Association of Human Rights Activists (AHURA), Bhutan
Bhutanese Refugees Aiding the Victims of Violence (BRAVVE)
Bhutanese Refugee Representative Repatriation Committee
(BRRRC)
21 November 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 3
Historical background 4
2. RESPONSES TO ELEMENTS OF BHUTAN'S REPORT 5
2.1. Non-discrimination (art. 2)
5
2.2. Name and nationality (art. 7) and
preservation of identity (art. 8)
8
2.3. Family environment and alternative care
9
2.4. Measures taken to harmonise national law and policy
with the provisions of the Convention
10
2.5. General legal framework within which human rights
are protected
10
3. CONCLUDING REMARKS
12
Bibliography
Endnotes
Response to Initial Report of Bhutan (CRC/C/3/Add.60)
under the Convention of the Rights of the Child
1. Introduction
With its ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) on May 23, 1990, and its signing of the declaration adopted by the World Summit for Children in 1990, the Royal
Government of Bhutan committed itself to promoting, respecting,
protecting and fulfilling the rights of all children under its
jurisdiction, regardless of, inter alia, their or their families’ race,
language, religion, or national origin.
The following response to Bhutan's report under the Convention
on the Rights of the Child focuses on the children affected by the
exodus from Bhutan of up to 120,000 Lhotshampas (southern Bhutanese people of Nepali origin), the majority of whom left in
1991 and 1992 (i.e. shortly after Bhutan’s ratification of the CRC).
Today, over 97,000 people (including more than 45,000 children)
remain in refugee camps in eastern Nepal, awaiting an agreement between the governments of Bhutan and Nepal to
determine who will be allowed to return. The circumstances leading to the flight of the refugees from Bhutan are replete with
well-documented violations of Bhutan’s obligations under the
CRC, and the failure so far to secure a durable solution for the
refugees represents an ongoing obstacle to Bhutan’s fulfilment of
those obligations.
Bhutan's report under the CRC makes only one mention of Lhotshampas as a
distinct group, referring to them in paragraph 180 as "Nepali immigrants". This is misleading, implying that they
are first generation migrants, and not people and descendants of
people of Nepalese origin who were granted full Bhutanese citizenship in 1958. A fairer definition of the term Lhotshampa is
'Southern Bhutanese of Nepali origin'.
This response was initiated by the Bhutanese Refugee Support
Group in the UK and Ireland, some of whose members witnessed
at first hand the events of the late 1980s and early 1990s, which
led to the exodus. Members of the group, particularly those who
worked in the field of education, can bear witness to the suffering
caused by widespread discrimination against southern Bhutanese
people, including children. They felt that an alternative account
must be made which details some of this suffering: Bhutan's report is written as if these events never happened. Bhutan's
report under the CRC was published in 1999. In 2000 Bhutan published its first National Human Development Report. It, too,
writes history in a way which renders invisible the thousands of
people who left Bhutan in the early 1990s, by inventing a set of
population figures which start from a 1998 estimate of 636,499
and work back to a figure of 452,000 for 1984, without the slightest dip in figures to reflect the mass exodus in the early
1990s.
This response is also supported by a number of Bhutanese refugee organisations as well as non-governmental organizations
that have been responsible, directly or indirectly, for receiving
and supporting the refugees in the camps in eastern Nepal, and
have observed the consequences for the refugee children of their
long exile from the land of their birth or of their parents.
Historical background
In paragraph 180 of Bhutan’s report, Lhotshampas (Southern
Bhutanese of Nepali origin) are identified as one of the main
ethnic groups in the country.
The refugees from Bhutan come principally from this southern
group. Many claim that their ancestors came to Bhutan between
1875 and 1940. Over the twentieth century, the Nepali-speaking
community became well established, with settlements and farms
spread across the south of the country. In 1958, the southern
Bhutanese population was granted full citizenship. As the country
developed during the 1960s and 1970s, many Southern Bhutanese rose to occupy influential positions in the bureaucracy.
Communities in all parts of the country were well served by government programmes.
