Talk:Immigration to Bhutan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Immigration in Bhutan

• The article deals with issues relating to the ethnic communities of Nepal. The factual presentation of the article are inaccurate at places UNHCR states that Lhotsampas have been staying in Bhutan from 19th century whereas the article states it to be of 20th century. After the recent revolution of Nepal, the ethnic communities have suddenly waken up from their peaceful dormant state to an aggressive form which can be attributed to some extent to the armed conflict of Maoists. The ethnic communities share feeling of kinship with the people who are "refugees" now. The tolerant nature of these ethnic groups had to a large extent prevented any ethnic clashed between the ethnic groups of Nepal and Druks. The article is biased and statements like

While the intent of the policy was benign and inclusive, the government not totally unreasonably, implied that the 'culture' to be preserved would be that of the northern Bhutanese. This policy therefore required citizens to wear the attire of the northern Bhutanese in public places and reinforced the status of Dzongkha as the national language. Nepali was discontinued as a subject in the schools thus bringing it at par with the status of the other languages of Bhutan, none of which are taught. Such policies were criticized at first by human rights groups as well as Bhutan's Nepalese economic migrant community, who perceived the policy to be directed against them. The Nepali immigrants claim that the Bhutanese are clinging to power at the expense of human rights, pluralism, and democratic principles. However many in Bhutan see the ethnic Nepali immigrants’ cry for pluralism and democracy as just an excuse to overwhelm and take over a lightly populated Bhutan through unrestricted immigration.

or

This act led to the increased activity of numerous groups to protest against what was seen as an injustice against resident Nepalis.

or

Thus a group of several thousand left and settled in refugee camps. The UNHCR aid provided to these people also attracted the poor from border areas of Nepal, who claimed to be refugees as well to receive aid

or

Matters reached a head in September 1990 after well organized groups comprised of 10,000 or more ethnic Nepalis from the Indian side of the border, organized protest marches in different districts, burned down schools, stripped local government officials of their national attire which they burned publicly, carried out kidnappings and murders of other ethnic Nepalis who did not join their protests. Some of the organizers of the marches were arrested and detained. However the Bhutanese government later released most of them. Those with ties to the groups responsible for the murders and kidnappings were forced to leave, but unfortunately many other innocent ethnic-Nepali citizens were coerced to leave by the angry ethnic-Nepali dissidents.

inflame and provoke the situation further. Considering the ethnic clashes, which are omnipresent in South Asia resulting poorly written and nonneutral articles like this, I propose that this article is either rewritten with a neutral point of view with references/source from United Nations and other such respeced global entities rather than some pro-Druk or pro-Lhotsampa or be deleted and kept in a deleted state till neutral point of view is established. I also would like to request the use of Lhotsampa rather than Nepali if this article is rewritten because the Bhutanese refugees are not Nepalese citizens. Its like calling John F Kennedy as Irish president.--Eukesh 20:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

agreed this article was written in essay style rather than in the proper wikipedia style. no need to delete it as i will add references and change inappropriate phrases or words. my interest is also to make a neutral page. anything better than the garbage already on the internet about this issue. 'lhotsampa' is not an appropriate term for the nepalese living in southern bhutan because 'lho' merely means 'south' and 'tshampa' refers to people living there. FYI, there are many northerners, easterns and people from the central bhutan who have been living for generations in the south who are also technically 'lhotsampas'. suggest a better term if you don't like 'nepali'. Divinemadman

• • First of all, please do not delete the content in the discussion page. It is not a good practice as there are many people who would like to keep track of development of the page who can do so by viewing the Discussion page. The term Lhotsampa is something which is used by global organizations like UNHCR and I have not coined the term myself. Hence, I consider it appropriate (Please read the welcome note an pages that it links to). Calling the people Nepalese or Nepali is a far outcry. These people do not have Nepalese citizenship. People of Nepalese origin have spread whole over South Asia and even abroad for centuries now. I have had my own Newar kins who visit Nepal after doing centuries of business in Kolkata, Lhasa, Kabul, Delhi, Kalimpong and there are people called "Lahures" who started serving in British Gurkha from Lahore after Anglo-Nepalese war. Besides, people of Nepalese origin and Nepalophonie form a significant popuation of West Bengal and Assam, where Nepali is one of the state languages. They call themselves as Gurkhas. Hence, the Lhotsampas might share kinship with the Nepalese ethnic groups but that does not mean that they are Nepalese. Its like calling John F Kennedy an Irish president or V.S. Naipaul as Nepalese writer. The problem of Bhutanese refugee is one of internal conflict of Bhutan. Nepal is helping Bhutan solve its problem by multiple level of talks and acceptance of refugees because it involves people of Nepalese origin. However, this should not be mistaken for the problem being one between Bhutan and Nepal. Hence, the use of the term Nepali in this article has to be changed. --Eukesh 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

