India's role in the eviction of Southern Bhutanese in 1990-1992

 

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.