Bhutan: An Introduction

Ambiguities in the way the laws have been interpreted and divergence from the laws as written began early. In practice, it is unclear what affirmative actions were required, or even possible, in the implementation of the 1958 law which the government now claims was "passed to confer Bhutanese citizenship to all Nepali settlers in southern Bhutan at that time." [32] No certification process followed the law although village headmen kept some forms of census records, mostly for the purposes of assessing taxes and conscripting labor. Was the passage of the law considered enough to confer citizenship, with or without affirmative applications?

The government asserts that "[o]ne of the specific aims of the 1958 Nationality Law was to grant citizenship as a Kidug (welfare) and a once-and-for-all measure to all Nepali settlers in southern Bhutan who had applied ... That is why those Nepali immigrants who came to Bhutan after 31 December 1958 did not apply for naturalisation under the 1958 Law."[33] The inclusion of naturalization and spouse provisions in the 1958 law seem to belie this interpretation. Although adopted in 1958, the text of the law itself makes no distinction between those arriving before 1958 and those arriving later. Presumably someone immigrating to Bhutan in 1954 would not have been eligible for citizenship until ten years later in 1964. A 1964 arrival would have been eligible in 1974. If the aim of the law was a one-time-only grant with a 1958 deadline, that aim is not found in the language of the text.

Variance between the language of the acts and their practical application is compounded by terms like "can become a Bhutanese national", "may be enrolled", and "may apply". Such terminology leaves ambiguous the distinction between eligibility for citizenship on paper and actual grants of citizenship in reality. Given the ambiguous application process and absence of citizenship certificates, on a practical level it seems the 1958 law was not of great consequence for the average illiterate farmer, and life went on as usual.

A more rigorous approach was taken to implementation of the 1977 law through the first national census from 1979 to 1981. Teams of census officials from the Department of Registration were sent throughout the country. Following the census, citizens were issued passport-like documents entitled "Citizenship Identity Cards" (see front cover). According to the Nepalese government, 66% of the residents in the camps have citizenship cards or photocopies of cards that were confiscated in Bhutan. [34] The government of Bhutan first charged that the census was tainted by widespread abuse[35] and now adds that the cards are being forged.[36] As it turns out, having a card that said "The Holder of this Card is a Bhutanese Citizen" on the first page meant little when the 1988 census rolled around.

The First Days of the 1988 Census

The government of Bhutan informed Amnesty International that "the purpose of the census currently underway is to identify Bhutanese nationals in southern Bhutan."[37] The census is taking place only in southern Bhutan, officially utilizing the new 1985 law. Census teams place people into one of seven categories:

F I Genuine Bhutanese

F2 Returned migrants (people who had left Bhutan and then returned)

F3 "Drop-out" cases - i.e. people who were not around at the time of the census [this categorized is to be phased out]

F4 A non-national woman married to a Bhutanese man

F5 A non-national man married to a Bhutanese woman

F6 Adoption cases (children who have been legally adopted)

F7 Non-nationals, i.e. migrants and illegal settlers[38]

Categorization is to be done by a "committee of 12 persons, including three village elders." [39]As implemented, the village elders were allowed little or no role and very few southern Bhutanese were included on the census teams. Adding to the stress of the census was the unclear consequences of being classified in the various categories, leaving people uncertain of their fate.

Officially, the 1988 census implements the 1985 law, with its three methods of attaining citizenship: by having two Bhutanese parents, by registration of residence since 1958, or by naturalization. In practice, naturalization has not been an option and previous determinations of citizenship are not accepted. That leaves registration and "confirm[s] what has become the fundamental basis for citizenship: residence since before 31 December 1958."[40]

The government dismisses charges that the 1985 law is thus retrospective, describing it rather as a liberalization since citizenship by registration "waives the requirement of the 1958 Law for 10 years residence in Bhutan and ownership of agricultural land."[41] Of course, by now a person qualifying for registration has resided in Bhutan for over thirty years and such a waiver should not be necessary. Both the hypothetical 1954 and 1964 arrivals mentioned above by now would have met the residency requirements for naturalization under either the 1958 law or the stricter 1977 law, yet only the 1954 arrival would qualify by registration. Here again the distinctions between eligibility for citizenship and grants of citizenship are important and unclear.