Harmonious coexistence came to an abrupt end in the 1980s. Following a nationwide census in 1980, the Bhutanese
government appears to have felt that the growth of Southern Bhutanese population posed a threat to the dominant culture
and identity. A new Citizenship Act was passed in 1985 which
seemed to discriminate against Lhotshampas. During subsequent
census operations, carried out in southern districts only, people
previously recognized as Bhutanese were re-classified as "non-nationals". Several thousand were forced to leave the country.
Tek Nath Rizal, then a Royal Advisory Councillor, led a petition to
the King expressing concern at the situation. This action was
regarded as seditious. Rizal was removed from office and briefly
imprisoned. He fled to Nepal and formed the 'People's Forum for
Human Rights'. From there he was arrested for alleged activities
against the Bhutanese government and was returned to Bhutan in November 1989, where he remained imprisoned until
December 1999.
Distress among Southern Bhutanese was further increased in 1989, when they were forced to observe dress codes and
etiquette characteristic of Northern Bhutanese, under threat of
punishment. Nepali, the language of the southern Bhutanese,
was removed from the school curriculum. Southern Bhutanese who were unhappy with these repressive measures spoke out
against them and petitioned the King.
Public demonstrations against government policies took place in
southern districts in September-October 1990. All who took part
were branded 'anti-nationals' by the government. Of the 114 schools in southern Bhutan, 76 were closed. Several thousand
Southern Bhutanese were imprisoned for many months in terrible
conditions; more than two thousand were tortured. On their release, many found that their houses had been destroyed and
their families had fled the kingdom.
During 1992 and 1993, thousands more fled to Nepal, some through fear of arrest and torture, some following eviction by
government forces. Others were pressurised into signing "Voluntary Migration Forms". According to Bhutanese law, people
leaving the country voluntarily forfeit their right to citizenship.
There are now over 97,000 refugees sheltering in UNHCR-administered camps in eastern Nepal, with an estimated 10-20,000 living elsewhere in Nepal and India. Eight years of
bilateral talks have seen no tangible progress towards a solution.
Meanwhile the refugees are denied their fundamental human rights - their right to a nationality (and not to be arbitrarily
deprived of their nationality) and their right to return to their
country of origin.
Although the situation of the Bhutanese refugees can often seem
complex, the central issues are very simple. The government of
Bhutan says that the majority of the refugees in the camps are
not Bhutanese citizens. The refugees say they are Bhutanese and claim they have documents to prove it. The governments of
Bhutan and Nepal agreed as early as 1993 that there will be a
verification process leading to the repatriation of those found
eligible to return. The process has yet to begin.
While affirming this as a bilateral issue, the international
community has stated its concern for a fair and durable solution
to the refugee crisis, including through Chairman’s Statements at
the 1998 and 1999 Sessions of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and two resolutions
passed by the European Parliament in 1996 and 2000.
According to reports from refugee and other sources, Lhotshampas still in Bhutan, including children, continue to suffer
discrimination. In its 1999 report, the organization Bhutanese
Refugees Aiding the Victims of Violence (BRAVVE) claims that most
Lhotshampas in Bhutan are still deprived of educational facilities;
that the newly re-established schools in southern Bhutan are for
the children of resettled communities from eastern or northern
Bhutan or for children of civil servants and security personnel;
that the children of Lhotshampas and those families suspected of
having links with the Bhutanese human rights movement are
denied ‘No Objection Certificates’ (NOC) or ‘Census Clearance
Certificates’, without which it is impossible to get admission to
schools.
In Government-sponsored resettlement programmes, lands previously owned and occupied by refugees are being allocated
to people from northern and eastern Bhutan. In the light of this
and other practices, it is difficult to avoid questioning the good
faith of the Royal Government of Bhutan when it professes its
resolve to find a solution to the refugee crisis.
The Royal Government of Bhutan’s stance in relation to human
rights issues is historically ambiguous. The then Foreign Minister,
speaking in 1993 at the National Assembly, said that "Human Rights was considered an important issue by the rich and
powerful countries of the world". In its present report to the
Committee on the Rights of the Child, however, the RGB professes a more positive outlook:
The development philosophy adopted by Bhutan, increasingly referred to as Gross National Happiness, emphasises the well-being of individuals over the importance of material gain and is
also very relevant to the rights and needs of all children.
(paragraph 4 of Bhutan's report).
