The US is starting Bhutan refugees resettlement process. This will give them good opportunities for their life when Nepal government has neither been able to privide them with Nepali citizenship nor been able to repatriate them. Nepal government changed its colors too many times about the possibility to offer them Nepali citizenship. The once foreign minister of Nepal, Pashupati S JBR Rana declares they are not the responisbility of Nepal. Girija, KP Oli are against any kind of foreign settlement of the refugees. Whatsoever, all methods except respectful repatriation, are nothing but betrayal of hope and dignity of Bhutanese refugees of Nepali origin.

The intention of US Embassy might be genuinely good but it doesn't help the cause. Yes, it will definitely make their lives better and noone has the right to bulldoze anything on the free will of the refugees. If they chose to be resettled in US, its their free will, which everyone needs to respect. Pursuit of happiness and human rights, perhaps.

But in a broader sense, it will hurt the democratic movement in Bhutan. Some people are too happy applauding Moriarty's step and hopes this will help accelerate the democracy movement in Bhutan. What a shallow analysis.

The Bhutanese refugees are mostly from Pahadi origin. It will be nothing short of Nepali ethnic cleansing from Bhutan. Few people might end up demonstrating against Jingme on the alleys of New York. But it won't deter his ass. Not at least until Bhutan comes under the security umbrella of India.

The true salvation of Nepali ethnics in Bhutan will not come from any alleys of New York and London. Tek Nath Rizal and Girija cannot be dismissed with cynical air for their opinion against foreign settlement. They know the repurcussions pretty well. Ailing Rizal knows pretty well that this movement will be shattered by scattered Nepali Bhutanese people all around US. There is a reason why India never supported this cause. It knows pretty well that as soon as Nepali ethnics gain momentum and power in Bhutan, it will be a threat to its security unbrella that India still wants to spead in Nepal. The democratic institutionalization that Jigme speaks of now is taking place with Nepali ethnics exlusion as a pre-emption. India, the so called largest democracy is fine with that. The moment a true, inclusive and vibrant democracy breaks loose in Bhutan, India will be the one that will lose the most. The winds of change will sweep Burma too. The ethinic Nepali people spread all around North East India will raise a new platform for freedom movement. This will fuel the concept of "Greater Nepal". That's what India fears. And thats what the agents of India fear.

With all said. I respect the free will of the refugees.

Having had hobnobbed with the so-called Bhutanese refugee leaders, I know that third country resettlement is the best option the refugees will ever get. The hubris of the 'leaders', and harassment of common refugees in the name of human rights and democracy has gone on for far too long in the refugee camps. The "democratic" leaders of the refugees and the Bhutanese government are just two sides of the same coin. A return to Bhutan, with non-existent security, fear of a civil war, and fear of both the Bhutanese government and the hoodlums employed by dissidents like Rizal, is far worse than a resettlement in a foreign country or integration in Nepal.

Of course touting ideals like homeland, democracy, human rights etc sounds noble, but when it boils down to the execution of daily life, those are abstract concepts. And they are relative. The so-called refugee leaders should stop spreading false propaganda, stop holding the refugees hostage to the 'demorcatic movement' (which is actually their war to wrest power from the Bhutanese government). If one digs deeper, there is nothing democratic about the Bhutanese democratic movement. Just look at what Rizal did to the elected representatives of the refugees (the Camp Secretaries) when they disagreed with his views!! And this guy changes every few months! When he was here in the US about a year ago (to receive an award from some Korean cultist group, which of course led to withdrawal of some support from some mainstream organizations), he wanted to explore and support all options to bring the refugees to the west and help them resettle. The Bhutanese here awarded with donations to help him in his work! Once he made away with a few lakhs rupees from the expat Bhutanese here, he turned around entirely and started harassing those who opposed his stupidity.

One of his catch phrase is "Jigme lai ghuda tekauchhu!" The refugees just want a dignified life anywhere where they can stand on their own feet and do not have to depend on someone else's generosity to survive. Rizal's elephantine ego and his personal vindictive agenda against the King should not be allowed to wrest this one chance the refugees have at some semblance of life. The refugees have become the source of livelihood for many Bhutanese NGOs in Nepal. That should stop, because that is not ethical. Those that make a living off of refugees, should also think of making a honest living, and perhaps grasp this opportunity of resettlement. Unless thay are wary of having to work to support themselves.

