Talk:Immigration in Bhutan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bhutan, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Bhutan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Immigration in Bhutan

Earthquakes and fires have destroyed most of the records of Bhutan’s early history. The earliest surviving records of Bhutan’s history show that Tibetan influence already existed from the 6th century. King Songtsen Gampo who ruled Tibet from 627-649AD was responsible for the construction of Bhutan’s oldest surviving Buddhist temples, the Kyichhu Lhakhang in Paro and the Jambay Lhakhang in Bumthang <Aris>. Settlement in Bhutan by people of Tibetan origin happened by this time.

The first reports of people of Nepalese origin in Bhutan was around 1620, when Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal commissioned Newari craftsmen from the Kathmandu valley in Nepal to make a silver stupa to contain the ashes of his father Tempa Nima. <Aris> There is no further record of movement of people from Nepal to Bhutan until the beginning of the 20th century. .

Settlement in Bhutan of people from Nepal happened for the first time in the early 20th century encouraged by Bhutan House in Kalimpong for the purpose of collecting taxes for Bhutan House. In the 1940s, the British Political Officer Sir Basil Gould, was quoted as saying that when he warned Sir Raja Sonam Tobgye Dorji of Bhutan House of the potential danger of allowing so many ethnic Nepalese to settle in southern Bhutan, he replied that “since they were not registered subjects they could be evicted whenever the need arose” <Sunanda Datta Ray, p 51> Towards the end of the reign of the second King Jigme Wangchuck, in the 1950s, the numbers of new immigrants had swelled causing tension between the King and the Dorji family in Bhutan House. Amnesty was given through a new Citizenship Act of 1958 for all those who could prove their presence in Bhutan for at least 10 years prior to 1958.

From 1961 onward however, with Indian support, the government began planned developmental activities consisting of significant infrastructure development works. Not comfortable with India’s desire to bring in workers in large numbers from India, the government initially tried to prove its own capacity by insisting that the planned Thimphu-Phuntsholing highway be done with its own workforce. While it did succeed in this, completing the 182 km highway in just two years, the import of workers from India was inevitable. With most Bhutanese working self-employed as farmers, Bhutan lacked a ready supply of workers willing to take up the major infrastructure projects. This led eventually to the large-scale import of skilled and unskilled construction workers from India. These people were most of Nepali origin who were able to slowly settle down under the guise of the naturalized immigrants. With the pressures of the developmental activities, this trend remained unchecked or inadequately checked for many years. Immigration check posts and immigration offices were in fact established for the first time only after the 1990 problem.

By the 1980s, the government had become acutely conscious not just of widespread illegal immigration of people of Nepali origin into Bhutan, but also of the total lack of integration even of long-term immigrants into the political and cultural mainstream of the country. Most of the immigrants knew very little of the culture of Bhutan and most could not understand any one of the local languages including Dzongkha. In the rural areas they remained so 'Nepalese' in their culture they were indistinguishable from the Nepalese in Nepal itself. For its part, government officials had long ignored the situation assuming that most of these people who were most often observed in non-Bhutanese clothes were in fact non-Bhutanese visitors or residents. Perceiving this growing dichotomy as a threat to national unity, the Government promulgated directives in the 1980s that sought to preserve Bhutan's cultural identity as well as to formally embrace the citizens of other ethnic groups in a "one nation, one people" policy. While the intent of the policy was benign and inclusive, the government not totally unreasonably, implied that the 'culture' to be preserved would be that of the various northern Bhutanese groups. This policy therefore required citizens to wear the attire of the northern Bhutanese in public places and reinforced the status of Dzongkha as the national language. Nepali was discontinued as a subject in the schools thus bringing it at par with the status of the other languages of Bhutan, none of which are taught. Such policies were criticized at first by human rights groups as well as Bhutan's Nepalese economic migrant community, who perceived the policy to be directed against them.

In 1985, the government passed a new Citizenship Act which clarified and attempted to enforce the 1958 Citizenship Act to control the flood of illegal immigration. From 1988 the government conducted its first real census exercise. The basis for the census findings was the 1958 'cut off' year, the year that the Nepali population had first received Bhutanese citizenship. Those individuals who could not provide proof of residency prior to 1958 were adjudged to be illegal immigrants.

Matters reached a climax in September 1990 after organized groups comprised of 10,000 or more ethnic Nepalis from the Indian side of the border, organized protest marches in different districts, burned down schools, stripped local government officials of their national attire which they burned publicly, carried out kidnappings and murders of other ethnic Nepalis who did not join their protests. Some of the organizers of the marches were arrested and detained. However the Bhutanese government later released most of them. Those with ties to the groups responsible for the murders and kidnappings were forced to leave, but many other innocent ethnic-Nepali citizens were coerced to leave by the angry ethnic-Nepali dissidents.

