Submit your Article

The predicament of Bhutanese political prisoners raises profound questions about human dignity and the international community’s role in safeguarding human rights.What could be the primary need of these political prisoners: Food, clothing, shelter, or their very identity? How might people feel when they have no home to claim in the entire world? How would they feel when, after spending years in prison as criminals in their own country, they find they have no family to connect with and no place to call home? How might they feel upon discovering they have lost their family members while in prison, leaving them with no one to call their own? 

This is the reality of political prisoners in Bhutan.

Bhutan has declared itself the happiest nation on Earth on the basis of its Gross National Happiness index (GNH). What an irony: On the one hand, it has forcibly removed and is still expelling its political prisoners, while on the other, it uses GNH as a soft power to obscure its country's violations of human rights. Bhutan's 1992 National Security Act (NSA), which replaced the 1957 statute, is used to hold a large number of political prisoners. The Chamgang jail, for example, is intended to house political prisoners in accordance with Bhutan’s 2009 Jail Act. The political detainees, however, have been found in Rabuna and there may be more, as the Bhutanese government does not disclose the number of political prisoners.

Bhutan’s nation-building efforts in the late 1980s and early 1990s were dominated politically by the Buddhist ethnic majority, who enacted policies that disadvantaged the country’s largest minority, the Nepali-speaking Hindus. Accusing nonviolent political and anti-discrimination campaigners of violating national security laws, Bhutanese courts imposed lengthy sentences on them. Many of the defendants in these cases, which date back to when Bhutan changed from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy in 2008, are currently serving lengthy prison terms, some of which are life sentences. While some political prisoners have received amnesty, a large number are still behind bars and the number is unknown. Those who are freed confront enormous obstacles: They are driven into exile and are unable to reintegrate into their country; they have experienced physical and psychological anguish; they are also devoid of identity and possessions.
Among these political prisoners are Madhukar Magar, Ram Bahadur Rai and Man Bahadur Khaling Rai, who, after years in Bhutanese prisons, were released and entered Nepal via Mechipul after being left at the Indian border (Jaigaon). The Indian administration has facilitated Bhutan by transporting refugees to the eastern Nepal border. This situation aggravates the plight of these political prisoners, as Bhutan’s expulsion and denial of their citizenship contravenes Article 15 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, “Everyone has the right to a nationality”.

Bhutan is subject to customary international human rights law, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though it is not a party to either the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. However, political prisoners were and are still forcibly removed from their homes, subjected to cruel trials, and tortured. So, is this the problem with the UDHR's non-binding nature? Or perhaps they ought to have been granted the rights in accordance with CIL?

From an early age, we are taught that human rights are universal, inalienable, and equal, inherent by virtue of our humanity. So why are Bhutanese political prisoners denied these rights? Is there a flaw in our understanding of human rights, or are they merely a constructive narrative? Why can't universally acknowledged human rights protect Bhutanese political prisoners, and who is responsible for their protection (R2P)?

When a state fails to safeguard its citizens, the international community is obligated by paragraph 139 of the Responsibility to Protect(R2P) to interfere through diplomatic and other peaceful measures. The United Nations, Freedom House, and Human Rights Watch have been exposing and denouncing Bhutan's abuses of human rights for years and the world is also aware of Bhutan's practice of forcibly transforming its Lhotsampa residents into illegal migrants and banishing them. Nepal has been housing hundreds of Bhutanese refugees for humanitarian reasons, as the nation is not a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Through the collaboration of UNHCR, IOM, and other agencies, over 100,000 refugees were resettled in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Europe. Roughly 7,000 refugees have remained in Nepal, notwithstanding the resettlement project.

The question of who will defend their rights  remains unanswered. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the ICC only has jurisdiction over offenses committed after July 1, 2002. Bhutan is not a party to the Rome Statute, and the human rights abuses took place prior to the Court's current purview. Cases involving refugees, who have been living in exile for extended periods of time—such as the Bhutanese—would not qualify. Comparably, only a state party can file a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the ICJ lacks personal jurisdiction, is unable to provide legal counsel and is unable to represent persons in court. 

Over the years, support for the Bhutanese refugees from international organizations like the ICRC, UNHCR has diminished. Despite the transition to democracy, the government of Bhutan still does not recognize the refugees as citizens and refuses to repatriate them.  The pursuit of justice in a domestic setting is impossible due to Bhutan's legal framework and its continuous reluctances. The international community must do every bit to secure the rights of Bhutanese political prisoners, who remain among the most exploited and forgotten victims of human rights violations.

