
Nepali-speaking Bhutanese refugees in limbo after deportation from US
Ashish had been caught in a domestic dispute that led to police involvement. After several days in detention without proper legal support, he was caught up in Donald Trump's migration crackdown and deported to Bhutan.
But what followed was a surreal sequence of events that left Ashish and nine other Bhutanese refugees stateless: abandoned by the country they once fled, expelled by the one they tried to call home, and detained by the one they sought refuge in.
Narayan was one of 100,000 Nepali-speaking Bhutanese who fled the country in the early 1990s to escape persecution. Many saw emigration as the only hope for a future. Narayan's children were granted refugee status in the US, but Narayan himself was disqualified over paperwork errors and he still lives in the Beldangi refugee camp in eastern Nepal.
Now, decades later, his son is back – but not welcomed by Bhutan, nor recognized in Nepal.
According to Nepal's director general of immigration, Govinda Prasad Rijal, four of the 10 deported Bhutanese refugees, including Ashish, were taken into custody for entering Nepal illegally via India.
'They were taken from the refugee camp on 28 March because they had entered Nepal without valid visas,' he said. 'Since the matter is still under investigation, we have not decided whether they will be deported to India, returned to Bhutan, or what other action might be taken.'
However, after the family filed a habeas corpus petition in Nepal's supreme court, the court issued an order to produce them before the court on 24 April and not to deport them until then.
Ashish and nine others were first flown from the US to Delhi, where they were reportedly treated well and even put up in a hotel during transit. The following day, they were flown to Paro international airport in Bhutan.
There, according to Ashish's father, the Bhutanese government welcomed them courteously but didn't allow them to stay long. After routine questioning, the group was handed 30,000 Indian rupees each and transported to the Indian border town of Phuentsholing. Within 24 hours, they were out of Bhutan again.
'The fact that Bhutan accepted them from the United States shows an acknowledgment of their citizenship. But deporting them to the Indian border within a day reveals a deceptive character,' said Dr Gopal Krishna Shiwakoti, former chair of the Asia Pacific Rights Network. 'It's strange in itself to send them to a country that had earlier refused to recognize them as its citizens, leading the US to resettle them in a third country.'
From Phuentsholing, the group made its way to Nepal through Indian intermediaries. Later, Ashish and his friends Santosh Darji, Roshan Tamang and Ashok Gurung were detained by Nepalese authorities.
'I was shocked,' Narayan says. 'To be treated like a criminal in your own refugee camp, after all these years … it breaks you.'
Nepal has no comprehensive legal framework addressing refugee protection or statelessness. That leaves people like Ashish in legal limbo – neither welcomed back by Bhutan nor recognized as refugees in Nepal.
Tulsi Bhattarai, the immigration officer leading the investigation, confirmed that four of the 10 individuals are in custody. 'Their statements confirm they entered Nepal from Bhutan via India,' he said. 'We've collected documents from their time in the refugee camps and submitted a full report.'
Activists argue the situation echoes the early days of the 1990s refugee crisis.
'We've come full circle,' says Shiwakoti. 'This is a 360-degree repeat of history. Nepal must urgently initiate diplomatic engagement with Bhutan to resolve this issue.'
From 2007 to 2018, more than 113,000 Bhutanese refugees were resettled in third countries, mainly the US, according to the UNHCR. But around 6,500 still remain in camps in Nepal, caught in a state of indefinite limbo. Now, for deportees like Ashish, a new crisis is unfolding.
International rights groups are raising alarm. In a joint statement, Bhutanese political and civil society leaders have appealed to the United Nations, the US and Indian embassies, and the government of Nepal for intervention. Their core demand is that the 10 deported individuals be recognized as Bhutanese nationals and protected under international refugee law.
'These people are not just numbers. They have histories, identities, and rights,' says Ram Karki, coordinator of the Global Campaign for the Release of Political Prisoners in Bhutan (GCRPPB).
Back in Beldangi, Narayan waits. His son remains in custody, with uncertain future.
