Bhutan
has in recent decades risen to considerable global prominence because of the
way that it measures its output based on the Gross National Happiness index.[1]
It has therefore come to be seen as a land of perpetual happiness to such an
extent that it has been promoted as a model for other countries in the world. This
nation has further come to prominence because of the idea that traffic lights
are too impersonal, meaning that they have not been installed. It shows a clear
attempt by its government to make sure that it creates a closer relationship
with its people in such a way that there is a reduction of the disconnect that
often comes about due to power, as the political class seeks to separate itself
from the population. It is noteworthy that because of its unique outlook of
life and the world, it has become one of the most respected states in the
globe, to such an extent that it has managed to establish its diplomatic clout
through the promotion of its monarchy as a unique one since it willingly
undertook the process of introducing democracy to its people. Bhutan has further
been portrayed by media as a mystical place, whose environment has remained
unspoiled from mass tourism, and is led by a young monarch that is highly
popular. However, despite the considerable attempts to ensure that Bhutan has a
positive international image, this nation has kept its history of ethnic
cleansing in the background to such an extent that very few know of the way
that its government in the 1990s undertook to expel ethnic Nepalese from the
country based on the belief that they would cause the fall of the monarchy, as
was the case with Sikkim, which resulted in the latter’s annexation by India.[2]
The Bhutanese government, in conjunction with India, undertook to ensure that
the expelled ethnic Nepalese were deported to Nepal. This paper considers the
role of India in the eviction of more than a hundred thousand Southern
Bhutanese (Nepalis or Lhotshampa) from Bhutan and how it was culpable in the
development of one of the worst refugee crises in the world.
Bhutan
can be considered to be the biggest originators of refugees per capita in the
world. This is because its government, in an upsurge of Bhutanese nationalism,
undertook the process of ensuring that there was the removal of all ethnic
groups that were not considered sufficiently Bhutanese. This process is one
that involved a scenario where the Lhotshampa, an ethnic group whose origins
lie in Nepal, and made up one sixth of the Bhutanese population in the early
1990s, were essentially expelled from the country. Between 1990 and 1992, the
government of Bhutan ensured that the ethnic Nepalis were evicted from the
country as a means of making it possible for the nation to preserve its unique
national identity rather than being subjected to the rapid shift in
demographics that had come to influence some of its neighbors, specifically
Sikkim, whose monarchy was abolished in a referendum that saw the majority
people of Nepali origins vote for annexation into India.[3]
Three decades on, the Lhotshampa remain in refugee camps in India and Nepal
with little hope of ever returning home. This is mainly because of the fact
that Bhutan has a strong bond with India and because it does not share a border
with Nepal, Indian territory offering a corridor between them, the Lhotshampa
have not been able to return to their home country. Bhutan continues to attract
very little attention when it comes to the way that it handles the refugee
problem that it created mainly because of the considerable protection that it
receives from India. Not only did India initially facilitate the eviction of
the Lhotshampa through its territory to Nepal, but it has actively undertaken
to ensure that these individuals do not return to Bhutan. The significance of
this action cannot be underestimated because it shows the extent to which it is
willing to go to not only to maintain strong relations with the Bhutanese
government, but also to ensure that the status quo is maintained. India’s
culpability in this situation can therefore not be ignored because its actions
contributed to the creation of the refugee crisis in Nepal.
