The European Commission (EC) is one of the major humanitarian aid donors in Nepal. This time, it has decided to grant a generous sum of five million Euros with a view to helping the rehabilitation of the conflict-victims and the Bhutanese refugees. While three million Euros have been allocated for the conflict-hit vulnerable rural population, two million Euros will go exclusively to the refugees, who are languishing at camps in Jhapa and Morang for about 16 years now. The funding would be utilised to provide access to clean drinking water and sanitation facility, nutrition, food security, healthcare and safety for the victims. This is a kind gesture on the part of the EC and has special significance for the country as the aid will help off set, even if partially, the fund crunch facing the rehabilitation and relief efforts at home. It also comes at a time when the international community has renewed its pledge to assist Nepal in her development endeavours keeping in view especially the needs of those affected by the decade-old insurgency. The EC’s office of the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid, which would be responsible for releasing the funds, should only ensure that the money does not get misappropriated in the process and that it is channelled solely and exclusively for the benefit of the target groups.

One must, however, realise that foreign aid is no long-term solution to the crises bedevilling the country, including the Bhutanese refugee imbroglio. There is no question the aid would bring substantial relief to the suffering lot, but a permanent solution to this protracted problem has to be found jointly by the governments of Nepal and Bhutan. Unfortunately, several rounds of talks between the two ‘friendly’ neighbours have floundered in the past, allowing the critics to point out the lack of political will on the part of both Kathmandu and Thimphu. Enough time and resources have been frittered away over the years on fruitless negotiations. Now is the time to make a breakthrough and execute the repatriation plan without delay. There is no alternative to resuming the verification process and begin repatriation of those verified, to start with. Naturally, the majority of the 107,000 refugees living in Nepal would settle for nothing less than a chance to return home in dignity. As for the third country resettlement plan, one must concede the idea is getting increasingly popular among the younger refugees. This is not a bad idea and its merit may carefully be examined. But, in the final analysis, bringing relief to the refugees is one thing and actually doing something plausible for those who desperately want to return back to their homeland is quite another.