Talk:Bhutanese refugees

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled section[edit]

'ethnic cleansing' is not what happened in bhutan. please provide proof of it having occurred.

The statement of ethnic cleansing is based on report of UNHCR

During the 1980s, the Bhutanese authorities adopted a series of ethno-nationalist policies. In 1985, the government established new eligibility requirements for Bhutanese citizenship that effectively disenfranchized many ethnic Nepalis, depriving them of their citizenship and civil rights. In addition, the government introduced measures to enforce rigidly the Druk dress code and forbid the use of Nepali in the educational curriculum. Special permission was required for admission to schools and to sell cash crops.

When the Lhotshampa minority in southern Bhutan began to organize politically in the late 1980s to lobby against restrictive legislation, the authorities declared these activities subversive and unlawful. Some Lhotshampas became activists in the Bhutanese People's Party, which called for Bhutan's democratization. Large-scale protests broke out in 1990, resulting in violent clashes with the police and army and mass arrests.

The authorities increased their intimidation of the Lhotshampas in southern Bhutan by destroying their property and arbitrarily detaining and torturing activists. Individuals were forced to sign 'voluntary migration certificates' before being expelled from the country. In December 1990 the authorities announced that Lhotshampas who could not prove they were residents of the country before 1958 must leave. Consequently, tens of thousands of Lhotshampas were made stateless and fled to Nepal and the Indian state of West Bengal.

I found the term ethnic cleansing suitable as by definition:

  • "Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory" is stated in the locked article of ethnic cleansing of wikipedia.
  • Britannica Definition (from Answers.com)

"The creation of an ethnically homogenous geographic area through the elimination of unwanted ethnic groups by deportation, forcible displacement, or genocide."

so the daily deportation of thousands of one ethnic groups (mexicans) from along the US border back to mexico would be Ethnic cleansing...?

As per the reports of UNHCR and other global bodies linked in the article page, I think that the use of ethnic cleansing is justified. The term ethnic cleansing should however not be mistaken with genocide as genocide is a mere method of conducting ethnic cleansing. If the word ethnic cleansing is too offensive to some, please put it in <citation needed> after discussing it in the discussion page. Or "Forcible exile" can be placed in brackets along with ethnic cleansing like- ethnic cleansing (by forcible exile) as Amnesty International in its report titled "Bhutan: Forcible Exile"(AI Index - ASA 14/04/94 dated August 1994) has used the term forced exile (which by definition is a method of ethnic cleansing).

As this issue deals with volatile and has potentiality of ethnic strives and tension, I request the editors to please discuss the edits here with citation from internationally recognized bodies before making any changes. Thats the reason why I have reverted this article to the state where it was written with citation from UNHCR, Voice of America and Amnesty International who do not have any interests in this subject other than humanitarian. Thank you.--Eukesh 15:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for providing your definition which defines ethnic cleansing as the "displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory" or the "creation of an ethnically homogenous geographic area". Please then explain the presence of at least 15% of ethnic nepalese in bhutan who continue to live as legitimate and productive citizens of Bhutan? Does that make Bhutan 'ethnically homogenous"? With regard to the term 'forcible exile', how would you distinguish it from the daily deportation of thousands of people said to be from mexido by the US's border security or the Immigration and Naturalization Service? What is the difference?
If you cannot provide a proper answer, then I'm afraid you will not be the only one with the right to revert. Divinemadman 03:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definitions that are mentioned above are not my definition. I have stated the sources from which I had acquired them. The first one is the definition here in wikipedia. If someone has problem with that, it can be discussed in the same page. The second one has been obtained from Encyclopedia Britannica, a well established and globally recognized encyclopedia. The encyclopedia can be concerned in case someone has problems with the definitions that they provided.
  • In ethnic cleansing, generally, not all people can be displaced from a particular territory even when tried very hard. Slovodan Milosevic couldnt do it in Yugoslavia, the ethnic cleansing of Bangaladesh (which has about the same percentage of Hindus there as people of Nepalese origin in Bhutan) by various organizations have not resulted in complete expulsion, neither was such a feat achieved by even Hitler when dealing with Jews, gypsies and other minorities. So, a proportion of people of Nepalese origin might still be living in Bhutan but that does not mean that the actions carried out were not ethnic cleansing.
  • The expulsion of that huge proportion of people of Nepalese origin has created a society which is relatively more homogenous. The issue under consideration is not all or none phenomenon but a relative phenomenon. Even the execution and persecution of a single person makes a place more homogenous.
  • Difference between Mexico/US and Bhutanese refugee/Bhutanese government case
    1. US government did not form a "one nation one culture" policy which deprived the people of Mexican origin from studying in their mothertongue or wearing the dress which they prefer. In case of Bhutan people who formed a sizable mass were forced into alien culture and those who resisted it were tortured and harassed before they were exiled (claimed by refugees) or they left (claimed by Bhutanese Government). This is in relation to the intention/motivating factor.
    2. It is still under study and debate as to whether the refugees are non-Bhutanese as the Government of Bhutan claims or whether they are citizens of Bhutan as the refugees claim. The Mexicans are illegal immigrants which is accepted by both the parties.
but it is also possible for the mexicans to claim they have no citizenship documents of either country and that they are originally from the US. this is what is happening in the bhutan india border where the majority have no papers.

