Renaming of Places in Southern Bhutan

The renaming of places in southern Bhutan refers to the systematic replacement of Nepali-origin place names across Bhutan's southern districts with Dzongkha-language names, carried out in several waves between the 1950s and the late 1990s. The process affected district names, town names, gewog (sub-district) names, chiwog (village block) names, and individual village names across at least six southern dzongkhags (districts), with the Bhutan Watch organization reporting that "hundreds of names" were changed during the 1996-97 romanization standardization alone.^[1]

Human rights organizations, refugee advocacy groups, and Lhotshampa diaspora communities have characterized the renaming as part of a broader program of cultural erasure directed at the Nepali-speaking population of southern Bhutan, occurring alongside the enforcement of Driglam Namzha (the national etiquette code), the removal of Nepali from school curricula, and the mass expulsion of an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 Lhotshampa people in the early 1990s.^[2] The Bhutanese government has framed portions of the changes as the standardization of romanized Dzongkha spellings, arguing that many places always had Dzongkha names that had been rendered inaccurately under Nepali phonetic influence. Both characterizations have validity depending on the specific case, and the distinction between genuine renaming and re-romanization varies across individual place names.

The topic has gained renewed attention since December 2023 with the announcement of the Gelephu Mindfulness City project on lands from which Lhotshampa families were expelled, prompting refugee communities to highlight how the renaming of their ancestral villages complicates efforts to document and reclaim property.^[3]

Historical Background

Settlement of Southern Bhutan

Southern Bhutan, comprising the subtropical foothills along the Indian border, was historically populated by Nepali-speaking communities collectively known as the Lhotshampa ("southerners"). Nepali settlers had been present in the region since at least the late 19th century, and during the early 20th century, the Bhutanese government actively encouraged Nepali migration to clear forests and develop agriculture in the southern lowlands. By the 1930s, the Bhutanese government had settled approximately 5,000 Nepali families in Tsirang district alone.^[4] Place names in these areas naturally reflected the Nepali language and cultural heritage of their majority inhabitants, with names derived from Sanskrit, Nepali, and Hindi linguistic traditions.

British India, which maintained protectorate relations with Bhutan following the Treaty of Sinchula (1865) and the Treaty of Punakha (1910), conducted surveys that recorded place names as they were locally known. Survey of India maps from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, some of which have been digitized by the Cambridge Digital Library, reflect pre-renaming toponyms for southern Bhutan in transliterations reflecting local (predominantly Nepali) usage.^[5]

Pre-Renaming Administrative Names

Before the renaming campaigns, southern Bhutanese administrative units bore names that reflected their Nepali-speaking communities. Districts known to the outside world included Samchi (now Samtse), Chirang (now Tsirang), and Sarbhang (now Sarpang). The main southern border towns were known by Nepali or local names: Hatisar ("elephant place," now Gelephu), the Bhutanese side of Jaigaon (now Phuntsholing), and various settlement names that appear on pre-1960s maps and in British colonial records.

The Renaming Campaigns

First Wave: Border Town Naming (1950s-1960s)

The first organized effort to give Dzongkha names to southern places is attributed to King Jigme Dorji Wangchuck (reigned 1952-1972), the Third King of Bhutan. According to accounts documented by Bhutan Watch, the king's storekeeper, Lopen Nyapchhi, informed the king that mail to border areas was arriving addressed with Indian names because the Bhutanese border towns lacked official Bhutanese names. The king instructed Lopen to devise new names for the three major southern border towns.^[1]

The resulting changes included:

Hatisar (Nepali: "elephant place") was renamed Gaylegphug (Dzongkha: "sanctuary of virtue"), announced circa 1959 via wireless radio from Dechencholing Palace. The spelling was later standardized to Gelephu.
The Bhutanese side of Jaigaon was named Phuntsholing (Dzongkha: "place of prosperity"), later standardized as Phuentsholing.
The eastern border town was named Samdrup Jongkhar (Dzongkha: "fortress of fulfilled aspirations").

These names were reportedly announced daily on the wireless station for two weeks. This first wave appears to have been primarily motivated by nation-building during Bhutan's modernization, rather than by specific anti-Lhotshampa intent. However, it established the precedent for more systematic renaming in subsequent decades.