The
Lhotshampas of Bhutan descend from peasant farmers that migrated from Nepal to
the southern parts of Bhutan following the 1865 Anglo-Bhutanese war.[4]
These individuals, in the following generations, undertook to clear forests and
farm the areas that they had settled, resulting in their region becoming the
biggest producers of food for the country. The numbers of the Lhotshampa
continued to be augmented by later migrants, who were often licensed
contractors and continued to come into Bhutan until 1930. These settlers became
the main sources of money for the Bhutanese government because they paid their
taxes in cash rather than in kind, as was the case with the local Bhutanese
(Drukpa) population.[5]
Because of the divided administrative system of Bhutan until the 1950s, the Lhotshampa
migrants were able to gain considerable power in the southern part of the
country where they were the most dominant with the result being that they were
quite independent of the monarchy.[6]
Therefore, when the Bhutanese monarchy made the move to not only unify the
country but also to establish a common national identity for all, there was
considerable resistance from the Lhotshampa. This was seen as a direct threat
to the monarchy, with the result being that there was an active move by the
Bhutanese government to alienate the Lhotshampa people and their culture in
favor of Drukpa culture, which was seen as more representative of Bhutanese
identity.[7]
The fear of a potential rebellion against the monarchy resulted in the Lhotshampa
being seen as enemies of the government as well as the Drukpa identity, meaning
that there was an active attempt aimed at making sure that there was the
removal of the threat through the process of ethnic cleansing. Thus, rather
than addressing the issues that concerned the Lhotshampa, the Bhutanese
government undertook one of the most prominent cases of ethnic cleansing
through forcing the Lhotshampa from their homes and country through India into
Nepal. In this way, India because a partner in the crime against the Lhotshampa,
since it allowed its territory to be used for their expulsion to Nepal.
India
played a highly significant role in the eviction of the Lhotshampa from Bhutan
to Nepal. This is especially considering that Bhutan does not share a common
border with Nepal yet the refugees from Bhutan were able to reach Nepal.[8]
When the Lhotshampa refugees arrived at the Indian border following their
eviction, rather than preventing them from crossing, India made arrangements
for trucks to ship them to Nepal. This act shows that India was well aware of
the events that were taking place in Bhutan yet made the choice not to do
anything to safeguard the rights of the Lhotshampa. As the closest ally of
Bhutan as well as its guarantor of security, India had and continues to have
great influence over it. However, because of its unwillingness to intervene in
what it considered an internal matter, India created a refugee crisis that is
ongoing. There was a failure on the part of India, a democratic nation and
often referred to as ‘the world’s largest democracy’ to do anything to
safeguard the democratic rights of the Lhotshampa; instead allowing and
facilitating their ethnic cleansing from Bhutan. While countries such as
Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands, among others expressed
concern about what was taking place in Bhutan, India remained aloof.[9]
Despite talks between Nepal and Bhutan taking place a number of times to
resolve the issue, India made the decision not to get involved; essentially
giving tacit support to Bhutan for the actions that it had taken against the Lhotshampa,
the majority of who were citizens of Bhutan. Had India made the decision to
intervene immediately, Bhutan would have had little choice but to ensure that
it resolved its ethnic problems internally. However, because India gave its
support to the Bhutanese government as it committed a crime against a part of
its population, as seen through its transporting the refugees to Nepal, a very
different situation would have been prevalent today. Indian facilitation
enabled the eviction of more than a hundred thousand Lhotshampa from Bhutan;
making these people refugees in a country that has refused to accept them as
one of their own.
India
must have been informed beforehand of the actions that the Bhutanese government
planned against the Lhotshampa. The forceful eviction of the Lhotshampa was
undertaken with Indian support because had it wanted to, it would not have
allowed these people to come close to its territory.[10]
The eviction of this population through Indian territory was therefore based on
planned and systematic strategies between the governments of India and Bhutan to
ensure that there was the cleansing of this significant minority group from
Bhutan. India, the most powerful nation in the region, provided its support to
the Bhutanese government under King Jigme Singye Wangchuk to ensure that his
objective of establishing a unified nation was achieved.[11]
Many of the refugees that passed through India on their way to Nepal reported
that they had been evicted by the Bhutanese military and that they had been
forced to sign forms essentially renouncing their Bhutanese citizenship.
