Discrimination against Ethnic Nepali Children in Bhutan
Submission from Human Rights Watch to the Committee on the Rights of the Child
Human Rights Watch wishes to bring to the Committees attention information regarding the following violations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by the Bhutanese government:
Information regarding the status of children in Bhutan is difficult to obtain due to restrictions on media and civil society groups by the Bhutanese government. Accordingly, this submission does not comprehensively address all violations of childrens rights in Bhutan.
Human Rights Watchs information is based in large part on our interviews in November 2006 with more than 150 Bhutanese refugees in Nepal and India, both children and adults; with 18 Bhutanese citizens who traveled to India; and with UN, NGO, and government officials. The complete findings of our investigation can be found in: Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal and India, vol. 19, no. 7(C), May 2007, http://hrw.org/reports/2007/bhutan0507/.
Human Rights Watch previously investigated and reported on gender-based violence against Bhutanese refugee women and girls and systematic discrimination against them in access to aid in: Trapped by Inequality: Bhutanese Refugee Women in Nepal, vol. 15, no. 8(C), September 2003, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/nepal0903/.
Restrictive Citizenship Laws in BhutanDeprivation of Nationality and Identity Resulting in Statelessness and Refugee Flows (arts. 7 and 8)
More than 106,000 ethnic Nepalese refugees from Bhutan, of whom 40 percent are children, have been living in refugee camps in Nepal since the early 1990s. In addition, there are an estimated 10,000-15,000 unregistered refugees in Nepal and 15,000-30,000 unregistered refugees in India. Bhutans restrictive citizenship laws render these children (as well as adults) stateless. These laws also, along with other forms of government-sponsored discrimination against ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan, forced them to flee the country. At present, Bhutan is offering to restore Bhutanese nationality based on very narrow criteria, which would mean that only an exceedingly small group of refugees would be deemed to be genuine Bhutanese. At the same time, these laws effectively deny Bhutanese nationality to a number of its ethnic Nepali citizens, including children, still living in Bhutan.
The ancestors of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal first began migrating to Bhutan in the 19th century. Many became eligible for Bhutanese citizenship under a 1958 Nationality Law. These ethnic Nepalis, who are Hindus and speak the Nepali language, differ greatly in terms of culture, language, and religion from the Ngalongs and Sharchhops, together known as Drukpas, who speak Dzongkha and are Buddhists. By the late 1970s the ethnically, culturally, and politically dominant Drukpa establishment had come to see the Nepali speakers growing numbers and influence as a threat to Bhutans cultural identity and to their own privileged position. Increasingly, the government asserted that the majority of the Nepali speakers in Bhutan were not in fact citizens but illegal immigrants who threatened Bhutans political, religious, and cultural identity.
Despite 15 rounds of bilateral talks between Bhutanese and Nepalese government authorities, there has been no progress toward resolving the refugee situation. Exhaustive negotiations so far have resulted only in a verification exercise carried out over a two-year period by a Joint Verification Team of Nepalese and Bhutanese officials. The verification exercise was intended to resolve the nationality status of the refugees and pave the way for the repatriation of those found to be Bhutanese nationals who were forced out of the country by placing them in one of four categories. The results, released in 2003, were disappointing to say the least. First, the verification exercise never expanded beyond one camp, Khundunabari, so, at best, was able to verify the status of only 10 percent of the total refugee population. Even so, only 2.5 percent of the refugees were found to be Bhutanese citizens who had been forcibly expelled and who would be allowed to repatriate with full citizenship rights. To date, none of this small category 1 group has actually been allowed to return.
The bulk of the refugees, 70 percent, were categorized as Bhutanese who voluntarily migratedcategory 2, which supposedly provides for the right to return (though none have yet been allowed back), but without compensation or restoration of lost property and with an arduous process for reclaiming their Bhutanese citizenship. Another 24.5 percent were categorized as non-Bhutaneseutterly stateless. Finally, 3 percent were categorized as criminalsusually as a result of the nonviolent expression of their political beliefs, who presumably would be subject to arrest upon return.
Bhutans attempts to limit the unconditional right of return to people in category 1 violate its obligations under international law. Regarding the people in category 2, Bhutanese who are deemed to have left Bhutan voluntarily, Bhutan argues that these people have renounced their Bhutanese citizenship. However, the circumstances surrounding peoples departure from Bhutan in the early 1990s make clear that, far from leaving voluntarily, Nepali speakers were either forced to leave, or felt compelled to leave the country to avoid harassment, physical abuse, and imprisonment. There is, thus, no basis for distinguishing between people in categories 1 and 2: they should all be allowed to exercise their right to return to Bhutan should they so wish and have their status as citizens of Bhutan restored to them with immediate effect.
Most refugees we spoke with initially said that their first choice was to return, and many stuck to that as the only acceptable solution. But they differ on the terms and conditions of return. And they differ on how much longer they can wait for repatriation. Many refugees expressed their concern about the current conditions for ethnic Nepalis in Bhutanand the implications of this for their own repatriation.
