Hopes For Homeless Renewed

The issues of landlessness among the squatters have lingered for decades in Nepal. The governments have promised justice to families who have lived for years on riverbanks, public land and settlements without legal recognition. They have voted, and also contributed to the informal economy, yet many still remain uncertain whether the land beneath their homes truly belongs to them. The latest assurance by Minister for Infrastructure Development Sunil Lamsal that genuine landless families will receive ownership certificates by Dashain is therefore appreciable. It offers hope to thousands of landless squatters who have spent much of their lives waiting for the state to ensure their right to live with dignity. 

Minister Lamsal's remarks come in the wake of ongoing eviction of landless squatters from riverbanks located in different parts of the Kathmandu Valley. A total of 2,687 huts and houses were demolished from the settlements along the Bagmati River and its tributaries, citing they are vulnerable to annual floods. More than 2,600 families came into contact with the government, seeking to be identified as landless squatters and waiting for permanent settlement. Their problem was deeply rooted in many years of poorly governed land issues, political patronage, and contradictory policies regarding the settlement of those who have no land. Successive governments have made similar commitments, especially when public pressure intensifies or elections approach. Announcements are made, timelines are set and expectations are raised. Then the machinery of bureaucracy slows, political priorities shift and the promise fades into the long archive of unfinished commitments.

However, the present government should be different. Many people have bestowed their aspirations for positive change. The landlessness is not only an administrative problem. Sometimes, the most vulnerable landless people are left without any assistance, whereas influential interests take advantage of the same situation. Any sustainable policy should be able to differentiate between them. This is why the stress put on identifying genuine squatters is paramount. But it should go hand-in-hand with full openness. Criteria which define whether someone qualifies as an eligible applicant should be of public knowledge, local community participation in decision-making should be allowed, and an appeals procedure should exist for those whom this process leaves behind. Still, citizens should guard themselves against disinformation. False rumours might create unnecessary scares, especially for vulnerable families. But distrust is not a phenomenon that comes out of nowhere. It is the product of years of broken promises. 

The burden, therefore, lies with the government to communicate clearly and to demonstrate progress through action rather than rhetoric. The clearing of informal settlements in urban areas had added to public anxiety. In disaster-prone locations, relocation is necessary to protect lives. But the rules of humanity dictate that people should not be forced to leave their homes without having the possibility of resettlement and safety. Economic development should not come at the cost of the poor. Land tenure does not count in paperwork only, but it also opens the door to credit, education, investment and a stronger sense of belonging. For landless families, a certificate is recognition that they belong to their nation. The commitment of the government to resolve these issues should be taken optimistically. But is it possible by Dashain? Citizens will not judge the government’s spirit by speeches or action plans, but they want results, such as whether families finally hold the land certificates they were promised. The government should keep the promise and work to fulfil the commitments on time.