CMC regrets for barring refugees from going outside camps


The Camp Management Committee (CMC) of Beldangi camp regretted for restricting refugees from going outside the three Beldangi camps, Friday.

An all-party meeting under the chairmanship of Chief District Officer of Jhapa, Sashi Shekhar Shrestha, at the community forest office this morning reached an understanding that CMC did a mistake by not allowing the refugees to move out of the camps.

File photo: Beldangi Camp Secretary Dhan Bir Subba

“The CMC felt sorry for the decision and expressed regret in front of representatives of various stakeholders including the UNHCR and Jhapa CDO,” one of the participants told Bhutan News Service after the meeting.

According to the source, the government authority queried the CMC for deciding to breach social norms and values by executing ‘no movement’ of the refugees outside the camp.

The meeting also decided to remove all animals from the camps at the earliest possible time.

Meanwhile, the local community urged the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to find an alternative for carbon briquette claiming its remains have polluted the environment and even destroyed crops when washed away during the raining season.

Responding to the concern, the UNHCR representative said discussions have been underway as he cited the briquette has also adversely affected the refugees in camp.

The CDO also instructed the Armed Police Force and Nepal Police to immediate arrest those accused of mercilessly beating two refugee youths on Tuesday and bring them into a book.

Following the agreement, transportation and movement of refugees outside the camps have resumed.

Reported by Tulsi Upreti from Beldangi-I camp for BNS


  1. Legally, the refugees are not allowed to leave the camps. But the government of nepal instructs the CMC to not address the issue. Not complaining – it is just that something does not add up here. Is it the Jhapa Chamber of Commerce in action?

    How come the focus suddenly shifted to animals in the camps? Was there a relation between the beatings and the animals being in the camps?

  2. Allowing freedom of movement to the Bhutanese refugees by the representative of the Nepal govt. is a good sign.At least after 20 years refugees can now move legally in Nepal.Regarding the removal of animals,yes,camp area is very narrow/small/cramped.Therefore,it is always better to keep animals out side of the camp.Bhutanese refugees forefathers were Nepali citizens and these refugees are now in the land of their parents.Why not start owning land property and keep the animals there? When Larkel Lama can become a Nepali minister and shaa and Yadap the members of the parliament to sell their diplomatic pass port ,is it illegal for these ethnic Nepali refugees to own property in Nepal legally? Please, very sincerely, I need response from the readers and I request BNS to help these words reach to the Nepali govt.

  3. In a congested living conditions like that of camp, sanitation and health environment are always prioritized. Small animals that are kept inside the huts will do more harm than doing goods. If we just substitute the ‘value’ demerits are more than doing well. It may be ok for the owners but it will have cumulative effect to all the inhabitants of the camp. So to keep the safe environment for healthy living conditions it is wise to discourage for keeping these animals and fowls. Local people who are economically benefiting seem very supportive and tame these animals there, in the close vicinity of camp. So let us be humane here.
    I do not see any logic for CMC to regret for the ‘moratorium’ they exercised for the movement of people. It was for the safety of life and properties which is their duty. Had there been further clashes and other losses, CMC would be questioned for not doing the duty or taking matter seriously. Whatever they did was good for all. I could sense that present CMC under the leadership MR. DB Subbajee is demonstrating pretty well. And blaming general locals or refugees with this incidents or concluding in the relationship is really unwanted. We had a very cordial and friendly relationship among each other. We developed a bond, very intimate type. May be the present incident occurred in their dealing only.