For the most part, refugee children told us they are not set on a particular solution, but do not want to remain in limbo any longer. A young man expressed his frustration, saying, I cannot live in the camp any more. I will go to any country where they will give me citizenship, even if it is Afghanistan.4 Parents also fret about their childrens future. One man said, We want to live in an atmosphere where we can eat our own bread earned from our own sweat Half our lives have been spent as refugees. We dont want that tag on our childrens forehead. We want them to be proud citizens.5
Many children and young adults whom we interviewed consistently said that their true desire was to be restored to the status of full citizens with full respect for their political, civil, economic, social, and cultural rights. A refugee student said, I feel that even if we go back to Bhutan, since the Bhutanese government is not interested, they will oppress us. Because of that fear, we dont want to go back. We will not be given any citizens rights in Bhutan.6 A young woman said: We want to go to our country. My motherland where I was born is precious to me. My family feels the same way. I want to go back to a Bhutan that is better than this. Until now, Bhutanese have been deprived of their rights. Men and women should be equal and free. If we go back to our motherland, I have the same hope for human rights.7
Ethnic Nepalis who managed to avoid expulsion and who remain inside Bhutan face persistent discrimination and ongoing threats to their citizenship status. Bhutanese Nepali speakers who still live in Bhutan told us that 15 years after the mass eviction of their fellow ethnic Nepalis, they continue to suffer discrimination in almost all aspects of their daily lives, including in education, health, employment, and land ownership. Some have been denied citizenship cards following the latest census in 2005 and are now effectively stateless in their own country.8
Following the unrest in southern Bhutan in the early 1990s, the government introduced No Objection Certificates (NOCs), which are issued by the police on the basis of confirmation from the dzongdag (district administrator) that the person in question is not in any way involved in anti-national activity.9 Under the current Bhutanese system, NOCs are required for enrollment in higher education, for employment with the civil service, to obtain business and trading licenses, for travel documents, for buying and selling land, and for selling some cash crops. Not having an NOC deprives a person of almost all means of earning a living. While Drukpas routinely receive NOCs, ethnic Nepalis experience great difficulties, particularly if they are known to have relatives in the refugee camps in Nepal.
One ethnic Nepali student from Bhutan who had no NOC and who had gone to India to go to college said, The NOC is crucial. Without an NOC we get no government jobs, no promotions. Even some private sector people ask for the NOC. My parents are really worried that I will not get a job. It is very hard for us to get jobs, particularly white-collar jobs.10
Without documents, their situation in Bhutan is so difficult that some ethnic Nepalis living in Bhutan told us that even if they are not going to be forced out of the country, they might have to leave at some point in the future simply because they will not be able to survive.
Discrimination in the Right to Education (art. 28)
There is no instruction in the Nepali language, even in schools in the southern districts: only Dzongkha and English are taught. Ethnic Nepalis are still expected to wear the traditional Drukpa clothes (gho for males, kira for females) in schools and other public places, as stipulated by the kings 1989 decree of driglam namzha.12
As a result, a number of Bhutanese families appear to resort to educating their children privately. One man living in India said that after he took part in the protests, one of his brothers who was living elsewhere managed to remain in Bhutan. But he does not have an NOC. His children are in private schools in India because they could not be admitted into government schools. They did not get an NOC. My brother says that because of you, there is so much trouble for us.13
Children of one national and one non-national parent are not identified as Bhutanese citizens. One woman, category F7, who is married to a man from category F1, said that she was worried about her sons future because her son, despite his fathers citizenship, was not given an NOC for admission into school. Couples are fighting. If they marry across categories, there is a problem. They blame each other if their child does not get admission That is the first thing they ask each other now, before they decide on marriage.14
Because an NOC is required to enroll in higher education, ethnic Nepalis are often unable to attend schools or colleges in Bhutan and, if they can afford it, seek higher education in India. But that still does not assure them jobs when they return to Bhutan.
There are very few health care facilities in the south, so in effect Nepali speakers are denied access to health care much of the time. This is true even for people with documents. Bhutanese citizens said they go to private doctors in India for healthcare. But this can be expensive, and only those that can afford it, therefore, have access to medical treatment.
Ethnic Nepalis also face discrimination with respect to land ownership. Among other things, this can result in children being denied the inheritance of their familys property. Buying and selling land requires an NOC. Moreover, government guidelines for a nationwide land survey state that any land that is registered in the name of a non-national is liable to confiscation by the government. This is a major concern for those people who were denied registration in the 2005 census and who have not been given a new citizenship card. As one man said, If only one member in a family is F1, all property is registered in his name. When he dies, the property will not be transferred to his family members, but it will be confiscated by the government. It is written in the Land Act.15 Another man stated, Suppose I am F1 and I marry a foreigner. Our child would be F4 and the child would not inherit my property. The property would go to the Bhutanese government.16
Denial of the Right of Ethnic or Linguistic Minorities to Enjoy Their Own Culture and Use Their Own Language (art. 30)
The Bhutanese one nation, one people decree imposes the northern Drukpa tradition, including food habits, dress code, and customs, upon the entire population. Every Bhutanese citizen is expected to wear traditional Drukpa clothes: gho for males and kira for women. Bhutanese people who live in the southern areas, most of them ethnic Nepalis, find these clothes unsuitable for warmer climate. Kolu Mai Maar, a 60-year-old woman who ended up as a refugee in India, remembers that the wearing of kira was particularly troublesome. When I was in Bhutan, they used to force us to wear kiras. I did not know how to wear them and tie the knots. But if we did not wear the kiras the police troubled us I would prefer to stay at home than wear those uncomfortable clothes.17
Ethnic Nepalis are Hindus unlike the Buddhist Drukpas. Some students complained that government-run hostels for children did not accommodate Hindu food requirements. A Bhutanese refugee in India named Durga Nepal said that he was expelled from college in 1989 because he had refused to eat beef.
