BHUTAN,BHUTANESE REFUGEE

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Bhutanese Refugee

Background of Bhutanese Refugees

The Bhutanese refugee crisis has its roots in the history of migration to Bhutan, the resulting ethnically diverse make-up of the country’s population, and the harsh policies of Bhutan’s absolute monarchy towards its ethnic Nepali minority.1 The politically and culturally dominant Ngalongs, who live mainly in the central and western regions of Bhutan, are of Tibetan descent; their ancestors arrived in Bhutan in the eighth and ninth centuries. The Ngalongs speak Dzongkha and follow the Drukpa Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism, which is Bhutan’s state religion. Bhutan’s king, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, is a Ngalong. The Sharchhops, who live in eastern Bhutan, are descendants of the earliest migrants to arrive in Bhutan; they are of Indo-Burmese origin, speak Tshangla (which is closely related to Dzongkha) and follow the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism. Together the Ngalongs and Sharchhops are known as Drukpas. The third major group, who differ greatly from the Drukpas in terms of culture, language, and religion, are ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan; they speak Nepali and are predominantly Hindu.
Ethnic Nepalis first began migrating to Bhutan in the nineteenth century. Many became eligible for Bhutanese citizenship under the 1958 Nationality Law. Moreover, from the mid-1950s ethnic Nepalis began to be admitted into the bureaucracy, the army and the police, and were made members of the cabinet and the judiciary. However, by the late 1970s the Drukpa establishment had come to see the ethnic Nepalis’ growing numbers and influence as a threat to Bhutan’s cultural identity and the Drukpas’ own privileged position. Increasingly, Bhutan’s ruling elite asserted that the majority of the ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan were not in fact citizens but illegal immigrants who threatened Bhutan’s “survival as a distinct political and cultural entity.”
The government invoked these perceived threats as justification for a series of discriminatory measures aimed at the political, economic, and cultural exclusion of Bhutan’s ethnic Nepalis. Two new Citizenship Acts were passed in quick succession, in 1977 and 1985, each tightening the requirements for Bhutanese citizenship.7The 1977 Citizenship Act increased the residency requirement for citizenship by 10 years: from five to 15 years for government servants and from 10 to 20 years for all other foreigners. The growing concerns about the threat posed by ethnic Nepalis to Bhutan’s cultural identity were reflected in an additional requirement for applicants for Bhutanese citizenship to have “some knowledge” of the Dzongkha language and Bhutanese history. The 1977 Act also provided that citizenship would not be granted to anyone who was related to any person involved in activities against the people, the country, and the King. Bhutan’s first national census from 1979 to 1981 used the criteria set out in the 1977 Act to identify residents as citizens or not. Following the census, only those identified as citizens according to the 1977 Act were issued citizenship identity cards.
The 1985 Citizenship Act tightened the requirements for Bhutanese citizenship still further. Under the 1985 Act, a child only automatically qualifies for citizenship if both parents are Bhutanese. The 1985 Act raised the bar higher for naturalization. The 1985 Act also provided for citizenship by registration if one had been permanently domiciled in Bhutan on or before December 31, 1958, and one’s name had been registered in the Ministry of Home Affairs census register.
The 1985 Citizenship Act was followed by a new census in 1988. This census amounted to a selective, arbitrary, and retroactive implementation of the 1985 Act. First, the government only conducted the census in southern Bhutan. Second, the authorities excluded ethnic Nepalis from becoming naturalized citizens, as provided for under the 1985 Act; instead, the authorities restricted Bhutanese citizenship to ethnic Nepalis who had records, such as tax receipts, to prove residence in Bhutan in 1958—30 years before the census. Bhutanese officials refused to accept residency records from 1957 or earlier, or from the years 1957 and 1959 (indicating residency in 1958) to establish citizenship. They disregarded the citizenship identity cards issued after the previous census: the authorities classified people who could not prove residence in 1958 as non-nationals, “returned migrants”, or other illegal immigrant categories, even if they possessed a citizenship card.
The census caused considerable anxiety among the ethnic Nepali population in southern Bhutan. A series of “Bhutanization” measures in line with Bhutan’s “one nation, one people” policy exacerbated this state of fear and resentment by trying to impose a distinct national identity. On January 16, 1989, the king issued a decree requiring all citizens to observe the traditional Drukpa code of values, dress, and etiquette called driglam namzha. Then in February 1989 the government removed the Nepali language from the curriculum in all schools in southern Bhutan.
Ethnic Nepalis perceived these policies as a direct attack on their cultural identity. This led to growing unrest in southern Bhutan, culminating in mass demonstrations in September and October 1990. The government response was swift. The authorities classified all participants in the demonstrations as ngolops (“anti-nationals”), and arrested and detained thousands of people accused of taking part in the demonstrations. Many were subjected to ill-treatment and torture; a number of people reportedly died in detention. The security forces staged frequent raids on the homes of ethnic Nepalis, and there were numerous accounts of women and girls being raped in the course of these raids. Following the demonstrations, the government closed all schools in southern Bhutan and suspended health services.
By the end of 1990 the Bhutanese authorities coerced the first ethnic Nepalis to leave Bhutan. They released some ethnic Nepalis from prison on condition that they would leave the country, while giving others who were categorized as non-nationals under the 1988 census the “choice” to leave the country or face imprisonment. Some fled to avoid falling victim to arbitrary arrest and detention. The security forces harassed many ethnic Nepalis, in some cases destroying their homes. The authorities forced the majority of those who became refugees into exile by intimidating them into signing so-called “voluntary migration forms.”A young man’s testimony was typical of the accounts refugees gave to Human Rights Watch of the circumstances of their departure from Bhutan:
The army took all the people from their houses. The army came to my house many times. My father left the house and went to India. My brother and two sisters worked in the government service. The army sent us the form issued by the government [voluntary migration form]. They said that we had to go out. They said if you go now you will get some money. Some people got a little money. On the way [as we left Bhutan] there were many police. We were forced to sign the document. They snapped our photos. The man told me to smile, to show my teeth. He wanted to show that I was leaving my country willingly, happily, that I was not forced to leave. Only one member of my family signed. My mother gave her thumbprint.
Some of the ethnic Nepalis who fled or were expelled from Bhutan settled in India, but most refugees ended up in Nepal. UNHCR has provided assistance to the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal since 1992.There are currently more than 106,000 Bhutanese refugees living in seven refugee camps in Nepal.

Since 1990, over 106,000 Bhutanese refugees are living in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) managed seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal. Bhutanese refugee
population as per the latest report on world's refugee population included in the UNHCR STATISTICAL YEAR BOOK 2002 - Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions are as follows: (Pages: 399 and 227) The UNHCR Statistical Year Book 2002 was released in July 2004. The UNHCR Statistical Year Book 2003 (provisional report) can be found at UNHCR website

Year and Population of Refugee

1993 : 85,334.................1994 : 103,265
1995 : 104,740................1996 : 106,801
1997 : 108,674................1998 : 105,651
1999 : 107,571................2000 : 108,897
2001 : 110,780................2002 : 112,263

In the year 2002, there were 112,263 Bhutanese refugees registered with the UNHCR (as per the above report). Approximately, 25,000 Bhutanese refugees were living outside of the UNHCR managed refugee camps in Nepal and India. Thus, there were a total of approximately 137,263 Bhutanese refugees living in the UNHCR managed camps in Nepal and outside of the refugees camps in Nepal and India in 2002.

Main location in Nepal

Refugees have high birth rate

The birth rate among the Bhutanese refugee population has been found to be double than that of the local people. About 80,000 Bhutanese including children have taken refuge in Nepal since 10 years ago. There are 101,283 Bhutanese refugees at Beldangi, Goldhap, Timai and Khudunabari of Jhapa district and Sanischare (Pathari) of Morang district. A report made public by head of the United Nations High Commission for Refugee (UNHCR) in Jhapa John Andrew states that 21 per cent of the total refugee population has been born in the camps. Among the total refugee population 44, 783 are women, 46,022 men and 10,487 children below the age of five. The Bhutanese seldom use family planning methods as they wish to get maximum relief and facilities.
Various reports on the violation of human rights in Bhutan and Bhutanese refugees have been published. Please Click on BHUTANESE REFUGEES to read them. This website provides complete and authentic information on the origin, causes, and current situation about Bhutanese refugees.