What follows is an attempt to highlight the areas in which official
Bhutanese practices in relation principally to Lhotshampa people
have been in conflict with the provisions of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, and with the RGB’s declared commitment to
the generation of ‘Gross National Happiness’.
2. Responses to Elements of Bhutan's Report
2.1. Non-discrimination (art. 2)
All persons are equal before the law in Bhutan and have equal
protection of the law without any discrimination. This prohibits
discrimination against any person and child on the basis of race,
sex, colour, religion, language, national or social origin, property
or birth.
(paragraph 38 of Bhutan's report)
Paragraphs 38 to 41 of Bhutan's report address Article 2 of the
CRC, but without referring specifically to the provision, in
paragraph 2 of Article 2, that measures should be taken to ensure that the child is protected from all forms of discrimination
or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed
opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians or
family members.
Violation of the above provision of the Convention became Bhutanese government policy and practice when a circular was
issued by the Home Ministry on August 17, 1990. The circular
stated: “Any Bhutanese national leaving the country to assist
and help the anti-nationals shall no longer be considered as
Bhutanese citizens. It may also be made very clear that such
people's family members living under the same household will be
held fully responsible and forfeit their citizenship.”
The policy outlined above was hardened into a policy of eviction
of citizens whom it termed as "anti-national": people who were
involved in or supported the pro-democracy movement of 1990.
(The widespread demonstrations in September-October 1990 had
been a response to measures seen as discriminatory by Southern
Bhutanese, who reacted with calls for democratization.) Eviction
of such people was ‘legitimized’ in a resolution of the National
Assembly in 1991. That the practice of 'guilt by association',
clearly promoted in the home ministerial circular referred to
above, was widespread, is borne out by countless testimonies by
refugees and by foreign nationals working in southern Bhutan in
the early 1990s. In BHUTAN: A Shangri-la Without Human Rights,
the reasons for leaving Bhutan are summarized under 15 different headings. This document outlines how whole families
were punished for the alleged wrong-doings of one or some of
their members: forced to sign statements that they would leave
the country on the release of their relative; made to offer to
leave the country as a precondition for the release of their
relative and threatened with dire consequences if they failed to
comply; forced to leave the country if they failed to comply with
an order to hand over a family member fleeing from fear of persecution by the authorities. These measures were carried out
in fulfilment of the 1991 National Assembly resolution, and in
violation of Article 2 of the CRC.
It is clear that legislation following resolutions of the National
Assembly has not been examined for consistency with Bhutan’s
human rights obligations.
Children were of course among those who were most vulnerable
to, and who suffered most from, the practice of ‘guilt by association’. The testimonies of foreign nationals working in
schools in southern Bhutan in the early to mid-nineties corroborate refugee testimonies to this effect. School closures in
southern Bhutan meant that Lhotshampa children did not have access to education. The authorities might argue that the
emergency situation in southern Bhutan necessitated the closure
of schools, and that their closure was not a discriminatory measure against children, but that argument could not be used
to explain why Lhotshampa children were expelled from schools
in eastern Bhutan. Southern Bhutanese children were refused
admission or expelled from school if a relative was considered to
be involved in ‘anti-national’ activities: they were considered
guilty by association. There were even cases where Lhotshampa
children were refused admission to schools in which their fathers
were serving as teachers. The requirement of ‘No Objection
Certificates’ (NOC) and more recently Census Clearance Certificates, effectively precluded many southern Bhutanese from
attending school, since such certificates were generally not
forthcoming for Lhotshampa children. Many of those who remained in Bhutan were belittled and humiliated. For example, in
Sandrup Jongkhar district, in 1991, a headmaster was observed
berating the few southern Bhutanese children in the school, saying that he did not want to hear Nepali, the language of anti-nationals, being spoken.
The egalitarian nature of Bhutanese society has no place for
discriminatory practices.
(paragraph 39 of Bhutan's report)
Throughout the period of repression, from the late 1980's to the
present day, it has been difficult or impossible for Lhotshampas
(except in exile) to speak out against the discriminatory policies
and practices of the Royal Government. Although Bhutan's report
refers to the Lhotshampas as one of the two main ethnic groups
in Bhutan, they do not have equal representation at all levels of
society.