One thing to note is that the Bhutanese refugees had to leave Bhutan as much due to government policies as due to the pressure from the organizations Rizal and his cronies floated. There was a time when a Nepali of Bhutanese nationality felt secure neither inside Bhutan, nor outside its borders. When caught outside the borders, the dissidents would extort, and if there was no compliance, torture and kill the person. Remember the severed heads of two "chamchas" (of course Bhutanese of Nepali origin) packed in a paper carton and placed in a border town of Bhutan? That was done by these same outfits! If the person made a donation to the dissidents, the Bhutanese government would catch and torture the person. This went on in the late eighties and the early nineties. Many refugees are the result of hhese tactics of the government and the 'democratic' dissidents.

This does not make the government of Bhutan any better, but people talk about the atrocities by the government now and then. No one talks about the atrocities of those like Rizal and his cronies who pose as victims. The refugees do not need these "leaders" to lead them, however, they need their peace and life. Thus, they tolerate them.

Even though I believe absolute monarchy is not a right system of government, I know for sure that Bhutan and Bhutanese will fare much better under the King than under these dissidents, who will stop at nothing to get what they want. What it does is hurt the common Bhutanese, both inside and outside Bhutan.

Third country resettlement of Bhutanese settlement is nothing but a grand diplmatic failure of Nepal. It is the failure of the Bhutani democratic movement. It is a slap on the face of leaders who failed in their cause. Above all, it is nothing short of humiliation to Nepali ethnic identity in Bhutan.

One cannot dismiss this movement just because the leaders failed to lead. One cannot undermine the spirit of the people who are constantly seeking their identity after enduring all sorts of bereavements.

The Druk dictator rendered the one-fifth (or, 1/6th ?) of the population stateless just because they questioned his edict of "One Nation One People".Hundreds of Nepali ethnics lost their lives, the surviving forcefully evicted, imprisoned,tortured, women raped and killed by the security forces. Somewhere along the line, if atrocities have been committed by the leaders,they should be brought to justice too.But one cannot compare state sponsored terrorism with some hiccups of the movement. Yet, you say that the leaders of the movement and the Druk Duke are two faces of the same coin. Then perhaps you might also agree with the foreign minister of Bhutan when he terms the refugees as "ready made terrorists".

It is also noteworthy that the document issued by the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration through US Embassy states that "OPE will be selective". Well, then how about the fate of the refugees who are less priviledged and hence less qualified?

Rizal and his alikes failed miserably. But one cannot again dismiss the fact that he has a lot of contribution to this movement.

typo:

resettlement of Bhutanese settlement = resettlement of Bhutanese refugees

"US would not withdraw its proposal" - Crystal T. Kaplan

After the US offered for the third country resettlement, there has been divided opinion among the exiled Bhutanese. Debate continues whether the option is a measure for durable solution of the crisis. On the other side majority of Bhutanese leaders in exile have strongly criticized the US offer. In midst of this T. P. Mishra and Kazi Gautam of Bhutan News Service (BNS) talked to Crystal T. Kaplan, Refugee Officer at the US Embassy in Nepal to get detail information of the US proposal. Excerpts:

BNS: What are the procedures of resettlement and what would be the status of resettled people?
Kaplan: In US, those who would be resettled under this kind of program fall under Legal Permanent Residents (LPR). Different sponsors help LPRs to get settled smoothly. After five years of their stay in the US they can autmatically get Green Card, which enables them to work legally in the US. They can apply for US citizensip after 3-5 years. On the other side, LPRs can exercise all the rights that an American can except the right to vote. The most important point to be noted is that the US government can do nothing for the repatriation process of the people once they are resettled. But they would be no more treated as refugees. The detail procedures of resettlement would be better highlighted by the UNHCR.

BNS: Will they be kept together or in different places?
Kaplan: It is unlikely as the US lacks such places where everyone could be accommodated.