This was the day Mazar fell, and it was now absolutely crystal clear to one and all that Kabul would be next! Just a few days earlier, Afghanistan’s infamous Bagram Air Base and its prison with 5,000 inmates fell to the  Taliban. The prisoners were all immediately recruited  by the Taliban. It did not need rocket science for anyone  to understand that Kabul was now in serious danger and  that nothing and nobody was safe and nobody could or  would save Kabul, least of all the international troops,  who were fast packing their bags and heading back  home leaving behind a chaotic, messy, poverty-stricken country!  

Since the morning, speculation was rife in the Serena breakfast area that Ghani would be making a public  address announcing a so-called peace deal or power sharing pact with the Taliban. This was also what I had  heard from the Indian embassy officials, who seemed to  be more concerned about my presence there than about  assessing the ground situation, which was changing every  second. They once again asked me to leave, catching the first flight available. But I did not want to as I felt it was  my responsibility towards my readers and my viewers  to tell them what was happening on the ground. Just like  the diplomats there, I was also doing my job. 

This was the day I completed a week in Afghanistan, and I was bombarded with emails, messages and DMs  thanking me for my reportage. People wanted more such  reports because the other media organizations that had  sent reporters to Afghanistan only showed the ‘war’ in  its full glory, some by getting embedded with Afghan  soldiers and some by making ‘connections’ with their  sources. One reader said I was the ‘only’ journalist  delivering hard-hitting and meaningful reports from  Afghanistan. These encouraging words from those  whom I had never met or seen gave me the inspiration to  carry on with what I intended to do there.  

Back at the Serena, I began to make plans to visit Kandahar. I thought Kandahar, after Mazar-i-Sharif,  would be a good place to report from. But unlike Mazar,  Kandahar looked immensely challenging since it had  fallen to the Taliban a few days back, on Aug 12. But I had one source who said he could help. I did not want to miss this opportunity for anything. But flights  to Kandahar were thinning out by then, so I planned to  travel by road. Thankfully, my cab driver agreed to take  me. One of his aunts stayed in Kandahar, and we planned  to stay the night there. 

Kandahar was the birthplace of the Taliban and the  place from where Mullah Omar had ruled at one time.  Post the takeover by the Taliban in Aug 2021, while Kabul remained the capital of Afghanistan, its ideological  and spiritual capital was Kandahar. Also, once again the history student in me started to speak. After all, Kandahar was founded by Alexander the Great in 330 BC. Having come all the way to Afghanistan, I did not want  to miss out on the opportunity to explore that city, which  was steeped in history. Mullah Muhammad Omar had  risen to power in 1996 when he proclaimed himself  to be the leader of the Taliban in a grand ceremony at  Kandahar’s most revered shrine and got the title of Amir ul-Momineen—the highest religious title in Islam.  

Just as I began to pack my bags, my mobile phone rang. It was Hekmatyar’s men again, and this time they  did not seem as serious as earlier and spoke with a smile  in their voice. They informed me that Hekmatyar had  agreed to give me an interview but I could not bring  my own camera or mojo kit. The interview would be  shot in his studio... Needless to say, I was shocked  at the offer, because Hekmatyar was known to be very conservative. But I was happy, of course. Happy would  be an understatement... I was thrilled.  

Being a lone journalist in Afghanistan, I was relieved that I wouldn’t have to bother with the lights, camera  and mics and that my work would happen seamlessly. But they had one condition—his team wanted to take me out to dinner for an ‘informal chat’. I agreed. I was ready  to get this interview at any cost, and they seemed decent and polite enough to be trusted. They said they would  pick me up from Serena at 5 pm. The venue would  be disclosed later. 

As soon as I finished with the conversation, I packed my bags and left for Kandahar, which was supposed to be a day’s trip from Kabul. I hurried up as I had to return to Kabul by 5 pm. Besides, it was impossible to  stay back there anyway as the situation was fast turning grim. We crossed Kabul, which was comparatively more crowded than on other days, and straightaway hit the Kabul–Ghazni Highway/AH-1 and reached a place called Kala in a little more than an hour. News was now trickling in that Nangarhar had fallen as the Governor of  the province had surrendered Jalalabad. So the Taliban  had captured yet another semi-urban province without a fight. 