Besides, I do not know much about US/Mexico conflict to comment much about it. Like I said already, if you find these definitions flawed or want to know more about US/Mexico situation, please refer to the respective pages and sites as it is not upto me to create, modify and limit those terms, I just use those terms where they are appropriate under verifiable information. I am here to create encyclopedia with verifiable information, not to interpret stuffs as there are experts like UNHCR or other globally recogized bodies to do that.

I have never doubted the right to revert of any user. However, as this is a very conflicted and violence-prone subject, please do not write something without sources or with sources other than globally accepted organizations or bodies even if you consider them flawed personally. The place to make any modification of the flaws of international bodies like UNHCR is in their site or in their office. If they acknowledge your claim and make the changes that you desired, then you can cite them and place them here. Please do not cite from books which have been written without proper reference to data accepted by global organizations. Such types of references can be used if you wish to put them in Bhutanese Government's Point of View or Refugee's point of view and not as generally accepted facts. There are many other issues and matters pertaining to this topic on which I would like to discuss before edition of the article is done. However, I acutely need to take a wikibreak as I have some exams to take. So, for the moment being, please keep this project as it is and lets work on it after 3 weeks. Thank you. --Eukesh 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can’t give a definition one day and then add a bunch of qualifiers the next day. In your original definition, it say ‘ethnic homogeneity’, and now you add your opinion that not all of them have to have been kicked to be ‘ethnic cleansing’. And please, don’t even raise milosovic’s name in the discussion about Bhutan. You will not find a single mass grave in Bhutan. You will also not meet a single person, even from those in the camps, who have missing relatives unaccounted for.
And listen to your logic. “…but that does not mean that the actions were not ethnic cleansing’. May be, but maybe there are some other possibilities in addition to ‘ethnic cleansing’. Maybe the fact that 15% Nepalese still live in bhutan legally is because the government from the beginning targeted only the illegal ones? That it was a legitimate census exercise? Why is that not a possibility to your mind?
You argue that the Nepalese were ‘forced into an alien culture’ because of the driglam namzha policy, ie, wearing the gho and kira and speaking dzongkha. In reality, it was the census exercise that was the real cause. It was because they were going to be deported that they politicised the whole thing and claimed their culture was being repressed confusing to the world the distinction being made between legal and illegal residents of bhutan. It was convenient to say that at that time. Much later, when they were in the camps and wanted to show that they were ‘genuine’ Bhutanese, they themselves starting wearing gho and kira in the camps and even speaking their broken dzongkha for the UN officials consumption. Convenient again. I think they (and you) need to take a position and stick to it and not flip flop at your convenience.
Regarding the Mexican immigrants, the fact is that the INS does not stop to check how long a Mexican has been in the US. They catch them and throw them out, end of story. If you remember there was movie (a comedy, I forget the name) where some legal Mexicans were chucked out and couldn’t come back to US and ended up teaching English to would-be illegal immigrants near the border. This might have been a comedy but it is a reality. The reason why this is not under ‘debate’ between the US and Mexico is because the US is too powerful. Besides it is a sensitive political issue in US politics. Just because the Nepal government wants to debate the issue does not legitimize a single illegal immigrant.
Lastly, let me comment on your rather superior position on citations and the standards we must been here on wikipedia. I agree with that position. But just listen to yourself:

The biasness against these people began to develop in 1980s when the then absolute monarchist Government of Bhutan discovered in a census that the Druk population were slightly larger than the Lhotsampa population and that the population growth rate of Lhotsampa was greater than that of Druks

‘biasness’? that does not even meet high school english standards, forget wikipedias.
‘absolute monarchist government’? ‘medievally ruled autocratic Government’? clearly your own ‘biasness’ is showing. You are also forgetting the institutions of a democracy such as the National assembly, DYT, GYT etc that have been installed over the years. Even before the announcement of our King’s decision to step down. Maybe it’s not yet a democracy, but certainly not ‘absolute’. And where is your famous citation about the population and the growth rate? And what is a Druks? Is it an ethnic group, a religion?