There has only ever been one Lhotshampa member of the cabinet (he is now serving as Bhutan's Permanent
Representative to the UN in New York). There are currently no
Lhotshampa members of the Royal Advisory Council, no Lhotshampa Dzongdas (district administrators), no Lhotshampa
directors or secretaries in any of Bhutan's ministries. There are
two Lhotshampa judges out of a total of eight in the High Court.
The Tshogdu (National Assembly) consists of 150 members, of
whom two or three, at present, are Lhotshampa.
Public representatives have not been allowed to voice disquiet
about government policies towards Lhotshampas. Those who have raised voices in sympathy with the concerns of
Lhotshampas have been punished. In 1989 Tek Nath Rizal, then
a member of the Royal Advisory Council, led a petition to the King
of Bhutan conveying the distress and concern of Southern Bhutanese people at the census officials' abuse of power during
the census carried out in southern Bhutan in 1988 and appealing
for amendments to be made to the 1985 Citizenship Act. The appeal was viewed as seditious. Rizal was expelled from the
Royal Advisory Council, jailed for three days and forced to sign a
'confession'. He fled to Nepal and formed the 'People's Forum for
Human Rights'. From there he was arrested for alleged activities
against the Bhutanese government and was returned to Bhutan in November 1989. He was convicted in 1993 and was ultimately
released in December 1999. It is reported that lands which he
should have inherited from his father were granted to a retired
army officer in January 2000.
In the crackdown on all southern Bhutanese in 1991, public representatives were the first to be targeted. Strong signals
were sent out to the general public with the arrest of community
leaders and public figures followed by their detention, ill-treatment, torture (in some cases leading to death), their being
forced to sign ‘voluntary migration forms’ and their subsequent
eviction from Bhutan. Similar treatment was extended to the general public, as is widely documented.
Lhotshampas do not enjoy equal representation, nor have they
enjoyed equal opportunities, particularly since 1990. Discriminatory policies have operated in the field of education,
health and employment, and training opportunities for Lhotshampas have been much fewer than for their eastern and
northern colleagues.
Lhotshampas have been and continue to be removed from civil service positions on a racially discriminatory basis. In 1991,
Lhotshampa health workers were demoted from positions and/or
expelled from the country, as were Lhotshampa headmasters of
schools. In January 1998, 219 Lhotshampa civil servants and employees of government corporations were compulsorily retired
as a result of a resolution passed by the National Assembly in
1997 that all relatives of ngolops (anti-nationals) should be
retired from government service.
Finally, there are many accounts of Lhotshampas who tried to
gain access to appeal to the King, but all were frustrated in their
attempts. The King's own position was ambiguous. He is recorded
as saying in 1991 that he was "pleased representatives of the
government and the public had brought up the proposal of evicting anti-nationals with the objective of safeguarding the
security and well-being of the country." In January 1992, at the
height of the exodus, he spoke with a different voice, declaring it
a punishable offence for any administrative or security official to
force any Bhutanese national to leave the country under duress.
Yet the evictions continued, officials were not punished, and
reparation has still not been made to those who were forced to
leave their country and whose lands have been taken from them
and resettled.
2.2. Name and Nationality (art. 7) and Preservation of Identity
(art. 8)
Bhutanese children have the right to nationality, name and family
as recognized by the citizenship laws of Bhutan.(paragraph 59 of Bhutan's report)
Bhutan recognises the right of the child to acquire Bhutanese
nationality as provided in its citizenship laws. However, these
laws provide inadequate protection to children for their rights set
out in Articles 7 and 8 of the CRC, which stipulate that children
shall have the right from birth to acquire a nationality (article 7)
and the right to preserve their identity, including their nationality
(article 8).
Article 2 of Bhutan’s 1985 Citizenship Act limits Bhutanese
citizenship by birth to persons whose parents are both citizens of
Bhutan.
There is continuing uncertainty regarding the nationality status of
the refugees, who claim to be Bhutanese citizens, and whose claims the governments of Bhutan and Nepal have agreed (but
not yet commenced) to verify. This uncertainty is affecting children
and young adults in several ways.
Firstly, it affects those children who were born into the refugee
camps and who have never resided in Bhutan, because the right
of their parents to return to their country of origin, as enshrined
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is not recognized
under existing Bhutanese law and practice. Article 6 of the 1985
Citizenship Act provides that if Bhutanese people leave the country of their own accord (as the refugees are generally
considered to have done by the government of Bhutan), their names will no longer be recorded in the citizenship register as
maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and they will no
longer be considered as citizens of Bhutan.