This effectively meant that the Ghani government was now left with only Kabul. The capital of Afghanistan would be the next to fall. While nothing was yet  confirmed, I dialed a few scholars and journalist friends who said panic had already taken over at Arg Palace, but they also spoke with surety about the president making a public address and some ‘solution’ being  found. However, they were unanimous on one point—‘Come Back!’ They asked me to come back to Kabul. If  the capital city fell, they said, then all borders would be choked and I would be ‘lost somewhere in the mountains,  never to be found’. We reversed direction. My aborted Kandahar trip remains an incomplete chapter of my life, the unfulfilled dream of a reporter. Maybe someday it will come true. 

On our way back I tried calling some of the senior Taliban leaders based in Doha to get an assessment of the situation and to find out what their plans were  now; and most importantly, if there was really any ‘solution’ coming out of the talks that were going on  there. I once again tried to connect with the press team of Dr Abdullah Abdullah and Dr Karzai, but they all seemed to have vanished into thin air. Something was amiss, I thought. Finally, I managed to speak to a Taliban leader (name withheld). It was a two- or three-minute WhatsApp call. He said, ‘Madam, ab Kabul duur nahin’, with pride in his voice. I shuddered. But still, I did not want to return to India. History was playing out in front of my eyes. How could I leave all  that and come back... I felt guilty at the same time as my family, especially my son, were waiting for me back  home. But I knew that one day he would understand,  that one day he would draw courage from this, and that  one day he would also learn what journalism is. He  would know that his mother did not sit in a TV studio  or in some editorial meeting dishing out meaningless, inauthentic stories or screaming at the top of her lungs  to attract viewers and readers; she had been there in the  midst of what was happening and had tried to bring back as many real stories as possible. 

By the time I reached Serena it was evening, and I waited for Ghani’s address, like millions of others around  the world. Just then, news came in that the Taliban had  reached the gates of Kabul and were camping there, even as they vowed not to take power by force and would avoid bloodshed.  

Excerpts from the book ‘The Fall of Kabul: Despatches from Chaos’

In Nepal, there is a notable pattern: Whenever there is a change in the federal government, the provincial governments often follow suit. Coalition partners tend to mirror this pattern from the central level down to the provinces, contributing to ongoing political instability.

This phenomenon has created a ripple effect, where the lack of a stable federal government leads to instability at the provincial level, affecting governance and development projects across the country.

The root of this instability lies in the difficulty of securing a parliamentary majority for any single party. This fragmented political landscape forces parties into coalition governments, which are often tenuous and prone to collapse.

Federalism, rather than facilitating development and revenue generation, has become a costly endeavor, exacerbated by frequent political shifts. The promise of federalism to bring governance closer to the people and spur localized development has been overshadowed by these political uncertainties.

This situation underscores the urgency of finding a viable solution.

Some leaders believe that amending the constitution could address these challenges and provide a path forward. A more stable and inclusive political framework could help ensure that the benefits of federalism are realized without the current drawbacks of instability and inefficiency.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has already presented a seven-point agreement signed between the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML during a parliamentary session. The agreement, which led to the formation of the new government, was signed by PM Oli and NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba. The second point of the agreement addresses constitutional review and amendments, stating that the new government will assess the constitution’s performance, address its weaknesses, and make necessary amendments for political stability.

PM Oli has been actively advocating for this agenda. In a recent meeting with the delegation of the Nepal Bar Association, he stated that amending the constitution is not a regressive move. He urged them to trust the people’s mandate and reminded them that the constitution includes a provision for amendment if two-thirds of the parliamentarians support it. He questioned how they could view constitutional amendments as a threat to democracy, emphasizing that such changes are a natural part of a dynamic and responsive governance system.

It is said that to amend the constitution, the government of Pushpa Kamal Dahal was ousted, and the two largest parties in the parliament have joined forces. The UML and NC are reportedly seeking amendments in the electoral system and equation, the process and pattern of choosing people’s representatives, and a reevaluation of the inclusion system. These proposed changes aim to create a more equitable and efficient political process that can stop political instability.

Those leaders advocating for these changes must invite all political parties for open discussions and hold a series of roundtable meetings to reach a political consensus. Constitutional amendment is a regular process globally, and it can be achieved in Nepal as well. I too believe it has become necessary to amend the constitution. But it cannot be done solely based on the decisions of two leaders.

Whether it’s small parties, big parties, national parties, regional parties, or any agenda-based parties, each one should be heard and be part of the political consensus. Whether it be the party of Narayan Man Bijukchhe or Chitra Bahadur KC or Rajendra Lingden or Upendra Yadav or CK Raut, or even those outside the parliament—everyone must be included. This inclusivity is crucial to ensure that the amendments reflect a broad spectrum of interests and are sustainable.

