‘Eviction of Settlements Lacked Humanity; Needs Management According to Constitution and Law’

The government has cleared settlements near Bagmati and Manohara rivers. How do you view this action?

Previous governments also formed commissions to address the issues faced by landless and Dalit squatters; those commissions still exist. I would gladly accept and thank the government if they genuinely manage landless people properly.

There is a legal provision to accommodate individuals who resided before 2009 either at their existing locations or in other risk-free areas. If the government follows through with granting land titles through proper procedures, we would welcome that.

The government announced immediate shelter arrangements via public announcements while clearing settlements in areas like Thapathali, Gairigaun, and Manohara. What is your perspective on this?

This approach is incomplete and flawed. Actual verification of genuine squatters should have been conducted before demolishing the settlements. If they had been relocated to suitable places following certification, that would have been a positive and welcome step.

But the current method is inhumane. Public announcements were made one day, and the next day police cordoned off areas to forcibly evict people. Rushing to remove belongings has led to damage and destruction of personal property. Even buying simple items costs money, and the government must understand this. Such treatment is unjust. Previous governments have also raised these issues, but the enforcement has always appeared inhumane.

We are confused. Friends from our communities ask—what now? How much longer should we endure the government’s force? The government says we must comply, or face violence. But the question remains—where will we go? Moving possessions or being relocated anywhere incurs costs, even for small matters. Many are forced out, but this behavior is unfair. I have been speaking out against this inhumanity.

After eviction, the government called for certification but reportedly only a small number have come forward. What explains this underreporting of actual landless people?

There are technical and practical issues in play. The government has publicized a distinction between genuine and fake squatters. Many residents have lived here for 50–60 years—they grew up here, educated their children, and some even purchased small plots or built homes through hardship. How the government recognizes them under official criteria is critical.

During discussions with the commission, we advocated for management in the current locations or giving the state-provided alternatives. But what is happening now is merely moving people to shelters as an option. Families often have 10–12 members, sometimes up to 20, with many belongings, clothes, and utensils. Where would they store these in lodging facilities? Proper management means not just moving bodies but understanding their entire life and needs.

Some squatters originally came from villages seeking employment and have stayed here. Viewing everyone uniformly may alter the numbers shown, but the main problem is that government-provided options are not being implemented effectively.

Some have lived here for 10, 20, or 40 years due to lack of livelihood opportunities. Even if they hold title deeds, it is insufficient. Holding land on paper does not mean they are wealthy; poverty is the real issue. Referring to them as ‘extremely poor’ would be more accurate than ‘squatters.’ Residing along riverbanks required great effort and expense, which the government has failed to comprehend.

The Land Act clearly states management provisions for landless Dalits, squatters, and irregular settlers. The 2019 amendments state that those residing for at least ten years, i.e., before 18 years ago, should be accommodated legally. Land can be allotted by assessing income and area of land for a certain fee, which the government must acknowledge.

Considering the current situation, what should the government have done better when people were forced to move their belongings?

The central issue is providing alternatives and proper management. If someone says they will manage on their own or run a business, that is different. But confirming alternatives before demolition would have been appropriate. Forcing people homeless and onto the streets, then offering options, is meaningless.

Land titles hold great significance in Nepal. People have long hoped to receive them after many years. Some expected rights even with small land parcels. Earlier governments had policies to grant land to irregular settlers with some fees, and we agreed with those policies.

Currently, the government is intimidating people by distinguishing between fake and genuine squatters through loud public announcements. Purchasing even basic items costs money, yet people’s possessions are being destroyed. This is a bizarre and inhumane government conduct that I would call a crime. People who have resided here for over 70 years are now weeping in distress. The government should have conducted proper investigations and ensured their right to housing when relocating them to other districts.

You mentioned both parties should hold peaceful dialogue based on the Constitution and law to find solutions. Although evictions cause suffering, can this process be viewed as positive for urban management?

We will always favor solutions, but they must be just. Currently, squatters cannot even rent rooms. Without proper management, forced evictions leave people nowhere to go, increasing their suffering rather than alleviating it.

Some have blended into relatives’ households, but many face discrimination when identified as squatters—often not even provided a room. Social attitudes toward squatters have shifted. My sole request is that the government properly manage before removing settlements to prevent such issues.

Where will we go if told we cannot live here? Are we not Nepalese citizens? Even holding citizenship certificates seems meaningless without proper rights.

The government has moved forward with actions. What is the best way to resolve problems and coordinate going forward?

The settlements have been demolished. The key task now is where to relocate and stabilize the landless squatters and Dalits. Management of irregular settlements must follow the Land Act.

The issuance of land titles is relatively recent in Nepal. Many people previously had no land titles or even citizenship documents. Vast tracts of land in some areas were never legitimately earned by others. Thus, the government must consider not only documents but also historic residence and poverty to find resolutions.

In Madhesh, people traveled for five days by horseback to register lands. Some own thousands of bighas, but squatters have labored on that land for generations. In Kathmandu, squatters have come from various districts for employment and lived by riverbanks for 50–60 years; some are socially well established. If the government recognizes the importance of land titles and formulates appropriate policies, we will welcome them. Our opposition is solely to the police-driven, intimidating style of forced eviction.

Are you fully agreeable to properly managing displaced people and providing land according to legal procedures?

We accept legal governance. According to the law, those settled before 2009 should be accommodated on payment of certain fees where they live, and we are committed to this.

The Land Act clearly states that if settlements are on riverbanks, forests, or disaster-prone areas, they must be relocated to safer places.

Relocation from risky to safe areas is something we welcome. Our main demand is that before eviction, the relocation destinations must be certain and the processes conducted respectfully.

We have always stated—we are not obstacles to development or relocation when required. For example, we cooperated when clearing the MaitiGhar circle area. The government’s current campaign is good but the method is wrong. Squatters should have been classified and informed in advance about who receives free land, who is an irregular settler, and who must pay fees. We had requested this. It is a law made by the state, which has not been repealed. Therefore, we hope the government will adhere to the law.