Furthermore, the presence of trucks to transport the Lhotshampa refugees to
Nepal shows that there was communication between India and the Bhutanese
government as well as between India and the Nepali government; a sign of quiet
Indian diplomacy as it sought to ensure that it supported its ally’s action. It
is important to note that all proof of Bhutanese citizenship was taken away
from refugees by the Bhutanese military; a sign of a planned campaign that did
not happen spontaneously but instead took place in an environment within which the
Bhutanese monarchy and India worked together to ensure the effective ethnic
cleansing of Bhutan.[12]
Moreover, the confiscation of documentation was basically an attempt aimed at
denying these individuals citizenship; a process that essentially made them
stateless. India, therefore, made use of its power as a means of promoting the
interests of the Bhutanese monarchy over the rights of all the people of
Bhutan. Its quiet diplomacy may have been the reason behind the considerable
success seen in the ethnic cleansing of Bhutan to such an extent that almost
the entire Lhotshampa population was deported from a country they had called
home for generations.
Additionally,
India, despite having participated in the eviction of the Lhotshampa refugees
from Bhutan to Nepal, ceased doing anything to support them or their rights. Since
the eviction of the Lhotshampa three decades ago, India has not attempted to
ensure that these refugees are effectively resettled. Instead, it has left this
burden on Nepal, which has shown an unwillingness to absorb the refugees.[13]
The Nepalese stance is that the refugees are not only Bhutanese, but they
should return to Bhutan. Bhutan has shown an unwillingness to take back any of
the refugees, including those who were found and verified to be genuine
Bhutanese citizens with documentation to prove it. India, with its considerable
influence over Bhutan, not only as its main economic partner, but also as its
military ally as the security guarantor, could make sure that it encourages
Bhutan to take back a considerable number of its Lhotshampa citizens; allowing
for their resettlement. However, this has not been the case because India
participated in the disenfranchisement of the Lhotshampa population in Bhutan,
first by allowing the refugees to come from Bhutan into its territory, and then
forcing the same refugees to leave its territory and enter Nepal. It is
important to consider that both Nepalis and Bhutanese can move through the
Indian border freely yet India has continued to reject the attempts of the Lhotshampa
refugees to cross through its territory into Bhutan.[14]
This is a sign of the way that it seems to approve of the actions of the
Bhutanese government against the Lhotshampa and enhances the image of India as
having been a willing participant in the deportation of these people from their
own country. The stance promoted by India has been that the Lhotshampa refugee
crisis is a bilateral problem between Bhutan and Nepal and should therefore be
resolved between them. However, when the refugees were initially transported to
Nepal, India seems to have made use of its power to coerce Nepal into accepting
them. Such circumstances show the way that India was an active participant in
the eviction of the Lhotshampa from their home country and into a country that
was unwilling to accept and resettle them.
India’s
involvement in the eviction of the Lhotshampa can be seen through its
unwillingness to accept any of the refugees. India forced all the refugees that
had arrived in its territory to leave for Nepal through prearranged means which
ensured that it did not have any responsibility for them.[15]
Moreover, it has continued to prevent them from returning to their home country
despite the fact that they are legally allowed to pass through its territory.
The ethnic cleansing of the Lhotshampa shows the double standards of India in
its approach to refugees because while it did nothing to prevent this event
from happening, even going as far as facilitating it, India has not hesitated
to interfere in the affairs of such nations as Nepal, where it holds
considerable influence and has supported various groups in the service of its
own strategic interests. Moreover, India has over the decades accepted refugees
from other countries in the region, such as ethnic Tamils from Sri Lanka.
However, it failed to accept the Lhotshampa refugees who were facing
persecution in their country, with the result being that these individuals were
left to their own fate without any hope of returning to Bhutan. India has
therefore denied any responsibility for the Lhotshampa refugees despite the
fact that they passed through its territory as they were transported to Nepal. It
denial of responsibility is significant because despite this action, India
remains a party to the whole problem and without it, the Lhotshampa refugee
crisis is unlikely to be resolved. India’s taking of a passive role in the
entire problem can be considered to be its acceptance of the situation through
its provision of quiet support to the Bhutanese government for its actions. It
has shown its willingness to look the other way when it comes to the government
of Bhutan; a sign that India’s strategic interests have been given priority
over those of the human rights of individuals in the Southeast Asia region,
where India holds sway. The maintenance of the status quo in Bhutan seems to be
a part of the interests of India and because of this; it has shown a
willingness to tolerate its violation of the rights of the Lhotshampa.