Second Wave: The "One Nation, One People" Period (Late 1980s-Early 1990s)

The second and most consequential wave of renaming occurred in the context of escalating policies targeting the Lhotshampa population. The broader policy framework included:

1985: The Citizenship Act required documentation of residence before December 31, 1958, retroactively stripping citizenship from many Lhotshampa.
1988: A special census in southern Bhutan classified residents as "genuine" citizens or "non-nationals." The census revealed that approximately 43% of Bhutan's population was Lhotshampa.
January 1989: A royal decree made Driglam Namzha, the traditional Drukpa code of etiquette and dress, mandatory for all citizens.
February 1989: Nepali was removed as a language of instruction and as a subject from all schools in southern Bhutan.^[6]

During this period, gewog-level administrative units across southern Bhutan were consolidated, reorganized, and renamed. Many gewogs with Nepali-origin names were replaced by newly coined Dzongkha names, often incorporating Dzongkha words with auspicious Buddhist meanings (e.g., names ending in "-gang," "-ling," "-pelri," "-choeling"). The AHURA Bhutan submission to the World Conference Against Racism documented that "names of places symbolic of Nepali culture have been assigned Drukpa nomenclature."^[7]

This wave of renaming was concurrent with the mass expulsion of Lhotshampa people between 1990 and 1993, during which citizenship documents, land ownership records, and tax receipts were confiscated from those being expelled.^[2]

Third Wave: The 1996-1997 Romanization Standardization

In 1991, the Dzongkha Development Commission (established 1986 by King Jigme Singye Wangchuck) introduced the first phonological romanization system for Dzongkha, called "Roman Dzongkha." A simplified version was later developed, and on May 29, 1997, Bhutan's Ministry of Home Affairs approved and mandated the implementation of Roman Dzongkha for all government institutions, standardizing the romanization of all geographical names.^[8]

According to the Bhutan Watch report on the Cultural History of Gelephu, this process involved the Royal Government of Bhutan changing "hundreds of names in southern Bhutan in an attempt to erase the traces of Nepali influences."^[1] The standardization had several effects: it formalized name changes that had already occurred administratively; it replaced romanized forms reflecting Nepali pronunciation (e.g., "Samchi" to "Samtse," "Chirang" to "Tsirang") with forms reflecting Dzongkha phonology; and it provided official government sanction for Dzongkha names that had been imposed on previously Nepali-named administrative units.

Ongoing Changes (2000s-2010s)

Administrative reorganization continued into the 2000s. In Tsirang, 22 gewogs were consolidated into 12, with extensive renaming documented by a former Gup (village headman) Phugay Drukpa in interviews held by the Mandala Collections at the University of Virginia.^[9] In 2003, Pataley gewog in Tsirang was renamed Sergithang at the suggestion of Queen Mother Dorji Wangmo. In 2007, Lhamoy Zingkha Dungkhag was transferred from Sarpang to Dagana District, and the gewog of Deorali was subsequently renamed Karmaling. In the Sarpang district, a refugee blog documented that "most names of the chiwogs have been changed after 1998."^[10]

Comprehensive Table of Documented Renamings

The following tables document known renamings, organized by administrative level and district. This list is almost certainly incomplete; the full scope of village-level renaming in particular remains poorly documented in publicly available sources. Where the Bhutanese government's own websites use dual nomenclature (old and new names together), this is noted.

District-Level Name Changes

Original Name	Current Official Name	Approx. Date	Notes
Samchi	Samtse	Late 1990s	Re-romanized under 1997 standardization
Chirang	Tsirang	Late 1990s	Re-romanized under 1997 standardization
Sarbhang / Sarbang	Sarpang	Late 1990s	District also known as Geylegphug district
Daga / Tagana	Dagana	Late 1990s	"Tagana" appears in 1965 province list
Shemgang	Zhemgang	Late 1990s	Also historically called Kheng by locals