Secondly, the issue of nationality and potential statelessness
affects those young adults who entered the refugee camps as children but who have since become adults.
Many spouses of Bhutanese citizens and children of one Bhutanese parent, who are currently living as refugees, should
under normal circumstances have acquired the right to claim nationality under the 1985 Act. People applying for citizenship by
naturalization must have resided in Bhutan for 15 years if they or
their parents are government employees, and 20 years in all
other cases. This period of residence must have been registered
with and recorded by the Department of Immigration and Census.
It is now impossible for children and young adults in the affected
categories to fulfil the residency and possibly the other requirements for obtaining citizenship by naturalization.
A stateless person, according to the Convention on Statelessness, is a person who is not considered as a national by
any state under the operation of its law. According to international law, the children living in the refugee camps in Nepal
could, on this basis, be considered as stateless, or at least as
being at grave risk of statelessness. From Bhutan's position in
the bilateral negotiations with Nepal, it appears that the right of
refugee children to return to Bhutan and acquire Bhutanese
nationality will, under Bhutan's citizenship laws, hinge primarily
on their parents' ability to prove, during a verification process (if
and when such a process actually commences), that they did not
migrate voluntarily from Bhutan but are Bhutanese citizens who
were forcibly evicted.
UNHCR's The State of the World's Refugees, 1997 reports that
Bhutan's new citizenship laws "effectively denationalised large
numbers of ethnic Nepalis". The report concludes: "The right to
nationality or citizenship was once described by a member of the
US Supreme Court as 'the right to have rights'. As this comment
suggests, citizenship provides the legal connection between individuals and the state, and thus serves as the basis for the
realization and enjoyment of all other rights."
Article 7.2 of the CRC requires State Parties to respect the right
to nationality in accordance with their obligations under relevant
international instruments as well as in accordance with their own
national laws. In cases where a child is illegally deprived of someor all elements of his or her identity, article 8.2 further places
responsibility on State Parties to "provide appropriate assistance
and protection, with a view to speedily re-establishing his or her
identity."
Bhutan and Nepal have expressed their commitment to a verification process to determine the status of those claiming to
be Bhutanese refugees. Whatever the outcome may be, the delay in initiating this process amounts to withholding the rights
of the children concerned to a nationality as set out in Articles 7
and 8 of the CRC.
2.3. Family environment and alternative care
Paragraphs 77 to 82 of Bhutan's report speak of the strong family
ties that exist in Bhutanese society. A sad outcome of the refugee situation is the separation of members of extended
families in cases where part of a family has been evicted and
separated family members cannot contact each other for fear
tha those still in Bhutan will suffer the consequences. Relatives in
Bhutan of people in exile appear to have reason to feel insecure.
Parents know that it is their inherent duty to feed, clothe, shelter
and protect their children as well as ensure development of the
child's body and mind (paragraph 80 of Bhutan's report).
Circumstances have robbed parents of the potential to fulfil these
duties of parenthood. Lhotshampas were dismissed from jobs and left with no means to support their children. Homes were
raided, burned, demolished, or sold at a pittance to government
servants. Southern Bhutanese were forced to leave their homes
and land, and their neighbours forced to destroy all evidence of
habitation.
The security of the family environment in which children could
flourish was disturbed. As well as suffering loss of property and
loss of the opportunity to earn a living, parents suffered physical
and psychological hardship and trauma, and have been less well
able to look after their children's emotional needs. Such sufferings have been well documented in publications by refugee
groups and in reports by Amnesty International and others.
Continuing mental health problems amongst adults, owing to the
stress of life in exile in the refugee camps, is a major concern
documented by Save the Children Fund UK.
Only through restoration of their fundamental rights can these
parents hope to fulfil the duties to their children outlined in
paragraph 80 of Bhutan's report.