Hence, in 1985, the Government passed out a new Citizenship Act which prevented many of the Lhotsampa from being recognized as Bhutanese nationals. To reinforce this movement, the Government forced the use of Druk dress and etiquette and closed down Nepalese schools and curriculum

What was new in the 1985 citizenship act to which you are referring on which the evictions were based? Please quote one new clause that made it fundamentally different from the 1958 Act. Citation needed please. Really? were there Nepalese schools in bhutan? I’m not aware of any, please provide a citation.

The awareness of Human Rights among the Lhotsampa popuation could also have led to the expulsion of the people from the medievally ruled autocratic Government

Objection, your honour: Speculation! Besides, as per wikipedia rules, this page is not intended for ‘original research’, however speculative it maybe.
About UNHCR – if it is really a valid accusation for UNCHR to find Bhutan guilty of ethnic cleansing, something that the international organizations were up in arms about in the early 1990s, how come they’ve calmed down so much? How come they’re all still here in bhutan, still giving so much money? Many fellow-UN organizations such as the UNDP, UNIDO, UNFPA, UNV, WFP, WHO etc etc are all very much here. Shouldn’t there be an outcry about that? and if they ever do leave, it will not be because they have confirmed that ethnic cleansing happened, but because of the now much talked about transition of Bhutan from the lowest level in their range, to a country with a much higher income level that is no long eligible for aid. The same goes for other aid organizations such as DANIDA, SNV, VSA/.VSO, JiCA, ACB, etc. The US and other countries are willing to take most of the refugees and haven’t even hinted that the donor agencies should still try to pressure Bhutan. Maybe, just maybe, they don’t believe the claims of the refugees.
Quite clearly, you are one of those Nepalese who has already made up his mind on this issue. I have met many like you all over the place. The one thing I’ve learned is, that mind is made up and closed. So it is futile to try to have a meaningful debate.
So my suggestion is this, you keep your page I’ll keep mine. You say whatever you like on the Bhutanese Refugee page. I will make my own and have my view there. We can see later which page has more substance and more credible citations. How’s that?

Response[edit]

  • First of all, please stop making personal accusitions and try to control your attitude, contempt and temper which is clearly illustrated in the lack of etiquette in your posts. These gestures make matters worse and not better. However, i would like to thank and congratulate you on some progress that you made in your posts which were necessary for the development of the article.

Now lets discuss.

About:

Well you can’t give a definition one day and then add a bunch of qualifiers the next day. In your original definition, it say ‘ethnic homogeneity’, and now you add your opinion that not all of them have to have been kicked to be ‘ethnic cleansing’. And please, don’t even raise milosovic’s name in the discussion about Bhutan. You will not find a single mass grave in Bhutan. You will also not meet a single person, even from those in the camps, who have missing relatives unaccounted for.

  • The issue of Milosevic was raised to illustrate that even after the sad persecution/genocide which is the worst form of ethnic cleansing, he was not able to form a place totally devoid of other ethnic groups. It had no intension whatsoever to imply that genocide was performed in Bhutan. Hence, as what happened in Yugoslavia is considered an ethnic cleansing (performed through genocide) by global community, the "ethnically homogenous geographic area" part of definition is a relative phenomenon rather than an absolute phenomenon. However, if you are still not convinced about it, you can contact encyclopedia Brittanica to put up your views and make necessary adjustments in the definition there.
  • About

And listen to your logic. “…but that does not mean that the actions were not ethnic cleansing’. May be, but maybe there are some other possibilities in addition to ‘ethnic cleansing’. Maybe the fact that 15% Nepalese still live in bhutan legally is because the government from the beginning targeted only the illegal ones? That it was a legitimate census exercise? Why is that not a possibility to your mind?

  • The issues that you raise are a very justifiable and I would like to thank you for reminding me about them. I strongly consider them as a possibility in my mind. However, the things which I consider as a possibility are not necessarily accpetable as facts. Please provide me with a citation from a globally accepted organization verifying what we (you and I) consider as a possiblity, then either of us could edit the page with inclusion of the verified possibility.


  • About

You argue that the Nepalese were ‘forced into an alien culture’ because of the driglam namzha policy, ie, wearing the gho and kira and speaking dzongkha. In reality, it was the census exercise that was the real cause. It was because they were going to be deported that they politicised the whole thing and claimed their culture was being repressed confusing to the world the distinction being made between legal and illegal residents of bhutan. It was convenient to say that at that time. Much later, when they were in the camps and wanted to show that they were ‘genuine’ Bhutanese, they themselves starting wearing gho and kira in the camps and even speaking their broken dzongkha for the UN officials consumption. Convenient again. I think they (and you) need to take a position and stick to it and not flip flop at your convenience.

  • I have never said that Nepalese were forced. I have placed UNHCR report that says that Lhotsampas/Bhutanese were forced. I think that you have a lot of firsthand experience and feelings associated with in matter. If what you said is what has happened, I am touched by it. However, it is not for me to decide what can be included and what cannot be included in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs verifiability and personal experiences do not count as verifiable in issues which are conflicted. So, please put up some accepted citations in the above statement of yours.

