This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 KATHMANDU 000758 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SA/INS AND PRM/ANE, LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY, GENEVA 
FOR PLYNCH, NSC FOR MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/16/2014 
TAGS: PREF PREL NP BT
SUBJECT: BHUTANESE REFUGEES: A HISTORICAL REVIEW 
 
REF: A. NEW DELHI 2214 
 
     ¶B. NEW DELHI 2127 
     ¶C. 1992 KATHMANDU 7047 
     ¶D. AMNESTY INTL REPORT 08/1994 
     ¶E. HUM. RIGHTS WATCH 05/2003 
     ¶F. 1991 KATHMANDU 6122 
     ¶G. 1991 KATHMANDU 3936 
     ¶H. 1992 KATHMANDU 631 
     ¶I. 1991 KATHMANDU 7615 
     ¶J. 1992 KATHMANDU 2347 
     ¶K. 1992 CALCUTTA 1432 
     ¶L. 1992 KATHMANDU 5030 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Michael E. Malinowski for Reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary.  The history and complexity of the 
Bhutanese refugee situation is worth recollecting in the 
light of reliable documentation.  The first Nepali-speaking 
immigrants settled in Bhutan in the late 19th and early 20th 
centuries at the invitation of the then-King of Bhutan in an 
effort to cultivate the lowlands of Bhutan and prevent 
Assamese and Bengalis from moving north into Bhutanese 
territory.  In 1958, the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) 
granted citizenship to these settlers.  Thirty years later, 
however, the RGOB severely restricted citizenship rights and 
initiated a census in Southern Bhutan that resulted in the 
classification of many ethnic Nepalis as non-nationals. 
Widespread unrest with the new government policies began in 
early 1990, culminating in mass demonstrations in September 
¶1990. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Summary Continued:  The environment for ethnic 
Nepalis became increasingly tense and uncertain with reports 
of arbitrary arrest, accompanied by torture and rape, of 
those who participated, or whose families participated, in 
the demonstrations.  By June 1991, UNHCR confirmed that 6,000 
Bhutanese refugees had fled to Nepal, where the vast majority 
had blended into ancestral villages.  The flow of refugees 
from Bhutan increased dramatically in the fall of 1991 and 
continued through September 1992 when the population reached 
67,500.  Until January 1992, when UNHCR became directly 
involved in refugee care and maintenance, the refugees 
subsisted on local NGO assistance and charity.  At that time, 
the population suffered from poor health and sanitary 
conditions with high rates of child mortality.  A close 
reading of the historical record of the last several decades 
in Bhutan points to the inescapable conclusion that the 
refugee problem is in fact the result of systematic ethnic 
discrimination and forced expulsions.  End Summary. 
 
¶3. (U)  Post agrees with Ref A recommendation that the U.S. 
and other international observers should understand the 
history and complexity of the Bhutanese refugee situation. 
Upon review of State Department cables from 1990-1992 and 
documents prepared by UNHCR, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty 
International, the following review of the origins of the 
refugee imbroglio is meant to contribute to that 
understanding. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
Nepali Migration to Bhutan and Early Citizenship 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶4. (SBU) The rulers of the Kingdom of Bhutan have always been 
ethnically sensitive.  Since India's annexation of Sikkim in 
1975, Bhutan has been unique as a Tibetan ethnic and cultural 
enclave south of the Himalayas.  Small and vulnerable to the 
much larger ethnic populations south of Bhutan, the Kingdom 
has often reacted strongly to perceptions of threats from the 
south.  As a result, in the late 19th century, the King of 
Bhutan appealed to the Nepali ruling family, the Ranas, 
requesting ethnic Nepalis -- who were considered perhaps less 
threatening than the Assamese or Bengalis due to their feudal 
traditions and distance from Bhutan -- to settle in the 
country's lowlands.  Northern Bhutanese at that time were not 
interested in settling in the uncultivated forests and 
jungles of the south.  As a result, numbers of Nepalis 
migrated to southern Bhutan and, on their own, cleared and 
cultivated the land.  With this initial success, many more 
Nepalis followed and settled peacefully in Bhutan.  In 1958, 
the King of Bhutan adopted the country's first Nationality 
Law, which granted citizenship to all people with only two 
conditions -- they must have resided in Bhutan for more than 
10 years and must own agricultural land. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
Citizenship Rights Restricted: 
Census Discriminates Against Southern Bhutanese 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶5. (SBU) The RGOB received the first of two wake-up calls 
raising fears of cultural and political annihilation when 
India, by exploiting ethnic rifts between Nepalis and 
Lepchas, annexed Sikkim in 1975.  In 1977, the RGOB adopted 
the Bhutan Citizenship Act, which raised the threshold for 
citizenship to include, for the first time, cultural 
requirements, such as spoken and written knowledge of the 
Bhutanese language.  All those granted citizenship were also 
required to swear an oath of loyalty to the King of Bhutan 
and to promise to observe "all the customs and traditions of 
the people of Bhutan."  The law also, for the first time, 
discouraged Bhutanese citizens from marrying non-Bhutanese by 
not granting citizenship to the spouse or their children. 
The 1980 Marriage Act also denied certain facilities, such as 
land and seed distribution and loans, to any citizen who 
married a foreigner.  The Act also refused promotion to any 
government official who married a non-Bhutanese. 
 