To facilitate this, a Constitution Amendment Recommendation Commission should be formed to prepare a draft based on political consensus. The commission should be led by a person recognized by Nepal’s political movements, an expert on law and constitution, and accepted by all—such as former Chief Justice Gopal Parajuli. Such a commission would bring credibility and expertise to the process, helping to navigate the complex legal and political landscape.

We should also listen to our neighbors, but ultimately, we must do what our country and citizens need. While external perspectives can provide valuable insights, the primary focus should be on addressing the specific needs and aspirations of the Nepalis. Amendments or decisions made without consensus or by excluding any parties will not provide stability or be long-lasting.

Moreover, constitutional amendments can lead to anarchy if all recommendations are not included. This potential for discord highlights the importance of a comprehensive and inclusive approach. To minimize or avoid these challenges, political consensus is a must. Only through collaborative effort and mutual respect can Nepal achieve a stable and prosperous future.

The author, a member of the Supreme Court Bar, has been practicing corporate law for around three decades

Breastfeeding is an act of feeding an infant or a child directly from the mother’s breast. There are tons of benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and baby as it helps to tackle various serious cases in the long run. Breast milk contains optimal nutrition, which provides an essential amount of carbohydrates, proteins, fats and antibodies to protect against various infectious diseases. It is rich in antibodies and immunoglobulins, which support the immune system of a child. Breast milk is easily digestible as it helps to prevent various gastrointestinal disorders. Various researches have shown that breastfeed babies have lower risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancers, respiratory infections later in life. Breastfeeding contributes to newborns’ physical and mental development apart from acting as a natural contraceptive, which helps mothers in birth spacing. Breastfeeding creates a bonding between a mother and a child where they get connected emotionally. It is the cost-free source that benefits both the mother and the child. As a global public health recommendation, infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life.

World Breastfeeding Week is celebrated every Aug 1-7. The theme of Breastfeeding Week 2024 is ‘Closing the gap. Breastfeeding support for all.’ The theme guides us about the practices of breastfeeding and equal participation in supporting the mothers. This year’s theme is aimed at ensuring equitable access to breastfeeding support for all mothers and families, regardless of their socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, or location. According to the Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) 2022 report, 55 percent of children aged 0-23 months engaged in early initiation of breastfeeding whereas only 56 percent of children under six months were exclusively breastfeed. 

Looking at the table, we can observe that Nepal is not in a good phase as we need to work a lot and guide people about breastfeeding and its importance. The scenario is different today, due to modernization and working environment, mothers are more into work and children are suffering due to it. Maternity leave should be encouraged and the government as well as private sectors should be concerned about it. 

Investing in first 1,000 days

For mothers/primary caregivers of children aged 6-23 months, continue to breastfeed until your child is two years old, or beyond. Breast milk provides important nutrients, energy, and protection from illness and allergies, supporting healthy growth and development.

At six months, start feeding thick soft foods. Gradually introduce a variety of minced or mashed vegetables and egg/ fish/chicken/meat to enrich your baby’s porridge, feed fish/egg/chicken/meat at least once daily. Gradually increase the variety, frequency, amount and thickness of the food. For one year, give at least five food groups in every meal. 

Actively feed your baby. Avoid use of feeding bottles, gently and patiently encourage your baby to eat. Don’t force feed. Minimize other distractions.

Avoid giving young children sugary drinks and biscuits, tea, coffee, flavored milk, processed meat (such as sausages) or deep-fried foods.

ANC, PNC healthcare providers

• Routinely provide key messages and guidance at ANC and PNC contact points
• Be a positive model. Promote optimal dietary and feeding practices within the wider community

Pregnant and lactating women

• Eat a variety of foods every day from at least four food groups during pregnancy and lactation periods
• Before and during pregnancy, take folic acid and iron supplements, as recommended by the healthcare provider
• Eating fruits and vegetables and drinking water often helps reduce the risk of constipation from taking iron tablets

Up to six months after birth

• Put your baby to the breast immediately after birth
• Continue to feed only breast milk for the first six months of life
• Express your milk when you and your baby are separated following birth
• Breastfeed frequently when your baby demands, day and night, to build up your milk supply

Both the parents should be equally aware about the consequences of formula milk and also discuss time management skills. Father also plays an equal role in supporting the breastfeeding mother, he should know the importance of breastfeeding and how it impacts the health of his wife and a child. Family members play a crucial role in the health of the mother and the child, so they need to know about it and guide her if needed.

The author is nutritionist and dietician