Despite
the violations committed against the Lhotshampa, India continues to maintain
strong relations with Bhutan. The Lhotshampa refugees and their supporters have
over the years made calls for India to intervene in negotiations between Nepal
and Bhutan concerning their fate.[16]
India, as the regional power, has the moral authority to ensure that it
enforces its will over both states and provide more conducive conditions for
the refugees. Such conditions include either repatriation to Bhutan or at the
very least pushing Nepal to absorb the Lhotshampa into its population. However,
despite this being the case, India has refused to become involved in the
matter, maintaining the stance that it is an internal issue between Nepal and
Bhutan. India’s insistence that the Lhotshampa refugee crisis is a bilateral
issue is a denial of its responsibility for the crisis because it was its
security forces that forced the refugees to Nepal. Rather than seeking to
ensure that these refugees were given refuge within its territory while it
negotiated a more amicable solution with Bhutan, India essentially green lit the
entire eviction process of the Lhotshampa. These individuals were given no say
in their fate and India, as a democratic state, which should have been at the
forefront of promoting their rights, failed to do so and instead washed its
hands off them. India has therefore proven that it is not as reliable a
democracy as it should be because of the way that it handled the Lhotshampa
refugee situation. It is India which, because of its actions, created the
refugee problem in the first place because it failed to make sure that they
remained in their country rather than having its security forces transport them
to Nepal. Its responsibility for the eviction of the Lhotshampa refugees is
evidenced by the way that it responded when these people arrived in its
territory and it shows the manner that India had undertaken contact with the
Bhutanese government prior to the latter’s move to undertake the ethnic
cleansing of its population.
India
has declared itself a neutral party in the crisis yet despite this, it
continuously broken its neutrality. As has been stated above, India has
constantly stated that the matter of the Lhotshampa refugees is a bilateral
issue between Bhutan and Nepal.[17]
However, its neutral stance seems to be based on the manner through which it
views its interests. The first instance of its breaking its neutral stance was
when it made the decision to transport the Lhotshampa refugees to Nepal once
they reached its territory from Bhutan. If India had truly been a neutral party
in the conflict in Bhutan, it would have either returned these refugees to
Bhutan, or undertaken to ensure that they were provided with asylum in India
until such a time as the issue was resolved. India would have exerted its
influence to address the concerns of the Bhutanese government and come up with
a viable solution that would have been satisfactory to both parties. However,
this was not the case because India essentially took the side of Bhutan by
supplying trucks to transport the Lhotshampa refugees who had recently arrived
to its border to Nepal. India’s actions can be considered to have been forced
eviction because it failed to consider the status of the refugees and as a
neutral country, undertaken to protect their interests irrespective of the
position taken by the Bhutanese government. Thus, because of its actions, India
took the side of the majority Drukpa in Bhutan and participated in the process
of evicting a minority community that was looked upon as a threat by the
Bhutanese government. The refugee crisis that resulted was therefore created by
India which essentially broke its neutrality to serve the interests of an
allied government to the detriment of a people that it was obligated, based on
international law, to protect and provide asylum based on the conditions under
which they arrived in its territory. In this way, India abandoned its neutral
stance and participated in the deportation of an entire population from one
country to another through its territory.
