Nepal's Persistent Squatter Crisis: A Cycle of Political Commissions and Unresolved Issues
Kathmandu. With Prime Minister Balendra (Balen) Shah issuing directives to clear the squatter settlement in the Thapathali area, residents of squatter settlements across the country are gripped by fear. As the government prepares to deploy bulldozers in Thapathali tomorrow and the day after, the issue has become a subject of nationwide debate.
While local governments outside the Kathmandu Metropolitan City have also begun taking 'action' to resolve this problem, the issue is not new.
The squatter problem has become like a 'parasite' in Nepal's political and administrative sectors. For over seven decades, a cycle of forming and dissolving commissions with every change in government to resolve the squatter issue has continued, yet the problem remains exactly where it started.
In reality, this issue has become further entangled due to political maneuvering, where instead of solving the problem, commissions are used to provide jobs to party cadres and secure vote banks by distributing government land.
From 'Hukum-basi' (those with influence) to 'Political Recruitment Centers' after 2046
The government first distributed land ownership certificates (Lalpurja) specifically for squatters in the Rapti Dun area of Nawalparasi in 2013 BS. After 2021 BS, a 'Resettlement Company' was established for the Terai-Madhesh region, and programs were conducted with the support of the Israeli government. Claiming that the model was unsuitable, various development region and zonal-level settlement committees, including the Forest Area Strengthening Commission, were formed. However, these committees distributed land opaquely to non-squatters rather than actual squatters. A former Director General of the Survey Department states that the land intended for squatters ended up in the hands of those with money and influence.
After the political changes of 2046 BS, the commissions formed to resolve the squatter problem became even more victims of politicization. Instead of implementing the suggestions provided by the Dron Prasad Acharya task force in 2047 BS, political parties turned these commissions into 'political recruitment centers'.
Whether it was the commission led by Bal Bahadur Rai in 2048 BS or the one led by Shailaja Acharya in 2049 BS, they failed due to inter-party friction. After the CPN-UML-led government formed a commission under the chairmanship of Rishi Ram Lumsali in 2051 BS, the formal practice of 'recruiting party cadres' into squatter commissions began. That commission distributed 23,000 bighas of land in nine months, but the question of whether that land reached the actual landless or party cadres remains unanswered to this day.
The former Director General notes that in 2052 BS, the then Land Reform Minister Buddhiman Tamang distributed 350 bighas of land in the name of squatters. Tamang and Chanda Shah continued this in 2054 BS. On Ashar 1, 2055 BS, a squatter problem resolution commission was formed again under the leadership of Nepali Congress leader Tarini Datta Chataut. This commission distributed land ownership certificates for 7,000 bighas. 'The irony is that the more ownership certificates are distributed, the number of squatters increases instead of decreasing,' the Director General said.
In Mangsir 2056 BS, the then Minister of Land Reform and Management Gangadhar Lamsal took charge of this campaign but did not get the chance to distribute the certificates. After Lamsal, in a race to link it with 'vote bank politics', Congress leaders Siddha Raj Ojha and Mohammad Aftab Alam distributed approximately 9,500 bighas of land. Commissions were not formed after 2058 BS as the Maoist conflict reached its peak. During the second People's Movement and the subsequent political transition, parties did not prioritize this issue.
This 'commission industry', which had slowed down during the Maoist conflict, became active again in 2066 BS. Data shows that the commission under the then chairman Gopalmani Gautam distributed 4,800 bighas. Bhakti Prasad Lamichhane, appointed by the Baburam Bhattarai government, sought a new method of distributing identity cards to squatters.
From Supreme Court intervention to managing defeated leaders
The most interesting and controversial turn in this series was the commission led by Sharada Prasad Subedi in 2071 BS. In a country with 5.4 million total households, this commission collected 1.2 million applications, making it clear that it had gathered a crowd of 'paper squatters' rather than real ones. Eventually, the Supreme Court had to intervene.
In recent years, squatter commissions have become 'recruitment centers' to provide jobs to leaders who lost elections or those who need to be managed through 'settings' rather than places to solve problems. Appointing Devi Prasad Gyawali, who was defeated in the Chitwan local elections, to lead the commission in 2076 BS was a glaring example of this. With the change in government, Gyawali was removed, Keshav Niraula, close to the Congress, came in, and Niraula only continued the legacy of the past.
The commission led by Hari Prasad Rijal, formed on Kartik 13, 2081 BS, also appears limited to the same style. An eight-member team led by Rijal from Pyuthan has been formed, but it is also a team of party cadres. The commission chaired by Rijal includes Sanat Kumar Karki, Gunja Kumar Khadka, Anil Krishna Prasai, Jagat Bahadur Basnet, Tek Bahadur Shah, Gobardhan Koli, and Aarti Bhandari as members.
