Bhutanese Refugees in India

While the Bhutanese refugee crisis is most commonly associated with the UNHCR-administered camps in Nepal that housed over 100,000 Lhotshampa refugees, a significant and often overlooked population of expelled Bhutanese settled in India instead. These refugees — estimated to number between 15,000 and 30,000 — crossed into Indian states bordering Bhutan, particularly West Bengal and Assam, and established communities without the benefit of formal camp infrastructure, UNHCR registration, or the international attention that accompanied the Nepal camps.

The Bhutanese refugees in India have occupied a peculiar and precarious position. India, which shares a border with Bhutan and has historically maintained close political and economic ties with the Bhutanese government, never formally acknowledged these refugees as a distinct displaced population requiring protection. Unlike the camps in Nepal, which received UNHCR support and eventually became the basis for the third-country resettlement program, the Indian settlements operated largely outside the international refugee regime. The result has been a population that is doubly marginalized — displaced from Bhutan and invisible within India.

Understanding the experiences of Bhutanese refugees in India is essential for a complete picture of the crisis. Their story reveals not only the diversity of displacement outcomes but also the ways in which geopolitics and institutional structures determine which refugee populations receive attention and assistance and which do not.

Routes and Settlement Patterns

Bhutanese refugees arrived in India through multiple routes and at different stages of the crisis. Some crossed directly from southern Bhutan into the Indian states of West Bengal and Assam during the expulsion period of the late 1980s and early 1990s, choosing India over the longer journey to Nepal. Others initially went to Nepal but subsequently moved to India for various reasons — family connections, economic opportunities, or disillusionment with camp conditions. Some had been living and working in India before the expulsion and simply remained when return to Bhutan became impossible.

The primary areas of settlement included the Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling districts of West Bengal, parts of Assam, and scattered communities in other northeastern Indian states. These regions were chosen for practical reasons: proximity to Bhutan, the presence of Nepali-speaking populations with whom the Lhotshampa shared linguistic and cultural affinities, and the availability of employment in tea plantations, agriculture, and informal sector activities.

Unlike the Nepal camps, which were concentrated in seven well-defined locations in Jhapa and Morang districts, the Indian settlements were dispersed and informal. Refugees lived in rented accommodations, on marginal land, or with relatives and community members already established in the area. This dispersal made them less visible both to Indian authorities and to international organizations.

Legal Status Challenges

The legal status of Bhutanese refugees in India has been characterized by ambiguity and insecurity. India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, and the country lacks a comprehensive domestic refugee law. Refugee populations in India — including Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils, Afghans, and Bhutanese — have been managed through ad hoc administrative arrangements rather than a formal legal framework.

For the Bhutanese in India, this legal vacuum has had significant practical consequences. Without formal refugee status or documentation, they have faced difficulties accessing government services, enrolling children in schools, obtaining employment in the formal sector, and exercising basic civil rights. Some have obtained Indian identity documents — voter cards, ration cards, or Aadhaar numbers — through local administrative processes, often with the help of sympathetic officials or community networks. Others have remained undocumented and vulnerable.

The Indian government's close relationship with Bhutan has further complicated the situation. India has historically supported the Bhutanese government's position on the refugee crisis and has been reluctant to take actions that might strain bilateral relations. This political dynamic has contributed to the Indian government's failure to formally recognize or protect the Bhutanese refugee population within its borders.

Exclusion from the Resettlement Program

Perhaps the most consequential distinction between the Bhutanese refugees in India and those in Nepal was the exclusion of the Indian population from the third-country resettlement program. The UNHCR-facilitated resettlement that began in 2007, which ultimately relocated approximately 113,000 refugees from the Nepal camps to the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and European countries, was limited to individuals registered in the camps. Bhutanese refugees living in India — unregistered with UNHCR and unrecognized by the Indian government as refugees — were not eligible.