'I just want my son to be free,' he adds. 'We lost our country once. Must we lose it again?'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
What Trump should learn from Oscar Wilde's doomed lawsuit
As President Trump flails about in a futile effort to change the narrative about his friendship with deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, his explanations have only drawn more attention to their connection. Ironically, Trump's resort to strong-arm litigation will likely lead to yet more damaging disclosures. History tells us why. Over a century before Trump's ' powerhouse ' defamation case against the Wall Street Journal for publishing an article about his supposed birthday note to Epstein, another outsize figure came to grief by filing an ill-advised libel action that he knew was false. In 1895, the poet and playwright Oscar Wilde was the most renowned literary figure in the English-speaking world. By sheer force of personality, Wilde led an artistic movement that defied convention, offended propriety and created an esthetic revolution. Then he wrecked it all by subjecting himself to a relentless cross-examination about his then-scandalous intimate life in a case he could not win. Trump appears to be making the same mistake. His lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal can expose him to extensive questioning under oath about escapades he has kept mostly under wraps. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump sent a risqué birthday note to Epstein, in 2003, featuring a sketch of a naked young woman. Trump immediately issued a sharp denial, calling it 'fake news' and declaring 'I never wrote a picture in my life.' The president's bluster was quickly disproven when reporters found verified drawings by Trump, at least four of which were publicly auctioned during his first term. The defamation case against the Wall Street Journal, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, promises to reveal even more. Parties in federal cases are required to sit for depositions under oath. The scope of inquiry is extremely broad, compelling disclosure of any information 'relevant to any party's claim or defense,' even if it would be inadmissible at trial. The expansive allegations in Trump's complaint open the relevance door about as widely as possible, which makes the whole story of his association with Epstein available for questioning. Trump will have to fully describe everything they did together, where and when they did it, and in whose company — with names and details. Trump cannot object based on relevance, because he raised these very issues in his own lawsuit. He cannot claim memory failure, at least for the many events documented in photographs (and others that defense counsel may well dig up). He cannot hide behind presidential immunity, which does not apply in civil cases. Such were the circumstances that destroyed Wilde. Today, Wilde would be described as gay or bisexual, although neither term was current in the late 19th century. Wilde's lover was young Lord Alfred Douglas, known as Bosie, whose father was the brutish Marquess of Queensberry, author of boxing's modern rules. Queensberry hounded Wilde in public and private, branding him a ' posing ' sodomite. Although the accusation was true in its way (minus the invective), Wilde believed he had no option but to sue Queensberry for libel. He retained the prominent barrister, Sir Edward Clarke, who asked him to swear 'that there is not and has never been any foundation' for Queensberry's accusation. Wilde falsely replied that the charges were absolutely 'groundless.' It was a pretense Wilde could not maintain on the witness stand. His credibility was shredded by Queensberry's counsel, Sir Edward Carson, who would later become attorney general of England. Carson confronted Wilde with his own words of love for young men, taken from his published writings and private letters to Bosie. Worse, he produced witness after witness, tracked down by private investigators, who testified to Wilde's then-illegal sexual activities. Recognizing the damage to his client, and embarrassed by his own credulousness, Wilde's attorney attempted to withdraw the case. But the judge wouldn't have it, and Queensberry was exonerated. That ended the libel case, but it was not the end of Wilde's trials. He was indicted for the crime of 'gross indecency,' based on Queensberry's evidence. Ultimately convicted, Wilde was sentenced to two years at hard labor. Emerging a broken man, he died three years later. Both Wilde and Trump believed themselves invulnerable to conventional standards of respectability and decorum. Wilde proved disastrously wrong, while Trump has succeeded beyond all expectations. Both men somehow convinced attorneys to file outrageous lawsuits. Wilde's case was defeated in the most torturous way. Trump's remains pending, although it seems almost impossible, given the photographic and other evidence, for him to prove his allegation that he was never Epstein's 'pal.' We know that Trump's name appears multiple times in the Justice Department's Epstein files, as he was informed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Thanks to his improvident lawsuit, he may now have to explain that under oath. After 130 years of social progress, we can understand and sympathize with Wilde's dilemma, although it led him to perjury. Trump deserves no such indulgence. His claim that the Wall Street Journal 'concocted' a story is all but certain to be proven false and irresponsible. He won't face personal ruin, as did Wilde, but perhaps he will be exposed as one of Epstein's active or passive enablers. History does repeat itself. First as tragedy, then as farce.


Business Upturn
an hour ago
- Business Upturn
'India is selling Russian oil for big profits': Trump vows major hike in tariffs on Indian imports
In a blistering post on Truth Social, U.S. President Donald J. Trump slammed India for allegedly reselling Russian oil at a profit and ignoring the humanitarian crisis caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He announced his intention to 'substantially raise' tariffs on Indian goods entering the U.S. and impose additional penalties tied to India's continued trade ties with Russia. 'India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits. They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine,' Trump wrote. India now faces the prospect of a double blow from the Trump administration: a blanket 25% tariff on all U.S.-bound goods and a separate penalty for its oil and defence procurements from Russia. Trump's remarks have reignited concerns over India's growing reliance on Russian crude, which has skyrocketed from just 0.2% of imports before the Ukraine war to 35–40% today. According to Kpler data, India's Russian crude imports stood at only 68,000 barrels per day (bpd) in January 2022. That figure surged to a peak of 2.15 million bpd in May 2023. Even today, Russia remains India's largest oil supplier with an average of 1.78 million bpd—far ahead of Iraq (900,000 bpd) and Saudi Arabia (702,000 bpd). India's shift toward Russian oil began after Western nations imposed sanctions on Moscow in response to its military operations in Ukraine. Russia offered steep discounts—up to $40 per barrel below the Brent benchmark—which incentivized Indian refiners to ramp up purchases. The Trump administration has long viewed India's ongoing oil trade with Russia as a geopolitical irritant. With Trump's fresh warning and the threat of economic penalties looming, India's energy strategy and global trade dynamics could face significant disruption. Ahmedabad Plane Crash Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.


Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Trump threatens higher India tariffs, accuses nation of funding war in Ukraine
President Trump on Monday threatened to further raise tariffs on India over the nation's purchases of Russian oil, accusing the country of profiteering. Why it matters: Having failed to strike a trade deal with India, after months of saying one was imminent, Trump is now going on the offensive against a long-standing ally. Catch up quick: The U.S. has threatened sanctions against countries that buy Russian oil, primarily China and India. But Trump has saved his sharpest ire on the subject for the latter. What they're saying: "India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits," Trump said in a Truth Social post. "They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA." His comments echo those made over the weekend by top Trump aide Stephen Miller, who accused India of financing Russia's war effort. By the numbers: India was hit with a 25% tariff in the updated levies released last Thursday. The intrigue: Reuters reported over the weekend, citing Indian government sources, that the country intends to keep buying Russian oil despite the sanctions threat.