The world should stand for Bhutanese refugees’ rights

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.