Town-Level Name Changes

Original Name	Current Name	District	Approx. Date
Hatisar ("elephant place")	Gelephu ("sanctuary of virtue")	Sarpang	c. 1959
Jaigaon-Bhutan	Phuntsholing ("place of prosperity")	Chhukha	c. 1959
(Unnamed / local name)	Samdrup Jongkhar ("fortress of fulfilled aspirations")	Samdrup Jongkhar	c. 1959
Samchi	Samtse	Samtse	Late 1990s

Gewog Renamings: Samtse District

Samtse has the most extensively documented gewog-level renamings. The Samtse Dzongkhag Administration website itself uses dual nomenclature for several gewogs, acknowledging the older names alongside the current Dzongkha names.^[11]

Original Nepali Name	Current Dzongkha Name	Status
Chengmari	Norbugang	Govt site uses dual name
Lahireni	Namgaychhoeling	Govt site uses dual name
Bara	Norgaygang	Govt site uses dual name
Pagli	Phuentshogpelri	Renamed
Chargharey	Sangngagchhoeling	Govt site uses dual name
Sipsu / Sibsoo	Tashicholing	Govt site uses dual name
Ghumauney	Yoeseltse	Govt site uses dual name
Biru	Pemaling	Renamed
Dorokha	Dophoogchen	Dual nomenclature in use
Nainital	Ugentse (merged)	Gewog disestablished
Mayona	Ugentse (merged)	Gewog disestablished

Gewog Renamings: Tsirang District

Tsirang experienced some of the most extensive renaming, with 22 gewogs consolidated into 12. Former Gup Phugay Drukpa documented the process in interviews archived at the University of Virginia.^[9]

Original Nepali Name(s)	Current Dzongkha Name	Type of Change
Chanautey / Chaunetai	Rangthangling	Renamed
Gairigaon / Gairigaun	Barshong	Renamed
Tshokhana	Tsholingkhar	Renamed
Tsirang Dangra	Tsirangtoe	Renamed
Gopani	Dunglagang	Renamed ("trumpet-shaped area")
Manitar, Burichhu, Dhanshree	Phuntenchu / Pungtenchu	Three merged into one
Drangragang, Kartikey, Barari	Semjong	Three merged into one
Bokarey, Salami	Kikhorthang	Two merged into one
Pataley	Sergithang	Renamed 2003, by Queen Mother Dorji Wangmo
Labshey-botey	Gosarling / Gasaling	Renamed ("mix of people")
Lamidara	Mendrelgang	Renamed
Bataney	Patshaling	Renamed

Gewog Renamings: Sarpang District

Original Name	Current Dzongkha Name	Type of Change
Surey / Surrey	Jigmechhoeling	Renamed
Danabari	Chhuzagang	Renamed
Taklai	Tareythang / Taraythang	Renamed
Sarpangtar	(disestablished)	Gewog eliminated
Bhur	(disestablished / Jigmiling)	Gewog eliminated or renamed

Many current Sarpang gewog names (Dekiling, Gakiling, Samtenling, Serzhong, Shompangkha) are Dzongkha-origin names whose relationship to any prior Nepali names is poorly documented in available sources. A refugee community blog documented that nine chiwogs within the former Danabari (now Chhuzagang) gewog, including Dandagaon, Thewar, Limbutar, Samitar, Kalikhola, and Tatopani, had "most names" changed after 1998, though the new names were not specified.^[10]

Gewog Renamings: Chhukha and Dagana Districts

Original Name	Current Name	District	Notes
Bhulajhora	Sampheling	Chhukha	Gewog replaced
Deorali	Karmaling	Dagana	Transferred from Sarpang 2007; Nepali name replaced
Zinchula	Nichula	Dagana	Transferred from Sarpang 2007; variant spelling

Gewog Renamings: Samdrup Jongkhar District

Original Name	Current Name	Notes
Bakuli (also known as Bangtar)	Phuntshothang	Renamed
Hastinapur	(disestablished; area divided among new gewogs)	Sanskrit/Nepali name eliminated

The name "Hastinapur" is notable for being derived from the Sanskrit name of the ancient city in the Mahabharata epic, reflecting the Hindu cultural heritage of the Lhotshampa community. Its elimination is particularly illustrative of the cultural dimension of the renaming process.