BNS: Why has the US government offered third country resettlement to exiled Bhutanese?
Kaplan: Actually, the US has humanitarian view upon the crisis. And more precisely we couldn’t see the possibility of early repatriation. The other reason is that people have already wasted nearly two decades in vain inside unimproved camps. This offer could also be a step towards uplifting the livelihood of the Bhutanese people.

BNS: Why don't the US pressurizes Bhutan and other responsible countries for repatriation? What role can the US play for repatriation?
Kaplan: We do not have diplomatic relationship with Bhutan. Nevertheless, we are always trying to establish and maintain such relations. It is not that we haven’t taken initiatives towards expediting repatriation process. The US has always encouraged Nepalese government to work towards this. Bhutan too is not an exception to our encouragement. Considering the December incident at Khudunabari, Bhutan has been absconding from its responsibility of taking back its citizens. The US can do nothing besides encouraging Bhutan to be sincere as we cannot force it. Repatriation is possible if there is an involvement of third party entity. I am hopeful that some portion of exiled Bhutanese will be repatriated.

BNS: Is it true that other options besides resettlement are gradually getting under shadow?
Kaplan: This is certainly true if media reports are correct. But it is important not to forget that we have spent much time waiting for the repatriation. Now, people want to end this impasse at the earliest. The issue of repatriation has always been given the top priority.

BNS: Has the US approached Nepal government formally? Will the resettlement process begin immediately if Nepal approves?
Kaplan: We have been meeting the government officials off an on. However, we haven’t signed any written agreement till date. From verbal discussions it’s been known that Nepal is also positive towards our proposal. So far as I am concerned, the process will begin from the very next day of the approval from Nepalese government.

BNS: Does this mean exiled Bhutanese have no hand in deciding their future?
Kaplan: They can decide on the option they are given but we cannot proceed ahead without the approval from the host country.

BNS: Majority of Bhutanese leaders in exile have already accused the US of being responsible towards creating division among exiled Bhutanese. What do you say?
Kaplan: It’s quite sad and unfortunate to hear this. I don’t think we have coined this proposal to create division. Had Bhutan been a democratic country, repatriation could have been possible already. These exiled Bhutanese shouldn’t be made hostage in the name of establishing democracy in Bhutan. They are no more in the position to wait.

BNS: Won't it hamper democratization of Bhutan?
Kaplan: I object this. With the announcement of election to be held in 2008, even without addressing the exiled Bhutanese issue, Bhutan has stepped towards democratization. But the absolute monarchy would become a constitutional monarchy and that they were making incremental steps toward democracy.

BNS: Should the people who wish resettlement apply before the formal announcement is made?
Kaplan: Absolutely not. There is no need to apply in advance. We have already received about 4,000 individual applications which are not yet formally considered. It is not the US but the UNHCR which would decide after the approval from Nepalese government.

BNS: Does this offer incorporate the sentiments of those who are undeclared as ‘Refugees’, now residing in different states of India and in Nepal?
Kaplan: Regarding the inclusion of exiled Bhutanese who have not registered in the camps, we must first focus on the defined population that has lived in the camps for the past 16 years. I did not know whether this other group would be able to participate in resettlement or not.

BNS: Won’t the US offer encourage the Bhutanese regime for further eviction of people?
Kaplan: I am confident Bhutan has no concern about the US offer. I don’t think this would encourage Bhutan for further eviction of people.

BNS: How would US address the reaction of the youths who wish resettlement if the program failed?
Kaplan: This offer has been the outcome of a long and broad discussion. It has to be well remembered the US won’t be withdrawing it whatsoever happens. However, Nepal is the prime authority for approval. So, let’s be optimistic.

BNS: What you saw during your recent visit to camps?
Kaplan: It was transparent that people are confused about the issue of resettlement. But they are eager to bring themselves out of confinement.

http://www.apfanews.com/interview/index.php?id=3135fe4d5

Well, the Bhutanese leaders got 18 years to address the issue, Nepali government got about 13 yrs so far after its initial engagement in the bilateral talks.

If they could not make a dent in the problem after 18 years, while the situation of the refugees deteriorated in the camps, they need to get out of the way when someone comes with a solution, however partial it may be.