This exclusion had profound implications. While their counterparts in Nepal gained access to legal status, social services, education, and economic opportunities in resettlement countries, the India-based refugees remained in their precarious situation. The disparity created frustration and resentment within the Indian-based community and highlighted the arbitrary nature of the international refugee regime, where the circumstances of initial flight — specifically, which border one crossed — could determine one's entire life trajectory.

Some Bhutanese refugees in India attempted to register in the Nepal camps in order to become eligible for resettlement, with varying degrees of success. The verification processes used to determine eligibility were imperfect, and the question of who qualified as a "genuine" camp resident was contested throughout the resettlement process.

Community Life and Organization

Despite the absence of formal support structures, Bhutanese refugee communities in India developed their own networks and institutions. Community organizations provided mutual support, organized cultural and religious events, and advocated — with limited success — for recognition and assistance. Temples, community centers, and informal social networks served as the institutional backbone of these communities.

Economically, the refugees in India pursued livelihoods in sectors available to them given their documentation status. Tea plantation work, agricultural labor, small-scale trade, construction, and various informal sector activities provided subsistence income. Some individuals, particularly those with education or skills acquired before displacement, managed to establish more stable economic positions over time. The broader Nepali-speaking communities in which many refugees settled provided a degree of economic and social integration, though the refugees' uncertain legal status remained a constant source of vulnerability.

Cultural life in the Indian settlements maintained connections to Lhotshampa traditions, including Hindu religious observances, Nepali-language cultural practices, and community celebrations. However, the absence of the institutional infrastructure that existed in the Nepal camps — schools, health centers, community organizations supported by UNHCR and NGO partners — meant that cultural preservation relied more heavily on informal family and community transmission.

Estimated Numbers and Current Situation

Reliable figures for the Bhutanese refugee population in India are difficult to establish. Estimates have ranged from as few as 15,000 to as many as 30,000, but the dispersed nature of the population, the absence of formal registration, and the fluidity of movement between communities make accurate counting impossible. Some researchers and organizations have used figures in the range of 20,000 to 25,000, but these are necessarily approximations.

As of the mid-2020s, the Bhutanese refugees in India remain in a largely unchanged situation. They have not been offered resettlement opportunities comparable to those provided to the Nepal camp population. The Indian government has not established a formal framework for their recognition or protection. And the Bhutanese government continues to deny responsibility for the displacement and to refuse repatriation. The passage of time has led to a degree of de facto integration into Indian society, particularly for younger generation members who have grown up in India, but this integration is informal and does not resolve the fundamental questions of legal status and belonging.

Relationship to the Nepal Camps

The Bhutanese refugees in India maintained connections to the camp population in Nepal throughout the camp period. Family networks spanned both countries, and information, money, and people moved between the Indian settlements and the Nepal camps. Some families were split between the two locations, with some members in the camps and others in India.

The resettlement program intensified these connections as camp-based family members resettled to third countries, creating transnational family networks linking India, Nepal, and resettlement countries. For the India-based refugees, watching relatives and community members depart for new lives in the West while they remained in their precarious situation was a source of both hope — through the prospect of family reunification — and frustration at their own exclusion from the process.

References

1. Human Rights Watch. "Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal and India." May 2007. https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/05/16/last-hope/need-durable-solutions-bhutanese-refugees-nepal-and-india/need-durable-solutions-bhutanese-refugees-nepal-and-india
2. Hutt, Michael. Unbecoming Citizens: Culture, Nationhood, and the Flight of Refugees from Bhutan. Oxford University Press, 2003.
3. Amnesty International. "Bhutan: Forcible Exile." ASA 14/04/1994.
4. Banki, Susan. "Resettlement of the Bhutanese from Nepal: The Durable Solution Discourse." In Protracted Displacement in Asia, edited by Howard Adelman. Routledge, 2008.
5. Minority Rights Group International. "State of the World's Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2012 — Bhutan." https://minorityrights.org/

Contributed by Anonymous Contributor, Siliguri, India