FREE RIZAL
In a move that caught everyone by surprise, the Royal Government of Bhutan freed Tek Nath Rizal, along with 39 other political prisoners and 160 others convicted for cofmmon crimes, on 17 December 1999, the kingdom's 92nd National Day. The release of 52-year-old Rizal, the country's top dissident leader, after more than 10 years of incarceration has caused more than a flutter for what it could portend for the future of the 100,000 Bhutanese refugees living in India and Nepal.
Rizal's struggle and confrontation with the government began in April 1988 when, as the peoples' representative to the National Assembly and elected royal advisory coun-cillor, he petitioned King Jigme Singye Wangchuk against the arbitrary manner in which the census was being conducted in southern Bhutan. He pleaded that Lhot-shampas (southern Bhutanese of Nepali ethnicity) were being called upon to fulfill impossible conditions to prove their bona fides as Bhutanese nationals.
Rizal's struggle and confrontation with the government began in April 1988 when, as the peoples' representative to the National Assembly and elected royal advisory coun-cillor, he petitioned King Jigme Singye Wangchuk against the arbitrary manner in which the census was being conducted in southern Bhutan. He pleaded that Lhot-shampas (southern Bhutanese of Nepali ethnicity) were being called upon to fulfill impossible conditions to prove their bona fides as Bhutanese nationals.
The government deemed the petition seditious and detained Rizal for three days in June 1988. Granted a royal pardon, and released under stringent conditions (such as the one that he could not be in the company of more than two persons at any time), he fled the country and took refuge in Nepal.
In exile, Rizal formed the People's Forum for Human Rights to raise awareness about the situation in Bhutan, which was progressively worsening for people of ethnic Nepali origin settled in the southern part of the country. As internal dissent simmered, the government blamed Rizal for fomenting trouble. And with the connivance of the autocratic Panchayat regime of Nepal, Rizal was arrested and flown to Bhutan aboard a special Druk Air flight in November 1989.
For the next two years, he and six other activists, all in solitary confinement, were the sole inmates at Rabuna Prison in Wangdue Phodrang, western Bhutan. Following appeals by human rights groups, including Amnesty International, which adopted him and the others as "prisoners of conscience", Rizal was finally brought to trial in 1993. He was tried on charges framed under the National Security Act, 1992, promulgated three years after his arrest, found guilty, and in November 1993, sentenced to life imprisonment.
Three days later, a royal edict was issued, which stated that Rizal would be freed once the refugee problem was resolved. Despite appeals for his release on health and humanitarian grounds by human rights groups, the government refused to relent and Rizal spent the next six years in Chemgang Prison on the outskirts of Thimphu.
The sudden and unexpected change of heart on the part of the Bhutanese regime has become the subject of much speculation. Does it mean that a solution to the refugee problem is finally on the cards? Or, is it, as some sceptics see it, yet another stroke of genius and display of statecraft by the Bhutanese government? So far, there is no evidence to lead one to either conclusion.
Welcoming his release, Amnesty International said: "We hope the release of Tek Nath Rizal will contribute to a just and lasting solution to the problems faced by tens of thousands of people currently in refugee camps in eastern Nepal, who claim they have the right to return to Bhutan." Amnesty has cause to sound optimistic because the king's edict, immediately following his sentencing, had stated: "Rizal will be released from prison once the governments of Bhutan and Nepal resolve the problem of people living in refugee camps in eastern Nepal."
Rizal is now free, but the refugee crisis remains unresolved. Clearly, the political problem in the kingdom has taken a new twist. Since his release, Rizal has been surprisingly accessible by phone at the Thimphu hotel where he is staying. If the calls are being monitored, he obviously doesn't care, and if he has been cautioned about what he can or cannot say, it is clear he is not heeding the warnings. The Nepali media has interviewed him over phone and his statements, remarkably candid and often politically charged, have been carried in Kathmandu's newspapers and radio. Reportedly, he has also spoken freely to a host of Bhutanese activists in exile and other well-wishers who seem to have no trouble getting through.
The freedom of both speech and expression that Rizal obviously enjoys at the moment are worthy of note since the regime has often been accused of muzzling its critics. (However, this freedom allows Rizal to address the outside world only—neither Bhutan TV nor radio will air his views nor will Kuensel, the nation's only newspaper.)
The Bhutanese government has long been faulted for prolonging the refugee crisis by running circles around the Nepali government in bilateral negotiations, and there is reason to suspect the freedom granted Rizal is one more example of Thimphu's diplomatic finesse. If the release itself earns approbation for the Bhutanese monarch's magnanimity, there can be no end to the praise heaped upon the government for allowing Rizal to speak out freely.
But there are those who view Rizal's release as reflecting Bhutan's confidence and an indication that its government has no intention of changing tack. What the regime is counting on, they believe, is that the trade-off between the tremendous amount of international goodwill and any collateral damage from Rizal's access to the media will be in their favour.
On the other hand, however, if Rizal's freedom and the refugee crisis are truly interlinked, as suggested by the king in his conditional pardon of November 1993, there is hope for the 100,000 Bhutanese in exile. Rizal's release could be the first signal that Bhutan is finally willing to be more forthcoming in resolving the refugee issue.
At the moment, Bhutan is facing a more pressing problem: with heavily-armed resident militants from Assam unwilling to accept the offer of safe-passage out of the kingdom, a ground battle seems to be on the cards. That battle may have to be fought in the interior by the dominant Drukpas alone because ethnic Nepali Bhutanese, who traditionally served as the buffer, are languishing in refugee camps in Nepal. Now might be as good a time as any to bring them home.