1. I am not responding to that one, since you did already! 2. Even though Bhutan has not put in provisions to reward killers of more than 10,000 people with a seat in the government and providing them with food, shelter, and money, it does seem to have started a process of some kind of democratization. Who knows how fair the process is going to be though! Perhaps dynastic rule may come in, just like the Koiralas, Gandhis, Yadavs or the Bushes. Will that make it less democratic than the US, Nepal, India, or Bhiar? Your guess is as good as mine. Check http://www.european-referendum.org/fileadmin/di/pdf/papers/di-bhutan.pdf 3. Also, I don't see where the arithematic of " 1/3 of the vote bank" fits in. ....... Well, noo matter the size of the Bhutanese population, the land area occupied by the nepalis is perhaps more than 1/3 rd of the total area of the country in terms of population density and geographhical area collectively. Hence 1/3. And yes, the constitution does not allow for political parties on ethnic lines. If the Nepalis, or the Sarchhops, or the Ngalong want to live peacefully in Bhutan, they got to learn to forge alliance with each other, cross ethnic lines, and perhaps look at the overall well-being of the country. A federation, like the Madhesis are demanding in Nepal may not be feasible in Bhutan (it may take the country to the pre-monarchy era principalities and obscure wars infused with legends of magic, and that would be funny, and that would be alright too!). As for the dissident political parties, they should learn to make an honest effort to eke out a living through honest labor. I cant stress enough that they should stop holding the refugees hostage to their unrealistic political agendas. Population and State Department Report: Even in the above study i posted a link to, the population numbers vary. I believe the reason is, they are all estimate. Applying the population density of neighboring areas to Bhutan does not yeild near-accurate estimates. Border towns are dense. Huge tracts of mountainous areas are not habitable. From the recent census, after counting about 600,000 people, a friend at Human Rights Watch (back from a visit to the camps and Indo-Bhutan border)says that there are about 100,000 people whose citizenship records are under investigation. There are, then, perhaps about 700,000-800,000 people in Bhutan. State Department gets its report compiled through various sources. For Bhutan, the primary sources relating to human rights situation in Bhuatn are the dissident human rights organizations.There is nothing unbiased about the report. The Bhutanese dissidents in 1989-90 underestimated the Bhutanese regime. They continue to do so. Pure passion, ideals, and a sense of righteousness won't cut it. There have to be long term strategies if the Nepalis ever want to survive well in Bhutan. The beginning perhaps would be a revisiting of the political agendas of parties in exile, collaboration, and perhaps building a positive political culture among them. An upward of 60 Bhutanese organizations to 'advocate' and 'serve' a refugee population of 100,000 is perhaps a little too haphazard. More time is spent in "dissing' each other and pulling each other down. What they need is a statesman, not just politicians. And Rizal is a far cry from even a remotely effective politician. A comprehensive solution package that comprises of all options (repatriation, local integration, and resettlement) should be presented to the refugees. It looks like it will be. However, the refugees should be educaterd about what these options mean, and allowed to exercise theur free will without intimidation from the politicians.