2.4. Measures taken to harmonise national law and policy with the provisions of the Convention
In order to harmonise national law and policy with the provisions
of the Convention, the existing laws of the country are being
constantly reviewed. (paragraph 13 of Bhutan's report)Measures to harmonise law and policy with provisions of the CRC
can only be welcomed. However, laws and policies designed to
protect children presently in Bhutan, do not protect those who
are forced to live as refugees. These children are functionally
stateless until the governments of Bhutan and Nepal fulfil their
commitment to resolving the issue, thereby allowing them to enjoy their citizenship rights. The right of the Bhutanese refugee
children to a nationality is the most fundamental issue to be
addressed in order for Bhutan to fulfil its obligations under the
CRC.
2.5. General legal framework within which human rights are protected
There are some indications in Bhutan's report as to the general
framework within which human rights are protected in the country. Human rights instruments are made part of the legal
system when legislation is passed by the National Assembly
(paragraph 183 of Bhutan's report).
The Planning Commission is identified in paragraph 17 of Bhutan's
report as being responsible for developing policies and programmes affecting the child in close communication with other
sectors.
Laws are framed and adopted by the National Assembly which is
comprised of the representatives of the people. (paragraph 183
of Bhutan's report)
Reports of debate after debate, year after year, in the National
Assembly, give little indication that National Assembly members
have any awareness of Bhutan's human rights obligations. Two
resolutions of the National Assembly have been in direct violation
of human rights principles: in 1991, the resolution to evict any
citizens whom it termed as "anti-nationals"; in 1997, the resolution that all relatives of "anti-nationals" would be
compulsorily retired from government service.
If the members of the National Assembly are not aware of their
obligations under human rights instruments, whose duty is it to
inform them? Paragraph 9 of Bhutan's report would seem to place
the onus on the District Administration under the Dzongda (District Administrator), who is responsible for disseminating
information about the CRC through annual public meetings. District administration is within the sphere of the Home Ministry.
The Ministry of Health and Education is recognized (in paragraph
17 of Bhutan's report) as the focal organization for addressing
issues and supporting the status of children in terms of health
and empowerment through education. Paragraph 39 of Bhutan's report states that school admissions are governed by rules set
by the Education Division, and a committee set up by the Dzongkhag education office ensures its proper implementation.
Whatever these rules may be, they have not always operated in
a non-discriminatory manner. In 1991, office orders came from
the Department of Education in Thimphu, through district education officers, to expel named Lhotshampa children from
schools in southern Bhutan . Headmasters had no option but to
carry out the orders. In direct violation of Article 2 of the
CRC, there was wholesale 'guilt by association': children whose
parents or relatives were considered dissident by government
authorities were not allowed to attend school.
Children of eastern Bhutanese dissidents are also reportedly
excluded, as still are many Lhotshampa children.
It is clear that there has been either a gross deficit in awareness
of human rights commitments made by Bhutan on the part of the
officials who are supposed to ensure their implementation, or a
total disregard for those commitments as they apply to a whole
section of Bhutanese society.
3. Concluding remarks
This (Bhutan's) report has attempted to provide information on
the situation of children in Bhutan and the legislative, judicial and
administrative measures in force to facilitate the implementation
of the aims of the Government for children with special reference
to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. One can see that
there are many areas of the Convention not translated into law.
This is due to the fact that problems in those areas have not
emerged in Bhutan as yet. Laws are framed and adopted by the
National Assembly which is comprised of representatives of the
people. Since the existing laws protect and safeguard the best
interests of children, additional laws to cover all the articles of the
Convention have not been proposed.
(paragraph 183 of Bhutan's report).
As this response to Bhutan's report illustrates, the refugee crisis,
which sees one-sixth of the population living in exile, represents
a 'problem' which is totally unacknowledged in the government's
statement on its children's rights. To fulfil its obligations as a
signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Royal
Government of Bhutan needs to revisit its laws, policies and
practices to ensure that the rights of all its children are realised.
In relation to the estimated 45,000 refugee children living in
Nepal, Bhutan is urged to meet its obligations in respect to their
rights, with a focus on three articles in particular: the right to non-discrimination (art. 2); the right to a nationality (art. 7); and the
right to preservation of identity (art.8).
There can be no doubt that since the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, decisions have been made
and implemented which are contrary to the provisions of the Convention, and which have adversely affected tens of
thousands of children. While violations have taken place for which
the victims can never be adequately compensated, the overall
situation is redeemable.