The Kyodo News Agency reported the ‘massacre’ of the demonstrators at the hands of the Bhutanese army. This report was reportedly submitted by a Nepali reporter based in Siliguri and passed on to the headquarters in Kathmandu. The report was later dismissed as inaccurate but damaged Bhutan’s international image.

The census exercise thus came to an end and the southern border of Bhutan became a hotbed of militancy for several years.

The refugee leaders believed that for them to receive UN assistance and recognition of their sought-after ‘refugee’ status, their numbers should not be less than 100,000. To achieve this end, the insurgents primarily targeted the homes of Nepalese in southern Bhutan. Through persuasion as well as through coercion, more of them were persuaded to leave Bhutan and join the others at the camps that had slowly been established in eastern Nepal.

Thus a group of several thousand left and settled in refugee camps set up by UNHCR. The Bhutanese refugee issue was thus born and remains unresolved.

[edit] References

• Michael Aris (1980). Bhutan: The Early History of a Himalayan Kingdom. Vikas. ISBN 0-7069-1029-X. 

• Leo E. Rose (1977). The Politics of Bhutan. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-0909-8. 

• Sunanda K. Datta-Ray (1980). Smash and Grab: The Annexation of Sikkim.. Vikas. ISBN ISBN 0-7069-2509-2.. 

• Template:Rose, Leo, "The Nepali Ethnic Community in the Northeast of the Subcontinent", University of California, Berkeley 1993

• {{UPI-Kyodo, 28 September 1990, “327 Killed in Bhutan Last Week”, Japan

Times }}

• Template:Kuensel, 29 September 1990, “Anti-nationals in open revolt”

this text is an amalgamation of what was on the main wikipage. it needs to be edited in a major way and i will also add sources gradually as i find the full details Divinemadman 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration in Bhutan

• The article deals with issues relating to the ethnic communities of Nepal. The factual presentation of the article are inaccurate at places UNHCR states that Lhotsampas have been staying in Bhutan from 19th century whereas the article states it to be of 20th century. After the recent revolution of Nepal, the ethnic communities have suddenly waken up from their peaceful dormant state to an aggressive form which can be attributed to some extent to the armed conflict of Maoists. The ethnic communities share feeling of kinship with the people who are "refugees" now. The tolerant nature of these ethnic groups had to a large extent prevented any ethnic clashed between the ethnic groups of Nepal and Druks. The article is biased and statements like

While the intent of the policy was benign and inclusive, the government not totally unreasonably, implied that the 'culture' to be preserved would be that of the northern Bhutanese. This policy therefore required citizens to wear the attire of the northern Bhutanese in public places and reinforced the status of Dzongkha as the national language. Nepali was discontinued as a subject in the schools thus bringing it at par with the status of the other languages of Bhutan, none of which are taught. Such policies were criticized at first by human rights groups as well as Bhutan's Nepalese economic migrant community, who perceived the policy to be directed against them. The Nepali immigrants claim that the Bhutanese are clinging to power at the expense of human rights, pluralism, and democratic principles. However many in Bhutan see the ethnic Nepali immigrants’ cry for pluralism and democracy as just an excuse to overwhelm and take over a lightly populated Bhutan through unrestricted immigration.

or

This act led to the increased activity of numerous groups to protest against what was seen as an injustice against resident Nepalis.

or

Thus a group of several thousand left and settled in refugee camps. The UNHCR aid provided to these people also attracted the poor from border areas of Nepal, who claimed to be refugees as well to receive aid

or

Matters reached a head in September 1990 after well organized groups comprised of 10,000 or more ethnic Nepalis from the Indian side of the border, organized protest marches in different districts, burned down schools, stripped local government officials of their national attire which they burned publicly, carried out kidnappings and murders of other ethnic Nepalis who did not join their protests. Some of the organizers of the marches were arrested and detained. However the Bhutanese government later released most of them. Those with ties to the groups responsible for the murders and kidnappings were forced to leave, but unfortunately many other innocent ethnic-Nepali citizens were coerced to leave by the angry ethnic-Nepali dissidents.

inflame and provoke the situation further. Considering the ethnic clashes, which are omnipresent in South Asia resulting poorly written and nonneutral articles like this, I propose that this article is either rewritten with a neutral point of view with references/source from United Nations and other such respeced global entities rather than some pro-Druk or pro-Lhotsampa or be deleted and kept in a deleted state till neutral point of view is established. I also would like to request the use of Lhotsampa rather than Nepali if this article is rewritten because the Bhutanese refugees are not Nepalese citizens. Its like calling John F Kennedy as Irish president.--Eukesh 20:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

agreed this article was written in essay style rather than in the proper wikipedia style. no need to delete it as i will add references and change inappropriate phrases or words. my interest is also to make a neutral page. anything better than the garbage already on the internet about this issue. 'lhotsampa' is not an appropriate term for the nepalese living in southern bhutan because 'lho' merely means 'south' and 'tshampa' refers to people living there. FYI, there are many northerners, easterns and people from the central bhutan who have been living for generations in the south who are also technically 'lhotsampas'. suggest a better term if you don't like 'nepali'. Divinemadman

