Beyond Physical Borders
A thin bamboo gate is all that separates the dirt roads inside the Beldangi refugee camps from the dirt road outside of their borders. This gate is operated by a young guard who, tugging a piece of rope attached to the bamboo by a pulley system, lifts the gate for approved vehicles to enter the camp. Apart from this gate, there are few clear physical borders that lineate between Beldangi and the local community outside of the camp. There are no walls or fences. Another camp, Sanischare, does not even have such a minimal gate. Cars and trucks may freely turn off the main road to enter the camp without having to stop at any checkpoints. No physical borders keep anyone in, and no physical borders keep anyone out.

Despite the absence of physical borders, simply recognizing the Bhutanese as distinct from the local Nepali community creates certain boundaries between the two populations. Thinking beyond physical boundaries like walls, we can see how political, economic, and social factors can contribute to the creation, maintenance, and experience of boundaries between communities. The political refugee status of the Bhutanese in Nepal and the consequences that come from this status have created sharp distinctions between the Bhutanese and Nepali communities. However, these boundaries are also often crossed through interactions among individual members of both communities and through policies recently implemented by the international organizations managing programs in and around the refugee camps.

Creating and Maintaining Boundaries
A poster on the wall of the UNHCR office in Damak, the town closest to the Bhutanese refugee camps and the hub for the international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) assisting the refugees, reads, “A Refugee Would Like to Have Your Problems.” This poster, by comparing the problems of a refugee to the troubles of a more privileged audience, sends a clear message: refugees, fearing persecution in their home country, face a variety of serious problems that are often understood to define their lives.

The political status of the Bhutanese as refugees is the most basic distinction between the Bhutanese and members of the local Nepali community residing near the refugee camps. Nepal is not a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and is therefore not legally obligated to grant any refugees living within its borders the rights to work, to receive public assistance, to access the courts, and to receive education. The refugee status of the Bhutanese has consequences that extend far beyond the political, contributing to distinct differences in the everyday life experiences of the refugees and local Nepali citizens. Unlike their Nepali neighbors, the Bhutanese do not have the right to own land, and most Bhutanese live in small, tightly situated bamboo houses made of materials provided by the international organizations in the two remaining – of the original seven – refugee camps. These camps are the only areas in which the refugees are legally allowed to reside within the borders of Nepal. Dilli, an elderly Bhutanese man, reminisced about being a farmer in Bhutan, growing fields of maize and millet. However, with no land to farm in the camp beyond a few square feet of a vegetable garden, Dilli no longer feels the personal satisfaction and purpose of being able to grow food for himself and his family. Outside the camps, Nepali citizens have the luxury of land and space, either privately-owned or government-provided, to grow fields of vegetables and grain.

As refugees, the Bhutanese do not have the right to work like local Nepalis. Their basic needs, such as food and protection, are provided by international organizations like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). In this way, while local Nepalis must seek work to make money for land, housing, and food, these items are directly provided to the refugees by the international organizations in a highly organized manner. During food distribution, which occurs every two weeks, refugee families bring their ration cards to food distribution buildings inside the camp. A ration card lists all family members within a household, and the total portion of food allocated is determined by the number of family members. Family representatives wait in lines inside the cramped and dimly lit distribution centers to receive their ration of each food item, such as rice and cooking oil. These items are carefully measured by camp volunteers into containers for each family. The process is efficient, but it is one of the many examples of the hyper-regulation of Bhutanese lives by the policies and practices of the INGOs. Although the Bhutanese are free to move outside the camps, many families don’t move far or for long; if they wish to continue receiving their rations, they must be present to collect them. Differences in access to land and food, as well as differences in the ability to be self-sufficient and pursue a livelihood, are examples of crucial boundaries between the Bhutanese and local Nepali communities that extend from differences in political rights.

Although the Bhutanese receive food items in the camps from the WFP, most also need money to purchase items not provided by the aid organizations. Many refugees receive some income through remittances sent by family members resettled abroad, and some local Nepalis also receive remittances from family members who are temporary migrant workers, particularly in wealthy Gulf nations such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. (Nepal boasts that it receives the highest rate of remittances of any country in the world.) Refugees and Nepali citizens without sufficient support through remittances must seek money in other ways, but refugees have fewer options of safe and reliable means to earn that money. The fact they do not have the legal right to work in Nepal has forced many refugees to take opportunities to work illegally outside the camps. Others work within the camps as teachers or employees of one of the INGO-sponsored programs in the camps.  These workers receive a stipend for their labor from their employers, but the amount is small, less than similarly employed Nepalis would receive performing the same type of work outside the camps. Arina, a teacher in Beldangi, discussed how her salary from teaching was not enough to pay for all her family’s needs, particularly since her husband was disabled and could not work outside the home. She needs the money so desperately that she continues teaching despite her extremely small monetary compensation.