¶6. (C) The second wake-up call arrived in the late 1980s when 
political unrest in Nepal laid siege to Nepal's monarchy and 
autocratic Panchayat (partyless) government.  By 1989, the 
GON's acquisition of defensive security equipment from China 
led to India's refusal to renew the overland Trade and 
Transit Treaty, effectively imposing an embargo on the 
country and causing fuel and commodity shortages.  In 1991, 
the one-party system collapsed and was replaced by a 
multiparty government. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Concurrently with these events, the RGOB adopted the 
Bhutan Citizenship Act of 1985, which granted citizenship 
only to those who were resident in Bhutan on or before 
December 31, 1958, and whose names were registered with the 
Ministry of Home Affairs.  If a resident did not meet these 
requirements, they could apply for naturalized citizenship 
provided that certain conditions were met, including 20 years 
residency, proficiency in speaking and written Dzongkha, a 
"good moral character," and "no record of having spoken or 
acted against the King, Country and People of Bhutan in any 
manner whatsoever."  The law also allowed the government to 
strip citizenship arbitrarily from any naturalized citizen. 
 
¶8. (SBU) In 1987, the RGOB initiated a census intended to 
implement the 1985 Citizenship Act, resulting in the mass 
de-nationalization of many ethnic Nepalis.  The census was 
implemented only in southern Bhutan.  According to interviews 
of refugees in 1991 and of southern Bhutanese in 1993, the 
RGOB specifically required people to present land tax 
receipts from 1958 to qualify as citizens (Refs C and D). 
Many complained that it was not reasonable for the government 
to expect barely literate peasants and farmers to have saved 
tax receipts for thirty years.  Although many of these people 
held Bhutanese citizenship cards issued during the earlier 
census in 1979, these cards did not qualify them for 
citizenship status under the new law.  In some cases, people 
were denied citizenship because they had inherited land from 
parents after 1958 and could not, therefore, demonstrate land 
tax receipts in their own name from before 1958.  Others 
claimed that their evidence of citizenship was confiscated by 
officials and that they were later labeled as non-nationals. 
In January 1989, King Wangchuk decreed a "one nation, one 
people" policy that required practice of Drukpa culture 
through a compulsory dress code and the termination of Nepali 
language instruction in schools (Ref E).  These policies gave 
rise to fears in southern Bhutan that those who were not 
categorized as bona fide citizens in the census would be 
forced to leave the country. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
Political Unrest Leads to Mass Expulsions 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶9. (C) Unrest at government policies on national integration 
and the census spread in southern Bhutan in early 1990, 
culminating in a series of demonstrations throughout southern 
Bhutan in September 1990.  The first signs of violent 
activities by government opponents reportedly occurred in 
February 1990, involving extortion and stripping of people 
wearing northern Bhutanese dress.  Later, however, these 
activities reportedly included more serious crimes, such as 
murder and kidnapping with attacks directed at census 
officers and other officials.  As a result, the government 
suspended schools and health services in southern Bhutan. 
The government increased its security presence in Southern 
Bhutan and sought to suppress the political demonstrations, 
leading to cases of arbitrary arrest, accompanied by torture 
and rape.  In August 1991, one refugee woman explained to 
EmbOff that she had fled Bhutan with her 14-year-old daughter 
after her husband was arrested and they were both raped by 
soldiers (Ref C).  Reports of widespread rape of Nepali 
ethnic women by Bhutanese troops was particularly prevalent 
(Ref F).  In early 1991, victims of these violations and 
those who feared becoming victims began to flee from southern 
Bhutan. 
 
¶10. (C) The RGOB also began enforcing the results of the 
census in mid-1991, leading to forcible expulsions of entire 
families and, in a few cases, whole villages.  In 1991-1992, 
RGOB officials reportedly began classifying individuals as 
non-nationals if they had a close relative who had 
participated in the 1990 demonstrations or who had already 
left Bhutan for Nepal.  People who were classified as 
non-nationals said that they were told by local government 
officials to leave the country within a short time or pay a 
fine or be imprisoned (Ref D).  Many of them were also 
required to sign "voluntary emigration" forms before leaving. 
 During a visit to the camps in August 1991, EmbOff learned 
that 267 asylum seekers had arrived the day before, mostly 
from the same village, reporting that a 16-man census team, 
backed by a contingent of 50 soldiers, enforcing the census 
had demanded that the village headman supply 10 women between 
12 and 25 years of age to the group every night.  When the 
villagers refused, their homes were burned down and they 
fled.  Internal UNHCR reports at the time cited continuing 
human rights violations and forced expulsions throughout 1991 
and 1992. 
 