Village-Level Renamings

Village-level documentation is sparse in publicly available sources, but at least one specific case has been documented:

Original Name	Current Name	Location
Aipuwali	Phulari	Bhur Block, Sarpang

The New Americans Magazine reported in December 2024 that construction of Buddhist temples and monasteries was being planned "in the heart of Aipuwali" (now Phulari), on land from which Lhotshampa families had been expelled.^[3]

Note on completeness: This article documents approximately 40 renamings and disestablishments. Bhutan Watch reported that "hundreds" of names were changed in 1996-97 alone, and a refugee community blog confirmed that chiwog-level names were changed after 1998 in Sarpang. The full scope of village-level renaming likely numbers in the hundreds but remains systematically undocumented in available sources. Oral history collection from elderly Lhotshampa refugees represents the most promising avenue for completing the record.

Connection to Broader Erasure Policies

The renaming of places did not occur in isolation but formed one element of a broader pattern of policies that human rights organizations have documented as cultural and demographic erasure of the Lhotshampa presence in southern Bhutan.

Language and Education

In February 1989, the Bhutanese government removed Nepali as a language of instruction and as a subject from all schools in southern Bhutan, citing educational efficiency concerns related to trilingual instruction. Critics and the Lhotshampa community viewed this as a direct attack on their cultural identity. Human Rights Watch reported in 2007 that some schools punished children for speaking Nepali.^[12]

Driglam Namzha

The January 1989 royal decree mandating Driglam Namzha required all Bhutanese citizens to wear the traditional Drukpa dress (gho for men, kira for women) and observe northern Bhutanese cultural codes. For the Lhotshampa, who had their own distinct dress traditions rooted in Nepali culture, this represented forced cultural assimilation. The renaming of places can be understood as the geographic equivalent of Driglam Namzha: imposing Drukpa cultural markers onto a landscape that had been named by its Lhotshampa inhabitants.

Document and Property Confiscation

During the mass expulsion of 1990-1993, Bhutanese authorities confiscated citizenship identity cards, land tax receipts, and property deeds from departing Lhotshampa. "Voluntary migration forms" were coerced under duress, including provisions requiring the renunciation of all property claims. The confiscation of documentary evidence of residence, combined with the subsequent renaming of the places referenced in those documents, created a double barrier to any future property claims.^[13]

Demographic Replacement

Beginning in 1998, the government began resettling people from northern and eastern Bhutan onto lands previously owned by expelled Lhotshampa families, providing free building materials and financial assistance as incentives. According to the Forced Migration Review, "prime lands in most of the six southern districts of Bhutan... have been reallocated to northerners, most of whom are ex-servicemen" and senior officials.^[13]

Impact on Refugee Land Claims

The renaming of places has specific practical consequences for the approximately 113,500 Bhutanese refugees resettled internationally through UNHCR programs (including roughly 96,000 in the United States), as well as the estimated 6,500 stateless people remaining in eastern Nepal.

The New Americans Magazine described the mechanism in December 2024: "After forcibly emptying these areas, the names of the villages and blocks were altered... the primary reason being to ensure that the displaced citizens could no longer identify their ancestral lands under their changed names."^[3] While the characterization of deliberate intent represents the perspective of refugee advocates rather than established fact, the practical effect is documented: refugees holding land records referencing a village called "Ghumauney" face additional barriers when that village is now officially "Yoeseltse," and administrative records have been updated accordingly.

The AHURA Bhutan organization created a Digitalized Database before February 2000 that documented approximately 49,000 refugees, organized "on a family, block and district basis" using original pre-renaming administrative names, with documentary evidence including citizenship identity cards, land tax receipts, and property photographs. This database represents one of the most comprehensive records of the pre-renaming administrative geography as understood by the affected communities.^[7]

The Gelephu Mindfulness City Controversy

In December 2023, King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck announced the Gelephu Mindfulness City (GMC), a planned special administrative region spanning over 1,000 square kilometers in Sarpang District. The project is situated directly on lands from which Lhotshampa families were expelled in the early 1990s. Refugee advocacy groups have noted that approximately 40% of remaining camp residents in Nepal are from the Gelephu area, and that an estimated 40,000 expelled citizens were "rightful owners of the lands now designated for the so-called 'Gelephu Mega City.'"^[3]

The GMC controversy has renewed attention to the renaming issue, as refugee communities point to the multiple layers of erasure: the physical displacement of the 1990s, the renaming of their villages and districts, and now the transformation of their former homes into a development project that makes no reference to the communities that once lived there. Articles in the South China Morning Post, Scroll.in, Inkstick Media, and Nepali Times have covered the connection between the GMC project and Lhotshampa land claims.^[14]

Documentation and Preservation Efforts

Several initiatives have worked to preserve the original place names of southern Bhutan, though no formal campaign specifically focused on name restoration currently exists.