Bhutanese Refugee

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

"Refugees are not born but created by states, individuals and groups."

"Refugees are not born but created by states, individuals and groups." said Sadako Ogata, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. She has rightly said that "the issue of human rights and the problems of refugees are inextricably linked. The vast majority of refugees are driven from their homes by human rights abuses. Persecution, torture, killings and the reprehensible practice of ‘ethnic cleansing’ generate huge flow of refugees". The Nepali-speaking Southern Bhutanese refugees just fit in her description.
They were driven off from their homes by the racist Bhutanese government since 1990. Over 134,000 of Bhutanese citizens, approximately twenty percent of Bhutan’s total population, are now living in the refugee camps, outside of camps in Nepal and India. Bhutan is thus, responsible generation of highest per capita refugee in the world.
While refugees from such countries as Somalia,Afghanistan, Sudan and former Yugoslavia were victims of armed conflicts or civil war, refugees from Bhutan were forced to leave their country not because of civil war or foreign intervention but because of the racist and ethnocentric policies and feelings of the Government against the Nepali-speaking citizens of southern Bhutan, called Lhotshampas. They have become victims of the government’s racist and 'ethnic cleansing policy".

Bhutanese Refugee Crisis in Nepal

Many are probably completely unaware of a refugee crisis taking place in the eastern region of Nepal. Currently, some 96,000 refugees are accommodated and assisted in seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal with assistance from the UNHCR. An additional 15,000 refugees are scattered throughout Nepal, attempting to rebuild their shattered lives.
With one sixth of the population in exile, the tiny kingdom of Bhutan has the dubious distinction of being one of the world's highest per capita generator of refugees. The roots of the problem lie in the government's attempts to alter the kingdom's demography in favor of the ruling ethnic group. Since 1990, over 100,000 thousand southern Bhutanese of Nepalese ethnicity have been made refugees after being forcibly evicted, forced to flee persecution and repression, or expelled after being coerced into signing "voluntary" emigration forms. Ten years later, the refugees remain in camps in Nepal administered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
The global apathy toward the issue of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal is appalling. India has stood by and done nothing even though they are a key player in the situation as they allowed the refugees transit across India en route to Nepal.

Setting the Stage

Bhutan is a country ruled by a hereditary monarch, His Majesty King Jigme Singye Wangchuck. The King is both the Head of State and Head of Government although since 1998 much of the powers have been transferred to a Council of Ministers. The population of Bhutan is a subject of much speculation since the exact figures have never been divulged by the government. While government estimates have gone as high as 1.4 million, the King once divulged that the number was actually closer to 600,000. Taking this figure as more likely, the total population at the end of 2000AD is around 750,000.
The reason behind this secrecy is highly political. Bhutan is inhabitated by three main ethnic groups. Western Bhutan, the centre of power, is inhabited by Ngalongs of Tibetan origin (15-20%). Eastern Bhutanese, the Sharchops, are of Indo-Mongoloid or Tibeto-Burman (40-45%). Both these groups share a common religion (Buddhism) and Tibetan-derived culture. The third group are ethnic Nepalese who are mainly Hindus, and comprise immigrants of more recent origin (late 19th century onwards) who were granted citizenship in 1958. They make up between 40 and 50% of the population. Ethnic Nepalese have lived in the southern part of the country for centuries, and the early phases of economic development at the turn of the century brought a large influx of additional ethnic Nepalese. As part of larger migration patterns, many families have, for generations, lived within Bhutan and considered themselves proud Bhutanese while keeping their Nepali tongue and Hindu rituals intact as evidence of their ethnicity.
The roots of the crisis in southern Bhutan lie in the leadership's concern over the growing southern Bhutanese population, both as a percentage and in terms of real numbers. Perceiving a threat of being swamped by ethnic Nepalis, a policy with an eventual goal of balancing the demographic pattern was initiated in the mid-1980s; the idea was to set right a historical error of judgement - the grant of nationality in 1958 to ethnic Nepalese settled in the south.The grant of citizenship in 1958 was by royal decree. The new citizens were not granted papers nor was there any major changes in the lives of the people then. Bhutan was still a medieval kingdom in 1958 - there were no motorable roads, no electricity, no hospitals or other government public facilities and just 5 primary schools in the entire kingdom. There was no individual certification of grant of nationality because neither the government nor people considered it necessary at the time.

Action

In 1985, the government enacted a new Citizenship Actand began a census of inclusion and not exclusion - each person was expected to prove he/she was domiciled in Bhutan in 1958 to qualify as a Bhutanese by registration according to the 1985 Citizenship Act. The government started with a fresh slate; the onus was on the individual to prove his or her credentials. Officials demanded tax receipts for exactly the year 1958, not even ones issued earlier would do ostensibly because a person may have left the country before 1958 and returned only after the cut-off year. In many cases, persons were unable to produce the documentation necessary, such as land tax receipts from 1958, to show residency nearly 30 years before.
In conjunction, the government began aggressive efforts to assert a national culture, to tighten control over southern regions, to control illegal immigration, to expel ethnic Nepalese, and to promote national integration. Beginning in 1989, more discriminatory measures were introduced, aimed at shaping a new national identity, known as Drukpa.Drukpa is based on the customs of the minority Ngalong ethnic group. Measures included a national dress for official occasions and school uniform, the teaching of Dzongkha as a second language in all schools, and an end to instruction in Nepali as a second language (English is the medium of instruction in all schools).
During this period, citizenship became a highly contentious issue. Requirements for citizenship first were formalized in the Citizenship Law of 1958, which granted citizenship to all adults who owned land and had lived in the country for at least 10 years. However, in 1985 the new citizenship law significantly tightened requirements for citizenship and resulted in the denaturalization of many ethnic Nepalese. The Marriage Act of 1977 had prescribed that only children born of Bhutanese fathers, not either spouse as before, would be considered citizens. The 1985 Citizenship Act tightened this requirement further and required both parents to be Bhutanese for citizenship by birth. Applied retrospectively and in tandem with the 1958 tax receipt stipulation, the government could declare tens of thousands of legal southern Bhutanese as non-nationals. A person born in Bhutan in 1959 suddenly became an illegal resident during the 1988 census when either parent could not prove his/her presence in the country in 1958, the cut-off year. Thus began the woes of southern Bhutanese.

Reaction

Attempts by southern Bhutanese to persuade the government to review the census implementation were unsuccessful. The government even deemed such attempts acts of sedition. Youth in schools, colleges and villages became agitated and began to express dissent. This gave the government an excuse to become more aggressive and overtly discriminatory. The 'One Nation, One People' policy was adopted. A green-belt plan was unveiled that threatened to make a third of all southern Bhutanese homeless. When the people reacted by rising up in mass protests all over southern Bhutan, the government began a massive crackdown. Thousands were arrested and among them hundreds detained for years without trial.
The 1985 Citizenship Act also provides for the revocation of the citizenship of any naturalized citizen who "has shown by act or speech to be disloyal in any manner whatsoever to the King, country, and people of Bhutan." In even more draconian measures, the government declared that anyone who had left Bhutan to assist friends and family in their exodus would also be revoked of citizenship and "...such people's family members living in the same household will also be held fully responsible and forfeit their citizenship."
Outraged by what they saw as a campaign of repression, ethnic Nepalese mounted a series of demonstrations, sometimes violent, in September 1990. The protests were spearheaded by the newly formed Bhutan People's Party, which demanded full citizenship rights for ethnic Nepalese, the reintroduction of Nepali as a medium of education in the south, and democratic reforms. Characterizing the BPP as a "terrorist" movement, the authorities cracked down on its activities and ordered the closure of local Nepalese schools, clinics, and development programs. Many ethnic Nepalese schools reportedly were turned into Army barracks. There were credible reports that many ethnic Nepalese activists were beaten and tortured while in custody, and that security forces committed acts of rape. There also were credible reports that militants, including BPP members, attacked and killed census officers and other officials, and engaged in bombings. Local officials took advantage of the climate of repression to coerce ethnic Nepalese to sell their land below its fair value and to emigrate.

