Shootout in Beldangi leaves one critical

8
116

Sahabir Subba, 21, of Beldangi-I camp sector G-3 hut number 335, has sustained a bullet on his chest when an unidentified gang opened fire at him Friday evening at 9:20 p.m.

Critically injured Subba was immediately rushed to BP Koirala Memorial Hospital, Dharan for treatment, camp-based Armed Police Force Iin-charge, Bhupendra Niraula, informed Bhutan News Service.

Camp Secretary, TB Gurung, also confirmed shoot out inside the camp.

No one was arrested following the incidence yet.

8 COMMENTS

  1. This is indeed a very sad thing that has happened and i have my very deep sympathy for the injured Mr subba and his family.
    Before geting into the who the person shot and who fired the shot it is more wise to know as much as possible about what could be the cause and the effect. you must be wondering the writer should be someone with supernatutal power or famous Sharlock Holmes’ clan. Am none of these but would like to unwind the time clock a bit.
    who are there in the camp now?. These are the people who know very little about why they became refugees and why are they still living in the camp. these are the people with least of education except for few. these class served the influential class without any hesitation back in Bhutan, did the same in the camp too. the influential class has already made their way to America, Australia and many other countries leaving behind the most innocent class of sufferers.
    The likes of Mr Arjun Subba knew the process of thier resettlement would never get completed with thier long history of criminal activitied.Also the likes of Hari Bungaley and Manorath Khanal would need to wait for years for thier pimping activities. but as these class was influential they used the innocent people in the camp to fire and stone them so that their process in expediated. Arjun was shot but not killed, why ??? because the person who shot was payed by Mr subba to shot him at such part of the body that the injury is not dangerous. The same goes true with the class of Hari Bungaley and Manorath Khanal who paid for geting beaten up. the same class who was shooting then or beating people for paltry payment are dangerous criminals today and the camp is living with the fear of this blood thirsty criminals today.
    I regret to say that the likes of Subba, Bungaley and so on are bhutanese and are happily resettled and the innocent refugees are now suffering like hell in the camps.it is SHAME ON THESE PEOPLE.
    I am once again sympathetic to Mr S. subba who is shot and pray to god for his fast recovery and hope to see the miscreants to be brought to book along with their mentors.

    Jigme

  2. First of all, I pray for the fast recovery of Mr. S. Subba of his wounds.
    Its wonderful to see the above response of you Mr. Jigme Thinley though you do not mention your current post as the PM of the RGOB. Anyway, when you express something positive it must be appreciated. Although, recently you had meant to say ‘illegal immigrants’ to the Bhutanese in exile, you expressd sadness in Subba’s being shot. It is certainly something that is humane.
    But to me, I am doubtful of your statement again. Is it something that you want to blame the ‘influential people’ -the resettled Bhutanese for the whole scenario of 1990 onwards, the creation of the Bhutanese refugees, the killing of so many South Bhutanese people? Is this your attempt to influence the world bodies, and the generous west to rethink their resettlement programme?
    We know that had the south Bhutanese not opposed your imposition of blind terms on general mass the terms that would eradicate a whole nationality of religion, culture, faith, belief and worship you woild forcefully and in your language ‘lawfully’ amalgamate into that of yours which is less civilised, which is less rational and in many times impracticable.
    Is this again your attempt to divide the Bhutanese in the camps? You as one of the most learned personalities of Bhutan who studied in a country like Australia, who was the Director General of Education Department and who could cunningly win the first national democratic election in Buddhist Bhutan, should think of the whole Humanity. This is 3rd millenium. The whole world has become nothing more than an old village. You and your country men including you own sons and daughters can not just remain in your own political boundaries. Love or hatred, enmity or friendship, networks of relations of all sorts with every individual in this world is growing thanks to the advancement of science and technology. I think you are a student of sociology, if I am not mistaken then how you could deny the very right to life to more than a hundred thousand innocent Bhutanese?
    Whatever, I personally do not have any hatred to you or your country. i will remain a refugee or get settled anywhere, but you know you cannot impose your thoughts to anybody in this world.