Concerns were raised in 1988's 67th Session of Bhutan's National Assembly concerning the retroactive impact of the 1985 law concerning the derivative citizenship of spouses and offspring where the new law's application had its greatest impact. For example, if a foreign wife arrived in Bhutan in 1959 and is not recognized as a citizen under one of the earlier laws, she fails under registration. This would leave all her children with only one Bhutanese parent, making them and any future generations non-nationals. The King gave assurance that the "provisions of all three Acts for the relevant period under which each was in force must be honored" so that, for example, "children of Bhutanese men married to non-nationals prior to 1985 would be automatically eligible for citizenship."[42] In practice, denials of citizenship in situations similar to the above example are commonly reported by those in the camps.

The Bhutanese government initially claimed that "[a]ny documentary evidence whatsoever, (land ownership deeds or documents showing sale/gift inheritance of land, tax receipts of any kind, etc) showing that the person concerned was resident in Bhutan in 1958 is taken as conclusive proof of citizenship."[43]

Those without documents "are verified by three village elders." [44] In screening arrivals to the camps, the government of Nepal reports that, in addition to the 66% with citizenship cards, 12% of those seeking asylum in the camps have land documents and 17% have other documents such as tax receipts.[45] Recently, Bhutan reproduced some of these tax receipts which had been displayed in an earlier refugee publication, adding the caption, "This is the kind of document produced by the people in the refugee camps as proof of their Bhutanese citizenship. Payment of property tax in itself is hardly proof of Bhutanese citizenship for there were many illegal immigrants in Bhutan who had acquired property."[46] The latter statement is more in line with the strict attitude towards proof reported by refugees.

Refugees report impossibly strict standards for accepting documentation. Some report rejection for slight spelling differences, or because middle names are spelled out on one document and left to initials on others. Others report having documents from years before and after 1958; but not 1958, and being rejected as "F2", i.e. returned migrants. Those who had moved from one part of Bhutan to another had exceptionally difficult obstacles to overcome. Even in a modernized society where paper-trails are a more pervasive part of life, documentation dating back to 1958 would be a stiff requirement. Under the demanding conditions imposed by the census teams, the requirement is impossible for many southern Bhutanese. After the events of September 1990, citizenship became even more difficult to acquire and much easier to lose.

Integration or Assimilation?

Since the 1950s, the government of Bhutan has made some clear efforts to integrate southern Bhutanese into a social and political mainstream. Some examples include standardization of tax structures throughout the country, development projects in southern Bhutan, and recruitment of southern Bhutanese into the civil service, police and army. [47] These programs contributed to the strong ties the refugees feel for Bhutan, including among many a continued reverence for the King. Many of the leaders of refuge organizations were civil servants who were slow to believe reports of government actions in southern Bhutan, and still attribute the problems to a small cadre of elite rather than the people of northern Bhutan.

But not all programs for integration are as simple inclusion in the government service, and many cut deeply into the cultural heritage of the southern Bhutanese. The 'One Nation, One People' policy of the government stresses the need for a "distinct national identity", but does not envision forging this identity to encompass the diversity of the nation's cultures. The government is on record that the culture of the north need not form the basis of the national identity,[48] but in practice many policies impose Drukpa cultural elements at the expense of others. The line between integration and assimilation can be very fine, and the following policies must be viewed against the backdrop of the ongoing census in southern Bhutan.

Driglam Namzha--Legislating Culture

With deep roots in the Drukpa culture ranging back to Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal in the early 1600s, the drigiam namzha, or code of traditional values and etiquette, encompasses "[s]uch virtues as respect for the teacher, the sovereign, parent, elder; the institution of marriage and family; civic duties and behavior that keep together the strands of the Bhutanese social fabric."[49] Beyond institutionalizing the particular value system of the Drukpa culture, it "stipulates how people should conduct themselves at different types of occasions (ceremonial, official, informal, how to send and receive gifts, how to speak to superiors, how to serve and eat food and refreshments during public occasions, how to greet, etc.)"[50] As implemented, the driglam namzha includes a national dress code, requiring that gho be worn by men and kira by women.

