Nepal Government Starts Eviction of Riverside Squatters in Kathmandu Valley Amid Mixed Reactions

Introduction

On April 25, 2025, the government of Nepal, led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah, started demolishing informal settlements along the riverbanks of Kathmandu Valley. The operation, which had been attempted before when Shah was mayor, went ahead without any reported incidents. However, it has caused different reactions from residents and human rights organizations.

Main Body

The eviction drive follows a previous attempt on November 28, 2022, when Shah, then mayor of Kathmandu, tried to clear the Thapathali settlement. That effort led to a violent clash that left 36 people injured, including the municipal police chief. Shah later asked several home ministers for support but did not get enough help from the federal government. The current operation, now carried out with the authority of the prime minister, involves coordination among the Kathmandu Metropolitan Police, Nepal Police, and Armed Police Force. The demolition began early on April 25, after residents were told to leave by the evening of April 24. The first phase targets settlements in Thapathali, Manohara, and the Sinamangal-Gairigaun areas. According to Bishnu Prasad Joshi, chief of the Kathmandu Metropolitan Police, the authorities are clearing illegal settlements from government land and have offered help to residents who have no other place to stay. The eviction was peaceful, and residents moved their belongings using small trucks. Prime Minister Shah defended the operation on social media, stating that the removal was necessary to relocate citizens from unorganized and flood-prone areas. He emphasized that the government would separate genuine squatters from encroachers and promised to give land to eligible families. Shah also noted that the relocation would improve Kathmandu's drainage system and address river pollution. He described the initiative as part of a long-term solution to a recurring problem, referring to annual flood risks that force residents to flee. The eviction is part of a 100-point plan that includes a nationwide digital survey and verification of landless squatters within 60 days, with resolution through relocation and land allocation within 1,000 days. Reactions among residents varied. Subhadra Karki, a Thapathali resident, expressed support for the drive but called for a proper investigation to distinguish genuine squatters from those who own property elsewhere. Another resident, Dambar Bahadur Tamang, said the decision was acceptable because of the fear of floods. In contrast, Puspa Kaasai, a 65-year-old who had lived in the area for three decades, said she did not know where to go. The eviction has thus created a range of responses, from approval to anxiety. The National Human Rights Commission wrote to the government asking for an update on the implementation of its previous recommendations to identify genuine squatters and arrange alternative housing. Amnesty International issued a statement criticizing the forced eviction, saying it reflects a dangerous weakening of the rule of law and an increasingly authoritarian approach. The organization warned that evicting families without prior verification, proper consultation, or assurance of alternative housing could turn a governance challenge into a preventable human rights crisis. The Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC), acting in a supportive role, has committed to a humane approach. Acting Mayor Sunita Dangol stated that the removal of structures would be carried out with full respect for human dignity, with special attention to vulnerable groups such as senior citizens, the sick, pregnant women, children, and persons with disabilities. She emphasized that the metropolis aims to ensure the process remains dispute-free, safe, and fair, while following legal and judicial standards.

Conclusion

The eviction drive, which is expected to continue in the coming days, has gone ahead without incident but is still being debated. The government has promised to follow up with identification and land distribution, while human rights organizations continue to monitor the process.

Vocabulary Learning

authoritarian (adj.)
dictatorial / demanding total obedience and not allowing freedom獨裁的;專制的
Example:Amnesty International criticized the forced eviction, saying it reflects an increasingly authoritarian approach.
encroacher (n.)
intruder / a person who gradually takes over someone else's land or property侵佔者;侵犯者
Example:The government would separate genuine squatters from encroachers.
eviction (n.)
removal / the act of forcing someone to leave a property驅逐;遷離
Example:The eviction drive follows a previous attempt on November 28, 2022.
verification (n.)
confirmation / the process of checking that something is true or correct核實;驗證
Example:The plan includes a nationwide digital survey and verification of landless squatters.
vulnerable (adj.)
weak / easily hurt or harmed physically or emotionally脆弱的;易受傷害的
Example:Special attention should be given to vulnerable groups such as senior citizens and children.

Sentence Learning

The operation, which had been attempted before when Shah was mayor, went ahead without any reported incidents.
This sentence uses a non-defining relative clause ('which had been attempted...') to provide extra information about the operation. It also uses the passive voice ('had been attempted') to focus on the action rather than the doer. The structure helps add background without interrupting the main clause.此句使用非限制性關係從句('which had been attempted...')提供關於該行動的額外資訊。同時使用被動語態('had been attempted')強調動作而非執行者。這種結構有助於在不中斷主句的情況下加入背景資料。
The eviction drive follows a previous attempt on November 28, 2022, when Shah, then mayor of Kathmandu, tried to clear the Thapathali settlement.
This sentence uses a relative clause introduced by 'when' to specify the time of the previous attempt. The appositive phrase 'then mayor of Kathmandu' provides additional identification of Shah. This structure organizes the timeline clearly.此句使用由'when'引導的關係從句來指明先前嘗試的時間。同位語短語'then mayor of Kathmandu'提供對Shah的額外識別。這種結構清晰地組織時間線。
The demolition began early on April 25, after residents were told to leave by the evening of April 24.
This sentence uses the passive voice ('were told') to emphasize the residents receiving the order rather than who gave it. The time clause 'after residents were told...' shows the sequence of events. This structure is common in formal reporting.此句使用被動語態('were told')強調居民收到命令而非誰下達命令。時間從句'after residents were told...'顯示事件順序。這種結構在正式報導中很常見。
In contrast, Puspa Kaasai, a 65-year-old who had lived in the area for three decades, said she did not know where to go.
This sentence uses the linking phrase 'In contrast' to show a difference between this resident's reaction and previous ones. It also contains a relative clause ('who had lived...') to describe Puspa Kaasai. This structure helps compare opinions.此句使用連接短語'In contrast'來顯示該居民的反應與先前反應的差異。同時包含關係從句('who had lived...')來描述Puspa Kaasai。這種結構有助於比較意見。
The organization warned that evicting families without prior verification, proper consultation, or assurance of alternative housing could turn a governance challenge into a preventable human rights crisis.
This sentence uses a 'that' clause as the object of 'warned' to report the warning. It also uses the preposition 'without' to list missing conditions. The structure allows complex ideas to be expressed clearly in one sentence.此句使用'that'從句作為'warned'的賓語來報告警告。同時使用介詞'without'列出缺失的條件。這種結構允許在一個句子中清晰表達複雜的想法。