UNHCR is not the expert on Bhutanese terms as proved by their misuse of that term. to use the term 'Lhotshampa' to refer to bhutanese of nepalese ethnicity is incorrect because of other ethnic groups who also live in southern bhutan. how about 'nepalese bhutanese' as in 'chinese american'? sound better? at least it is more accurate. you are also assuming (again)that there is absolutely no possibility of non-citizen nepalese living in bhutan or claiming to have been living in bhutan. how about 'illegal immigrants of nepali ethnicity'?

this is a quote from Leo Rose's article on Nepali ethnicity in the northest of india:

In the first three decades after independence, the relationship between the Nepali migrants and the various indigenous communities in the Northeast remained reasonably uncontentious, as they had been under the British Raj. Sikkim probably posed the most serious potential area of ethnic conflict in the immediate post-independence period as the Buddhist Bhotia Namgyal dynastic system faced a major challenge internally in 1948-49. In this instance however, it was several members of the Bhota/Lepcha elite families that organized a political movement since they had as good a claim to being the “sons of the soil” as anybody else, resisting the external control imposed over Darjeeling by those Bengali “outsiders” from Calcutta. And even in Sikkim, the Nepalis may not have been an indigenous community, but they had been there for several generations and were the majority community. But in the tribal hill states in the Northeast and, a few years later, in Bhutan the Nepali migrants became the target of local “sons of the soil” movements organized by the Drukpas in Bhutan and various tribal communities in the Northeast. One of the results of these sociopolitical changes in the environment in the Northeast was the decision of the Meghalaya government in the mid-1980s to expel most of the Nepalis from the lands they had cultivated in the lower hill areas of the state for about four decades. Under Prime Minister Nehru, the government of India had accepted the principle that the hill states in the Northeast should, in effect, “belong” to the tribals and that “outsiders should be allowed in only with their consent. By 1985, the Nepalis had been forced out of Meghalaya as well as the other hill states – Manipur and Nagaland – in which there were Nepali settlements in the areas just above the Assam Valley, some of which had been established during the British period. New Delhi did not object to this act by the tribal state governments even though it conflicted with the general principle in the Indian constitution that Indians (and virtually all of the Nepalis in the Northeast were Indian citizens) could settle any place in the country. What this really meant under GOI policy however was: anywhere but in Kashmir and tribal lands in the Northeast.

These developments in the tribal hill states in the mid-1980s eventually impacted negatively on the Nepali community (called Lhotsampas – southerners – by the Drukpas) in Bhutan, leading in 1990 to a major internal crisis within the country as well as in Bhutan-Nepal relations. Many of the Nepalis expelled from the tribal states in the Northeast as well as some Nepalis from Darjeeling who were caught on the losing side (pro-CPM, primarily) were related to Nepalis in Bhutan, or at least came from the same Nepali non-Bahun tribal ethnic communities. For these outcasts, to move back to Nepal after several decades in India made little sense as Nepal was even more overpopulated than when their families left the country, and Nepali migrants were coming out every year into India in fairly large numbers. Southern Bhutan, in contrast, was still comparatively underpopulated with land and other resources such as timber, available for development. It was hard to arrange legal admissions into Bhutan under Thimphu’s restrictive policies, but as the loca Nepali elite in southern Bhutan still ran this area pretty much on their own terms, it was not much of a problem to “legalize” or at least hide the residence of these recent Nepali migrants. This wave of illegal migrants was added to the large number of Nepalis who had entered Bhutan under contracts to do most of the work on infrastructural development projects in the 1960s and 1970s, and then stayed on – formally illegally but with the tacit consent of the government – once their contracts had expired as their services were still required if Bhutan’s economic development programs were to be implemented.

Divinemadman 03:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Abt various issues being discussed

About

UNHCR is not the expert on Bhutanese terms as proved by their misuse of that term. to use the term 'Lhotshampa' to refer to bhutanese of nepalese ethnicity is incorrect because of other ethnic groups who also live in southern bhutan.

• I would be glad if you could state this to UNHCR and make them change the terminology. They are the most respected global bodies representing this field. Most of the people know about this issue through them or learn from them. So, as per the verifiability criteria, I think this term is appropriate unless proven otherwise as I do not have any authority as an editor in wikipedia to introduce neologism to denote a standard terminology here.

About

how about 'nepalese bhutanese' as in 'chinese american'? sound better? at least it is more accurate. you are also assuming (again)that there is absolutely no possibility of non-citizen nepalese living in bhutan or claiming to have been living in bhutan. how about 'illegal immigrants of nepali ethnicity'?

