BPP slams Bhutan PM´s statement on refugees

The Bhutan People’s Party (BPP), the Bhutanese democratic outfit currently working in exile in Nepal, on Sunday expressed concerns over the statement made by Bhutanese Prime Minister Jigmi Y. Thinley a day earlier in Kathmandu about the status of the Bhutanese people taking refuge in eastern Nepal.

Wrapping up his three-day visit to Nepal as the SAARC Chair on Saturday , Bhutanese PM Thinley at a press conference had questioned the nationality of the refugees, saying whether they are Bhutanese or not could only be determined by bilateral talks to be resumed shortly between the two countries.

Issuing a press statement from its contact office in Kathmandu today, the BPP accused Thinley of orchestrating a ploy to forcibly drive away thousands of Bhutanese citizens from their own land two decades ago and slammed his latest statement as being ‘cowardly’ and the real face of Bhutan’s version of democracy.

The BPP also challenged the Bhutanese government to prove that any one of the people taking refuge in various camps of eastern Nepal is a non-Bhutanese. “The way Thinley’s public statement has come makes it clear that Bhutan does not want to return its citizens home.”

The BPP requested the Nepal government to take an initiative to arrange for joint talks between Bhutan, Nepal, India and leaders of exiled political parties of Bhutan for repatriation of the refugees and establishment of democracy and respect to human rights in Bhutan.

The Bhutanese outfit further asked the Nepal government to immediately set up a taskforce capable to take diplomatic initiatives for a lasting resolution of the refugee crisis.

The BPP also asked Bhutanese King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck to learn a lesson from democratic transformations taking place around the world in recent times and address the refugee issue within 2011.

Bhutan dashes refugees' home-coming dreams

Thousands of Bhutanese refugees living in miserable conditions in Nepal, India and elsewhere had their hopes of being able to return to their homeland dashed on Saturday as Bhutan's Prime Minister Lyonchhen Jigmi Y Thinley said they would have to prove again that they were bona fide Bhutan citizens.

Thinley, who had arrived in Kathmandu Friday on a three-day visit, headed back for Thimphu on Saturday after talks with Nepal's Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal on regional as well as bilateral issues. Over 105,000 Bhutanese refugees languishing in closed camps in Nepal since their eviction in the 1990s and almost 30,000 more living in India as well as members of the diaspora now scattered all over the world, had been heartened for a brief period after Thinley had agreed, on Nepal's prodding, to resume talks to enable them to return home.But the refugee euphoria vanished on Saturday when the Bhutanese premier refused to acknowledge them as citizens, instead alluding to them as "people in the refugee camps". He also said his government is asking Nepal to undertake a fresh "examination" of the camp residents to see how many were bona fide nationals. "... Whether or not they are Bhutanese refugees is a subject of discussion," he said.

This is the same ploy the Buddhist kingdom used in 2000 to stall the homecoming of the refugees, who comprise nearly one-fifth of the Bhutanese population. Despite an international outcry, Bhutan sought to categorise the camp residents into genuine citizens, those who had surrendered their citizenship voluntarily, non-Bhutanese and criminals. Bhutan insisted only the first category had the full right to return to Bhutan and understandably, the verification gave the certification to only a small percentage.

Fifteen rounds of bilateral talks between Nepal and Bhutan broke down after what Thinley said were "unfortunate developments": attacks by enraged refugees on visiting Bhutanese officials in 2003. Since then, the Druk kingdom has refused to resume talks despite a change in guard with its fourth king, Jigme Singye abdicating in 2006 in favour of his son Jigme Khesar Namgyel.

Thinley said while Bhutan appreciated eight western governments offering a second home to the people in the camps, there was no need for international intervention and no need to involve India in the repatriation talks.