Government Evicts Squatter Settlements Amidst Controversy

Every new government in Nepal's political history appears with its own style, its own narrative, and its own promises. However, some governments come only to change administrative structures, while others attempt to interfere in the very soul of society.

The current government's campaign to remove squatter settlements on public land, carried out with such intensity and harshness, not only raises questions of land management but also severely tests the state's moral character, constitutional perspective, and sensitivity towards human existence.

Following the decision of Prime Minister Balen Shah's cabinet meeting on April 11 for the implementation of the 100-point pledge of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), the leading party in parliament, thousands of houses and shacks are being demolished by bulldozers across the country. The state has presented this as a campaign for the protection of public property and organized urbanization. Some people are welcoming this as the beginning of a 'golden era'.

For them, this is the cleansing of disorganized settlements, the purification of a dirty city, and a decisive blow against political patronage. But on the other hand, for thousands of affected families, this government decision is not just an event of houses being demolished; it is a direct assault on their memories, struggles, labor, hopes, and existence.

The history of land and citizens' ownership of it in Nepal was not just. During the Rana regime, the tradition of land ownership based on power, access, and verbal orders created a deep chasm of inequality in society. After the Muluki Ain was implemented, although the administrative process related to land formally began, real justice remained under the control of a limited class. The political change of 2007 brought some openness, and after the People's Movement of 2046, access to ownership expanded further, but social divisions, ethnic structures, gender inequality, and political access continued to make the land acquisition rights of ordinary people even more unbalanced.

Besides these, various natural disasters, lack of opportunities in villages, conflicts, poverty, class discrimination, uncertainty about the future of children, unemployment, and social exclusion have pushed people into the inescapable pit of disorganized migration. These have become strong reasons that have deepened the process of making millions of people landless.

By crushing the lifelong struggles of thousands of citizens and the hopes for their children's future with bulldozers, the government has not only lost the trust of the general public but has also clarified that its perspective towards the poor is authoritarian.

The squatter problem is not an accidental disaster of Nepal's social structure; it is a consequence of the state's historical weaknesses. This problem, which began to surface in the 1980s, gradually manifested as a complex and long-term issue. Governments have failed to prepare concrete plans for land use and resettlement. Land mafias and corrupt individuals paralyzed state structures, as a result of which the lives of the poor and helpless people were forced to be confined to the center of political parties' patronage games.

Various commissions were formed, dissolved, and reconstituted in the name of problem-solving; reports were prepared, data was collected, but the problem remained as it was. The state used squatters more as political tools than as citizens. Consequently, they gradually lost faith in the state, and the state became unaccountable towards them.

The state's behavior towards the landless and squatters could not be like that of ordinary citizens; as a result, Nepal's cities never truly accepted them as respected citizens. However, their labor was consumed daily by the cities. Construction workers, street sweepers, cart vendors, porters – these are all people from those settlements whose labor built the cities, but their existence eventually became an eyesore for the beauty of those same cities. Nevertheless, in the hope of some change, past governments and major parties did not take harsh steps beyond offering hope for management.

Many countries in the world have viewed the squatter problem not just from the perspective of security or aesthetics, but from the perspective of social restructuring. Russia, China, America, and European countries have accepted disorganized settlements as state responsibility in various phases.

The state's current approach appears more controversial than in the past. By setting aside the state's major problems, the government considers disorganized settlements a major obstacle to Nepal's development and urban beauty. Instead of removing poverty, unemployment, and dependency and moving towards the development of national capital based on production and Nepali civilization, taking the landless problem as a retaliatory national problem and adopting the path of inevitable and unavoidable eradication shows that the government does not feel responsible towards its citizens.

Moreover, this government has prioritized the acceptance of charity over the acceptance of the citizens' own struggle for existence. The government seems to perceive development not as public trust in the government, but merely as the construction of wide roads on empty land and the expansion of attractive structures.