• • First of all, please do not delete the content in the discussion page. It is not a good practice as there are many people who would like to keep track of development of the page who can do so by viewing the Discussion page. The term Lhotsampa is something which is used by global organizations like UNHCR and I have not coined the term myself. Hence, I consider it appropriate (Please read the welcome note an pages that it links to). Calling the people Nepalese or Nepali is a far outcry. These people do not have Nepalese citizenship. People of Nepalese origin have spread whole over South Asia and even abroad for centuries now. I have had my own Newar kins who visit Nepal after doing centuries of business in Kolkata, Lhasa, Kabul, Delhi, Kalimpong and there are people called "Lahures" who started serving in British Gurkha from Lahore after Anglo-Nepalese war. Besides, people of Nepalese origin and Nepalophonie form a significant popuation of West Bengal and Assam, where Nepali is one of the state languages. They call themselves as Gurkhas. Hence, the Lhotsampas might share kinship with the Nepalese ethnic groups but that does not mean that they are Nepalese. Its like calling John F Kennedy an Irish president or V.S. Naipaul as Nepalese writer. The problem of Bhutanese refugee is one of internal conflict of Bhutan. Nepal is helping Bhutan solve its problem by multiple level of talks and acceptance of refugees because it involves people of Nepalese origin. However, this should not be mistaken for the problem being one between Bhutan and Nepal. Hence, the use of the term Nepali in this article has to be changed. --Eukesh 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

UNHCR is not the expert on Bhutanese terms as proved by their misuse of that term. to use the term 'Lhotshampa' to refer to bhutanese of nepalese ethnicity is incorrect because of other ethnic groups who also live in southern bhutan. how about 'nepalese bhutanese' as in 'chinese american'? sound better? at least it is more accurate. you are also assuming (again)that there is absolutely no possibility of non-citizen nepalese living in bhutan or claiming to have been living in bhutan. how about 'illegal immigrants of nepali ethnicity'?

this is a quote from Leo Rose's article on Nepali ethnicity in the northest of india:

In the first three decades after independence, the relationship between the Nepali migrants and the various indigenous communities in the Northeast remained reasonably uncontentious, as they had been under the British Raj. Sikkim probably posed the most serious potential area of ethnic conflict in the immediate post-independence period as the Buddhist Bhotia Namgyal dynastic system faced a major challenge internally in 1948-49. In this instance however, it was several members of the Bhota/Lepcha elite families that organized a political movement since they had as good a claim to being the “sons of the soil” as anybody else, resisting the external control imposed over Darjeeling by those Bengali “outsiders” from Calcutta. And even in Sikkim, the Nepalis may not have been an indigenous community, but they had been there for several generations and were the majority community. But in the tribal hill states in the Northeast and, a few years later, in Bhutan the Nepali migrants became the target of local “sons of the soil” movements organized by the Drukpas in Bhutan and various tribal communities in the Northeast. One of the results of these sociopolitical changes in the environment in the Northeast was the decision of the Meghalaya government in the mid-1980s to expel most of the Nepalis from the lands they had cultivated in the lower hill areas of the state for about four decades. Under Prime Minister Nehru, the government of India had accepted the principle that the hill states in the Northeast should, in effect, “belong” to the tribals and that “outsiders should be allowed in only with their consent. By 1985, the Nepalis had been forced out of Meghalaya as well as the other hill states – Manipur and Nagaland – in which there were Nepali settlements in the areas just above the Assam Valley, some of which had been established during the British period. New Delhi did not object to this act by the tribal state governments even though it conflicted with the general principle in the Indian constitution that Indians (and virtually all of the Nepalis in the Northeast were Indian citizens) could settle any place in the country. What this really meant under GOI policy however was: anywhere but in Kashmir and tribal lands in the Northeast.