Exodus

Starting from a small group of dissidents who escaped the crackdown launched by the authorities, the refugee community grew as security forces plundered and terrorised villagers in the south following the protest demonstrations of September-October 1990. But the exodus peaked during in the first half of 1992 when the government initiated a campaign of systematic expulsion by forcing people to sign "voluntary" emigration forms before deporting them. The flood of refugees eventually stopped, but not before a hundred thousand had been forced to leave Bhutan. Just as people had suddenly mysteriously "volunteered" to leave in droves, there were no more "emigrants " - the government had met its target of reducing its southern population by a third.
According to Amnesty International, entire villages sometimes were evicted en masse in retaliation for an attack on a local government official, forcibly signing "voluntary migration forms" as they left under threat of torture and imprisonment. By August 1991, according to NGO reports, 2,500 refugees already were camped illegally in Nepal, with a steady stream still coming from Bhutan. The UNHCR began providing food and shelter in September of that year, and by year's end, there were 6,000 refugees in Nepal. The number swelled to approximately 80,000 by June 1993, when the UNHCR began individual screening of refugees. The flow slowed considerably thereafter; there were no new refugee arrivals from Bhutan to the camps during the year. According to UNHCR, there were 98,269 ethnic Nepalese refugees in 7 refugee camps in eastern Nepal, as of June 30. Much of this increase since 1993 is the result of births to residents of the camps. An additional 15,000 refugees, according to UNHCR estimates, are living outside the camps in Nepal and India.
The Government maintains that many of those who departed the country in 1991-92 were Nepalese or Indian citizens who came to the country after the enactment of the 1958 Citizenship law but were not detected until a census in 1988. The Government also claims that many persons registered in the camps as refugees may never have resided in the country. According to the UNHCR, the overwhelming majority of refugees who have entered the camps since screening began in June 1993 have documentary proof of Bhutanese nationality. The Government also contends that many ethnic Nepalese left the country voluntarily, thus renouncing their Bhutanese citizenship. However, human rights organizations credibly dispute this claim.

Flight

A Nepal-Bhutan ministerial committee has met ten times since 1994 in efforts to resolve the Bhutanese refugee problem. Bhutan has continually stalled the proceeding claiming Nepal's political uncertainty. Finally, in late December 2000, with pressure mounting from the international community and significantly, the United States and under threat of aid denial, Bhutan finally agreed with Nepal to a system to verify the nationality of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal in preparation for their for return to Bhutan. refugee verifications began in March 2001. However, the Bhutanese government efforts to resettle persons onto the land once occupied by refugees continues to represent an obstacle to a negotiated resolution of the refugee problem.
Family members of refugees who are still residing in Bhutan are routinely discriminated against. A resolution adopted by the National Assembly in July 1997 prohibits these still-resident family members of ethnic Nepalese refugees from holding jobs with the Government or in the armed forces. Under the resolution, those holding such jobs were to be retired involuntarily. The Government states that 429 civil servants, many of them ethnic Nepalese, were retired compulsorily in accordance with the July 1997 National Assembly resolution, and that the program was terminated in November. The Government also began a program of resettling Buddhist Bhutanese from other regions of the country on land in the southern part of the country vacated by the ethnic Nepalese now living in refugee camps in Nepal. Human rights groups maintain that this action prejudices any eventual outcome of negotiations over the return of the refugees to the country. In many cases, Buddhist Bhutanese are reluctant to resettle the land, fearing the eventual return of the rightful owners, and are often coerced and even forced to move against their wishes.

Hopes Dashed

The verification process of Bhutanese refugees started at 9.30 AM ( Nepal Time) on March 26, 2001 by a specially formed Joint Verification Team, made of up Nepali and Bhutanese officials. The verification was to proceed at a rate of ten families a day. It was disclosed that only Bhutanese team interviewed the refugees. Many are outraged at the pace of verification and demand that more JVT teams be formed. Many believe the Bhutanese government to not be proceeding in good faith, instead using a delaying tactic with the hopes that as the years pass, eventual repatriation will grow more difficult. At the current rate of ten families a day, the verification process will take over seven years to complete. And there is the in the selection of Dr. Sonam Tenzing, Director of Bhutanese Home Ministry as the Bhutanese head of JVT interviewing the very refugees he was responsible for forceful eviction while he was the District head of Sarbhang district in Southern Bhutan.

U S State Department,Country Reports on Human Rights Practices on Bhutan

"We want freedom"

Bhutan is a hereditary monarchy. King Jigme Singye Wangchuck governs with the support of a National Assembly, a Cabinet, a Council of Ministers (the Royal Advisory Council), and the Monastic Body, a 3,500-member body that is headed by 4 representatives with the consent of the King. There is no written constitution to protect fundamental political and human rights; however, during the year a draft constitution was debated by the National Assembly. In recent years, the Government has adopted some measures to increase the power of the National Assembly. Citizens voted for 105 out of the 150 representatives in the National Assembly in 2002. Since ascending to the throne in 1972, the King has continued the efforts toward social and political modernization begun by his father. The judiciary is not independent of the King, but it is overseen by the National Judicial Commission.

The Royal Bhutan Police, assisted by the Royal Bhutan Army (including those assigned to the Royal Body Guard), and a national militia maintain internal security. Some members of the security forces were responsible on occasion for some human rights abuses.

The economy was predominantly government-controlled. It was based on agriculture and forestry, which provided the main livelihood for 80 percent of the population and account for approximately half of the gross domestic product (GDP); the population was approximately 700,000. Hydroelectric power production and tourism are key resources, although the Government limits tourism. Tourism is limited by a requirement that tourists pay fixed, all inclusive prices, which cover lodging, food, transportation, and sightseeing before visiting the country. The Government claimed this policy to restrict tourists is intended to preserve the country's infrastructure and limited resources. Visas are required of all persons other than Indian nationals. Unemployment for the population is a problem. Income distribution remained unequal, with approximately 10 percent of the population receiving about 70 percent of the national income.

The Government's human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. The King exercised strong, active, and direct power over the Government. The Government prohibits political parties, and none operate legally. Unlike in previous years, there were no reports of arbitrary arrest, or detention. Judges serve at the King's pleasure; however, a National Judicial Commission was established during the year to review judicial reform and process appointments to the bench. The authorities infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The Government repeatedly restricted freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association. Freedom of religion is limited. NGOs and human rights organizations are illegal. Approximately three-fourths of population was composed of Buddhists with cultural traditions akin to those of Tibet. The remaining one-fourth of the population, ethnic Nepalese, most of whom are Hindus, live primarily in the country's southern districts. Government policies in the late 1980s and early 1990s caused approximately 100,000 ethnic Nepalese to leave, sometimes forcibly. Many went to refugee camps in Nepal, where they remained. A significant refugee problem persisted.

According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), over 100,000 ethnic Nepalese refugees from Bhutan have been living in 7 camps in southeastern Nepal since the early 1990s; upwards of 15,000 reside outside of the camps in the Indian states of Assam and West Bengal. The Government maintained that some of those in the camps never were citizens, and therefore have no right to return and that others had "voluntarily emigrated" and forfeited their citizenship. The Government continued its negotiation with the Government of Nepal on repatriation of ethnic Nepalese in the refugee camps. Refugee verification began in March 2001 at the Khudunabari camp and by December 2001, all the residents had been interviewed. In June, the Joint Verification Team (JVT) released the verification results for the Khudunabari camp as follows: 2.4 percent of the total camp population were identified as eligible Bhutanese citizens, with the absolute right of return, 70.55 percent were "voluntary migrants," and would have to apply for citizenship in Bhutan if they chose to return, 24.2 percent were found to be "non-nationals" and could not return, and 2 percent were found to be criminals and would have to face charges if they returned to the country. The next Ministerial Joint Committee meeting is expected to occur in 2004. The Government restricted worker rights.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

There were no reports of the arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life committed by the Government or its agents.

b. Disappearance

There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances. There were incidents of women and girls being kidnaped by terrorist groups for the purposes of rape and servitude during the year (see Sections 5, 6.c., and 6.f.).

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The laws proscribe torture and abuse in general; however, there were reports that the security forces ignored these provisions in the past.