AHURA Bhutan Digitalized Database: Compiled before February 2000, documenting approximately 49,000 refugees using original administrative names for districts, blocks, and villages.

Diaspora community usage: Lhotshampa communities in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe consistently use the original names (Samchi, Chirang, Sarbhang, Gaylegphug) when referring to their places of origin, constituting an informal form of cultural preservation.

Refugee media: Publications including the New Americans Magazine, Bhutan News Network, Sapan News, and community blogs (such as sarbhang.blogspot.com) use original place names and document the renaming practices.

Academic documentation: The Mandala Collections at the University of Virginia hold interviews documenting the Tsirang gewog renaming process. Michael Hutt's Unbecoming Citizens: Culture, Nationhood, and the Flight of Refugees from Bhutan (Oxford University Press, 2003) provides comprehensive academic treatment of the broader policies. The Smithsonian's Asian Pacific American Center funded an oral history project in 2021 to create a space for members of the Bhutanese diaspora to share their experiences.

Government dual nomenclature: Notably, the Samtse Dzongkhag Administration website continues to use dual nomenclature for several gewogs (e.g., "Norbugang/Chengmari Gewog," "Yoeseltse/Ghumauney Gewog"), suggesting that the original names retain some administrative recognition even within official channels.

International Comparisons

The systematic renaming of places to diminish minority cultural presence has been documented in several other contexts:

Myanmar (1989): The military junta's Adaptation of Expressions Law changed Rangoon to Yangon, Irrawaddy to Ayeyarwady, and hundreds of other names, which ethnic minorities viewed as reinforcing Bamar majority dominance.
China — Xinjiang (2009-2023): Human Rights Watch documented in June 2024 that approximately 630 Uyghur village names were changed between 2009 and 2023, removing references to religion, culture, and local history. Most changes occurred 2017-2019, coinciding with escalation of mass detention.^[15]
China — Tibet: Since 2021, China has been replacing the internationally recognized name "Tibet" with "Xizang" in official documents, characterized by the International Campaign for Tibet as "nomenclature aggression."
Palestine/Israel: Academic research by Nur Masalha has documented the appropriation of Palestinian place names through what he terms "memoricide" under settler-colonial frameworks.

Unlike the Xinjiang renaming, which was documented through statistical analysis of Chinese government databases, the Bhutanese renaming campaign is less systematically documented. This is partly because Bhutan is a smaller and more information-controlled country, the renaming occurred before widespread digital record-keeping, many records were confiscated or destroyed during the expulsion period, and international attention to Bhutan has been limited compared to China.

Renaming vs. Re-Romanization

A nuanced assessment requires distinguishing between different categories of change. Some changes, such as "Samchi" to "Samtse" or "Chirang" to "Tsirang," involved re-romanization of existing Dzongkha names to more accurately reflect Dzongkha phonology, replacing romanizations that had been influenced by Nepali pronunciation. Other changes, such as "Ghumauney" to "Yoeseltse" or "Hastinapur" to its elimination as an administrative unit, involved the outright replacement of Nepali-origin names with new Dzongkha names. Still other changes involved the merging and consolidation of multiple Nepali-named gewogs into a single unit with a new Dzongkha name, effectively eliminating multiple historical names simultaneously.

The Bhutanese government's position has generally been that the changes represent standardization of national nomenclature in the national language. Refugee communities and human rights advocates have argued that regardless of the technical mechanism, the cumulative effect has been the erasure of Nepali cultural heritage from the landscape of southern Bhutan, particularly when the renaming occurred in the same period as the mass expulsion of the people who used those names.