About the last line i.e. "I think they (and you) need to take a position and stick to it and not flip flop at your convenience." specifically concerning me, well thank you for your suggestions. I just wish I could stick to my position. Unfortunately, I do not have a position other than that of a wikipedian. I am not here to profesize a certain point of view, neither am I here to run for Prime Minister of Bhutan or some ethnic Nepalese Party somewhere around the globe. Hence, I cannot take up a position and shift my position to accomodate and accept what the globally accepted bodies have stated. Sorry for the inconvenience and for not being able to comply to your requests but that is some feature which a wikipedian has to maintain.

  • About

Regarding the Mexican immigrants, the fact is that the INS does not stop to check how long a Mexican has been in the US. They catch them and throw them out, end of story. If you remember there was movie (a comedy, I forget the name) where some legal Mexicans were chucked out and couldn’t come back to US and ended up teaching English to would-be illegal immigrants near the border. This might have been a comedy but it is a reality. The reason why this is not under ‘debate’ between the US and Mexico is because the US is too powerful. Besides it is a sensitive political issue in US politics. Just because the Nepal government wants to debate the issue does not legitimize a single illegal immigrant.

  • Thanks a lot for your information about Mexico and US. Please suggest this policy and example to UNHCR, CWIN, WHO and various human right organizations working for the people in refugee camp and tell them to force Nepal Government to end this debate. Yaa, and before its too late please suggest the same to US before they take up 60,000 of those people living in refugee camps and stop the Canadians, Aussies and some European nations as well who are about to take away those people. I would really appreciate that. If they all comply, I will include the same with what has occured till date in this page of wikipedia. Let me just edit my page with what the global bodies in the field consider as their version of story. About the movie, please write about it in your blog page and please provide me with your blog address, I am really interested in such movies.
  • About the reversion, it was not done because the initial page was entirely correct but because the later editions were biased. So, I wanted to discuss a few points which would guide the further development of the article.

Now, finally after all that gibberish and ego-demonstration, here is something that has been done constructively i.e. criticism of what I wrote. I would like Divinemadman to congratuate that he reached this point and would like to thank him for the constructive efforts made in quoting and correcting me by quoting my edits.

Lastly, let me comment on your rather superior position on citations and the standards we must been here on wikipedia. I agree with that position. But just listen to yourself: The biasness against these people began to develop in 1980s when the then absolute monarchist Government of Bhutan discovered in a census that the Druk population were slightly larger than the Lhotsampa population and that the population growth rate of Lhotsampa was greater than that of Druks

‘biasness’? that does not even meet high school english standards, forget wikipedias.

  • Please pardon me for my inefficiencies in the use of English. I was not born in Anglophonie part of the world. English is my fifth language (or sixth if you consider Hindi and Urdu as separate). But, I did pass CBSE (one of the most recognized Indian Board) high school exams with distinction marks and was in A1 percentile. So, if you have problems with CBSE producing such a low quality English users, please ask their central office in New Delhi to improve their standards. In the mean time please suggest me some tips to improve my English and make it upto the wikipedia standards.
  • About

‘absolute monarchist government’? ‘medievally ruled autocratic Government’? clearly your own ‘biasness’ is showing. You are also forgetting the institutions of a democracy such as the National assembly, DYT, GYT etc that have been installed over the years. Even before the announcement of our King’s decision to step down. Maybe it’s not yet a democracy, but certainly not ‘absolute’.

  • Well, we can discuss a lot about the monarchial system in Bhutan. This is neither the place and nor the time to do that. Its good that you accepted that its not a democracy. If you consider the term 'absolute' controversial here, I am willing to stop its use here as the central issue is not the Monarchy of Bhutan in this page. Btw, I did not know that the term biasness is so cool and usable that even the one who questioned my command over English is ready to use it. In case it gets into the English dictionary, please refer my name as the one who coined the term.
  • About

Hence, in 1985, the Government passed out a new Citizenship Act which prevented many of the Lhotsampa from being recognized as Bhutanese nationals. To reinforce this movement, the Government forced the use of Druk dress and etiquette and closed down Nepalese schools and curriculum

What was new in the 1985 citizenship act to which you are referring on which the evictions were based? Please quote one new clause that made it fundamentally different from the 1958 Act. Citation needed please. Really? were there Nepalese schools in bhutan? I’m not aware of any, please provide a citation

