 MIN RATNA BAJRACHARYA |
Nepali Times: What are your feelings as you depart?
Ratan Gazmere: I spent 17 out of my 51 years here. These were the prime years of my life. My family and I have friends here, we will miss Nepal.
Why have you now decided to leave for Australia?
Whatever we tried to do from Nepal for two long decades was not enough. Our fight for our right to return to Bhutan was not effective, so it is better to continue the battle from elsewhere. Australia has a record of concern for human rights, the environment will be more conducive to our struggle. Whatever we did here in Nepal was the best we could do.
What were your problems in Nepal?
We are grateful for the refuge provided to us, but the government here never got a handle on the Bhutan refugee issue. Kathmandu could never confront Thimphu, its biggest blunder being the acceptance of the four categories through which Bhutan sought to divide the refugees in the joint verification exercise. The relentless political instability here really affected our fight. In the first few years, the Lhotshampa issue at least provided an emotional tug. But after the start of the Maoist conflict, we disappeared from the radar screen.
What should Nepal have done?
The attempt at a bilateral engagement was a mistake, and this was done at Thimphu's behest. Nepal could not have succeeded in repatriating the refugees on its own, with India steadfastly behind Thimphu. Accepting the failure of its policy thus far, Nepal must now seek to become part of an internationalised effort for Bhutanese refugee repatriation. I find the Maoist-led government even less interested in our issue than previous ones.
How will Maoist activism affect the fight for democracy?
We cannot compare Nepal and Bhutan, and we must prevent the import of Maoism into Bhutan. The fight for change must be carried out from within Bhutan. The rise of Maoist activism among the Lhotshampa refugees would be very dangerous. Among other things, it would push New Delhi even closer towards Thimphu.
What would be Thimphu's own responsibility for what will happen?
Continuing to disregard the frustrations of the citizens of Bhutan will lead to an explosive situation, and there will be movements inside and outside. Thimphu has been cruel towards the refugees, whom it still refuses to term 'Bhutanese'. It continues to do so even though the trial verification at the Khundunabari camp, carried out according to the Bhutanese government's own requirements, proved that far more than 80 percent were Bhutanese citizens.
What were your last experiences in Bhutan?
When I saw the horrors of the Driglam Namza son-of-the-soil policy as it was imposed on the citizens of the south, I became active in the underground in the late 1980s. I helped prepare the main proclamation, 'Bhutan: We want justice'. I was taken in on 8 October 1989, kept incommunicado for two years, in handcuffs and shackles. But this was nothing compared to what some of the other prisoners suffered, including Tek Nath Rizal.
In the years that followed, were there weaknesses in the refugee leadership?
The biggest weakness of all was the misconception that democratic change can be implemented from outside our country. The political parties, like BPP and BNDP, insisted on no return without democracy, while some of us felt that we must seek a return regardless, to fight for human rights, citizenship, return of property and a repeal of Driglam Namza policies.
There was resistance to resettlement among the refugee leadership, wasn't there?
This is because the political leaders were committed to repatriation and because some felt resettlement in Western countries would weaken the cause. But later they understood the humanitarian urgency of allowing people to leave the camps, and some also came to feel that the fight for repatriation would actually be strengthened. Most of the political leaders?leaders of the BPP, the DNC, and associated organisations such as HUROB?are not going to resettle. They are going to stay back in Nepal, and the pressure from here will remain on Thimphu.
Will refugee activism weaken after resettlement?
Resettlement will be a strength and not a weakness. It does not take away our right to repatriation. Overseas, we refugees will be even more organised than here in Nepal, and we will prevail upon Thimphu. Of that I am sure. We have not left behind our property in Bhutan as a gift to the elites of Thimphu. We will return and claim it. Thimphu will not get away with their expulsion.
What is the situation of Lhotshampa and other minorities within Bhutan?
The situation is bad. Already, the Lhotshampa in southern Bhutan are facing so much pressure and so little protection. There is still a need for security clearance for every activity, and the settlement of northern Bhutanese on the lands of those evicted from the South is making the situation tense. Kuensel has ominously referred to 80,000 stateless among the southern population. All indications are that there will be further harm done in the near future. It will be like slow poison, and no one will know when the Lhotshampa exit to Bengal and Assam. If this second, silent exodus does take place, Bhutan will have succeeded in creating a monochromatic state.
How does the refugee resettlement programme affect the Lhotshampa who remain within Bhutan?
It may in fact have dangerous repercussions within Bhutan, as the regime seems bent on using resettlement as a means of further repression, to push people out. The governments offering resettlement must be mindful that with a reduced UNHCR presence and a closure of the refugee camps, a second exodus will be silent and unremarked. That is what Bhutan wants, so we must all be vigilant. The international community is morally bound to monitor conditions in southern Bhutan.
How do you evaluate the resettlement programme thus far?
While we are grateful to the governments that have reached out to us, there is a serious lack of transparency in IOM, which is the contractor engaged by UNHCR. The poor, confused refugees are being treated as if they were commodities. They are harassed and provided with inadequate information; their sense of dignity is affected.
Interview by Himali Dixit
