The pitiable existence of the more than one lakh Bhutanese refugees of Nepali origin now living in the seven refugee camps in eastern Tarai remains more or less the same as it was 17 years ago when, expelled by the Druk regime from their own country or fleeing torture or persecution at home, they had to enter India, their first country of asylum. Later, they entered Nepal — a number of them had been carted off to the eastern Nepal border by the Indian police and left there. On Monday and Tuesday, thousands of refugees attempted a “Long March” to Bhutan, as on several occasions in the past, and as before, their long march has been cut short by the Indian police (and troops, too, on Tuesday) especially stationed in force as the refugees tried to force their way through the barricades in the Indian side. Inside Nepal, this had been preceded by the death of two refugees in police firing in Beldangi refugee camps. The refugees’ determination to return home was also a proof that third-country resettlement was not everything for them.

However, the offer to resettle 60,000-plus refugees in the US and other western countries should be taken positively, at least in one sense. At the same time, the seeming American unwillingness to pressure Thimphu to resolve the issue according to international conventions has surprised many Nepalis, as well as refugees, especially because wherever it wants the US tends to throw its weight around. This leaves some room for doubt. On its part, India has for umpteen times ruled out the possibility of using its good offices to end the refugee deadlock, terming it purely a “bilateral issue”, except once, during the world conference on the environment and development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, when the then Indian prime minister P V Narasimha Rao had sounded positive on the idea of India helping resolve the issue.

Serious doubts exist in Nepal on this particular issue mainly for two reasons. First, New Delhi was seen to take an interest in ensuring that most Bhutanese refugees in Indian territory came into Nepal, whereas, since then, it has prevented the refugees, if need be by applying force, from going back home. Secondly, the Bhutanese government, under a 1949 bilateral treaty, is to be guided by the advice of the government of India in its external relations. Therefore, there are people who express reservations about the view that the refugee issue is a bilateral one. This, according to them, is a “heads I win, tails you lose” approach. Besides, they also look at the US position with a pinch of salt — its relative silence on the right of the Bhutanese to return home and its offer of resettling them may indeed strengthen the Drukpa rulers, who, some doubt, may then be emboldened to expel more Bhutanese of Nepali origin. The stalemate strikes one as odd because both the US and India are hailed as great democracies. The first and foremost right of any refugee is to be allowed to return home, but under the formula being promoted, this has been ignored. Options like third-country resettlement may indeed be a good opportunity for the willing.