The Lhotshampas are descendents of Nepalese who moved to the southern lowlands of Bhutan in the nineteenth century. The Hindu Lhotshampas remained largely unintegrated with Bhutan's Buddhist Druk majority. However, under Bhutan's Nationality Law of 1958 they were allowed to hold government jobs and enjoy Bhutanese citizenship. By the 1980s, however, Bhutan's king and the ruling Druk majority expressed concern over the rapidly growing Lhotshampa population. The 1988 census revealed that Bhutan's population was 48 per cent Buddhist, 45 per cent Nepali and 7 per cent 'other'. Concerned about the influx of Nepali migrants into Bhutan and the higher birth rate of the Lhotshampas, the Druks feared that this demographic shift threatened their privileged position and traditional Buddhist culture. During the 1980s, the Bhutanese authorities adopted a series of ethno-nationalist policies. In 1985, the government established new eligibility requirements for Bhutanese citizenship that effectively disenfranchized many ethnic Nepalis, depriving them of their citizenship and civil rights. In addition, the government introduced measures to enforce rigidly the Druk dress code and forbid the use of Nepali in the educational curriculum. Special permission was required for admission to schools and to sell cash crops.

  • If some one finds this report flawed, please report to UNHCR and not to this page.
the UNHCR cannot seem to distinguish the problem as an immigration problem from a political problem. they never had any entrance interviews for the refugees. they offered $5/day per refugee in a place where people earn less than $1. So it was no surprise that after their offer, the 'refugee' population ballooned from 5000 to 100,000 in 3 months. they still have not taken responsibility for this.
  • About:

The awareness of Human Rights among the Lhotsampa popuation could also have led to the expulsion of the people from the medievally ruled autocratic Government

Objection, your honour: Speculation! Besides, as per wikipedia rules, this page is not intended for ‘original research’, however speculative it maybe.

  • This pertains to the part of Government of Bhutan and its policies which are not exactly central to the theme. If this line is so offensive to a fellow wikipedian that, s/he out of hysteria, shock or something like that (in my speculation), forgets that this is wikipedia discussion page and not a courthouse, it can be omitted from this page. No big deal.
  • About:

About UNHCR – if it is really a valid accusation for UNCHR to find Bhutan guilty of ethnic cleansing, something that the international organizations were up in arms about in the early 1990s, how come they’ve calmed down so much? How come they’re all still here in bhutan, still giving so much money? Many fellow-UN organizations such as the UNDP, UNIDO, UNFPA, UNV, WFP, WHO etc etc are all very much here. Shouldn’t there be an outcry about that? and if they ever do leave, it will not be because they have confirmed that ethnic cleansing happened, but because of the now much talked about transition of Bhutan from the lowest level in their range, to a country with a much higher income level that is no long eligible for aid. The same goes for other aid organizations such as DANIDA, SNV, VSA/.VSO, JiCA, ACB, etc. The US and other countries are willing to take most of the refugees and haven’t even hinted that the donor agencies should still try to pressure Bhutan. Maybe, just maybe, they don’t believe the claims of the refugees.

  • Well, I do hope that Bhutan becomes a country of higher economic level as you dream and talk. I really hate to state this but here is what CIA has to say:

The economy, one of the world's smallest and least developed, is based on agriculture and forestry, which provide the main livelihood for more than 90% of the population. Agriculture consists largely of subsistence farming and animal husbandry. Rugged mountains dominate the terrain and make the building of roads and other infrastructure difficult and expensive. The economy is closely aligned with India's through strong trade and monetary links and dependence on India's financial assistance. The industrial sector is technologically backward, with most production of the cottage industry type. Most development projects, such as road construction, rely on Indian migrant labor. Bhutan's hydropower potential and its attraction for tourists are key resources. Model education, social, and environment programs are underway with support from multilateral development organizations. Each economic program takes into account the government's desire to protect the country's environment and cultural traditions. For example, the government, in its cautious expansion of the tourist sector, encourages visits by upscale, environmentally conscientious tourists. Detailed controls and uncertain policies in areas like industrial licensing, trade, labor, and finance continue to hamper foreign investment.

So, please keep on dreaming as all great nations are built on great dreams.

the cia page also says bhutan's population is 2 million. it is just under 700,000. so much for its credibility.
  • I am not a person from UNHCR to respond to their strategies. In my personal opinion, most of the international interventions occur in cases of genocides, the most extreme form of ethnic cleansing. Besides, the ethnic cleansing occured once at a time when the world took no notice of the then peaceful Himalayas. Since then, the process has not been observed which prevented the chances of armed intervensions or other harsh measures. I have never heard Bhutanese refugees making claims of ethnic cleansing, so there is no point in UNHCR not believing in their claims.


  • About:

Quite clearly, you are one of those Nepalese who has already made up his mind on this issue. I have met many like you all over the place. The one thing I’ve learned is, that mind is made up and closed. So it is futile to try to have a meaningful debate.

This line came as a shock to me. I believe you are a new user here, so I am just cautioning you to keep the personal issues away. I forgive you this time for this offensive personal statement. However, lets try to control such personal accusitions from next time.

