Nepal’s government has unveiled a two-pronged response to the country’s long-running land crisis, one that tightens enforcement against encroachment while simultaneously offering protections for its most marginalised citizens. It is a delicate balancing act, and whether it holds together in practice remains very much an open question.
A Nationwide Operation Takes Shape
The Home Ministry has launched a sweeping directive to all 77 district administration offices, instructing them to identify illegally occupied public and government lands, draw up detailed clearance plans, and submit those plans for central approval before any action is taken. The move marks a significant shift from what had largely been a piecemeal, Kathmandu-centric approach, bringing the operation under coordinated, ministry-level oversight.
The circular, signed by section officer Krishna Devkota, requires local authorities to work alongside relevant agencies in compiling encroachment data and developing phased removal strategies. Notably, security support can only be arranged after ministerial clearance has been formally granted. Whether this centralised approval process serves as a genuine procedural safeguard or simply becomes a political filter deciding which operations proceed will depend entirely on how it is applied.
Running alongside the enforcement drive is a public commitment from Urban Development Minister Sunil Lamsal and Federal Affairs Minister Pratibha Rawal that no clearances will go ahead until genuine squatters have been identified and provided with safe housing, healthcare, nutritional support, and relocations that respect their privacy and dignity. Both ministers made specific reference to protections for women and persons with disabilities, a notable policy clarification given the growing international attention the issue has attracted.
Monsoon Pressures Shaping the Timeline
The government has pointed to flood risk as the driving force behind recent evictions in Thapathali, Shantinahar, Gairigaun, and Gothatar, with the monsoon season bearing down on riverside settlements. The Ministry of Federal Affairs has instructed all local governments to put squatter identification and resettlement plans in place before proceeding further.
The two-pronged approach sits as Point 92 within the government’s 100-point governance agenda, and appears calibrated partly in response to sustained criticism from human rights organisations, including an open letter from three international bodies and comparisons to “Gaza-style demolition” by commentator Dr Mitra Pariyar.
The Weight of History
The credibility of any “identification first” pledge rests on a deeply troubled track record. A Rs 230 million (approximately $1.52 million) resettlement project at Ichangu Narayan stands as a cautionary example: not a single displaced family moved into the prepared housing, put off by inadequate facilities and remote, impractical locations. That failure is not an isolated one. Twenty-two commissions formed since 1952 have all failed to resolve the underlying crisis, with successive governments typically dissolving whatever their predecessors set up and beginning again from scratch.
The scale of the problem is considerable. An estimated 2.1 million people in Nepal live without formal land rights, a population that spans freed Kamaiya bonded labourers, conflict-displaced families, and urban migrants, each group with distinct circumstances that resist any uniform policy fix.
Nepal’s 2015 Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to appropriate housing and prohibits eviction except in strict accordance with the law. Article 40 goes further, placing an explicit obligation on the state to provide housing and land to landless Dalits. The gap between that constitutional language and the lived reality of millions of people remains as wide as it has ever been.
The coming weeks will offer some indication of whether this latest coordinated approach represents a genuine shift or simply another turn in a weary cycle of announcement and disappointment. For the country’s most vulnerable citizens, that distinction is not an abstract one.