Prison conditions reportedly were spartan. Visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the opening of a prison in Thimphu contributed to improving conditions of detention.

The Government and the ICRC signed the 5-year Memorandum of Understanding in 1998, and during the year, extended the ICRC prison visits program for 1 more year. The ICRC conducted two prison visits during the year, and was allowed unhindered access.

d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile

Under the law, police may not arrest a person without a warrant and must bring an arrested person before a court within 24 hours, exclusive of travel time from place of arrest. However, arbitrary arrest and detention remained problems.
Legal protections were incomplete, due to the lack of a fully developed criminal procedure code and to deficiencies in police training and practice. The initiation of ICRC prison visits and the establishment of an ICRC mail service between detainees and family members helped to alleviate reports of incommunicado detention of prisoners. Of those detained in connection with political dissidence and violence in southern areas in 1991-92, 70 continued to serve sentences after conviction by the High Court, according to the ICRC. Reports indicated that six or seven of those detained in 1991-92 were released during the year.

In 2001, security forces arrested Damber Singh Pulami, reportedly a member of the Youth Organization of Bhutan (the youth wing of the banned Bhutan People's Party) who had entered the country from his refugee camp in Nepal to check on the internal resettlement of non-Nepalese to the south. In May 2001, Pulami was arrested and charged in connection with extortion, kidnapping, murder and subversive activities. At year's end, Non Governmental Organization (NGOs) reported that Pulami was in prison.

There were no new developments in the case of Rongthong Kunley Dorji, leader of the Druk National Congress and United Front for Democracy in Bhutan, who was arrested in India in 1997, following the issuance of an extradition request by Bhutanese authorities. Dorji's extradition case was pending in the Indian courts at year's end.

Human rights groups alleged that arrest and abuse of refugees returning to the country without authorization continued to occur but went unreported by the Government.

The law neither provides for nor prohibits forced exile. Although the Government officially does not use formal exile, many political dissidents freed under government amnesties stated that they were released on the condition that they depart the country, but the Government denied this. Many of them subsequently registered at refugee camps in Nepal and some relocated to India.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

There is no written constitution and while the judiciary is overseen by the National Judicial Commission, is not independent of the King. The King commanded a 39-member committee to draft a constitution in 2001, intended to establish a constitutional monarchy (see Section 3). During the year, the constitution was considered and debated by the National Assembly. The judicial system consists of three branches, the Sub-Divisional Court, the District Court, and a High Court. Only the King can pardon or commute a sentence. Judges were appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Chief Justice and may be removed by the King. There is no uniform system of qualifications for judicial appointments.
The Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) conducted state prosecutions, drafted and reviewed legislation, and rendered legal counsel. The OLA is composed of a Legal Services Division (which eventually was to become the Ministry of Law and Justice) with domestic, international, and human rights sections; and a Prosecution Division, with a criminal section and a civil section.

Citizens generally had the right to a fair trial. Criminal cases and a variety of civil matters were adjudicated under a legal code established in the 17th century, revised in 1958 and 1965, and codified in 2001. State-appointed prosecutors filed charges and prosecuted cases for offenses against the State. In other cases, the relevant organizations and departments of government filed charges and conducted the prosecution. Defendants have the right to be presented with written charges in languages that they understood, and be given time to prepare their own defense. However, according to some political dissidents, this practice was not always respected. There were reports that defendants received legal representation at trial, and that they could choose from a list of 165 government-licensed and employed advocates to assist with their defense; however, it was not known how many defendants actually received such assistance. Village headmen, who had the power to arbitrate disputes, constitute the bottom rung of the judicial system. Twenty-three new lawyers completed their overseas training and reportedly may have returned to the country during the year. Magistrates, each with responsibility for a block of villages, could review their decisions. Magistrates' decisions can be appealed to district judges, of which there was one for each of the country's 20 districts. The High Court in Thimphu is the country's Supreme Court.

Defendants have the right to appeal to the High Court and may make a final appeal to the King, who traditionally delegated the decision to the Royal Advisory Council. Trials were supposed to be conducted in open hearings, except for family law and cases involving juveniles. Courts decisions were not published and public access to the country's laws was limited. The National Library houses the legal codes in the national language, but other copies or volumes were not available to the public. There was a legal requirement that citizens pay for their own legal counsel; however, many citizens were unable to afford representation and thus in practice did not receive legal assistance in court.

Questions of family law, such as marriage, divorce, and adoption, traditionally are resolved according to a citizen's religion: Buddhist tradition for the majority of the population and Hindu tradition for the ethnic Nepalese.

Some or all of the approximately 70 prisoners serving sentences for offenses related to political dissidence or violence, primarily by ethnic Nepalese during 1991-92, may be political prisoners (see Section 1.e.).

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

The laws do not provide for these rights. According to human rights groups, police regularly conducted house-to-house searches for suspected dissidents without explanation or legal justification. The Government requires all citizens, including minorities, to wear the traditional dress of the Buddhist majority in all public places, and strictly enforced this law for visits to Buddhist religious buildings, monasteries, or government offices; in schools, and when attending official functions and public ceremonies; however, some citizens commented that enforcement of this law was arbitrary and sporadic (see Section 5).

Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The Government restricted freedom of speech, and to a lesser extent freedom of the press. The country's only regular publication is Kuensel, a weekly newspaper with a circulation of 15,000. It also reports stories on a daily basis through its on-line edition. Kuensel was formerly government-run, and human rights groups have stated that government ministries reviewed editorial material and suppressed or changed content. According to the Government, Kuensel was independent and was funded entirely through advertising and subscription revenue. Its board consists of senior civil servants and private individuals. Kuensel was published in English, Dzongkha, and Nepali languages, and it supported the Government but did occasionally report criticism of the King and of government policies in the National Assembly. Unlike in the previous year, there were no reports that journalists who worked for Kuensel were subjected to threats and harassment by the ministers. The Government maintained that there were no restrictions on individuals starting new publications, but that the market was too small to support any. Foreign newspapers and magazines were available, but readership was in the hundreds and primarily limited to government officials.

The Government allowed television broadcasts of locally produced and foreign programs. There were 50 cable providers in the country with more than 15,000 subscribers. A large variety of programming was available, including CNN and BBC. The Government did not censor cable content. The radio station is government owned.

The Government did not restrict use of the Internet; however, the Government did regulate all "pornographic" material.

In May, the Royal Bhutan University opened in Thimphu and was comprised of 10 colleges. There was little information on academic freedom throughout the country.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The law does not provide for freedoms of assembly and association, and the Government restricted these rights in practice. Citizens may engage in peaceful assembly and association only for purposes approved by the Government. NGOs and political parties were illegal under the law. Although the Government allowed civic and business organizations, there were no legally recognized political parties. The Government regarded parties organized by ethnic Nepalese exiles--the Bhutan People's Party (BPP), the Bhutan National Democratic Party, and the Druk National Congress--as "terrorist and antinational" organizations and declared them illegal. These parties, which seek the repatriation of refugees and democratic reform, did not conduct activities inside the country.

c. Freedom of Religion

The law provides for freedom of religion; however, the Government restricted this right in practice and Buddhism was the state religion. Approximately two-thirds of the population practiced either Drukpa Kagyupa or Ningmapa Buddhism.

The Government subsidized monasteries and shrines of the Drukpa sect and provided aid to approximately one-third of the Kingdom's 12,000 monks. The Government also provided financial assistance for the construction of Drukpa Kagyupa and Ningmapa Buddhist temples and shrines. NGOs reported that permission from the Government to build a Hindu temple was required but rarely granted. There were no Hindu temples in Thimphu, despite the migration of many ethnic Nepalese to Thimphu. Citizens of other faiths, mostly Hindus, enjoyed freedom of worship. Followers of religions other than Buddhism and Hinduism generally were free to worship in private homes but may not erect religious buildings or congregate in public. Proselytization is illegal, and dissidents living outside the country claim that the Government prohibits conversions. The Government denied the dissidents' claims, and asserted that any citizen is free to practice openly any religion.