  3. American proposal: A Pace Leading For Democracy In Bhutan.

    It has been over twenty years since despotic Bhutan evicted more than a hundred thousand Bhutanese from Bhutan.They have been living in the UNHCR administered camps in the eastern part of Nepal. Needless to mention, one can visualize the stock of a refugee life within a country, which is undergoing through the most intricate time of its history though a Bhutanese delegate of the Nepal-Bhutan joint Ministerial talks had claimed that these people were attracted towards the amenities provided by the UN body. Attempts have been made to solve this human problem by Nepal within the ethics of the regional, bilateral and friendly relations between Bhutan and Nepal though it should have been between Bhutan and the Bhutanese, as many refugee leaders sense. Nevertheless, since the inception of this crisis, Bhutan has not been serious in resolving this issue enduringly and amicably in an acceptable measure for all the parties. In this setting, the United States of America has offered a resettlement for sixty thousand Bhutanese refugees in that country.
    First of all, everybody concerned with this dilemma must be conscious of its nature and magnitude. The government of Bhutan had been playing an ambivalent role towards its ‘subject’- the people of southern Bhutan, the majority of who constitute the people of Nepali origin. If we recall the late eighties and early nineties popular democratic movements spearheaded in the neighboring Nepal, Bangladesh, some countries in the Latin America and successful changes there, put the Himalayan regime skeptical towards the southern Bhutanese. Upright, and in a haste they cooked up a policy of ‘one nation one people’ to be immediately circulated and implemented. This was a strategy of assimilating an ethnic group of the Nepalese origin within the drukpas with respect to their language, religion, culture, social institutions all the way through compelled acculturation and forced socialization. The then officials claimed to have been taking those steps only to save their nation from the invasion of the southern Bhutanese. It was only inherent for the southern Bhutanese to defy those provocative steps of the government by peaceful demonstrations, which, of course, led to some sporadic antagonism in the country. As a consequence hundreds of innocent and mostly politically unacquainted populace were subjected to one of the most brutal handling the world has ever witnessed. Not withstanding, the state sponsored violence, those who are now in the camps and some outside were given the option to flee to Nepal. The Indian Police force transported the evicted across the Indian border to Nepal. One can guess what those people brought from there with them to Nepal when their life itself was at stake in the mercy of the Bhutanese armed security forces.
    After sixteen long years of continual living in a refugee status, a large human nation has been kept aside of the mainstream world citizens and for no harm they have made to anyone in this age of third millennium. It is indifferent to a refugee for any new constructive change taking place in any part of the globe. They are only proud that they have been able to fill up their stomach with ration they are provided in the camps and have survived till this time. The education they are acquiring is of no value, as they cannot sell their labour in any country they pursue for the lack of citizenship. Some, who go outside for a better living as the ration provided is certainly not enough, are to be satisfied with the low wages as compared to their counterpart workers. In the going, the United States of America has offered an opportunity to provide resettlement for 60,000 Bhutanese refugees in their country as assured by the visiting senators this year in Nepal. This offer has produced mixed reactions among the refugees as appeared in the news media.
    The majority people welcomed this declaration; six of seven camp secretaries released press statements supporting the move. These people principally the camp secretaries do have to a certain level the right to represent the refugees as they have elected them no matter how fair the election is. In this, it is worth mentioning that many who are leading this movement have not obtained the mandate of the Bhutanese community, which is a must in pluralist system. There are some groups, which could not easily accept this for various reasons. Well, the essence of democracy is freedom of expression, faith, belief and worship. People have right to associate, express what they feel necessary but without hindrance to the right of the fellow citizens. Genuinely, one can presuppose and release statements of suspicions. Being already psychologically maimed, one can derisively think of a worse situation and also one can try to lookout ones position with utmost thoughtfulness. Sure, after so much of being besieged by the circumstances, we must not leave any stone unturned for the betterment of the entire Bhutanese refugee community. Nonetheless, aggression or any negative behaviour of anyone is not going to produce any positive result benefiting commonly to all. In fact, arbitrary thoughts of self-proclaimed leaders imposed in the minds of the innocent people have been counter productive in this impasse. Before being unreceptive, one must think upon this from many perspectives.
    In the one hand the world has changed into a global family of human beings while in the other traditional hostility between the ethnic groups is still on. We must mention here the national parameter of development is also how we take the value of human life. It certainly differs from one nation to another. The country where its high official feels a refugee life high standard and a country, which actually is responsible for creating a refugee-issue, have a different parameter of human development. The implications of the proposal are far-reaching and versatile. It has not only created an embarrassing situation for Bhutan which is a third world developing country depending upon the world community for its very survival but also has put a moral pressure to the Big Brother in the south who claims to be the largest democracy in the world and rests detached in this predicament. Bhutan’s economic development plans; foreign relations and defense policies are framed strictly in the approval of India. In times to come, it may be more logical and ethical for this regional power to participate in this matter of humanity.
    In the twenty first century, our thoughts and behavior should not be comparable to that of the Bhutanese regime, which stresses ‘one nation one people’ by force. Our mission has become to bring a change to such a notion that still exists. It’s a period in history of the world when development means co-existence, universal brotherhood, equality and justice, which is possible in democracy. This is a time when social bonds have strengthened between the individuals; political boundaries have weakened between the nations and above all individual rights have been increasingly promoted in the more developed countries. The feudal structures are fast disintegrating giving way to a pluralist world society, the old narrow mind-set is thrown away and the creation of a just world has been the order of the time. Today, due to the development of science and technology, the world has been changed to just a global village, where an Indian cotton is processed in UK, woven in USA and a person living in the remotest area in a country like Bhutan wears. Our traditional etiquettes are influenced and we choose to adopt those that were foreign to us in the past. This has been a time when everyone in this world is dependent with every other.
    By this, it is not intended to undermine patriotism. But at the same time we should think twice about the type of patriotism that prevails and its feasibility in the twenty first century. Isn’t the type of patriotism that we hold out dated? Don’t a blind and one-sided martyrdom look ridiculous? The share of principles is more important than the physical presence. Wouldn’t an outright resentment to this offer be a regressive action for the long awaited change we are heading for?
    It would only be a positive way to prop up this move, come together and form a general body in a democratic approach responsible and accountable to all the Bhutanese refugees and work continuously for the mission that we are in rather than being at odds. The American offer is in favour of the true Bhutanese, a blow to those playing a double standard strategy in this region and a pace in advance for democracy in the tiny Himalayan nation.
    (This article was drafted soon after America offered to resettle 60,000 Bhutanese refugees in the USA)
    Shyam K Bista
    [email protected]