Refugees don’t fare worse than Nepali citizens in all aspects of their lives. The health care and education services provided to Bhutanese refugees by the INGOs in the camps are separate from those available to the local community. Although there are complaints about the quality and wait times for health care in the camps, refugees, unlike local Nepalis, have access to adequate health care through the international organizations. Sanitation services, such as provision of clean potable water, are also camp benefits not available to local Nepalis. Similarly, while there is public education in Nepal, Nepali students must pay private school tuition to gain access to more desirable English-medium schools. Inside the refugee camps, the free schools established by Caritas, a Catholic organization and implementing partner of the UNHCR, use English as the language of instruction for most courses. This prepares many of the Bhutanese students to resettle in English-speaking countries and to interact confidently with English-speaking visitors to Nepal, a skill that is highly valued and not easily acquired in Nepali public schools.

Crossing Boundaries
The figures of females hunched over, carrying piles of brush strapped to their backs, are common sights in the Bhutanese refugee camps. They are immediately identified by the Bhutanese as outsiders, members of the local community who are traveling through the camps to return home with firewood gathered from the nearby forests. Nepal’s strict forestry laws forbid non-citizens from collecting forest material, and Bhutanese refugees are no exception. However, because forests surround them, the camps serve as transit routes for locals collecting forest materials, becoming one of many spaces where refugees and Nepali citizens cross over into each other’s worlds.

Although differences in political status certainly divide the Bhutanese and Nepali communities, the policies of the international organizations, as well as relationships and interactions among individuals, provide opportunities to cross those boundaries. Rather than significantly decreasing funding for community development projects as the number of refugees dwindles due to resettlement, international organizations working in the camps have bridged the boundary between refugees and the local community by expanding the eligibility for participation in these projects. Gardening and job training programs that were once available exclusively to refugees are now available to select members of the local Nepali community.

As of January 2012, all Bhutanese refugees qualify to collect seeds from WFP to grow their own vegetables, because vegetables are no longer provided by the UNHCR to supplement refugees’ rations. Some local Nepalis who meet the WFP’s standard of vulnerability, including single women and disabled persons, can now also receive seeds as part of the Reclamation Gardening Program (RGP). Although the Reclamation Garden is based in the camps, seeds are collected and distributed to qualifying vulnerable persons in the local community. Due to the requirement of the project that persons receiving seeds must live on government land, most persons participating in the Reclamation Gardening Program live on government-owned land just outside the camps.

The land available for growing vegetables for local Nepalis is much larger than the land available in the tightly packed camps, so the yield of local gardens is often higher than the yield of the gardens in the camps. Some of the vegetables grown by locals from the RGP are consumed within their own homes, but many also sell their vegetables, using the earnings to purchase other food items, like rice, not grown in their gardens. Although anyone may buy these vegetables, often the buyers are Bhutanese refugees who may or may not also be growing their own vegetables from WFP initiatives. Thus, participation in Reclamation Gardening demonstrates the ways international organizations’ policies can blur the boundaries between “refugee behavior” and “citizen behavior”, and also create opportunities for the emergence of mutually beneficial relationships between the two groups.

In addition to Reclamation Gardening, the international organizations also provide vocational training for both Bhutanese refugees and local Nepali citizens. As with Reclamation Gardening, all refugees qualify for at least some vocational training, although some programs are limited to vulnerable populations. Unlike Reclamation Gardening, all Nepali residents of  the local community are eligible for some vocational training, although select programs are available only to vulnerable populations. The UNHCR funds the vocational training for the Bhutanese, and the WFP funds the vocational training for the local Nepali community. The selection of courses available to each group is based on each organization’s evaluation of the types of skills that will lead to jobs; for the Nepali participants, this usually means jobs in Damak, and for the Bhutanese refugees, this means jobs in countries of resettlement. Some of the courses overlap, including both Bhutanese refugees and local Nepali residents. Although resettlement has spurred the development of job training initiatives in the local community, some local residents worry about the long-term effects of resettlement on these programs. Once all the refugees have departed, will the international organizations leave Damak and shut down the vocational training programs?

Besides shared participation in INGO-provided programs, there are other direct interactions between local community members and Bhutanese refugees. Many of these interactions are motivated by economics. To earn money to buy goods or services not available in the camps, many refugees resort to working illegally in the local community. Some refugees go out of the camps actively looking for work, while others are sought out by members of the local community for their particular skills or for a particular worksite. Before working as a teacher in her camp, Arina left Beldangi to find work at a construction site to pay for her higher education. Likewise, Ram, a Sanischare camp resident, was working on a carpentry project when a man from outside the camp noticed his skills and recruited him to the worksite he was supervising.