Until a just and durable solution is achieved, in fulfilment of the
rights of the refugee children and their families, it is vital that the
levels of support and protection afforded to the refugee population in the camps are maintained. There are currently
serious concerns over budget cuts by the United Nations High
Commission for Refugees, which threaten to erode the quality of
service provision in the camps in Nepal and to undermine the
confidence of the refugees that their rights will continue to be
protected.
Within Bhutan, UNICEF, as the UN agency mandated to promote the Rights of the Child, is also urged to play a key role in
advocating for the Royal Government of Bhutan to recognise its
obligations to all of its children, both those within Bhutan and
those still awaiting verification of their nationality status and
repatriation to their country.
As mentioned in the introduction to this response to Bhutan's
report, the discourse relating to the question of human rights has
changed dramatically in Bhutan over the last two years. Human
rights principles are said to be at one with Buddhist values and
with the concept of ‘Gross National Happiness’, the professed
unifying concept for Bhutan's long-term development.
For the Bhutanese community in exile in Nepal and elsewhere,
the reality has yet to match the rhetoric. But with the repeated
assertions that protection of human rights is entirely compatible
with the Buddhist principles of which Bhutan is guardian, a
context has been set in which a just, durable and speedy solution to the refugee problem based on human rights principles
should be the only possible outcome.
In a special development supplement published with the July 15,
2000 issue of Kuensel (the official press organ of the Royal
Government of Bhutan), there is a small table entitled Access to
Effective Remedy. It gives statistics from Bangladesh, India,
Pakistan and Nepal of court cases pending per 1,000 persons:
53, 23, 5, 4 respectively. The table is headed with the question
Justice delayed, justice denied? In the year 1993, an undertaking
was made by the Royal Government of Bhutan to verify the status of those claiming to be Bhutanese refugees with a view to
repatriating those found eligible to return to Bhutan. The promise
has been reiterated many times in the seven years that have elapsed since then. In this case too it can be said that justice
delayed is justice denied. The figures given in the table in
Kuensel pale into insignificance when compared with the number
of Bhutanese refugee claims waiting to be processed. The numbers seeking verification of their nationality status amount to
one-sixth of the total population of Bhutan: 166 cases pending
per 1,000 people. The matter is indeed urgent.
There is reassurance in Bhutan's assertion that it ratified the
Convention on the Rights of the Child without reservation on any
article (paragraph 7 of Bhutan's report): Bhutan makes no reservation on the rights of children under articles 2, 7 and 8.
This can only mean that the Royal Government of Bhutan holds
itself fully committed to uphold children's rights to acquire a
nationality and to preserve their nationality, and that it will meet
its obligations under the relevant international instruments to
ensure that children do not become stateless. To fail to do so,
actively and speedily, will be to continue to betray the commitment it has made, without reservation, under the
Convention.
Once their right to nationality is established and repatriation to
Bhutan takes place for those found eligible to return, the Bhutanese children currently living in exile will be in a position to
benefit from other rights which in their current situation they are
not able to enjoy fully.
Bhutan, writes Kuensel (August 12, 2000) “was one of the first
countries to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child in
1990. The Convention recognises the right of a child to survival,
to develop to its full potential, and to be protected against
abuse, exploitation and neglect.” The Convention recognises
these rights; Bhutan has yet to recognise them fully with regard
to all its children.
Bibliography
AHURA (Association of Human Rights Activists) Bhutan: Bhutan –
A Shangri-La Without Human Rights. Damak (Nepal), 1993.
AHURA (Association of Human Rights Activists) Bhutan: Bhutan – A
Shangri-La Without Human Rights, second edition. Damak
(Nepal), March 2000.
AHURA (Association of Human Rights Activists) Bhutan: http:
\\ahurabht.tripod.com
AMCC (Appeal Movement Coordinating Council): Bhutan:
Revocation of Citizenship. Damak (Nepal), 1995.