In February 1989, the government removed the Nepali language from the curriculum in all schools in southern Bhutan. Since then, only Dzongkha and English are taught. A former journalist told Human Rights Watch, No Nepali is taught in schools any more. And if a child speaks Nepali, some schools fine the child.19
Sexual Violence and Other Human Rights Abuses Against Girls and Women by Bhutanese Police and Army in the 1990s (arts. 2, 19)
Although Human Rights Watch has not recently investigated sexual violence in Bhutan, we have interviewed refugees who suffered sexual violence and other serious rights violations during the forced deportations in the early 1990s. Some of these violations occurred when the individuals were children. Responsibility for these abuses lay with the Bhutanese police and army, who were often acting to enforce the policies of government officials, including village heads, block-level administrators, and district officers. When their husbands or other relatives fled the country, women were often punished or threatened, including with arrest, because the whole family was labeled anti-national. Female heads of household, disabled women, and girls, often more vulnerable because of their status in society, were among those abused.
A young woman told Human Rights Watch that Bhutanese police raped her in the early 1990s in the course of the campaign against ethnic Nepalis. She said, The police took my family and accused us of having connections with Indians. I said yes, we have connections with them because we live close to the border. And then the officer raped me. I was 13 years old at the time. They raped me three or four times a day for seven days. They had taken me from my house along with two other girls, my aunts daughter, and daughter-in-law. After that, we didnt feel like staying there. I felt my life was at risk.20
Bhutanese refugees, particularly girls, remain at risk because of the governments refusal to protect their right to return. Extensive social awareness campaigns have provided refugee girls and women with a better understanding of their rights, and also raised awareness among refugee men about their responsibilities. Despite these positive developments, the threat of sexual and domestic violence remains high. Refugee women in the camps in Nepal said that the worsening conditions had resulted in strains on families that were contributing to domestic violence.21 Some women said that they did not make use of the reporting mechanisms in the camps for fear that the men would retaliate with even more violence if they realized they had been reported. Many refugee girls and women also fear sexual violence in the camps, particularly if they are on their own. One young woman said, Sometimes when we walk at night it is dangerous. There are difficulties inside and outside the camp. It is not safe to walk alone at night.22
1 Human Rights Watch interview with camp secretary Parshuram Nepal, Timai refugee camp, Nepal, November 16, 2006.
2 Human Rights Watch interview with the secretary of the Bhutanese Refugee Women Forum, Beldangi camp, Nepal, November 12, 2006.
3 Human Rights Watch interview, Sanischare camp, Nepal, November 14, 2006.
4 Human Rights Watch interview, Birtamod, Nepal, November 18, 2006.
5 Human Rights Watch interview, Beldangi I camp, Nepal, November 13, 2006.
6 Human Rights Watch interview, Kalimpong, India, November 22, 2006.
7 Human Rights Watch interview, Goldhap camp, Nepal, November 12, 2006.
8 Under Bhutanese law, Bhutanese citizens are divided into seven different categories:
9 Tessa Piper, The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern Bhutan, April 1, 1995, http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDCOI/3ae6a6c08.html (accessed January 24, 2007), sec. 5.3.
10 Human Rights Watch interview with ethnic Nepali living in Bhutan, details withheld.
11 Human Rights Watch interview, with ethnic Nepali living in Bhutan, details withheld, November 25, 2006.
12 Human Rights Watch interview with ethnic Nepali living in Bhutan, details withheld.
13 Human Rights Watch interview, details withheld, November 24, 2006.
14 Human Rights Watch interview with ethnic Nepali woman, details withheld, November 24, 2006.
15 Human Rights Watch interview with ethnic Nepali living in Bhutan, details withheld.
16 Human Rights Watch interview with ethnic Nepali living in Bhutan, details withheld.
17 Human Rights Watch interview with Kolu Mai Magar, Murey Forest Basti, Darjeeling District, West Bengal, India, November 11, 2006.
18 Human Rights Watch interview, Gariba, India, November 23, 2006.
19 Human Rights Watch interview, details withheld, November 25, 2006.
20 Human Rights Watch interview with a young woman, Bhutanese refugee camp, Nepal, March 28, 2003.
21 Human Rights Watch interview with the secretary of the Bhutanese Refugee Women Forum, Beldangi I camp, Nepal, November 13, 2006.
22 Human Rights Watch interview, Beldangi I, Nepal, November 13, 2006.