Commission Chairman Rijal was a candidate for the post of chairman in the UML's Lumbini provincial convention but was defeated by Radha Krishna Kandel. After forming an alliance with the CPN-UML, the then government led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda' decided to dissolve the National Land Commission led by Congress leader Keshav Niraula on Chaitra 8, 2080 BS. At that time, commission members close to the Congress, including Tek Bahadur Shah and Gobardhan Koli, along with district chairmen, had filed a writ in the Supreme Court against the government's decision.
On Chaitra 30, 2081 BS, the joint bench of Supreme Court Justices Anandamohan Bhattarai and Binod Sharma ordered not to form a new land commission, which halted the process. After a new government was formed under the Congress-UML alliance, the case filed in court was withdrawn based on political consensus.
'Commissions could not perform'
A former Deputy Director General who worked as the head of the Cadastral Survey Division of the Survey Department for a long time said, 'When a commission is formed, they try to show urgency for a month or two. They also give instructions to the staff, but no one works to produce results. Just showing haste by saying there are so many applications in this district and let's distribute ownership certificates does not achieve anything.'
He stated that the problem persists because experts on land issues do not come to the commission. 'Party cadres come, and they only care about distributing ownership certificates. This problem is happening because there is little focus on solutions,' he said.
_ttwA2QfYHi.jpg)
A former Deputy Director General of the Survey and Land Use Management Division says, 'If you really want to solve the problem, give local governments the authority in terms of technical manpower and finances. It is their responsibility to make their municipality better, but here, they come to the commission, make noise, and just travel around the country and abroad. They act as if having people to flatter the leaders is enough.'
Why was the problem not solved even after commissions were formed?
Nahendra Khadka, former Vice-Chairman of the Land Problem Resolution Commission and land rights activist, says that political instability is the main reason why the squatter problem has not been solved. 'One government forms a commission, moves some work forward, but as soon as the government changes, that commission is dissolved. Instead of taking ownership of the work done by the previous commission, the incoming government forms a new commission to recruit its own cadres. As a result, the work of data collection and identification has repeatedly started from zero,' he said. His view is that using bulldozers is not a solution; management is the solution.
'Technically, it is complex to measure land and distinguish who is a squatter and who is an unmanaged settler. The sluggishness of the bureaucracy and the lack of sufficient authority and resources for the commission have also prevented the pace of work from increasing,' Khadka said.
He made it clear that this problem will not be solved unless the commission is placed above political interests and given a fixed timeframe and authority.
'In the case of Kathmandu, the best way is for the Metropolitan City to coordinate with the central government and the commission to identify real squatters and provide them with appropriate alternatives. Otherwise, this cycle of bulldozers and stone-pelting will continue,' he said.
'Commission's mandate should not be changed'
Former Secretary of the Ministry of Land Reform Arjun Pokharel says that there are policy, legal, and practical complexities behind the inability to solve the squatter problem. According to him, the main reason for the failure to solve the squatter problem is political instability and the frequent changes in the 'TOR' (Terms of Reference).
'The practice of dissolving the old commission as soon as the government changes and forming another commission as a new recruitment center does not allow for continuity in work. When every new commission starts work from zero, the data collected and the work done by the previous commission go to waste,' Pokharel said.
The Constitution ensures the 'right to appropriate housing' for every citizen, but Pokharel's analysis is that commissions have always prioritized only 'land distribution'.
'The state is unclear on the question of whether giving land to squatters is the solution or ensuring shelter. There is confusion about whether to consider those who have come to the city for employment and are living on public land because they cannot pay rent as squatters or unmanaged settlers,' he said.
Currently, most squatter settlements are on public land, riverbanks, temple land, or forest areas. Existing Nepali law does not allow forest areas or public land to be registered in an individual's name. 'How can land belonging to a temple or pond be given to those living there? In the records, it is public,' Pokharel said, 'Because people are living on land that cannot be legally given, the commission cannot give them ownership certificates even if it wants to.'
According to Pokharel, among those who come to the city in search of opportunities, the economically weaker class is forced to take shelter on public land. In some cases, those who sold land in the village and moved to the city or became landless due to family property division are also being added to this list. Since this is a growing process, by the time one commission solves the problem, another group has already appeared as squatters.
According to Pokharel, another major challenge is to distinguish between real squatters and the 'well-off' squatters who try to grab land based on access. Since there is political influence in the commissions, there have been allegations that party cadres get priority over actual victims. According to Pokharel, the identification process without scientific criteria has led to the problem increasing rather than being solved.
According to former Secretary Arjun Pokharel, this problem will not be solved just by forming traditional commissions. For this, a permanent technical structure should be created that will not be dissolved even if the government changes. 'Scientific classification of actual landless, squatters, and unmanaged settlers should be done, and data should be integrated. Instead of distributing expensive city land, the government should build large housing complexes and arrange for low-rent accommodation,' he said.
This specific news has been automatically translated by AI. As a result, there may be some inaccuracies or language errors.