The King has declared major Hindu festivals as national holidays, and the royal family participates in them. Foreign missionaries are not permitted to proselytize, but international Christian relief organizations and Jesuit priests were active in education and humanitarian activities. The Government restricted the import into the country of printed religious matter; only Buddhist religious texts may be imported. According to dissidents living outside of the country, only Buddhist religious teaching was permitted in the schools. Applicants for government services sometimes were asked their religion before services were rendered. All government civil servants were required to take an oath of allegiance to the King, the country, and the people. The oath does not have religious content, but was administered by a Buddhist lama (see Section 5).

d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation

The law does not provide for these rights, and the Government placed some limits on them in practice. Citizens traveling in border regions were required to show their citizenship identity cards at immigration check points, which in some cases were located at a considerable distance from what is in effect an open border with India. By treaty, citizens may reside and work in India. In addition, ethnic Nepalese say they were frequently denied security clearance forms, which is a prerequisite for obtaining a passport form and which was biased against ethnic Nepalese. The ethnic Nepalese said that since the forms are based on the security clearance of their parents, it frequently excluded children of ethnic Nepalese.
The country was not a signatory to the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol (see Section 5). The Government stated that it recognizes the right to asylum in accordance with international refugee law; however, the Government has not formulated a policy regarding refugees, asylees, first asylum, or the return of refugees to countries in which they fear persecution. The issue of provision of first asylum did not arise during the year.

There were no reports of the forced return of persons to a country where they feared persecution.

Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government

Citizens do not have the right to change their government. The country is a monarchy with sovereign power vested in the King. However, during 2001 a draft constitution was written which was debated in the National Assembly during the year. The drafting committee was chaired by the Chief Justice of the High Court and was, according to the Government, composed of representatives of the Monastic body, the people, the judiciary, and the Royal Government.

In August, the National Assembly elected a new Council of Ministers to a 5-year term. In 2001, the National Assembly elected 10 Royal Advisory Councilors. In August, the National Assembly included 4 Ministers for a total of 10. There were elected or partially elected representatives at the local, district, and national levels, and the Government claimed to encourage decentralization and citizen participation. These elections were conducted in much the same way as National Assembly elections. The National Assembly has the power to remove ministers whom the King appoints, but it never has done so. Political authority ultimately resided in the King, and decision-making involves only a small number of officials. Officials subject to questioning by the National Assembly routinely made major decisions, but the National Assembly was not known to have overturned any decisions reached by the King and government officials.

Political parties do not exist legally. The Government has banned parties established abroad by ethnic Nepalese, Sarchops, or Eastern Bhutanese (see Section 2.b.).

The National Assembly had 150 members. Of these, 105 were elected by citizens, 10 were selected by a part of the Buddhist clergy, and the remaining 35 were appointed by the King to represent the Government. The National Assembly, which met irregularly, had little independent authority. However, there were efforts underway to have the National Assembly meet on a more regular basis, and in recent years the King and the Council of Ministers have been more responsive to the National Assembly's concerns. The procedures for the nomination and election of National Assembly members state that in order to be eligible for nomination as a candidate, a person must be a citizen; be at least 25 years of age; not be married to a foreign national; not have been terminated or compulsorily retired for misconduct from government service; not have committed any act of treason against the King, the populace, and country; have no criminal record or any criminal case pending against him; have respect for the nation's laws; and be able to read and write in Dzongkha.

Each National Assembly constituency consists of a number of villages. Each village was permitted to nominate one candidate but must do so by consensus. There was no provision for self-nomination, and the law states that no person may campaign for the candidacy or canvass through other means. If more than one village within a constituency puts forward a candidate, the district development committee conducts an election, and the candidate obtaining a simple majority of votes cast was declared the winner. The law allows individuals over the age of 18 the right to vote. The law does not make clear how a candidate is selected if none achieves a simple majority. However, it does state that in case of a tie among the candidates in the election, selection shall be made through the drawing of lots. The candidate whose name is drawn shall be deemed to be elected.

Human rights activists claimed that the only time individual citizens have any involvement in choosing a National Assembly representative was when they were asked for consensus approval of a village candidate by the village headman. The name, put to villagers for consensus approval by the headman, is suggested by district officials, who in turn take their direction from the central Government. Consensus approval took place at a public gathering. Human rights activists stated that there was no secret ballot.

The National Assembly enacted laws, approved senior government appointments, and advised the King on matters of national importance. Voting was by secret ballot, with a simple majority needed to pass a measure. The King may not formally veto legislation, but may return bills for further consideration. In general, the King had enough influence to persuade the Assembly to approve legislation that he considered essential or to withdraw proposals he opposed. The Assembly may question government officials and force them to resign by a two-thirds vote of no confidence; however, the National Assembly never has compelled any government official to resign.

All cabinet ministers are nominated by the King and are elected by the National Assembly. Ministers terms are limited to 5 years, after which they must pass a vote of confidence in the National Assembly in order to remain in office. The National Assembly, by a two-thirds vote of no confidence, can require the King to abdicate and to be replaced by the next person in the line of succession. The King removed himself as chairman of the Council of Ministers in 1998. Cabinet Ministers who receive the most votes rotate the position on a yearly basis. The chairman of the Council of Ministers serves as Prime Minster and head of government. At year's end, Home Minister Jigme Thinley served as Chairman and Prime Minister.

The Monastic Body, comprised of 3,500 monks, was financed by an annual government grant and was the sole arbiter on religious matters in the country. The body also played an advisory role in the National Assembly, the Royal Advisory Council, and with the King. The King almost consistently deferred to the body's pronouncements on religious matters and many decisions affecting the state.

There were 15 women in the National Assembly. There were 2 women in the High Court, 23 percent of civil service employees were women, and women held more than 30 percent of positions at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

There were 105 elected people's representatives in the National Assembly. All major ethnic groups were represented in the National Assembly, including 14 ethnic Nepalese. However, NGOs complained of the disproportionate representation of ethnic Nepalese.

Section 4 Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights

There were no legal human rights NGOs in the country. The Government regarded human rights groups established by ethnic Nepalese exiles--the Human Rights Organization of Bhutan, the People's Forum for Human Rights in Bhutan, and the Association of Human Rights Activists-Bhutan--as political organizations and did not permit them to operate in the country.

ICRC representatives conducted a biannual prison visit, and the Government allowed them unhindered access to detention facilities, including those in southern districts inhabited by ethnic Nepalese.

Section 5 Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, Disability, Language, or Social Status

The law does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, language, or social status. In the past, the Government committed many abuses against the ethnic Nepalese, which led to the departure of 100,000 of them. At the time, the Government claimed that it was concerned about the rapid population growth of and political agitation by the ethnic Nepalese. The Government claimed that ethnic and gender discrimination in employment was not a problem. It claimed that ethnic Nepalese filled 16 percent the civic service or government employment, which was less than their proportion of the total population. Bhutanese human rights groups active outside the country claimed that ethnic Nepalese actually make up approximately one-third of the country's population, and that the Government underreported their number.

Women

The law does not specifically prohibit domestic violence against women; however, such crimes are generally covered by the provisions of criminal law. There was no evidence that rape or spousal abuse were extensive problems. However, NGOs reported that many women did not report rape either because of the cultural issues or because they were unaware of the legal options.

The Rape Act contained a clear definition of criminal sexual assault and specified penalties. In cases of rape involving minors, sentences range from 5 to 17 years. In extreme cases, a rapist may be imprisoned for life. There were few reported instances of sexual harassment.

Women were accorded respect in the traditions of most ethnic groups. Women participated freely in the social and economic life of the country. Approximately 43 percent of enrollment in school was female. Inheritance law provides for equal inheritance among all sons and daughters, but traditional inheritance practices, which vary among ethnic groups, may be observed if the heirs choose to forego legal challenges. Dowries were not customary, even among ethnic Nepalese Hindus. Among some groups, inheritance practices favoring daughters reportedly accounted for the large numbers of women who owned shops and businesses and for an accompanying tendency of women to drop out of higher education to go into business. However, female school enrollment has been growing in response to government policies. Women in unskilled jobs generally were paid slightly less than men. Women constituted approximately 30 percent of the formal work force.

