| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| raider | Posted
on 14-Mar-04 11:43 PM
I have been browsing through the Bhutanese website called Kuensel Online. I understand they also publish the one only newspaper in Bhutan. People in these forum pages might be interested to read the views of Bhutanese people. In some cases I felt that some paid government employees are writing as ordinary citizens. As I understand civil servants have better access to the internet. [url]http://www.kuenselonline.com/[/url] Forum pages are called "From the Readers" [url]http://www.kuenselonline.com/phorum/list.php?f=2[/url] [url]http://www.kuenselonline.com/phorum/read.php?f=2&i=22195&t=22195[/url] All the posts in these pages are censored. You can smell the strong smell of government interference and control as soon as you start reading these pages. Any strong views or opinions against the Government of Bhutan will never see the daylight. Many of my postings have never made to the discussion pages. It is very much like in the old days in Nepal where nobody could say anything against the King and the Royal Family. |
| raider | Posted
on 14-Mar-04 11:47 PM
I am sorry about the URLs on the above post. I failed in my endeavour to make them a link. Who is to be blamed for the stalemate of longstanding Bhutanes refugee problem? - Refugees blame Bhutan. - Bhutan blames Nepal. - Nepal blames Bhutan. - India is doing nothing. - United Nations is powerless. I think the following questions might give some idea of perceptions of people not only in Nepal but in other countries: Are all refugees are genuine refugees? Do all refugees want to be repatriated to Bhutan? Is Nepal dragging its heels because the refugees attract international aid? International aids - do they all go for the welfare and benefit of refugees? Are Nepali people benefiting or otherwise from this refugee camps in their doorsteps? Are refugees becoming too accustomed to the way of life and continue to wish to live in handouts from the international community? Is their living standard in the refugee camps better than the ordinary people of Nepal outside the camps? Is the criminal activity is growing because of these camps? Let's have some views from our Nepali friends who have experienced the problem (or is it a problem?) first hand |
| raider | Posted
on 14-Mar-04 11:51 PM
I did not read the small prints underneath. Now I know how to make an URL to a link. Now the dilemma is - how do you edit your post? the links are here: - http://www.kuenselonline.com - http://www.kuenselonline.com/phorum/list.php?f=2 - http://www.kuenselonline.com/phorum/read.php?f=2&i=22195&t=22195 |
| raider | Posted
on 15-Mar-04 11:44 AM
I am a little disappointed that nobody's got anything to say about Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. |
| karmapa | Posted
on 15-Mar-04 10:47 PM
Raider, I have already posted my opinions on the refugee issue before. Without India or Internationall pressure, this bilateral process is already stalled. Michael Hutt has already written of a ' tear in the fabric', and a once-Bhutan insider has opined that the Bhutan government and the Bhutanese have hardened against the refugees. It is quite pointless to blame Bhutan. Nepal's case is very weak indeed. It may not even have a case. See, many of the refugees languishing in eastern Nepal are labelled 'anti-nationals' ("ngolops") in Bhutan. In the last session of Bhutan's National Assembly, voices were raised not to allow even a single refugee back into the country as they had engaged in anti-national activities. There was total unanimity in their voices to keep out the refugees. The Citizenship Act of Bhutan is draconian, to say the least, but quite frankly that's their sovereign internal matter. Well, if the March 12 2004 article on Nepalnews.com is to be believed, then Nepal is potentially no different. Please read on: ***************** The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a provision in the prevailing Citizenship Act 1963 that has the right to invalidate citizenship of any Nepali involved in sedition/armed rebellion, published reports said Saturday... Constitutional lawyers, however, say the ruling may create a situation of statelessness for a Nepali citizen. ****************** Any day any Nepali could be rendered stateless just like those refugees ...for one, he / she could be framed. The aforementioned provision is quite frankly intended to muzzle freedom of expression in Nepal. But so far (to my knowledge) the Nepali government has not rendered a Nepali citizen stateless but that's not the point: the point is it can potentially do so. Well, it doesn't have to, as the provision acts as a big deterrent: people, rather than risk statelessness, would rather practice self- censorship. Any argument for blaming the Bhutan government, a sovereign country, for the plight of the refugees holds no water when the refugee issue is seen in light of the Nepalnew.com article. If Nepal, a sovereign country, can potentially render Nepalis stateless on charges of sedition / armed rebellion, why can't Bhutan, another sovereign country, on charges of being 'anti-national'? The point is not whether these refugees were engaging in 'anti-national' activities (some may very well have been but what constitutes 'anti-national' is open to interpretation/misinterpretation) in Bhutan and therefore rendered stateless - the point is this kind of draconian measure gives the governments of both the countries the power to do exactly this under the flimsiest of pretexts. Once rendered stateless, the refugee has no recourse to justice in his / her native land because he/she is now a person non grata. Frankly, this provision in Nepal's Citizenship Act 1961 is very draconian, very disturbing. I do not know if this provision (in the prevailing Citizenship Act 1963), which the Supreme Court has said is not against the spirit of the Constitution, violates the international norms or any international convention/treaty to which Nepal may be a signatory. At the heart of the refugee issue is the larger question: Does a state have a right to render its own citizens or people who have lived within its borders for generations stateless under whatever pretexts? If so, the whole issues of freedom of expression, and human rights have to be reexamined / reassessed. I feel sedition /armed rebellion/engaging in antinational activities should be dealt with through imprisonment (not something as draconian as stripping of citizenship) but with recourse to a court of law. If tomorrow the Bhutan government points to this draconian provision in the Nepali Citizenship Act 1963 to silence Nepal's criticism of its own action or to justify its own action, then would you in all fairness blame Bhutan for the plight of the refugees under the current BILATERAL PROCESS scenario? I think the answer is increasingly no! Let those without sins be the first to cast stone! Which is why my empathy is increasingly with the refugees. Which is also why an international pressure or third party intervention is needed. |