Just as the driglam namzha is not new, debates over its implementation also are not new. During the 1979 National Assembly:

".. [m]ost of the members agreed and consented that the National Dress must be worn during the National Assembly.

However, the member of Samchi and a few members from southern Bhutan expressed the inconvenience in wearing the national dress... [and] requested that they be exempted from wearing the national dress, as they felt they would be criticized by some members of their society."[51]

Even in these earlier debates on the driglam namzha, the dress code aspect dominated discussion.

The King issued a royal kasho (decree) on January 16, 1989 implementing driglam namzha as part of the promotion of the distinct national identity and the 'One Nation, One People' theme of the Sixth Five-Year Plan. The kasho itself did not strictly define national dress as the gho and kira, but the government insisted on the "unavoidable necessity for a small country like Bhutan to have an easily recognisable type of dress."[52] In practice, "a man not wearing a Gho and a woman not wearing a Kira were to be fined Nu. 100 each and 50 percent of this amount was to go to the police as incentive."[53] In southern Bhutan where the gho and kira are not the traditional dress and are ill-suited to the climate, widespread abuse accompanied the admitted "provocative manner in which [the driglam namzha policy] was implemented by overzealous functionaries."[54] Refugees report on the spot collection of fines (or in the alternative, imprisonment) if caught without the national dress in virtually any location outside their homes.

Intensifying the feelings of discrimination based on this policy is the view that southern Bhutan is especially targeted since it "would appear that the dress code is enforced more strictly in Chirang [a southern district] than in the capital."[55] Such a conclusion is born out by debate during the 1992 National Assembly session noting " [i]t was mostly in the capital city, Thimphu, that the policy on Driglam Namzha and national dress was not being observed... In particular, it was the children of high ranking and influential people in Thimphu, including some of the high ranking and influential themselves."[56] Complaints of lax enforcement of the dress code in Thimphu led to the drafting of a national Dress Act clarifying the law and stiffening penalties. Yet this act, written largely to ensure enforcement of the driglam namzha in Thimphu reluctantly was set aside by the Assembly in the face of strong opposition from the Home Minister.[57] In addition to highlighting the disparity between enforcement in the north and South, this discussion, complete with numerous asides about the reappearance of banned television antennas in Thimphu, also indicates the traditional society in Bhutan is under pressure from forces of modernization as well as the forces of growing ethnic populations

Language Policy

Dzongkha is the official national language, although the King has noted that some of "our people faced great inconvenience in learning Dzongkha"[58] and the Foreign Minister concedes "all of us speak the Nepali language."[59] The official newspaper publishes Dzongkha, Nepali and English versions; the National Assembly provides simultaneous translation into Nepali; and the government radio broadcasts in four languages, including Nepali. In general, "life would be difficult for any Bhutanese, other than members of the monastic community or residents of farflung northern districts, who could not speak rudimentary Nepali."[60] Language is perhaps the area of the most significant impact of the southern Bhutanese culture on the average Drukpa, and the use of Nepali has repeatedly come under fire in the National Assembly.[61]

English has been the medium of instruction in schools since 1961 and until 1989 both Dzongkha and Nepali were taught as separate subjects, although Nepali was not taught in schools throughout the north. In 1989, Nepali was dropped by the schools, ostensibly as an educational decision, in part because:

"Dzongkha is taught as a second language, the inclusion of a third language, Nepali, puts the child in southern Bhutan at a considerable disadvantage... [and it] was concluded that Nepali is the national language and lingua franca of another country and not an ethnic language... Furthermore, the Nepali language was only serving to accentuate the dichotomy of two distinctive national cultures…"[62]

This argument goes well beyond purely educational motives, demonstrating the influence of the 'One Nation, One People' ideal. In light of the ongoing census exercise the decision to drop Nepali was understandably perceived as a strike against southern Bhutanese culture.