The ongoing campaign to remove encroachments from riverbanks and public land in the Kathmandu Valley has once again brought a long-standing governance issue into focus. Led under the direction of Prime Minister Balen Shah, the drive reflects a renewed attempt to enforce state authority over public spaces that have gradually been occupied over decades. What makes this phase different is not only the scale of action but also the relatively low level of resistance seen so far. As of Sunday, authorities have cleared three settlements. Interestingly, people vacated these areas following official announcements without confrontation, suggesting a shift in public response and a greater willingness to accept state directives. At the core of this issue lie two distinct groups. One includes genuinely landless families who have settled out of necessity and continue to expect structured resettlement from the state. The other involves individuals or groups who have occupied land with the intent of possession or benefit. Successive governments have formed commissions and spent significant public resources, yet the situation has only worsened. Estimates suggesting that over a million households are affected by informal settlement issues illustrate the scale of the challenge. The problem is no longer limited to the capital; it is visible along riverbanks, highways, city outskirts, and even in villages, underscoring that it is a nationwide concern.
Phewa Lake Encroachment: Residents caught off-guard as bulldoze...
This current effort is also important because it directly affects public safety and urban organisation. In Kathmandu, unplanned settlements often lead to sanitation problems and, at times, security concerns. Therefore, clearing and properly organising these areas is not just about land management; it is also about improving living conditions and enhancing overall safety. Earlier attempts, even under different political leaderships, have shown that simply evicting people does not solve the problem. In many cases, people returned to cleared areas due to the absence of long-term resettlement plans. This exposed a major flaw in previous approaches: they relied on force without offering sustainable alternatives. Clearing illegal settlements must go hand in hand with providing organised housing options for genuinely landless families. Displacement without viable alternatives risks recreating the same problem elsewhere. The focus, therefore, should shift from temporary clearance to permanent housing solutions.
Frequent changes in government in the past have made it difficult to maintain consistent land policies. If the current administration remains stable, it has an opportunity to develop and implement long-term solutions rather than short-term fixes. Establishing a strong, permanent mechanism under the Prime Minister’s Office could help integrate land management, resettlement, and urban planning. At the same time, policies must move beyond traditional land distribution models, which have delivered limited results over decades. Structured housing—such as organised apartment complexes—combined with livelihood support offers a more realistic and sustainable path forward. If handled carefully, this initiative could mark a turning point. However, its success will depend not only on clearing land but also on ensuring that genuinely landless citizens are not left behind. Breaking the cycle of unplanned settlements and politicised squatter issues will require both firm action and a commitment to equity. Only then can this effort truly help rebuild public trust in the state.