  • About:

So my suggestion is this, you keep your page I’ll keep mine. You say whatever you like on the Bhutanese Refugee page. I will make my own and have my view there. We can see later which page has more substance and more credible citations. How’s that?

Please do not mind this but this is the worst suggestion that I have ever heard. This is against the very basis of wikipedia. You may join anarchopedia for activities like that. Blogging is a better alternative for expressing views. To this date, I had tried to work in a constructive manner, stating neutral point of views as much as I could (although I accpept that there have been certain points which are considered offensive by some) and have been trying to improve my shortcomings which have been specifically pointed at. South Asia already has had a number of such divided articles. In fact, there are very few inter-religion, inter-nation, inter-state, inter-linguistic group, inter-racial, inter-ethnic group articles which present the globally accepted central point of view. Instead we are always happy in this conflicted state, citing the extremest of the local sources and hence presenting to the world this ugly picture of ours that is not us, all due to this puny "yours" and "my" attitude. I know that like anywhere else where I have tried, South Asians would not understand this issue here as well. So, be it. I will create a divided format of this page and the other page called Immigration in Bhutan which I think is the last hope of the both sides being presented in a same page although in different paragraphs. You contribute to the Bhutanese Government side while I will ask some refugee to contribute to the Refugee side. Besides, it is getting harder for me to make this discussion constructive with all those views and personal accusitions which has rendered this discussion less productive.--Eukesh 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. Your mind is truly closed. You choose to refer to inaccurate and out of date 'cited' data to reaffirm your fixed point of view. We will only end up reverting and re-reverting the other's page. that is why i suggested having two pages, or as you have done, two parts to every page. Divinemadman 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.

    • This is the last time that I am cautioning you to stop the personal attacks and accusitions. Talk specifically to point and about specific issues. We are not here to solve the Bhutanese refugee problem. We are here to put up what has happened till date.--Eukesh 04:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

saying your mind is closed is a 'personal attack'? How about blaming bhutan for ethnic cleansing? in your mind that is okay. 'last time you are warning me' or what? are you going to ethnically cleanse this page of others with different points of view? Divinemadman 18:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Look, I am no the central issue of this page, so stop pointing at me while discussing here. Bhutanese refugee crisis is the central issue. I have already provided the justifications far many times to provide it again. But since you still found it disputable, I placed it in Refugee POV. If you still want to battle with your accusitions, this is not the place and I am not the person to do that. You can enjoy such priviledges in chat pages, forums, blogs and stuffs of such sorts. This is an encyclopedia and hence deserves more than political or personal assults. If you continue this attitude, this is going to be bad for the article as well as the image of South Asians. So, stay calm and edit rather than attack others.--Eukesh 02:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Re:[edit]

I have finally read the report “’’The State of the World's Refugees 2006 - Chapter 5 Protracted refugee situations: Box 5.2 Bhutanese refugees in Nepal’’” that Mr Eukesh keeps harping on about on the UNHCR page (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ/opendoc.htm?tbl=PUBL&id=4444d3c93e) which he uses to prove that Bhutan is guilty of ethnic cleansing.

Here is my analysis of it, using the ‘citation’ and ‘references’ standards that I have been advised to follow:

The Lhotshampas are descendents of Nepalese who moved to the southern lowlands of Bhutan in the nineteenth century.

This statement is flawed in that it makes no references to the thousands of immigrants who continued to settled in the 20th century, and even right upto the 1980s, thereby giving the impression that all the migration happened and ended in the ‘19th century’. It attempts to completely skirt the illegal immigration aspect of this issue.

By the 1980s, however, Bhutan's king and the ruling Druk majority expressed concern over the rapidly growing Lhotshampa population. The 1988 census revealed that Bhutan's population was 48 per cent Buddhist, 45 per cent Nepali and 7 per cent 'other'.

I have never seen a report with these figures and the UNCHR report provides no references and so does not meet Mr Eukesh’s standarnds.

Concerned about the influx of Nepali migrants into Bhutan and the higher birth rate of the Lhotshampas, the Druks feared that this demographic shift threatened their privileged position and traditional Buddhist culture.

There has never been a study that differentiates the rates of birth between the Bhutanese and Nepalese population in Bhutan. And the writer provides no references to support this claim. The higher population growth rate of the Lhotsampa however, is claimed by the Bhutanese government to be due to high rates of illegal immigration. This view has been conveniently omitted in this report.

In 1985, the government established new eligibility requirements for Bhutanese citizenship that effectively disenfranchized many ethnic Nepalis, depriving them of their citizenship and civil rights.

The 1985 Act made no additional citizenship requirements. Whatever was used during the 1988 census was already in the 1958 Act. This statement is simply incorrect.

The authorities increased their intimidation of the Lhotshampas in southern Bhutan by destroying their property and arbitrarily detaining and torturing activists.

