Bhutanese refugee crisis. There are few option left with the Nepalese government and UNHCR to conclude the longstanding Bhutanese refugee crisis. With UNHCR's threat to leave its services by the end of this year, Nepal will not be able to feed the over 100,000 refugee on its own expense. It neither can give them citizenship and settle in its own territory because there are other thousands of Nepalese living without citizenship nor it can flush them out of the country, for it has rendered shelter to the refugees for the last one-and-half-decade on the humanitarian ground. So, certainly, if donor agencies shook their hands off the refugee problem, Nepal would have to bear yet another greatest burden. Churning into the ways of probable solution of the crisis, three options have come forth: repatriation, settlement in Nepal and third country settlement. They are enough to give suitable to the problem if Nepal agrees to go on with them. UNHCR seems interested in third country settlement because it has not protested it when Nepal government announced its plans. Further it claimed that third country settlement is best option for those refugees who do not want to be repatriated and do not wish to settle in Nepal as well. Sources at the UNHCR offices in Kathmandu and Damak revealed that refugee, especially those who completed at least higher secondary, have been inquiring about the probable third country settlement scheme. The destinations for third country, the rumour that spread among these refugees, are United States of America, Canada and Australia. Parents of many of these educated young refugees are seem happy enough if one of their family member can fly to Europe or America. This will assure them of food and shelter if not nationality and identity. Many refugees take it positively that nationality is second to life, but still there are enough who whirl the winds of nationality against food and shelter. However emotional it may be, on cannot fight empty stomach. There are other reasons for increasing curiosity among the refugee community of third country settlement. These are many instances that those who were able to send one of their family members to west have somehow managed to get ready to settle either in Nepal or in India even if agencies stop assistance. Even in informal discussion and talks Bhutanese political and human rights leaders wish third country settlement. The top on the rank is Rakesh Chhetri who openly advocates on the issue and encourages youths to opt it. The issue of repatriation of third country settlement and repatriation divides people into two halves. Those who stay at the leadership level advocates for repatriation. Of course it is their obligation and vow that they would one day win the government of Bhutan. The other group is the old generation who are rather illiterate and semi literate. It is their emotional whims that are not so unexpected. Dying as a citizen of a country and in the land where they grew and given sweat hopefully lightens their hearts. Those advocating for third country settlement are the young and educated. Other influential people in the camps in Jhapa and Morang also wish it. However, their advocacy for early repatriation to Bhutan has not ended. BRRRC- who claims to be the authentic body with people's representatives, has formally denied the issue of third country settlement and that it stands to say that Bhutanese refugees must be repatriated to their land, has been severely criticized on the ground that few of their members have also contacted UNHCR official to pursue for third country settlement. Even though it has not been shown evidently that leaders have taken interests for third country settlement, many liked it to happen. There are reason to say so ? people like Bishwo Nath Chhetri, Mangala Sharma, Chhimi Dorji Wangchuk, Jeevan Subba, bhim Subba and many more who once lead organizations never returned from their tour to Europe and America, gone there to advocate and gather support for repatriation of Bhutanese refugees to their land. There are others who advocate repatriation but busy preparing to send relatives to west. And finally the fate of 'nowhere' is on the head of those who could not afford to settle in Nepal or India and have no connection to Bhutanese organizations, who in turn connect them with the organization in west and support them to fly those countries. Others who managed to earn enough are ready to settle in Nepal even if aiding agencies lifted their assistance. The issue of third country settlement is raised not to kill the sentiment of those leaders and older people of their spirit for repatriation but to ask the leader specially if they were strict with their words. All know that regular advocacy and activism on favour of Bhutanese refugees can be sustainable if there are enough funds. Leaders should have experienced that their activities and advocacy were stagnated by the lack of budget. The only means they can earn is to send as many their colleagues to west so that they can contribute financially along with advocacy in the countries they settle. It is not even prolonging debate that third country settlement is the only suitable answer to get rid of the refugee problem. Other options should also be adopted. Government of Bhutan, from the verification of Khudunabari camps, has agreed that it was ready to take back over 25 percent of the refugee. However, if international pressures grow, it would be forced to take over 75 percent, including all tagged 'Bhutanese' but called criminals and those who willingly abdicated the country. On the other hand government of Nepal had announced that is was ready to give citizenship to those who do not wish to go Bhutan. If all these options are made open, the problem would get end very soon. On such verge of getting solved the problem, role of the UN Agency for Refugee is crucial. Now the turn is of UNHCR that it must work to get view of the individual refugee 'which option he/she chooses'. The role of UNHCR has been growing even responsible at the time Nepal government is concentrated to manage its own internal conflict. Even then, it is the Nepal government that must empower UNHCR to collect individual opinion of the refugee. The recent development has shown that Nepal government is no more active with the refugee issue. This has fueled the interest of Bhutan government who has long been playing with the delaying tactics for repatriation. Early empowerment of UNHCR to take decision would vigoriate to give solution of the problem. Individual survey in the refugee community would certainly give result that less than half of them are really interested in going back to Bhutan at the present situation and under the same law. Especially the young generation, who have grown in the democratic environment would rarely feel going back to Bhutan is proud enough.