The leaders can carry on their 'struggle' for democracy without the refugees. Let us have one thing clear: there will be no repatriation ( i know that is the ideal solution: who doesn't! But it aint happening, because Bhutan does not want to take anyone back.) And anything is better than languishing in the camps and being the fodder for politicians.

With the OPE being established in kathmandu now, and with quite a few countries offering to take up some refugees, they are heading towards a solution. That is the best bet there is. There are refugees languishing in camps in some parts of the world for over 30-40 years with no solution in sight! One batch of refugees being resettled in the US this year is from Africa... they have been in camps since 1972.

The Bhutanese should consider themselves lucky that the US is considering them for resettlement. Humanitarian concerns aside, they are an easy group to assimilate. Most of them speak English. They are a peaceful lot. Ideal for the post-911 resettlement criteria. And of course there will be interviews and selection. If there was no process in place, who knows how many Nepalese will buy/fake Bhutanese documents and pose as refugees to get thru to the US!

It is of course hundred fold better to be resettled in the US then to decay in the camps for indefinite future. We ve seen all the failures for any other viable solution. Who would argue on that?

There are questions that do not have an easy answer. Will the Nepali ethincs who would be resettled abroad be able contribute to the ethincs democratic movement? Now please don't say Bhutan is already in that process. How about the crime the state has committed against the Nepali ethinics ? Perhaps you are right when you say, "Of course touting ideals like homeland, democracy, human rights etc sounds noble, but when it boils down to the execution of daily life, those are abstract concepts".

But then, we come to America- for a piece of land to stand on, democracy, human rights and along with it, the package of good life.

Good luck

"Will the Nepali ethincs who would be resettled abroad be able contribute to the ethincs democratic movement? Now please don't say Bhutan is already in that process. How about the crime the state has committed against the Nepali ethinics ?"

There are about two hundred thousand ethnic Nepalese in Bhutan now. That is 1/3 of the vote bank. Politics will play its role, and they will prevail. And there are deals already being made by Nepali-Bhutanese with prospective candidates in Thimphu. Is it imperative that Bhutanese abroad SHOULD contribute to the movement in Bhutan? I dont think so!

And whether we like it or not, Bhutan is in the process of democratization. We can not expect it to be a perfectly democratic society over night though. US took 130 yrs (after its independence from the Empire) to grant women the right to vote; blacks waited about 80 years to get a symbolic right to vote. Even today, the most democratic country in the world is governed by rich white men! Bhutan is coming out of a cocoon. Who wouldnt be impressed by what is going on! One needs to give credit where it is due. Bhutanese-Nepalese inside Bhutan will fare better without the support from those in exile. Any party that gets support from those in exile will be an easy fodder for political cannons once the election campaigns set in.

I agree that the State should be punished for crimes against its citizens. However, we need to look at the method they used during the eviction process. They have planned it so well that there is almost zero evidence to condemn in a court of law, or even in international human rights fora. For instance, a majority of evictees have been forced to sign on to a voluntary migration document. Yes, they were forced, but where is the "presentable" proof of that? Nowhere, because the government took care that that did not exist. All the Bhutanese have is circumstantial evidence. Now, did the Bhutanese govt commit crime? Yes it did. But they have video footage of "departing Bhutanese" smiling into the cameras, and thanking the government for the money, which they are holding in their arms. The Bhutanese do not have the video footage of the gun being pointed at their temple while all this is going on.

So, what does one do? The next best thing. Of course the Bhutanese can pick up arms and fight. Ethical? No. Will they win? Well, sophisticated ULFA and BODO rebels could not even stay the heat for a month!

if these refugees want to get vindictive at some point in the future, they may be able to support their parties better if they are able to support their own families. They, I am sure, are not dreaming of starting an army. Then, what use are those unemployed youths in the camps? Wouldnt they be better useful if they contributed to party coffers, got an education, and perhaps started a vibrant comunity in western countries, so they can raise a hue and cry ( and be useful) when and if things go awry for their bretherens in Bhutan later on?

Jewish expats, NRIs etc are an example to look up to.

1. Please note that nothing but free will would determine everything. Why would someone waste time discussing what they "SHOULD" or would do?