I do not mean to defend Bhutan’s actions even if true, but would like to provide some perspective on this. The early 1990s was a period of high turmoil by Bhutanese standards. In such periods, when the government takes action, the people affected are naturally ‘intimidated’ and many of the arrests can easily be characterized as ‘arbitrary’. These two accusations while unacceptable for any government to be guilty of, is what happens on a daily basis in all the democracies of South Asia including in Nepal. Bhutan should not be held to a higher standard and condemned wholesale for this.

In December 2001, the two sides finally agreed on a joint nationality-verification process and began work in one refugee camp. However, the process has been plagued by problems and was severely criticized by observers for failing to meet international standards.

Which ‘observers’? this style of writing is frequently used to slyly include the writer's own opinions in the report yet keep it seemingly neutral and this is unacceptable.

In conclusion, I would state that there is a definite slant to this article and does not come close to meeting even wikipedia’s standards on a neutral point of view. And I fail to comprehend how such an article can be provided as ‘proof’ that Bhutan is guilty of ethnic cleansing.

I also read UNCHR’s other report http://www.unhcr.org/publ/RSDCOI/3ae6a6c08.html which is much better written and even provides citations. Again however, the primary flaw I see is that on the main accusations against Bhutan it cites only reports by people such as Michael Hutt, DNS Dhakal and ‘refugee’ organizations and publications such as HUROB, The Bhutan Review Monthly, the Kathmandu Post, Himal etc. whose positions against Bhutan are already quite very well known. And if you look into the reports of the more respectable organizations such as Amnesty International etc, you will find the same kinds of references are being used as the basis for their primary accusations. This type of self-referencing academia does not lead to new knowledge and certainly is not acceptable as any form of proof of anything.Divinemadman 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eukesh said: * Well, I do hope that Bhutan becomes a country of higher economic level as you dream and talk. I really hate to state this but here is what CIA has to say:

maybe you can read about what has been happening in bhutan over the past 20 years, the fruits of which are just beginning to be harvested: http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7721 Bhutan has now started to earn INR 5.5 million a day, from just one power project. Of course, you can keep choosing to read what you want to believe like the outdated cia report. Divinemadman 09:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to contribute to this disucssion lately due to engagement in some other projects, sorry about that. UNHCR is the body which is moderating this issue. So, the publications of UNHCR is taken as a point of moderation in the case between Bhutanese Government and the Bhutanese refugee. There is an error in second part of the definition of Lhotsampa (regarding 19th century) but that does not justify the tagging of the people who have been living in Bhutan for generations as "illegal". About the 1980s reports, it has surfaced many a times in different literature. Allow me some time to complete my activities and I will illustrate the other sources.

I do not mean to defend Bhutan’s actions even if true, but would like to provide some perspective on this. The early 1990s was a period of high turmoil by Bhutanese standards. In such periods, when the government takes action, the people affected are naturally ‘intimidated’ and many of the arrests can easily be characterized as ‘arbitrary’. These two accusations while unacceptable for any government to be guilty of, is what happens on a daily basis in all the democracies of South Asia including in Nepal. Bhutan should not be held to a higher standard and condemned wholesale for this.

I do not know about such incidences happening in daily basis in Nepal but after the Maoist insurgency, a lot of people had disappeared and we, the people are against the government actions that has led to such incidences. Nepalese people have been vocal to criticize against any such actions. Even the King is being tried for misuse of his highness's power. Bhutanese government may hide under the covers of "intimidation" and "South Asia". But Nepalese people are punishing the culprits who were responsible for the intimidation and allowing the justice to be done. I consider these two to be very different cases. I hold Nepal (meaning Nepalese people) and the system of demcracy in a higher standard in this case. Nepal can not and does not make excuses of being unable to prosecute the intimidators. So, please spare a democratic nation like Nepal or democracy from the ill-fame of which the non-democratic Bhutanese Government (and NOT Bhutanese people or Bhutan) is a core.

The article under consideration is a publication of UNHCR which cannot be discarded just because a fellow wikipedian has feels it to be slanted with the aid of meager assumptions. In case, I think in case such a slant is felt, s/he should get an official document from UNHCR accepting that the article is slanted. There are many issues monitored by UNHCR which we might not know eg- Divinemadman did not know about the special changes in the 80s. So, a formal letter from UNHCR acknowledging that the publication is slanted can resolve this issue once and for all.