------------------------------- 
The Flow of Refugees Into Nepal 
------------------------------- 
 
¶11. (C) The first wave of refugees coincided with the 
September 1990 demonstrations.  Most of these people 
reportedly fled to neighboring states of Assam and West 
Bengal in India and to Nepal where they were able to 
assimilate due to family ties.  The first half of 1991 
witnessed a steady trickle into Nepal of refugees without 
family ties who settled in camps (Ref C).  By June 1991, 
UNHCR estimated that roughly 6,000 refugees had entered 
Nepal, although most had blended into their ancestral 
villages (Ref G) while the Nepal Red Cross, with UNHCR 
financing, was supplying relief to 84 families (430 persons) 
living on river banks in eastern Nepal.  UNHCR was seeking 
direct involvement in refugee care and maintenance, but had 
been stymied by bureaucratic delays within the Government of 
Nepal (GON).  By August 1991, a new pattern of arrivals 
emerged with whole families transiting directly to Nepal, 
often on buses with written instructions from the RGOB to 
proceed to Maidhar camp, the larger of the two refugee camps 
in eastern Nepal at that time (Ref H). 
 
¶12. (SBU) A rough timeline of refugee flows into camps is 
outlined here with data from Embassy reporting.  These 
numbers do not include those who assimilated locally in India 
and Nepal. 
 
June 1991 -- 430 persons 
September 1991 -- 3,000 persons 
November 1991 -- 5,500 persons 
January 1992 -- 14,000 persons 
March 1992 -- 25,000 persons 
June 1992 -- 40,000 persons 
September 1992 -- 67,500 persons 
 
¶13. (C) Conditions in the refugee camps remained inadequate 
throughout 2001-2002.  By October 1991, 26 deaths were 
reported due to malaria and malnutrition.  There were no 
educational or recreation facilities available, and the 
refugees survived on what little assistance they received 
from international charitable organizations and local 
charities in Jhapa District (Ref I).  UNHCR was not able to 
become directly involved in refugee care and maintenance 
until January 1992, after the refugee population had grown to 
14,000.  Even as late as June 1992, UNHCR upgraded the 
refugee situation to "emergency" status due to inadequate 
sanitation and health facilities and a strong probability of 
epidemic disease.  The mortality rate for children under 5 
years of age in the camps was very high with 19.3 deaths 
daily per 10,000 children, due primarily to diarrhea and 
malnutrition. 
 
¶14. (C) In response to an RGOB claim that most of the 
refugees had actually come from Assam and areas in Nepal, in 
April 1992, the GON invited the RGOB to jointly screen the 
refugees, but this offer was not accepted (Ref J).  ConGen 
Calcutta reported in May 1992 that there was little evidence 
that any sizable portion of the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal 
were actually Indian residents fleeing violence in Assam (Ref 
K).  The Embassy also reported strong evidence that the 
overwhelming majority of refugees were coming from Bhutan. 
According to the Lutheran World Foundation, UNHCR's main 
implementing partner, in August 1992, vehicles bringing in 
new refugee arrivals carried passenger lists stamped by the 
RGOB containing names, ages, source villages and compensation 
paid to passengers (Ref L).  By September 1992, new arrivals 
were down markedly, averaging below 100 per day from a height 
of 300 per day in June 1992. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶15. (C) It is clear from the most reliable contemporary 
reports that the events leading to the mass exodus of ethnic 
Nepalis from Bhutan in the early 1990s were ethnically 
motivated.  It is in the RGOB's interest to characterize the 
expulsion of Nepali-ethnic Bhutanese in 1991-1993 as an 
appropriate response to illegal immigration and unlawful 
political agitation and violence.  While it is certainly true 
that ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan were a voice for change, the 
situation was aggravated by laws and policies that required 
conformity with majority (i.e., Tantric Buddhist) Bhutanese 
culture and imposed second-hand citizenship status on ethnic 
Nepalis.  The methods and policies adopted by the RGOB are 
not justifiable by international standards of the 21st 
century. 
 
¶16. (C) According to Ref B, the Bhutanese king suggested that 
the establishment of UNHCR-run camps in Eastern Nepal 
precipitated the outflow of refugees attracted by free food, 
shelter and education.  However, UNHCR did not become 
involved directly until January 2002 when the population had 
already reached 14,000.  Moreover, the camps suffered from 
poor nutrition and sanitation throughout 2002 -- hardly the 
paradise described by the King.  King Wangchuk also 
questioned the screening process conducted by the GON and 
UNHCR.  However, first-hand accounts of officials 
interviewing potential refugees, including Ambassador 
Malinowski, who was DCM at the time, indicate very specific 
and extensive information of systematic and widespread ethnic 
discrimination forcing ethnic Nepalis to leave Bhutan.  Post 
hopes that this account will contribute to a fuller, more 
nuanced understanding of the origins of the Bhutanese refugee 
situation.  End Comment. 
MALINOWSKI