2. "And whether we like it or not, Bhutan is in the process of democratization."

Holy Cow!!! WHEN, and HOW ????? Then perhaps, this will be analogous to, as saying, that the refugees were also in the process of respectful repatriation to Bhutan. Perhaps, then we have a fundamental difference in the understand of what democracy is.

3. Also, I don't see where the arithematic of " 1/3 of the vote bank" fits in.

(Please refer: http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDCOI/3ae6a6c08.html)

Quote
No reliable independent data is available and government figures have varied widely over the last fifteen years. In 1979, the Government estimated that the population of the country was 1.2 million. The estimate rose to 1.375 million in 1988, but in 1991 the figure was drastically reduced to 600,000.
Census teams are also said to have refused to accept as evidence of residence relevant documentation for the years prior to 1958.

According to the U.S. State Department, the population in 1999/2000 was 2.1 million. However, the Royal Government of Bhutan estimates the population in 2000 to be 800,000.

Many ethnic Nepalis who possessed citizenship certificates issued by district officials under the provisions of the 1958 Nationality Law found these declared null and void unless they could produce documents proving at least residence, and often land ownership, prior to 1958.Many refugees have complained that when they provided relevant documentation it was frequently seized or confiscated by the census or other local officials.


Concern among ethnic Nepalis about the threat to their cultural identity implied by the application of driglam namzha was heightened still further in February 1989 when the Nepali language was removed from the curriculum in schools in the south of the country.

Unquote

4. "But they have video footage of "departing Bhutanese" smiling into the cameras, and thanking the government for the money, which they are holding in their arms."

I guess the exodus of a hundred thousand ethnic Nepalese as refugees do have proof of atrocities they have been committed against. At the same time, it can be agreed that there may be few cases of fleeing which might be voluntary. It is hence wise enough to say the truth lies in between, the balance leaning more on the ethnics' side.

We can only hope, as you say, they will help their brothers home to establish their rights in their homeland. And hope, that the perpetrators of crime against the ethnic Nepali refugees will never be forgotten.

We' re citizens of Bhutan

1. I am not responding to that one, since you did already!

2. Even though Bhutan has not put in provisions to reward killers of more than 10,000 people with a seat in the government and providing them with food, shelter, and money, it does seem to have started a process of some kind of democratization. Who knows how fair the process is going to be though! Perhaps dynastic rule may come in, just like the Koiralas, Gandhis, Yadavs or the Bushes. Will that make it less democratic than the US, Nepal, India, or Bhiar? Your guess is as good as mine.
Check http://www.european-referendum.org/fileadmin/di/pdf/papers/di-bhutan.pdf


3. Also, I don't see where the arithematic of " 1/3 of the vote bank" fits in. ....... Well, noo matter the size of the Bhutanese population, the land area occupied by the nepalis is perhaps more than 1/3 rd of the total area of the country in terms of population density and geographhical area collectively. Hence 1/3.
And yes, the constitution does not allow for political parties on ethnic lines. If the Nepalis, or the Sarchhops, or the Ngalong want to live peacefully in Bhutan, they got to learn to forge alliance with each other, cross ethnic lines, and perhaps look at the overall well-being of the country. A federation, like the Madhesis are demanding in Nepal may not be feasible in Bhutan (it may take the country to the pre-monarchy era principalities and obscure wars infused with legends of magic, and that would be funny, and that would be alright too!).
As for the dissident political parties, they should learn to make an honest effort to eke out a living through honest labor. I cant stress enough that they should stop holding the refugees hostage to their unrealistic political agendas.


Population and State Department Report: Even in the above study i posted a link to, the population numbers vary. I believe the reason is, they are all estimate. Applying the population density of neighboring areas to Bhutan does not yeild near-accurate estimates. Border towns are dense. Huge tracts of mountainous areas are not habitable. From the recent census, after counting about 600,000 people, a friend at Human Rights Watch (back from a visit to the camps and Indo-Bhutan border)says that there are about 100,000 people whose citizenship records are under investigation. There are, then, perhaps about 700,000-800,000 people in Bhutan.
State Department gets its report compiled through various sources. For Bhutan, the primary sources relating to human rights situation in Bhuatn are the dissident human rights organizations.There is nothing unbiased about the report.