These developments in the tribal hill states in the mid-1980s eventually impacted negatively on the Nepali community (called Lhotsampas – southerners – by the Drukpas) in Bhutan, leading in 1990 to a major internal crisis within the country as well as in Bhutan-Nepal relations. Many of the Nepalis expelled from the tribal states in the Northeast as well as some Nepalis from Darjeeling who were caught on the losing side (pro-CPM, primarily) were related to Nepalis in Bhutan, or at least came from the same Nepali non-Bahun tribal ethnic communities. For these outcasts, to move back to Nepal after several decades in India made little sense as Nepal was even more overpopulated than when their families left the country, and Nepali migrants were coming out every year into India in fairly large numbers. Southern Bhutan, in contrast, was still comparatively underpopulated with land and other resources such as timber, available for development. It was hard to arrange legal admissions into Bhutan under Thimphu’s restrictive policies, but as the loca Nepali elite in southern Bhutan still ran this area pretty much on their own terms, it was not much of a problem to “legalize” or at least hide the residence of these recent Nepali migrants. This wave of illegal migrants was added to the large number of Nepalis who had entered Bhutan under contracts to do most of the work on infrastructural development projects in the 1960s and 1970s, and then stayed on – formally illegally but with the tacit consent of the government – once their contracts had expired as their services were still required if Bhutan’s economic development programs were to be implemented.

Divinemadman 03:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abt various issues being discussed

About

UNHCR is not the expert on Bhutanese terms as proved by their misuse of that term. to use the term 'Lhotshampa' to refer to bhutanese of nepalese ethnicity is incorrect because of other ethnic groups who also live in southern bhutan.

• I would be glad if you could state this to UNHCR and make them change the terminology. They are the most respected global bodies representing this field. Most of the people know about this issue through them or learn from them. So, as per the verifiability criteria, I think this term is appropriate unless proven otherwise as I do not have any authority as an editor in wikipedia to introduce neologism to denote a standard terminology here.

About

how about 'nepalese bhutanese' as in 'chinese american'? sound better? at least it is more accurate. you are also assuming (again)that there is absolutely no possibility of non-citizen nepalese living in bhutan or claiming to have been living in bhutan. how about 'illegal immigrants of nepali ethnicity'?

• Nepalese Bhutanese may sound better to some but there are problems pertaining to it. Even by your own sandards, as you medtioned in Bhutanese refugee talk page, there are 15% of Bhutanese of Nepalese origin who are not affected by the conflict. This term is unsuitable even by your own terms and conditions as you can not be protesting about "Lhotsampa" in one hand and proposing "Nepalese Bhutanese" in the other. It is called biasing in general terms.
• I could not make out the sentence "you are also assuming (again)that there is absolutely no possibility of non-citizen nepalese living in bhutan or claiming to have been living in bhutan." Please rephrase it.
• As regards 'illegal immigrants of nepali ethnicity', the legal aspect of these refugees will be determined by UN and its related bodies. The "illegal" tag placed by Government of Bhutan is challenged by the claims of the refugees of being legitimate citizens of Bhutan. As Bhutan could not solve this problem and created a regional crisis involving its neighbouring states, the issue has been moderated and monitered by global organizations and their verdict counts for legitimacy. Hence, such a statement demonstrates an inclined point of view which is not allowed in wikipedia or any other civilized encyclopedia outside the realms of Bhutanese government. However, such a statement may be placed while quoting the Bhutanese Government side and should be placed in double quotes.
• About quotations from selected books, I have mentioned them in the discussion page of Bhutanese refugee. Please refer to the page. A person who is inclined to the refugee side may quote many such books and articles which are published by well known publishers which support their claim. It had already been discussed in your page to put the claims of both sides under two different headings and to put a neutral point of view from globally accepted bodies as the main focus.
• Specifically about the quotation under consideration, it does not provide any references to the data which the writer obtained before making such a claim which has been refuted by the refugee side who, on the other hand, have shown multiple proofs of them being Bhutanese, including their citizenship, in numerous instances. Hence, unless some recognized data are presented for the verification of the claims (eg: the people who have been driven from the North-Eastern states are the same people who, after failing to provide necessary documents or criteria accepted in civilized world for citizenship, were deported from Bhutan without any physical, mental or psychological assult/torture and were not forced in any manner considered offensive by standards compatible to human rights, as maintained by UN), the theory of the writer can be considered no more than a supporting reference to the Bhutanese Government point of view or maybe a progeny of it.--Eukesh 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[quote]..the refugee side who, on the other hand, have shown multiple proofs of them being Bhutanese, including their citizenship, in numerous instances. Hence, unless some recognized data are presented for the verification of the ..[/quote]

please show me your Nepal citizenship card. I will make a copy of it for you with my face on it, no problem. Will you accept me as a nepali citizen then?Divinemadman 12:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, if you can convince the UN and its bodies, human right groups from around the world, missionaries, INGOs etc., welcome to Nepal.--Eukesh 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

well that shouldn't be hard then. isn't the flashing about of forged and fake bhutanese ID cards the basis on which these organizations were so convinced? Divinemadman 03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I do not know what it takes for them to count as a justified case. This part of discussion that you started only gets personal and does not aid in the development of this article. If you have such a problem with these global bodies and their verification process, do something about that somewhere else. This is not the proper place for that. Please keep your attitude and point of view out of this website and post them in your blogs and forums.--Eukesh 04:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Should "Immigration problem" be pointing here?