Another
occasion when India broke its neutrality in what it considered to be a
bilateral issue between Nepal and Bhutan was in 1996, when activists from
refugee camps attempted to march to Bhutan.[18]
These activists sought to pass through the territory of India, which separates Nepal
and Bhutan and take their appeal to the Bhutanese king in person in an attempt
to ensure that they would be able to return home. However, in the process of
doing so, as soon as they crossed the Nepalese border with India, these
individuals were arrested by Indian police and were sent back to Nepal. This is
a show of the manner that India has displayed its selective neutrality because
it has failed to adhere to its stance based on its position that has for the
most part essentially leaned towards the Bhutanese government. India, at the
time the main guide in Bhutanese international policy as well as its protector,
made the move to discard its neutrality and actively undertook to prevent
peaceful activists from reaching Bhutan. These activists were not only
Bhutanese nationals who had been wrongly evicted from their country with Indian
participation, but they had also ended up in a scenario where India actively prevented
them from returning. Legally, the citizens of Nepal and Bhutan can pass through
Indian territory without any problems, yet when these activists attempted to do
so, they were stopped; a sign of the way that India conducts its activities. India
in the case basically showed that it was willing to stand on the side of the
Bhutanese government and promote the interests of the Drukpa over those of the Lhotshampa.
Its neutral stance is therefore a cover to ensure that it does nothing to bring
about the peaceful resolution of the Lhotshampa issue, including their
resettlement. The involvement of the Indian police in the arrest of peaceful
activists is a sign of the culpability of the Indian government in the process
of the eviction of the Lhotshampa from their homes and country and the
promotion of a pro-Drukpa policy that will in the long-term be detrimental to
the welfare of the tens of thousands of Lhotshampa refugees stuck in camps in
Nepal.
India
has also worked hand in hand with the Bhutanese government to ensure that
Bhutanese dissidents are extradited. These are actions that go against its
neutral stance and show the extent India is willing to go to safeguard a part
of the Bhutanese population while participating in the oppression of another. One
of the most important actions that India has taken has been the arrangement for
extradition from India of the opposition party leader, Rongthong Kuenley Dorji,
whose party, the Druk National Congress, made common cause with the Lhotshampa.[19]
His party also played an important role in small agitation on behalf of the Lhotshampa
in Bhutan, which resulted in its becoming a target for the Bhutanese
government, which saw it as a party that dissented from the official line. It
is important to note that despite the efforts of India to ensure the
extradition of this political leader to Bhutan, local human rights
organizations undertook to ensure that the process was prevented and made it
necessary for the government in New Delhi to back away from the move. However,
while this individual was allowed to remain in India, his movements have become
severely restricted to such an extent that he is required to make regular
reports to the police authorities as a means of ensuring that he does not make
any moves that are considered undesirable by the Indian government. The action
that was taken against this individual can be considered to have been aimed at
preventing the issue of the Lhotshampa from being raised in Bhutan.
Furthermore, the Bhutanese request for the extradition was aimed at further
silencing its opposition with the help of its biggest ally, which also helped
it to create the Lhotshampa crisis in the first place through assisting in
their deportation. India has therefore been culpable when it comes to the process
of ethnic cleansing in Bhutan as well as assisting its government to ensure
that it prevents any dissenting parties from independently agitating for more
democratic freedoms for ethnic minorities in the country. It has established
such a close relationship with the political establishment in Bhutan that it
has become possible for it to achieve the goal of essentially acting as the
guarantor of the government’s survival under almost all circumstances.