The Bhutanese dissidents in 1989-90 underestimated the Bhutanese regime. They continue to do so. Pure passion, ideals, and a sense of righteousness won't cut it. There have to be long term strategies if the Nepalis ever want to survive well in Bhutan. The beginning perhaps would be a revisiting of the political agendas of parties in exile, collaboration, and perhaps building a positive political culture among them. An upward of 60 Bhutanese organizations to 'advocate' and 'serve' a refugee population of 100,000 is perhaps a little too haphazard. More time is spent in "dissing' each other and pulling each other down. What they need is a statesman, not just politicians. And Rizal is a far cry from even a remotely effective politician.

A comprehensive solution package that comprises of all options (repatriation, local integration, and resettlement) should be presented to the refugees. It looks like it will be. However, the refugees should be educaterd about what these options mean, and allowed to exercise theur free will without intimidation from the politicians.

Eyes wide shut cannot see that the Druk are playing the politics of ethnicity. They are the ones who feel threatened by the vibrant political and economic growth of the ethnic Nepalis. The Druk regime has meticulously arranged the legislations which tries to estbalish their own ethnic identity eliminating "Lhotsampas".

One cannot really predict whether the federal system will work in Bhutan, so lets push that aside for a while. But yes, forging alliance with the pro-monarchs for aggregate national benefit can be acceptable but it cannot be done with a compromise to Nepali ethinic identity. In the name of "integration", those ethnics cannot be bulldozed with the state legislations and acts that underestimate their cultural identity and heritage. So, I guess we again disagree on who is underestimating whom.

Contrary to your belief, one can see that the movement failed because it lacked "pure passion, ideals, and a sense of righteousness". One cannot draw a clear roadmap without these for the future. Perhaps, this can be attributed to the failures of Rizal and his likes.

The hypocrisy and double standard of the Drukpa regime is quite transparent when it talks about democracy but continuously try to evade from solutions regarding the refugees. Heck, they don't even accept them to be their citizens. What kind of democratic instituion is in the offing, one can easily decipher.

Yes, now the refugees have "options". And unfortunately, options are now open to the Druk regime as well to "deport" more dissidents, arrest and intimidate more ethnics, incorporate more ethnic cleansing,further institutionalize "One Nation One People",and then lay the carpet for "democracy".

Welcome to the Brave New World.

Well! It looks like it is just the two of us going on and on here! But what the heck!

I agree with your contention that the Bhutanese government is screwing up. They always have. My contention is that the Lhotsampas in the south should dig deep into what is being put in place, and exploit loopholes to make things happen for them. I really believe they can. Whatever little filters out of Bhutan (which is significantly more now, compared to before!)indicates that the Lhotsampas are a lot better than they were before (economically), and mostly in the private sector.
On the political fronts, prospective candidtes for Prime MInistership (of course from the North) are sending feelers to, and discussing collaborations with, leaders from the south in Thimphu. I sincerely believe that they will be able to make a better headway without overt interference or support from the dissidents outside.

So we are saying that the Bhutanese government underestimates the Lhotsampas? That could be true too! A huge number of Lhotsampa students left their schools in 1990 and came to India with the promise (from the self-exiled leaders) that they will be re-entering the country with full democracy and human rights in 15 days. Later on there were times when the refugees were led to believe that Deuba sahab will make it alright, because "those Bhutanese ministers were dumb." Even the mighty Girija was concerned! What will stop us from going back! There was also a time when Fernandes was up front supporting the refugees' cause, only to disappear from the scene as soon as he became defense minister. The dissidents underestimated the treacheries of South Asian politics, and they contuinue to do so! They had passion and marched with some in 1996. They had a sense of self-righteousness, and believed as long as they were on the side of truth, nothing could touch them. They were idealistic in that they dreamed of a Bhutan where they enjoyed equal rights and freedoms! These, though much touted today, exist as long as you can buy them or command them, even in democracies (Remember, Prachanda and Baburam dais?). If there is no political plan for change, passion, ideals, truth, aint cutting it. The dissidents refuse to budge from where they were ideologically, strategiclly and politically 18 years ago. They have lots of spices, but no meat or vegetables! Initially, they had so much courage they jumped right off the cliff.