Amnesty International: Bhutan: Human rights violations against
Nepali-speaking population in the south. London, December
1992. [AI Index ASA 14/04/92]
Amnesty International: Bhutan: Forcible Exile. London, August
1994. [AI Index ASA 14/04/94]
Amnesty International: Bhutan: Crackdown on 'anti-nationals' in
the East. London, January 1998. [AI Index ASA 14/01/98]
(Amnesty International reports available on-line at
www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/1998/ASA/31400198.htm)
Amnesty International: Nationality, Expulsion, Statelessness and
the Right to Return. London, September 2000 [AI Index ASA
14/01/00]
Batchelor, Carol A., Statelessness and the Problem of Resolving
Nationality Status, Journal of Refugee Law Vol. 10 No. 1/2
(1998), 156
Bracken, P.J. Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal: Mental Health Issues.
Consultant's Report to Save the Children, UK (April 2000)
BRAVVE (Bhutanese Refugees Aiding the Victims of Violence):
Report of Activities, 1993-98; Report of Activities, 1999.
Bhutanese Refugee Support Group: Information pack on
Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal. February 1997.
Dhakal, D.N.S. and Strawn, Christopher: Bhutan: A movement in
exile. New Delhi and Jaipur, Nirala Publishers, 1994.
Coghlan, Mary (unpublished) Crisis in Bhutan: A Personal Account
European Parliament: Resolution OJC96, 1.4. 1996. March 1996
European Parliament: Resolution B5-0673, 0719, 0727 and
0740/2000. September 2000
Hobson, Carol: The sorry side of Shangri-la. Geographical
Magazine Vol. LXV No. 1, January 1993.
HUROB (Human Rights Organisation of Bhutan) Annual Reports
for 1992, 1993 and 1994
Hutt, Michael (ed.): Bhutan: perspectives on conflict and dissent.
Gartmore, Kiscadale Publications, 1994.
Hutt, Michael: Ethnic nationalism, refugees and Bhutan. Journal of
Refugee Studies, Vol. 9 No.4, December 1996.
Kanak Mani Dixit: Bhutan:the dragon bites its tail. Himal Vol.5 No
4, July/August 1992.
Kanak Mani Dixit: House of cards: fearing for Bhutan. Himal Vol.7
No 4, July/August 1994.
Kuensel (Bhutan's national newspaper): www.kuensel.com.bt
Laird, Thomas: Going nowhere. Asiaweek, 13 December 1996
Ministry of Home Affairs, Royal Government of Bhutan: The
Southern Bhutan Problem – Threat to a Nation’s Survival. May
1993
Pattanaik, Smruti S., Nepal-Bhutan Bilateral Talks and
Repatriation of Bhutanese Refugees (available on-line at
www.idsa-india.org/an-jan9-11.html)
Piper, Tessa, The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern Bhutan
(April 1995) (available on-line at
www.unhcr.ch/refworld/country/writenet/wribtn.htm)
Planning Commission, Royal Government of Bhutan: Bhutan
National Human Development Report 2000: Gross National
Happiness and Human Development – Searching for Common
Ground. 2000
Refugee Council, United Kingdom: Nowhere to Turn: Bhutanese
Refugees in Nepal. 1997
Rose, Leo E.: The Politics of Bhutan. Ithaca, Cornell University
Press, 1977.
Royal Government of Bhutan: 1985 Citizenship Act.
Royal Government of Bhutan: Proceedings and Resolutions of the
67th Session of the National Assembly of Bhutan, 1988
Royal Government of Bhutan: Resolutions of the 71st Session of
the National Assembly of Bhutan 1992
Royal Government of Bhutan (1999) Initial Report of Bhutan
under the Convention on the Rights of the Child
SAARC Jurists: The Bhutan Tragedy: When will it end? First report
of the SAARC Jurists' Mission on Bhutan. Kathmandu and New
York, 1992.
Sinha, A.C.: Bhutan: ethnic identity and national dilemma. New
Delhi, Reliance Publishing House, 1991.
South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre: The Bhutanese
Political Crisis and Refugee Problem. New Delhi, October, 1998.
Tang Lay Lee, Refugees from Bhutan: Nationality, Statelessness
and the Right to Return, International Journal of Refugee Law Vol.
10 No. 1/2 (1998), 118
Thronson, David: Cultural Cleansing. A distinct national identity
and the refugees from southern Bhutan. Kathmandu, INHURED
International, 1993.
United Nations High Commission for Refugees: The State of the
World's Refugees. 1997
United Nations High Commission for Refugees: Official Figures.
www.unhcr.ch
United Nations Sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights: Chairman's Statements, 1998 and 1999
|