In questions related to family law, including divorce, child custody, and inheritance disputes, were adjudicated by the customary law of each ethnic or religious group. The minimum age of marriage for women was 18 years. The application of different legal practices based on membership in a religious or ethnic group often resulted in discrimination against women. Polygamy is allowed, provided the first wife gives her permission. Polyandry is permitted but did not often occur. Marriages may be arranged by the marriage partners themselves as well as by their parents. Divorce was common. The law requires that all marriages must be registered; it also favors women in matters of alimony.

The National Women’s Association of Bhutan has been active since 1981 and has tried to encourage women to improve improve their living standards and socio-economic status.

Children

The Government demonstrated its commitment to child welfare by rapid expansion of primary schools, healthcare facilities, and immunization programs. For example, the King established the Youth Development Fund in 1998 to provide assistance for ongoing and new youth activities and programs. The Government provided free and compulsory primary school education, and primary school enrollment increased 9 percent per year since 1991, with enrollment of girls increasing at an even higher rate. In 2001, the participation rate for children in primary schools was estimated at 72 percent, with the rate of completion of 7 years of schooling at 60 percent for girls and at 59 percent for boys. There is no law barring ethnic Nepalese children from attending school. However, most of the 75 primary schools in southern areas heavily populated by ethnic Nepalese that were closed in 1990 remained closed. The closure of the schools acted as an effective barrier to the ability of the ethnic Nepalese in southern areas to obtain a primary education. Exile groups claimed that Nepalese students scoring highly on national exams were not always given the same advantages as other students (such as the chance to study abroad at government expense), particularly if they were related to prominent dissidents or refugees.

Persons with Disabilities

The law does not specifically protect the rights of the country’s persons with disabilities nor mandate access to building; however, there was no evidence of official discrimination toward persons with disabilities.

National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities

In the late 1980s, concern over the increase in the population of and political agitation among ethnic Nepalese prompted aggressive government efforts to assert a national culture, to tighten control over southern regions, to control illegal immigration, to expel ethnic Nepalese, and to promote national integration.

Discriminatory measures continued during the year. Measures include a requirement that a security clearance be obtained for jobs and promotions in government service and to obtain passports. The law also requires that the national dress be worn for official occasions and as a school uniform, the teaching of Dzongkha as a second language in all schools, and an end to instruction in Nepali as a second language.

During the mid- and late-1980s, citizenship became a highly contentious matter. Requirements for citizenship first were formalized in the Citizenship Law of 1958, which resulted in the denaturalization of many ethnic Nepalese. The 1985 law required that both parents be citizens in order to confer citizenship on a child, and that persons seeking to prove citizenship through their own or their parents' residency in 1958 be able to prove residency in the country at that time. In many cases, persons were unable to produce the documentation necessary, such as land tax receipts from 1958, to show residency. The law permits residents who lost citizenship under the 1985 law to apply for naturalization if they can prove residence during the 15 years prior to that time. The Government declared all residents who could not meet the new citizenship requirements to be illegal immigrants. Beginning in 1988, the Government expelled large numbers of ethnic Nepalese through enforcement of the new citizenship laws.

The Citizenship Act provided for the revocation of the citizenship of any naturalized citizen who "has shown by act or speech to be disloyal in any manner whatsoever to the King, country, and people of Bhutan." The Home Ministry later declared in a circular that any nationals leaving the country to assist "antinationals," and the families of such persons, would forfeit their citizenship. Human rights groups alleged that these provisions were used widely to revoke the citizenship of ethnic Nepalese who subsequently were expelled from or otherwise departed the country. In response to the perceived repression, ethnic Nepalese protested, sometimes violently. The protests were led by the BPP, which advocated full citizenship rights for ethnic Nepalese and democratic reforms. Characterizing the BPP as a "terrorist" movement backed by Indian sympathizers, the authorities cracked down on its activities and ordered the closure of local Nepalese schools, clinics, and development programs after several were raided or bombed. There were credible reports that many ethnic Nepalese activists were beaten and tortured while in custody, and that security forces committed acts of rape. There were credible reports that during the late 1980s and early 1990s, militants, including BPP members, attacked and killed census officers and other officials, and engaged in bombings.

Local officials reportedly took advantage of the climate of repression to coerce ethnic Nepalese to sell their land below its fair value and to emigrate, while others abandoned their land in fear. Beginning in 1991, ethnic Nepalese began to leave southern areas of the country in large numbers and to take refuge in Nepal. According to the UNHCR, there were 100,000 ethnic Nepalese refugees in 7 refugee camps in eastern Nepal as of December. An additional 15,000 refugees, according to the UNHCR estimates, were living outside the camps in Nepal and India.

Ethnic Nepalese political groups in exile complained that the revision of the country's citizenship laws denaturalized and forced into exile tens of thousands of former residents of the country. They claimed that many ethnic Nepalese whose families have been in the country for generations were expelled because they were unable to document their claims to residence. The Government denied this and asserted that a three-member village committee may certify in writing that a resident is a citizen in cases where documents cannot be produced.

Since 1994, there have been a series of negotiations between Nepal and Bhutan to resolve the Bhutanese refugee problem. The Government continued its negotiation with the Government of Nepal on repatriation of ethnic Nepalese in the refugee camps. Refugee verification began in March 2001 at the Khudunabari camp and by December 2001, all the residents had been interviewed. In June, the JVT released the verification results for the Khudunabari camp as follows: 2.4 percent were identified as genuine Bhutanese, with the absolute right of return, 70.55 percent were "voluntary migrants," and would have to apply for citizenship in Bhutan if they chose to return, 24.2 percent were found to be "non-nationals" and could not return, and 2.85 percent were found to be criminals and would have to face charges if they returned to Bhutan.

The country continued its negotiations on repatriation with Nepal, but refugee groups were concerned that at the present rate, verification would take several years. The 15th round of Nepal-Bhutan Ministerial Joint Committee (MJC) Meeting scheduled for September was cancelled, and the countries' delegates met on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly Session in September to discuss the refugee problem. The next MJC Meeting is expected to be held in 2004.

The UNHCR monitored the conditions of the Bhutanese refugees in camps in eastern Nepal and provided for their basic needs. However, in 2002, there were reports by refugee women and children that some of the Bhutanese refugee workers at the camps had committed sexual assault. The UNHCR responded by conducting an investigation and the Government of Nepal provided more police protection to the camps. In September, Human Rights Watch released a report titled "Trapped by Inequality: Bhutanese Refugee Women in Nepal" which examined the response of the UNHCR and the Government of Nepal to rape, domestic violence, sexual and physical assault, and trafficking of girls and women from refugee camps. The report said that Nepal’s system of refugee registration discriminated against women by distributing rations through male heads of households. Further, the report noted that 35 refugee women and girls were missing from the camps.

The Government contended that many of the documents presented by refugees in the camps were fraudulent. NGOs claimed that these assertions by the Government represented an attempt to eliminate the majority of the refugees from qualifying as citizens.

In 1998, the Government expanded its program of resettling Buddhist Bhutanese from other regions of the country on land in the southern part of the country vacated by the ethnic Nepalese living in refugee camps in Nepal. Human rights groups maintained that this action prejudiced any eventual outcome of negotiations over the return of the refugees to the country. The Government maintained that citizens who are ethnic Nepalese from the south sometimes were resettled on more fertile land in other parts of the country. The failure of the Government to permit the return of ethnic Nepalese refugees has tended to reinforce societal prejudices against this group, as has the Government's policy on the forced retirement of refugee family members in government service and the resettlement of Buddhists on land vacated by expelled ethnic Nepalese in the south.

Section 6 Worker Rights

a. The Right of Association

The law does not allow workers to form or join unions and there were no labor unions. The Government maintained that, with very little industrialization, there was little labor to be organized. The total labor force was approximately 412,000 persons, and 279,000 worked in rural areas. During the year, a Ministry of Labor was established to analyze the country’s labor situation and to provide vocational training.

b. The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively

The law does not authorize collective bargaining or the right to strike, and the Government was not a member of the International Labor Organization (ILO). Industry accounted for approximately 25 percent of the GDP, but employed only a minute fraction of the total work force. The country lacked a large pool of ready labor; for major projects, such as road works, the Government brought in hired laborers from India.