So, the Druk regime has it coming, huh? Dream on! We have dreamed on for 18 years! No, actually longer, since the 1952 revolt of the Bhutan National Congress. I am no sympathizer of the Bhutanese regime, nor a detractor of the refugees (myself being one), but I recognize the humiliating defeat when I see it. Two strands of hair for Lhotsampas both inside and outside Bhutan as they are sinking: Democratization (bhutanese style) inside, and the offer of resettlement outside. Their "leaders" are the ones pushing them down while they, from imaginary life-boats, pretend to flag down a rescue ship!

And yes, refugees have options, actually galore! They have always had options.
-be tortured by the govt or leave the country
-join the dissidents or lose 6 inches
-in dissidents camps in India: agree to whatever the bulldog of the time said, or be dragged into a "green room", be beat up for a night, and have the head chopped off in the morning
-in the camps initially, be looted by "bir Bhutani human rights activists" or be beaten up
-languish in the camps or go teach Nepali kids for a pittance, or harvest rice for Rs. 20 a day
-risk being caught sneaking out of the camp to work or forego milk for your baby
-adopt the mob mentality or be branded a traitor
-opt for third country resettlement and be branded a traitor to the cause
-oppose resettlement and spend eternity in the camps
-stand up for your rights and be beaten up and killed by the locals, or shut up, and drink your tears
-Make efforts to get out of the camp, move on and start a life; or believe in the leaders who live off of you
-Live under vindictive despots in exile, or live under vindictive despots inside

Well, choices a plenty! I hope I dont have to point out the sarcasm, because it seems it is being missed :)

Those who have seen these choices, know what to pick. An UNHCR official says 80% of the Bhutanese refugees want to resettle, make it on their own and start a life of dignity, however hard it may be. However, interestingly, it is even those "leaders" well settled in the US who oppose resettlement for other refugees! Another interesting thing is this: Gather some refugees and ask them what they want and up goes the chorus of "we want to go back to Bhutan and nowhere else!". Make yourself available to any of the same people alone, individually, and they desperately want you to help them get to Canada or US!! I cant start telling you about emails that fill my inbox with requests for help to get to the US. See, they know they have choices!

If the cards in Bhutan are played Nepalese style, Bhutan has the potential to be a Nepal of today at worst, or a Sikkim at best, soon. It does not take long for unscrupulous politicians to drag down a country to Hades. And the goons from inside, coupled with goons in exile, are sufficient to make that happen.

As for additional eviction, people need to fight back! Just like the Madhesis in Nepal, like the Karen in Burma, like the East Timorese. If they fight back, those in support will shout on their behalf! While the Nepalis inside Bhutan do not complain of injustices now, who are we to complain!

It does call for a brave new world, indeed, don't it! One should adopt the "kill-your-way-to-parliament" path I guess! And the Bhutanese themselves seem not to be far behind. It is said that some are turning red (with some 'Bikalpa' leading them!!), probably ruining this one chance at solution.

There is no way I can refute your opinions as you seem to have "been there, done that" experience on this issue.

It shuts me up, when you say "While the Nepalis inside Bhutan do not complain of injustices now, who are we to complain!".

Perhaps, forced not to complain or chose not to complain, its a different question altogether.
I only felt the connection with my identity here, hence I couldn't help raising concerns.

Good luck.

Well, thanks!
Enjoyed ranting!
I know they are compelled not to complain. But, they need to initiate the complaints for anyone to assist them. They are at least recognized as citizens of the country. They are still one step ahead than the refugees or those in exile.

And they KNOW that those in exile are not even capable of looking after their own interests, let alone assist those inside. And Nepalis worldwide? They may fight for the British, but never for their own people... look at Darjeeling, Assam, Burma! . Having looked at the Nepali world for almost two decades, the Lhotsampas inside have perhaps decided to make deals with their enemies at home, rather than rely on the inconsequential friends far away, whose strongest memories (unfortunately) may be of "human rights activists" visiting them at night and robbing them of all valuables, to advance the cause, of course!

Thanks again!