Some jobs with the local community place the refugees in very vulnerable circumstances. The labor of Bhutanese refugees is desirable to employers in the local community because their labor is cheaper than the labor of Nepali citizens. Arina worked for years at a construction site where her Nepali co-workers received higher pay and were provided free lunch by their employer, a benefit that was not offered to her. Bhanu, a young Bhutanese man, was sixteen when he was hired with other Bhutanese to work at a construction site almost 180 kilometers away from his camp. After the work was complete, the construction manager disappeared from the site, not paying Bhanu or the other Bhutanese for their work. Bhanu was forced to walk for three days and nights to return to the camp, working odd jobs along the way just to pay for food during his journey. The Bhutanese refugees, as illegal workers, are not subject to Nepali labor laws and cannot legally dispute their unequal, or in Bhanu’s case, lack of, earnings. However, many work despite unfair treatment because they see no other option to provide for themselves and their families. Bhutanese working in the local community create interaction across boundaries, but, as Bhanu’s case shows, some of these interactions are defined not by the good will of mutually beneficial exchange, but rather by exploitation of the illegal and unprotected nature of Bhutanese labor.

The economic demand of the Bhutanese refugees for items not found in the camp has also increased boundary crossing by the Bhutanese and local community members. Across the street from Beldangi, mere yards from the houses of refugees who live on the outermost borders of the camp, is Bel City Bazaar, a row of businesses run by local Nepalis serving the wants and needs of the Bhutanese. Signs advertising cheap Russian vodka and Danish beer and the money transfer services of Western Union are scattered across store fronts, catering to the Bhutanese who cannot legally buy alcohol in the camps and often have remittances flowing in from resettled family members abroad. Chickens and pigs roam in the streets to be sold to Bhutanese, who are not given meat as part of their WFP-provided rations. Some Bhutanese also leave the camp to travel farther to Damak to buy items they can’t find easily in the camps or at the bazaar. The fate of the Bel City Bazaar after the camps have closed and all refugees have been resettled is unknown; some business may remain for members of the local community, but the impact of the loss of business from the refugees is likely to be significant.

Personal relationships between members of the Bhutanese and Nepali communities are prevalent and contribute to boundary crossing. While Bhutanese often cite family and their camp neighbors as their closest community members, shared language, culture, and religion contribute to the creation of personal relationships with Nepali people residing outside the camps. For example, between the local community and Sanischare Camp is a Hindu temple where both Nepali and Bhutanese worship together. While some Bhutanese remember discrimination from local Nepalis during the first years they lived in the camps, most report now that there are good relations. Bhutanese parents encourage their children not to quarrel with local Nepali children in order to continue these good relations. Some Bhutanese marry local Nepali women and men while others form long-lasting friendships. Dilli was collecting firewood illegally in the forest when he began talking with a group of local Nepali men. They were very friendly to him, inviting him to share a meal with them. He now frequently visits these men in the village and considers them some of his closest friends. Reports of friendship between locals Nepalis and Bhutanese also come from local citizens, who share tales of soccer tournaments and other social events enjoyed jointly by Nepali and refugee children. When Goldhap, one of the original seven Bhutanese refugee camps, closed, members of the neighboring community and camp residents shared a meal together; some locals have even reported going to visit friends from Goldhap camp who were relocated to more distant camps. These close friendships among Bhutanese and local Nepali citizens indicate that crossing boundaries among the communities is motivated not only by economic need or desire, but  also by a true sense of community that  transcends the formal political boundaries.

Conclusion
The completion of the Bhutanese refugee resettlement operation by the UNHCR will significantly change the boundaries between the land of the camps and the local community. Three of the original seven camps, Goldhap, Khudunabari, and Timai, have already closed, with their inhabitants resettled or moved to one of the two remaining camps. In some cases, the land of these closed camps, in accordance with a land agreement between the UNHCR and the Nepali government, has been turned over to the local community with the intention of returning the land to vegetation. Goldhap is being converted to a botanical garden, and Khudunabari will be a wildlife preserve. This process is still incomplete. At Goldhap, which was closed in 2011, partially-collapsed former camp office buildings remain while rows of young trees dot the green grass where Bhutanese houses used to be. The camp’s soccer field and Hindu temple are still used by local community members. The houses of Khudunabari, closed in 2012, have been flattened but much of the debris—bamboo from house walls, baby toys, bits of clothing, medicine wrappers—still remains partially buried beneath the soil. With the final closing of the remaining camps, the borders that now exist between the Bhutanese and the local community will be obliterated, and boundaries between these preserves and the local community will be marked by human-environmental interaction rather than interactions, relationships, and distinctions in daily life experience among people.

Few borders are uncrossable. While the condition of being a legal refugee with distinct economic limitations and benefits certainly entails some boundaries between the experiences of refugees and those of local citizens, the economic and personal relationships between members of the two communities as well as the policies of international organizations continue to provide significant pathways across boundaries between Bhutanese and Nepalis. The generally smooth occupation of the Bhutanese in Nepal indicates the achievement of a remarkably peaceful coexistence despite clear differences between both communities.