India
has shown a willingness to look the other way when it comes to Bhutan. As
Bhutan’s protector since the 1949 Indo-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, all attempts
by anti-establishment groups to work against Bhutan have been quashed with
Indian support.[20]
India has essentially created an environment within which Bhutan can operate
with impunity within its borders with the confidence that despite it all, it
will still have full Indian support. The privileged position that India enjoys
in Bhutan is one that has allowed it to ensure that it not only ensures that it
supports the establishment, but also prevents those against the status quo from
gaining any influence. This is in direct contrast with the way that India has
treated the establishment in Nepal. Its covert and overt support for
anti-establishment figures and groups in Nepal has, over the years, forced the
country to become not only more inclusive, but also democratic. India’s involvement
in Nepal can also be seen in the fall of the Nepalese monarchy, which came
about following a long period of instability caused by internal dissidence.[21]
These circumstances show that India has failed to develop a consistent foreign
policy to such an extent that it can be considered to be based on a country to
country basis. The prominent role that Bhutan has allowed India to play in its
external and security affairs has made India committed to maintaining the
status quo, even in scenarios where its actions go against its position as the
world’s largest democracy. All anti-Bhutanese establishment activities that are
conducted on Indian soil are always quashed by India as it continues to play
the role of the Bhutanese protector. It has undertaken this role so well that the
Bhutanese government has not only remained secure, but it has also managed to
transition from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional one. However, this
has been done without the presence of a significant part of the population, the
Lhotshampa, who India helped to deport from their country through its
territory.
India’s
policy towards Bhutan has been dictated by the considerable geo-strategic
importance of this nation to Indian interests. A consequence of this situation
has been that India has sought to ensure that Bhutan remains firmly in its
sphere of influence to the exclusion of all others, especially China.[22]
Remaining on the good side of Bhutan may have been the reason behind India’s
decision to ensure that it helped the Bhutanese government maintain the status
quo through the facilitation of the deportation of the Lhotshampa from south
Bhutan. A consequence of this situation is that India has continued to expedite
the advancement of Bhutanese interests through maintaining its neutral stance
despite the fact that it has both covertly and overtly stuck to the side of the
Drukpa establishment in Bhutan. India has therefore been a major player in the Lhotshampa
crisis, especially when it comes to their resettlement because the members of
this community in refugee camps no longer have any hope of returning to their
home country due to India preventing them from using its territory. Moreover,
India has refused to get involved in the negotiations between Bhutan and Nepal;
showing that it is firmly in the corner of the former as it seeks to maintain the
status quo in the Himalayas. It is also noteworthy that India remains the main
economic partner of Bhutan, which has allowed it to play a major role as its
development partner.[23]
The close bilateral ties between these countries, therefore, have encouraged
India to pursue pro-Bhutanese positions as a means of promoting its own
interests. The fate of the Lhotshampa was a matter of political expediency for
India, with the result being that these people have essentially been forgotten
by the international community and viewed as an inconvenience by India, which
caused the problem in the first place.
In
conclusion, the analysis above considers the role of India in the eviction of
more than a hundred thousand Lhotshampa of Nepali descent from Bhutan and how it
was culpable in the development of one of the worst refugee crises in the world.
India seems to have been motivated by the desire to ensure that the status quo
in Bhutan was maintained as a means of advancing its own regional interests in
the Himalayas, of which Bhutan is a big part. The joint efforts of the Indian
and Bhutanese security forces ensured that the Lhotshampa were evicted from
their homes and country, and deported to Nepal, a country that was foreign to
them. The failure to integrate these individuals into Nepal or repatriate them
to Bhutan comes down to India’s intentional aloofness in the guise of being a
neutral party in the issue. It is therefore necessary for India to acknowledge
its role in the eviction of the Lhotshampa and undertake actions aimed at
securing a better future for these people.
[1] Winton Bates, "Gross National Happiness," Asian‐Pacific Economic
Literature 23, no. 2 (2009): 1.
[2] Bhakta Raj Giri, "Bhutan: Ethnic Policies in the Dragon
Kingdom," Asian Affairs 35, no.
3 (2004): 353.
[3] Naina Thatal, "Rights, Distribution, and Ethnicisation: The Marwari’s
Claims for Recognition as ‘Old Settlers’ in Sikkim," Asian Ethnicity (2020);
Urmila Phadnis and Rajat Ganguly, Ethnicity
and Nation-Building in South Asia (Sage, 2001), 17.
[4] Shiva K Dhungana, "Third Country Resettlement and the Bhutanese
Refugee Crisis: A Critical Reflection," Refugee Watch 35 (2010): 14.