• Nepalese Bhutanese may sound better to some but there are problems pertaining to it. Even by your own sandards, as you medtioned in Bhutanese refugee talk page, there are 15% of Bhutanese of Nepalese origin who are not affected by the conflict. This term is unsuitable even by your own terms and conditions as you can not be protesting about "Lhotsampa" in one hand and proposing "Nepalese Bhutanese" in the other. It is called biasing in general terms.
• I could not make out the sentence "you are also assuming (again)that there is absolutely no possibility of non-citizen nepalese living in bhutan or claiming to have been living in bhutan." Please rephrase it.
• As regards 'illegal immigrants of nepali ethnicity', the legal aspect of these refugees will be determined by UN and its related bodies. The "illegal" tag placed by Government of Bhutan is challenged by the claims of the refugees of being legitimate citizens of Bhutan. As Bhutan could not solve this problem and created a regional crisis involving its neighbouring states, the issue has been moderated and monitered by global organizations and their verdict counts for legitimacy. Hence, such a statement demonstrates an inclined point of view which is not allowed in wikipedia or any other civilized encyclopedia outside the realms of Bhutanese government. However, such a statement may be placed while quoting the Bhutanese Government side and should be placed in double quotes.
• About quotations from selected books, I have mentioned them in the discussion page of Bhutanese refugee. Please refer to the page. A person who is inclined to the refugee side may quote many such books and articles which are published by well known publishers which support their claim. It had already been discussed in your page to put the claims of both sides under two different headings and to put a neutral point of view from globally accepted bodies as the main focus.
• Specifically about the quotation under consideration, it does not provide any references to the data which the writer obtained before making such a claim which has been refuted by the refugee side who, on the other hand, have shown multiple proofs of them being Bhutanese, including their citizenship, in numerous instances. Hence, unless some recognized data are presented for the verification of the claims (eg: the people who have been driven from the North-Eastern states are the same people who, after failing to provide necessary documents or criteria accepted in civilized world for citizenship, were deported from Bhutan without any physical, mental or psychological assult/torture and were not forced in any manner considered offensive by standards compatible to human rights, as maintained by UN), the theory of the writer can be considered no more than a supporting reference to the Bhutanese Government point of view or maybe a progeny of it.--Eukesh 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[quote]..the refugee side who, on the other hand, have shown multiple proofs of them being Bhutanese, including their citizenship, in numerous instances. Hence, unless some recognized data are presented for the verification of the ..[/quote]

please show me your Nepal citizenship card. I will make a copy of it for you with my face on it, no problem. Will you accept me as a nepali citizen then?Divinemadman 12:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, if you can convince the UN and its bodies, human right groups from around the world, missionaries, INGOs etc., welcome to Nepal.--Eukesh 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

well that shouldn't be hard then. isn't the flashing about of forged and fake bhutanese ID cards the basis on which these organizations were so convinced? Divinemadman 03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I do not know what it takes for them to count as a justified case. This part of discussion that you started only gets personal and does not aid in the development of this article. If you have such a problem with these global bodies and their verification process, do something about that somewhere else. This is not the proper place for that. Please keep your attitude and point of view out of this website and post them in your blogs and forums.--Eukesh 04:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Should "Immigration problem" be pointing here?

More than Lhotshampas

There needs to be an Immigration in Bhutan page that is separate in content from the Bhutanese refugees page, and this should be easy enough to accomplish. There is a history of (im)migration in the region that became Bhutan that is much longer than what is indicated here. Rather, there appear to be at least four discrete instances of mass movement: 1. By the 600s, many Tibetan people had migrated into Bhutan; theretofore indigenous peoples such as the Monpa and Sharchop populated the region and practiced a pre-Buddhist religion. (Chapter 6 - Bhutan: Origins and Early Settlement, A.D. 600-1600) There is plenty to write about in regards to these migrants' motivations, conditions, and imported culture. Parallels with Sikkim might also be drawn. 2. By the early 20th century, many Nepalese (Lhotshampa) had migrated to the polity founded by Tibetans. Those who could demonstrate their residence in Bhutan through 1958 could obtain de jure citizenship. 3. In 1959, Bhutan granted refuge to several thousand refugees from Tibet in the wake of Chinese annexation. [1] 4. Since the 1960s, development projects, as well as development itself, attracted immigrants from India (and Nepal?). (I've read it on Wiki, but does anyone have a cite?)

These four mass movements are all significant in a country with a population whose historical peak is near 700,000. There could easily be a history section with each of these four movements as subsections, and probably a paragraph or two about the indigenous groups that existed before any (im)migration occurred. Whatever (sub)section deals with Lhotshampa should 1) direct the reader to the main articles (Lhotshampa; Bhutanese refuees), and 2) be BRIEF and avoid presenting sides in a modern, ongoing controversy.

Aside from history, most countries have an immigration/naturalization process, or at least laws about citizenship. Legal procedures, requirements, and de jure and de facto effects of immigration/naturalization should be covered. It seems Bhutan's current immigration policy could probably be described as assimilatory, given the apparent legal emphasis on cultural norms. I understand Bhutanese laws and decrees may be difficult to locate on the internet, but even references in Dzongkha (which I don't speak) would be helpful. I'll start making some of these changes soon, but it would be nice to have some help from readers of Dzongkha who have access to Bhutanese law. JFHJr (㊟) 09:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)