There are no export processing zones.

c. Prohibition of Forced or Bonded Labor

The Government prohibits forced or bonded labor and there were no reports that such practices occurred. However, mandatory national service was practiced. Agricultural workers were required to work in state service for 15 days per year. NGOs stated that this practice was administered selectively. For instance, NGOs believe the practice often selected poor agricultural workers at the height of their harvesting season. There was no evidence to suggest that domestic workers were subjected to coerced or bonded labor.

d. Status of Child Labor Practices and Minimum Age for Employment

There is no minimum age for employment; however, the minimum age of 18 was established "in all matters of the state." Children often do agricultural work and chores on family farms. The law does not specifically prohibit forced and bonded labor by children, but there were no reports that such practices occurred. The country has not ratified ILO Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labor; however, as a state party to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Government supported the provisions contained therein.

e. Acceptable Conditions of Work

A circular that went into effect in 1994 established wage rates, rules and regulations for labor recruiting agencies, and the regulations for payment of worker's compensation. Wage rates were revised periodically, and range upward from a minimum of roughly $2.50 (100 ngultrums) per day plus various allowances paid in cash or kind. This minimum wage provided a decent standard of living for a worker and family. The workday was defined as 8 hours with a 1-hour lunch break; regular days of leisure must be granted by employers. Work in excess of this must be paid at one and one-half times normal rates.
The largest salaried work force was the government service, which has an administered wage structure last revised in 1988 but supplemented by special allowances and increases. The last such increase was in 1999. Civil Service regulations require equal pay for equal work for men and women. According to the latest Census of Manufacturing Industries, only 38 industrial establishments employed more than 50 workers. The Government favored family-owned farms. Land laws prohibits a farmer from selling his or her last 5 acres and requires the sale of holdings in excess of 25 acres. This, along with the country's rugged geography, resulted in a predominantly self-employed agricultural workforce. Workers are entitled to free medical care within the country. Persons who could not receive adequate care within the country were flown to other countries (usually India) for treatment. Workers are eligible for compensation for partial or total disability, and in the event of death their families are entitled to compensation. Existing labor regulations do not grant workers the right to remove themselves from work situations that endanger health and safety without jeopardizing their continued employment.

f. Trafficking in Persons

The law does not specifically prohibit trafficking in persons; however, there were no reports that persons were trafficked to, from, or within the country

Exiled Bhutanese to move to Nebraska (USA)

How did Omaha come to know about the Bhutanese Refugees! - 2008/01/10
About a year ago I started seeing news articles about the U.S. volunteering to resettle 60,000 of the Bhutanese refugees that were located in camps in Nepal. After some research I found out that the families of most of these refugees originally came from Nepal. I called the local refugee resettlement organization, which happens to be Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS), to see if any of the refugees would be coming to the Omaha area. The person I spoke with there was Jeffery Vandenberg. He said that they didn't have any plans to bring the Bhutanese refugees here because he didn't know of any people in the area that knew how to speak their language. I told him that all of the refugees know the Nepali language and that there is about 500 Nepali people living here in the Omaha area. He said that he would be interested in meeting one of the leaders from the Nepali community, so I made the arrangements for him to be able to meet Sushma Manandhar.

__________________________________________

Bhutanese Refugee coming to Omaha

Have you ever stopped for a moment from your daily routine and thought for a second how you had overcome your initial adjustment with life in the United States? In some ways all of us have come face to face with cultural shock elements and the difficulty of learning new things when we moved to the US.

We, at times, tend to overlook basic things that were once a major learning hurdle for us. At times, we have had to learn many basics of life here in the US. For many of us, Operating Microwave, electric ovens/stoves and Laundry machines were brand new when we first arrived. We have learnt how to withdraw cash from an ATM machine…how to order through a drive through window... how doctor's appointments are made…and the list goes on. Today, none of these may concern us much, but there were probably times when even these small chores gave us anxiety attacks. Some of us were fortunate to know about some of these things from our days back home. Others had friends here who showed us around and lead us through our difficult moments. While others just twisted and turned stuff around in ignorance to learn the way of life with little or no help…trying to overcome the language barrier, searching for someone who could ‘show the way’; someone who would listen and extend a helping hand to give a little comfort in embracing the reality of a foreign land; someone who would introduce you to new people, new society, new culture & new ways of doing things.

Well, let me tell you my story. I was barley in my twenties when I first landed in JFK. I thought the little English that I knew would get me moving in this country. But my anxiety and nervousness of being in a totally new place with all strangers and no one I could relate to put me on the verge of crying. I thought all I needed to know was some English and I would survive in this new world; little had I thought of the culture differences, the new amenities and the new ways of living and doing things I would have to learn to survive. I did not know that I had to put in quarters to get the trolley for my luggage; neither did I know how to use a vending machine. I was scared to use the elevator in fear I would get to the floor that I did not want to get on to. I did not know how to operate a microwave and honestly I did not know how to operate a laundry machine. I was taken by surprise at the grocery stores; there were so many kinds of food to pick and choose from. Back home, we had to mostly tell the grocers what we wanted. I did not know many cultures and traits of this country. I learnt a lot of things during my orientation classes in the school - the basics of American way - from hygiene to every day living. I still remember how I started to narrate my whole ordeal of the day when some one asked me ‘hey, how are you doing?’ Later I learnt that it was just the way people communicated here. Yes I learnt a lot of new things...it took me some time, but I learned it. I had means to learn; I had means to reach out; I could speak the same language that almost all the people in the United States speak - English. Sometime we take things for granted. Knowing the language of the country you are going to live in is extremely important. Since most of us here can communicate in English, we hardly think twice about the people who did not have this privilege and the difficulties they face combating the everyday battle of life. Any place we go in this world, language barrier simply could make life very difficult. Imagine not knowing anything about the place and not being able to communicate on top of that.

There are hundreds of things that we do in our lives that we take for granted. I realized the extent of some of the things we take it granted after the recent visit of my parents. One day I told my mother to take Tylenol for her headache, gave her the pill container and left for work. I came home to find out that my mother had not taken the medicine because she could not open the container...the childproof lock system that the medicine bottles have here had become a treacherous lost battle for her. What has become a second nature to me totally did not make any sense to her. It took my mother some time to learn how to use all the appliances to prepare a meal. She has finally started doing her own laundry. Little did I realize that small things that I now take for granted could become major learning curves for my parents.

Well, I do not want to bore you more with my personal stories. The point I am trying to make here is, for new people in new place, there are always hundreds of little things to conquer…and sometimes little things some take for granted can be quite a bit challenging to others. Why all this talk now? Because we all, as a society, might have an opportunity to help a group of Bhutanese Refugees migrating to the United States. Better yet, a collective effort is being put together for a group to make Omaha, Nebraska their permanent home. They will be standing at the same junction where I and most of you had stood at one point of our lives. Many folks in this group might have limited English language knowledge and very little or no exposure to the western amenities and culture. They also do not have any family ties here and are planning to come to Omaha as the US has granted them VISA for resettlements. This group will only be brought to Omaha if we, the Nepali Community of Omaha, NE are willing to make commitment to help them out. The Lutheran Refugee Services will basically provide them with everything but they need a hand from the Nepalese in Nebraska to help them settle down. Mostly, by means of helping them overcome the Language and culture barriers. This will mean to be there for them when they need their voice to be translated. Some common tasks could be receiving them at the airport... taking them to their apartments...taking them to their doctor visits...to groceries...basically all the things that you and I would do for a friend/family to help their transition to the new "World" as smooth as possible.

I think there are very few of us who have not heard about the Bhutanese in Nepal. If you want to know more about them you can visit the following websites:

http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/4444d3c93e.html
http://www.bhutaneserefugees/publ/PUBL/4444dc93e.htm
http://www.chhahari.com/publ/PUBL/4444d3c93e.html
http://http://www.bhutaneserefugees.com/publ/PUBL/4444d3c93e.html

Depending on the voices we hear from you all, we will try and arrange a short seminar session with Jeff Vandenberg, who is the head of the Lutheran Refugee Services. Jeff can educate us all more on this situation. The refugees are coming to the United States starting this month. If NNS decides to take this on, it could take at least a month before any refugees would start coming to Omaha.