By crushing the lifelong struggles of thousands of citizens and the hopes for their children's future with bulldozers, the government has not only lost the trust of the general public but has also clarified that its perspective towards the poor is authoritarian.

The government's campaign has not only destroyed the physical structures built by the hard work, sweat, and struggles of the landless but has also deeply wounded the psychology of thousands of young men and women, children, the elderly, and the disabled. A house is not just a structure of bricks, wood, or tin; it is a symbol of a person's dreams, security, self-respect, and hope for the future.

When such shelters are demolished, human emotions are shattered along with physical damage. The way the government is presenting itself in the name of squatter clearance resembles the aggression of soldiers attacking an enemy on a battlefield more than the behavior of a sensitive state. Excited, harsh, and ruthless. Some scenes even appear sudden and destructive like the ferocity of wild animals or the floods of rain. This clearly shows that there is no place for dialogue, empathy, and humanity in its campaign.

Geopolitical powers create serious crises in any sector to maintain control over weak states like Nepal and push them into an uncontrollable national crisis. The fact that the human sentiments that peaked on September 23rd have fallen to the ground by March is not just a coincidence.

On September 24th, while the sensitive organs of the country were burning, the Prime Minister of the current government, who was then the Mayor of Kathmandu Metropolitan City, and the country's main security agencies failed to stop it and extinguish that fire. The deployment of bulldozers by the same mechanism that remained a mute spectator on the 24th feels connected to a broader political message than a mere administrative decision.

What kind of state do we want to build – a city that looks beautiful by removing people, or a society that develops by respecting people? History will ultimately remember the moral consciousness of the state, not the sound of bulldozers.

The lifestyle of citizens living within any state is determined by the state's approach to governance. Those whose consciousness believes that citizens should not suffer will never run bulldozers over structures built by the people. Instead of displacement in the name of problem-solving, it seeks dialogue, rehabilitation, alternative management, and the foundations of social justice.

However, this state has trampled all those standards, values, and responsibilities and run bulldozers over the meager roofs of the people.

Nepal's constitution envisions the right to property, the right to live with dignity, and a socialist-oriented state. This means not only state regulation of land but also the guarantee of social justice. Therefore, the alternative to managing disorganized settlements cannot be mere destruction. The state must be able to create scientific resettlement, collective housing, urban restructuring linked to employment, industrial integration according to skills, and an environment of social acceptance.

On the land currently displaced, basic services, industries, and employment structures could have been developed by constructing a limited number of organized and family-friendly buildings. This would have provided long-term economic benefits to the state and could have transformed the squatter community into self-reliant citizens.

Many countries in the world have viewed the squatter problem not just from the perspective of security or aesthetics, but from the perspective of social restructuring. Russia, China, America, and European countries have transformed disorganized settlements into organized housing systems in various phases. Although the problem is still complex in India, many other countries have accepted squatters not as a 'burden on the nation' but as a 'state responsibility'.

This is also possible in Nepal, but the state must be able to see them as possibilities, not problems, a consciousness that is not evident in the current state. Instead, by defining them as a national burden under the pretext of 'Hukumwasi' (those who live by order), it has chosen the path of inevitable eradication, tearing apart humanity.

When land is occupied within any state based on power, money, or political influence, it is an attack on the state itself. Land belongs neither to the state nor to any individual; it is merely common property of nature, to which all living beings have equal claim. But when the state itself crosses the boundaries of sensitivity and attacks the existence of citizens through force, deviating from this truth.

It causes serious damage to natural justice and moral values. By ensuring the fundamental right to coexistence, the occupied lands should have been managed scientifically, and the use of the remaining land should have been resolved based on the principles of natural justice. Instead of that, Nepal stands at a historical juncture today.

One path leads towards harsh control, destruction, and fear, while another path leads towards sensitivity, scientific management, and social justice. The question is not just about squatter settlements; the question is about Nepal's future. What kind of state do we want to build – a city that looks beautiful by removing people, or a society that develops by respecting people? History will ultimately remember the moral consciousness of the state, not the sound of bulldozers.