Refugee Issue! - Narayan

Dear friends,


Thanks to all of you in the friends re-union group and engaging in the debate concerning the quest of a durable solution to the Bhutanese refugee situation. I had a mail exchanged with Chandraji. Quite coincidentally, I had also an occasion to have a small phone conversation with a leader of a Political party and I had posed him a question on the matter of Third Country Settlement of desirous Bhutanese refugees. The two positions read together reveal a fundamental although not very fresh dichotomy ubiquitous in a refugee situation as is the case with us today.1. A section of us emphasizing on the need to work for repatriation.
2. Another section of us desiring to accept Third country settlement or local integration of all willing refugees. The above dichotomy is nothing very new in a refugee situation. Prior to consigning to any of the above positions, I guess, it entails some consideration of the larger issues involved in the larger canvass of the refugee issue. A section of the people, in primacy the refugee leadership is supposedly desirous of a political transformation in Bhutan. That is fairly a fair proposition. However, all of us are aware that in the given state of play of complete ambivalence as to what we want, a total vacillation in the positions and demands posed by the leadership and in primacy the methodology that we have agreed to employ in the quest of that proposed political transformation in Bhutan, no enquiring mind would expect anything substantive. The answer is simple. If people in the camps and those internationally displaced had preferred a transformation as popularized by some of the leadership, one would also suppose that activities befitting that ought to have been agreed upon and acted upon. Does one really agree to believe that with what we are actually doing, do we essentially believe to achieve what we tend to say we would? Simplified further, do we really deserve those changes? If, in this state of play, one is to look for someone to shoulder the burden of failure or more simply assume the blame, I quite modestly feel that all of us are a part of it. We all would have in one way or the other engaged ourselves in this issue at some point in time in the 15 years of an appalling trajectory of refugee life. One specific issue, rampantly discussed about, merits a particular mention: That the Bhutanese refugee leadership has failed the Bhutanese refugee community at all fronts. Brooding on this issue, I personally admit that the case is true. That notwithstanding, I personally do not cast total aspersions on the leadership. I believe that it is not out of their choice that they have failed the refugee community but entirely because of their inability. As a community, all of us have failed ourselves and the onus, I guess lies in each one of us, perhaps in different proportions. Although quite spasmodically, I feel that we are not capable to deserve to attain what many of us may state we rightfully do. It has quite been customary to talk about “Political Transformation” in
It is a question of right to return, to be\nthere to have that well deserved modicum of socio-political and cultural space\nin the national mainstream of the country. That being said, we all agree, I\ntrust, on the proposition that right these days, ironically in the era of the\nmuch touted age of human rights is to be fought for. We are hardly prepared for\nall that. These summated, one would not agree to agree with what the political\nmandarins would want us believe. That notwithstanding, I feel all those putting\nin efforts however diminutive that be, deserve our collective sympathy, if not\nparticipation. Finally, of course, I personally would wish that if a real unity\ncould be forged and collective efforts put together, repatriation could still\nbe the most preferred solution. I guess, all of us in private, when alone, do\nrealize whether or not we are ready to stand the essential hardship entailed in\nsuch an exercise!!\n\n",1]
);
//-->
Bhutan. That would essentially entail all or majority of us to get a sense of the community and invest everything worth the purpose. It is in this sense one tends to acknowledge in retrospect that we do not deserve anything of that measure. This, however, would stand true only if we would have voluntarily preferred repatriation. If that was not our conscious preference, I personally do not see any reason for anyone of us critiquing the rest of us who would opt some other solutions, including third country settlement, to which issue I would return little later. Agreed of course, that we have been a victim of persecution and do have a genuine cause. The question, I trust all of you would agree with me, is not the genuineness or otherwise of the cause but the veracity of our own efforts apposite to the sanctity and earnestness of that cause. We as a community have preferred an easier path: that of evoking sympathy and quite naturally, returns have been minimal. It is a question of right to return, to be there to have that well deserved modicum of socio-political and cultural space in the national mainstream of the country. That being said, we all agree, I trust, on the proposition that right these days, ironically in the era of the much touted age of human rights is to be fought for. We are hardly prepared for all that. These summated, one would not agree to agree with what the political mandarins would want us believe. That notwithstanding, I feel all those putting in efforts however diminutive that be, deserve our collective sympathy, if not participation. Finally, of course, I personally would wish that if a real unity could be forged and collective efforts put together, repatriation could still be the most preferred solution. I guess, all of us in private, when alone, do realize whether or not we are ready to stand the essential hardship entailed in such an exercise!!
\nHow would I personally reconcile these two seemingly diametrically opposed positions, then? If we could set our own house in order, we would not need to expect that favour from outsiders. Lets really introspect whether that is what we want. If so, we deserve everything, sooner or later. If not, the inevitable will happen, however much one would wish against.",1]
);
//-->
The Second issue that of Third Country settlement is the crux of today’s debate. I fail to understand as to why some of our people chose to make the whole issue acrimonious. UNHCR as an agency has a mandate, which is traditional since its inception and if the agency talks about re-settlement programs, it must not surprise anyone. The agency talks about its mandate in all refugee situations and doing so in the Bhutanese refugee issue, I do not see that they have done anything devastating as some section of the people would make it to be. In the same length, if any Bhutanese desires to settle elsewhere, there I guess should be no reason for others to go belligerent. The bottom-line is, one does in this state of bewilderment and paucity what one thinks is best for him. Expediency need not necessarily be un-ethical and even if so were the case, why should anyone be allowed moral policing? If a Bhutanese this day takes an informed decision and makes a choice and if UNHCR supports that, I personally am not opposed to it in the present state of play. There is no need to make anything an anathema. There might emerge many emotional issues in the process. But they would not be severe enough to overwhelm the inevitable and it is perfectly within the voluntary preference of every impacted party to decide and usher oneself ahead the way one would feel befitting oneself.
How would I personally reconcile these two seemingly diametrically opposed positions, then? If we could set our own house in order, we would not need to expect that favour from outsiders. Lets really introspect whether that is what we want. If so, we deserve everything, sooner or later. If not, the inevitable will happen, however much one would wish against.
\n\nAll that being said, I\nfeel, we should allow the debate to continue. It would\nperhaps be desirous if it confines itself to a certain reticent limit. \n\nWhat else, friends? I\nhope to find time to talk to you in the days to come too.\n\nThat is that for the\nmoment.\n\nNarayan\n\nLaw School.
All that being said, I feel, we should allow the debate to continue. It would perhaps be desirous if it confines itself to a certain reticent limit.
What else, friends? I hope to find time to talk to you in the days to come too.
That is that for the moment.
Narayan
Law School.