I very well understand how busy most of us are. It’s already a hard job joggling family and work. Some of us work odd hours. Some of us do not have flexible hours at work. Some of us have other priorities in lives. But we also know that we all are capable of making A DIFFERENCE!! If we all can take at least an hour or two from our daily lives every week/month we could all make a difference in somebody’s life and to our community. Just an hour or two from each of us is all it takes. And this is something we do not have to do through out their stay here. It might take anywhere from eight - nine months up to a year before they get adjusted to this new place. We, the NNS board have been approached with this request and we are putting it in front of you all...some 21 of us can not do this by ourselves...we need help from you all...if we all work it out together we can surely make a difference. Think of what great satisfaction you all will get by helping those brothers and sisters who have been through less fortunate situations. If you are proud parents of young ones, think what an excellent opportunity this can present if you involve them. This would be something that will teach them great values and importance of community work. I do not know yet how we can come up with schedules and hours to help out but any suggestions are welcome. I am presenting this information to you folks so that we collectively decide how we can come together to help out the Bhutanese Refugees.

Thoughts - 2008/01/19

Today I sit in front of a p.c. to add my share of lines to support the same cause we need you all to come forward and make a pledge to help out our new friends coming to this town. Bhutanese of Nepalese origin who have been living in Nepal a life of refugees are being rescued by America and will be given a new home and new identity that of American. So let’s do our part and help the U.S government help them. Let’s raise ourselves above our differences, status quos and political beliefs. Let’s embrace our new friends and welcome them to our community let’s open our hearts for them and make them feel welcomed to their new homes.

LOVE, PEACE and HARMONY let’s not limit these words to the pages of books, fronts of banners and writings pasted on top of tee-shirts. True meaning of these words lies in our actions, so let’s give these words life.

Compared to the history of everything around us, our community is still so young. The community we belong to, the community we at times make fun of but yet defend with full zest whenever the outsiders try to put it down with their cruel words the community we have nurtured with our memories and experiences. It never seizes to amaze me how in this short time, this young community of ours has overcome the differences amongst us and managed to come together, be it to celebrate the holidays together, honor people for their great deeds, support good causes or bring back the basketball trophy home.

This should be a matter of pride for us, all those Nepalese who now call Nebraska home but at the same time we know we can do MORE. We know that together we can make a difference. So let’s prove it one more time let’s join hands let’s come together as a community and welcome our friends to Nebraska... to United States to this land of opportunity. Let’s extend our hands in friendship. Let’s share our love, memories and knowledge that we gathered as we survived yet another day. Let’s once again do the right thing as community and prove all those cynics wrong.

How we can help! - 2008/01/26

NNS is on board to support this mission. But, there are a lot of ins and outs that need to be considered. Mark Kiser, Chitra Pun and myself met with the director of Lutheran Refugee Services for some initial talks regarding this matter. Long story short - Lutheran Refugee Services can bring these refugees to Omaha only if, and I reiterate...only if NNS is willing to assist them with the language and translation capacity. Because almost all the Bhutanese Refugees coming to US speak Nepali either as their first language and/or their second language, Lutheran Refugee Services does not have any resource to support the language and translation needs. That is where we come into play. The Lutheran Refugee Services will provide the Bhutanese Refugees with all and necessities, from housing, utensils, furniture to a set amount of stipends (to name a few things), including all other miscellaneous things needed to resettle. What they need from us, NNS, or anybody who knows Nepali, is to help them with the language and translation barrier . For this, we all need to come together in unison to support this mission if we are going to sign up for it, which I personally think we should, if we want to reach out and show that we care, not just in words, but in actions as well.

You know how we talk about, or hear other people talk about how we, how NNS, as a society should reach out beyond our own community, beyond the normal activities we do to give ourselves more exposure, and to make NNS more recognizable globally and not just locally? Well, the time has come to prove that we are ready to reach out, that we are ready to go above and beyond; the time has come to show that we care; the time has come to show that we can help out if we all come together in unison. Only 21 people, who are on the NNS board, cannot make this happen. We need you and all of you to make this happen!

Now, let me allow myself to put things in perspective on how we can actually help out: If one person can commit to a maximum of 4 hours a month and we can get at least 50 people to sign up...we have 200 hours in a month that we can commit to, or give. But, think about it, if we have more people to sign up, we will have more hours with fewer hours per person to commit to. The Lutheran Refugee Services may need help with the refugees anytime, or any day of the month. We can work out a plan where we can have people sign up - stating what time of the day works the best for them, e.g. morning, versus afternoon, versus evening, versus night...and so on, we can actually make this happen!! Off the top of my head, we have... how many?!?!?!? Hmmm...500 Nepalese living in Omaha, Bellevue and even Lincoln?? Can we not get more than 50 people to sign up!?!?! I feel positive and very strongly for this cause. I also believe that you all will help NNS to move forward with this initiative. I urge all of you to please stop and think for a second about this. It maybe 4 hours of your time in a month, but that 4 hours or yours can give somebody a new life, a new hope and a new dream. All you Nepali Daju bhai and Didi Bahini haru...let's do this! Let's make this happen!

Another catch to this is that, in the process we will know how to help families settle in the United States. We can leverage our efforts in helping new families, students, individuals, who come to Omaha…Bellevue to settle. So, let's come together to support this great mission.

We humbly request everyone to please sign up to volunteer to help out for this cause. Once we have a good handful of people, we will organize a forum/seminar with the Director of Lutheran Refugee Services to learn more about the specifics. NNS will talk and share more about the situation with everyone on what and how NNS can help, how you can help, how our society/community can help, at the Public Gathering coming up on Saturday, February 9th, at Bellevue University in Bellevue.

They did not choose to be a Refugee! - 2008/03/12

As we all know, no one chooses to be a refugee. Unfortunately, several refugee camps in south-eastern Nepal are filled with nepali-speaking-people from Bhutan since 1990. Early last year, the United States of America has decided to resettle at least 60,000 of them in the US. Among a handful of not-for-profit organization involved in such resettlement activities, Lutheran Family Services of Nebraska is exploring the possibility of providing resettlement services to these refugees in Omaha and have request for the Nepali community participation in this effort.

This is an appeal to the members of NNS and their friends to participate in this noble cause by extending a supporting hand in different activities such as sponsoring a refugee family, donating in-kind items and volunteering. More information can be obtained from Luthern Family Services and following the "How you can help"-tab.

As a first step toward making a meaningful contribution in helping the resettlement process for these Bhutani refugees, the NNS-team charged with the responsibility to explore how NNS can assist Lutheran Family Services of Nebraska met with the Program Manager, Mr. Jeffery A. Vandenberg. In the near future we expect to invite Mr. Vandenberg speak to NNS family. However, at this time, we would like to solicit your support and request you to fill out the volunteer sign-up form to indicate your support and availability. Depending on your interest and availability we would like to develop several teams that would assist Lutheran Family Services of Nebraska in the following areas:
(a) Housing and Furnishings
(b) Management and Finance
(c) Language and Education
(d) Transportation and
(e) Acculturation related activities

NN Society, Lutheran Family Services and Bhutan News Service! - 2008/03/13

On behalf of exiled Bhutanese and Bhutan News Service, I must congratulate NN Society for the works that are underway to assist Bhutanese refugees resettling in the United States.

Since last month, I have been regularly browsing the official website of the society. I have gone through the posts on 'Bhutanese refugees', that are too touching and informative. It is great news that Nepali well-wishers in Nebraska are working to assist Bhutanese resettling in Omaha in whatever ways they can. The efforts taken by Dr. Kiran and Mrs. Sushma are praise-worthy. Bhutan News Service is an independent news agency run by young Bhutanese journalists in exile. It has been serving community for a number of years, and is firm in supporting in future as well.

Bhutan News Service believes that it can assist NN society as well as Lutheran Family Services in a number of ways as we have first-hand information on these refugees. We can discuss what helps we can render to both organizations so that those coming to Nebraska would get maximum assistance from NN society and LFS.

BHUTAN,BHUTANESE REFUGEE

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Bhutanese Refugee

Bhutanese Refugee

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

"Refugees are not born but created by states, individuals and groups."

U S State Department,Country Reports on Human Rights Practices on Bhutan

Exiled Bhutanese to move to Nebraska (USA)

About Me

Bhutanese Refugees are created.................. How?

Durable Solution

Testimony