[5] Michael Hutt, "The Bhutanese Refugees: Between Verification,
Repatriation and Royal Realpolitik," Peace
and Democracy in South Asia (2005):
45.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Syed Aziz-al Ahsan and Bhumitra Chakma, "Bhutan's Foreign Policy:
Cautious Self-Assertion?," Asian
Survey 33, no. 11 (1993): 1043.
[8] Michael Hutt, "Ethnic Nationalism, Refugees and Bhutan," Journal of Refugee Studies 9, no. 4
(1996): 398; Venkat Pulla, "Who Are the Lhotsampa? What Caused Their
Flight from Bhutan?," in The
Lhotsampa People of Bhutan (Springer, 2016), 2.
[9] Vishnu Sharma, "Silence Then, Silence Now: Lessons for India from Its
Response to 1990s Bhutanese Refugee Crisis," The Wire,
https://thewire.in/external-affairs/india-nepal-refugee-rohingya-bhutan-crisis.
[10] Hari Prasad Shrestha, "Inside Story of Forcible Deportation of Nepali
Speaking Population from Bhutan Via India to the Refugee Camps in Nepal,"
South Asia Journal,
http://southasiajournal.net/inside-story-of-forcible-deportation-of-nepali-speaking-population-from-bhutan-via-india-to-the-refugee-camps-in-nepal/.
[11] Shriya Gautam, "Preserving Culture: A Study of Impact of Culture and
Identity on Gross National Happiness" (paper presented at the
International Conference on The Soul in Symphony: Spiritual and Pragmatic
Aspects of Happiness, 2018).
[12] Dhurba Rizal, "The Unknown Refugee Crisis: Expulsion of the Ethnic
Lhotsampa from Bhutan," Asian
Ethnicity 5, no. 2 (2004): 165.
[13] Maximillian Morch, "Bhutan’s Dark Secret: The Lhotshampa
Expulsion," The Diplomat, https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/bhutans-dark-secret-the-lhotshampa-expulsion/.
[14] Brian C. Shaw, "Bhutan in 1991:" Refugees" and"
Ngolops"," Asian Survey 32,
no. 2 (1992): 184.
[15] Sharma; AC Sinha, "Evicted from Home, Nowhere to Go: The Case of
Lhotshampas from Bhutan," in Nepali
Diaspora in a Globalised Era (Routledge India, 2015), 248.
[16] Lok Raj Baral, "Bilateralism under the Shadow: The Problems of
Refugees in Nepal-Bhutan Relations," Contributions
to Nepalese Studies 20, no. 2 (1993): 197.
[17] Farzana Shakoor, "Bhutan: The Issue of Ethnic Divide," Pakistan Horizon 48, no. 2 (1995): 31.
[18] Susan Banki, "Resettlement of the Bhutanese from Nepal: The Durable
Solution Discourse," Protracted
displacement in Asia: No place to call home
(2008): 27.
[19] Michael Hutt, "Bhutan in 1995: Weathering the Storm," Asian Survey 36, no. 2 (1996): 204;
Dhungana, 14; Manfred Ringhofer,
"Bhutanese Refugees History and Present Situation with Emphasize on
Education," Lifelong education and
libraries 2 (2002): 49.
[20] Dorji Penjore, "Security of Bhutan: Walking between the Giants," Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies
(APCSS) (2004): 114.
[21] Benoît Cailmail, "The Fall of a Hindu Monarchy: Maoists in Power in
Nepal," Asie visions 12 (2008):
17-18.
[22] Arif Hussain Malik and Nazir Ahmad Sheikh, "Changing Dynamics of
Indo-Bhutan Relations: Implications for India," International Journal of Political Science and Development 4, no. 2
(2016): 50.
[23] Nisha Taneja et al., India-Bhutan
Economic Relations (Indian Council for Research on International Economic
Relations, 2019), 1.