The other report of UNHCR is comparatively better done. Agreed on that. The material from that article can be used in statements of the article as well. However,

Again however, the primary flaw I see is that on the main accusations against Bhutan it cites only reports by people such as Michael Hutt, DNS Dhakal and ‘refugee’ organizations and publications such as HUROB, The Bhutan Review Monthly, the Kathmandu Post, Himal etc. whose positions against Bhutan are already quite very well known. And if you look into the reports of the more respectable organizations such as Amnesty International etc, you will find the same kinds of references are being used as the basis for their primary accusations. This type of self-referencing academia does not lead to new knowledge and certainly is not acceptable as any form of proof of anything.

as regards the accusation of the fellow wikipedian against "Michael Hutt, DNS Dhakal and ‘refugee’ organizations and publications such as HUROB, The Bhutan Review Monthly, the Kathmandu Post, Himal etc", I dont think that it is mentioned in any of the laws of Newton, one of the very few entity which was consiedered universal by logical humans. So, as it is not mentioned by Newton, please provide proof that they are anti-Bhutanese as stated. In fact, even I was awarded with a "Barnstar of close minded Nepalese" when this discussion started. So, I wont take any of such accusations. Besides, The Kathmandu Post and Himal are one of the most respected media in the whole of South Asia which I think that people of Bhutan will know in near future as the media in Bhutan grows. I did not refer to Nepalese media thinking that such media might be considered biased by some. However, if it is upto the standard of Amnesty International or UNHCR, it is acceptable. Divinemadman may very well say that any statement of bhutanese refugees is false under the same "self referencing academia" hypothesis.

Besides, I was startled that somebody without any due respect to the influencing "self-referencing academia" statement, just posted this

maybe you can read about what has been happening in bhutan over the past 20 years, the fruits of which are just beginning to be harvested: http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7721 Bhutan has now started to earn INR 5.5 million a day, from just one power project. Of course, you can keep choosing to read what you want to believe like the outdated cia report. Divinemadman 09:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

below the very statement whereby one believes in some Bhutanese site rather than the much accepted CIA report. Strange co-incidence I guess.

I had began this page in the good spirit hoping that at least people here can have some sanity while discussing these issues. However, this level of jingoism is lethal. So, I would not be contributing much to this page. South Asia, I guess will still take a lot of time to evolve from this era of mutual hatred to one of global companionship. Its too bad to see South Asians fighting over these trivial issues, not just in streets but also in a place like wikipedia. I am ashamed to be a part of this page and discussion. --Eukesh 19:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view and Duplication of articles[edit]

This article has two point of views rather than a neutral standpoint. The Bhutanese government's point of view seems to be deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines. Immigration in Bhutan is an exact replica of this article and serves no purpose. This article needs a complete rewrite from a neutral standpoint. --The knowledge lover (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a topic where people involved have differing points of view it is correct to report the different points of view. "Neutral point of view" in Wikipedia does not mean avoiding reporting non-neutral points of view; it means giving balanced coverage to the differing points of view.
It is quite true that this article largely duplicates Immigration in Bhutan, and there is no good reason for them both to exist. When I have time I will read through them to see whether there is any useful information to merge, or whether one of the articles can simply be scrapped. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is correct to report different points of views but most of the article is on Bhutanese government's point of view and there is very little on Refugees point of view.--The knowledge lover (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I re-wrote the article to eliminate the blatant viewpoint entrenchment. Nearly all parts from both previous viewpoints have been integrated and the issues have been outlined chronologically. I also eliminated references that were not accessible. I left plenty of "citation needed" and added lots more, but did delete some lines tagged for citation over 1 year ago that were never cited. Many parts still smack somewhat of POV, one way or another. The article clearly needs a lot more work, but hopefully these changes distinguish it somewhat from what should be a more general article on immigration in Bhutan. JFHJr (㊟) 12:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bhutanese refugees are Lhotshampas, a group of people of Nepalese origin, including some Kirat, Tamang, and Gurung peoples.Magar people are excluded here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.91.240 (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Wow, it looks like this entire page has been hijacked by the supporters of the so-called refugees from nepal! It is time for a complete rewrite! ethnic cleansing??!! Ha ha, don't refer to a 1 sentence definition, but also consider the means of ethnic cleansing that is conjured up immediately in the minds of the readers such as mass rapes and mass detention centres and of course mass burial sites. None of this has been observed in Bhutan. The term is wrong and totally unfair.Divinemadman (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Cleansing?[edit]

Shouldn't there at least be one mention of the mass expulsion of Lhotshampas as Ethnic Cleansing or forced expulsion? The whole article implies that there was no government attempt to expel the Lhotshampas and all claims are 'alleged' 211.30.205.206 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bhutanese refugees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bhutanese refugees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bhutanese refugees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs additional neutral sources[edit]

Hello Wikipedians, I'm not a subject matter expert, but there seems to be some unresolved issues with sourcing and neutrality here. I am flagging the page in hopes an area expert might respond. 5.31.2022 Cheerio, BayAnalyst

@BayAnalyst: Which sources in this article are not neutral? Jarble (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhutanese_refugees&oldid=1206285034"