Submit your Article

Recent demolitions of informal settlements across the Kathmandu Valley have left hundreds of families in uncertainty, raising serious questions about the government’s preparedness to handle the aftermath of such large-scale actions.

Led by Kathmandu Metropolitan City in coordination with national security forces, the operation cleared settlements in Manohara, Shantinagar, Thapathali, and Jadibuti. According to official data, 773 families were evicted from the Manohara area in Bhaktapur, 638 families from Shantinagar along the Bagmati River (476 on one side and 162 on the other), 143 families from Thapathali, and 114 families from the Milan Chok area in Jadibuti.

Residents from Manohara opposed the demolition, leading to clashes on April 25 when a police team and media personnel came under attack. Twenty-two security personnel were injured in the incident.

On April 26, authorities escalated the operation, deploying around 2,000 personnel from the Armed Police Force, Nepal Police, and Metropolitan Police, who then entered the settlement and began demolitions.

The settlements flooded every rainy season, and many have acknowledged that this risk has now been removed. But the question remains: was the aftermath of this decision adequately considered?

While the move has been framed as necessary for environmental restoration and city planning, the situation on the ground tells a more complex story. Many residents left homes where they had lived for years, often with little time to prepare. Scenes of families salvaging belongings in the rain, children clutching school materials, and elderly residents struggling in unfamiliar surroundings highlighted the immediate human cost.

Temporary shelters have been arranged in ashrams, training centers, and hotels, but concerns remain about their adequacy. For many, relocation has also meant the loss of livelihoods, as proximity to the city center has provided access to informal work.

The metropolis has arranged free food, shelter, and basic medical services for those who registered. Officials state that mental health support teams, including psychotherapists, have been deployed to address trauma—particularly among children and the elderly.

While the government’s effort to clear unplanned settlements has been acknowledged, critics say the execution lacked comprehensive planning. Housing alone, they argue, does not address the broader needs of displaced families. The apartment complexes built in Nagarjuna during former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai’s tenure were intended as solutions, but fall short of ensuring livelihoods, healthcare access, education, and social stability.

The impact has extended beyond housing. Education has been disrupted for many students, including those preparing for examinations, while teachers face uncertainty about their jobs after schools within the settlements were demolished.

Saraswati Basic School in Manohara, located in Madhyapur Thimi Municipality-1, was demolished on Monday morning, leaving around 280 students without a learning space. The school, which provided education up to grade 8, served both local residents and children from squatter families, who made up roughly half the student population. The futures of its 15 teachers and one office assistant now remain uncertain.

Vulnerable groups, including pregnant women, children, and the elderly, are among those struggling most in temporary arrangements. Beyond human displacement, concerns have also been raised about animals. In a statement shared on social media, Animal Nepal highlighted that forced evictions leave behind “invisible victims,” including pets and strays that are often injured, displaced, or abandoned during demolitions. Groups such as Sneha Care and Community Animal Treatment have been actively involved in feeding, rescuing, and providing medical care to affected animals, addressing a largely overlooked consequence of the eviction drive.

Ranju Darshana, a House of Representatives member from Kathmandu, said that genuine squatters were left in confusion and fear due to short notice and unclear information during the Thapathali settlement removal. She apologized for the panic caused, stressing that affected residents should be given proper options and not treated as a political vote bank.

At the Radhaswami Satsang site in Sundarighat alone, around 161 individuals were being housed as of Wednesday. Authorities say health workers are available around the clock, with special attention given to vulnerable groups.

“The services here are very good. The team has been taking care of us very well,” said an elderly woman at the shelter. “They have provided mosquito nets and are trying to make us feel at home, although the pain of leaving our place still remains.” “We have been providing mental health support services to the displaced families,” said a member of the Council Department of Psychology at Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur. “They appeared more severely affected on the first day but are gradually beginning to adjust. Our team is conducting a needs assessment, with particular focus on pregnant women, children, and elderly individuals.” As of Wednesday, the team had already worked with 43 families.

“The Nepal Electricity Authority is working to restore lighting in the area, and tents were provided from Tuesday,” said a municipal worker. “Food distribution has also improved. On the first day, people were given packed meals, but now we have shifted to a buffet system where they can serve themselves and take as much as they need. We are also trying to meet specific needs—infants are provided lito, elderly people receive appropriate food, and pregnant women are given suitable nutrition.”

A police officer at the Satsang site said, “We have been instructed that journalists will not be allowed to enter on Thursday, as per directions from the Prime Minister’s Office, and our focus is currently on maintaining security.” He noted that the number of families is likely to increase in the coming days, and that arrangements are being made to shift pregnant women and elderly individuals to hotels where they can receive better services.

The demolitions have also exposed deeper structural issues. While authorities acknowledge the presence of  “fake squatters” occupying valuable land, many genuine landless families remain without clear alternatives. Critics argue that while the removal of settlements may have been inevitable, the lack of clear communication, phased planning, and sustainable rehabilitation measures has led to confusion, fear, and resentment among affected communities.

In Hotel Smarika, Mitranagar, 35 individuals from Thapathali and Shantinagar are currently staying. Naramaya Pariyar, 71, had been living in Shantinagar since 2058 BS with her family. She was unaware that her settlement would be demolished that day and was not informed in time. She remains hopeful that the government will make arrangements for them soon. Her granddaughter is staying at a friend’s house and continuing her studies, while her son has been unable to go to work since the relocation.

“The officers who brought us here have assured us that we will be relocated as soon as possible, and that arrangements are being made for our settlement,” she said. According to her, the hotel staff have been treating them well, regularly checking on their needs and allowing them to share their concerns.

Hotel Smarika’s owner, Tarak Sharma Pantha, said he was grateful to host them, noting that officials visit regularly for monitoring and have provided documents for daily movement and registration. He expressed dissatisfaction, however, with the use of the term “vulnerable” in the registration papers.

Pantha said he was informed about their transfer only a day in advance. While he acknowledged that the relocation was eventually expected, he stressed that the government should have ensured proper pre-planning, including arrangements for settlement, food, and consideration of the difficulties residents might face.

Nir Kumar Puri, 53, had been living in the Thapathali settlement for nine years with his family. His wife is currently staying at her parental home, his daughter is married, and his son is staying at a friend's house. He said he has no belongings with him except the clothes he is wearing, and that they were informed about the situation only a day before, leaving them wholly unprepared.

He said he wishes to be provided with proper settlement for his family and noted that, being physically able, he can continue working and earning on his own. But the loss of his home has left him deeply shaken.

“Because of this, we are facing mental problems. My roommate, a young boy, is also suffering. He does not speak much or leave the room often. The police have been supporting us throughout this phase. One person fell sick on Tuesday and was immediately taken to the hospital and brought back by them.”

He added that the situation is especially serious given that elderly people, persons with disabilities, infants, and pregnant women are among those affected, and expressed hope that until a permanent location is arranged, they will be cared for with attention and dignity.

The Kathmandu Valley’s situation is not without international parallel. Dharavi—one of Mumbai’s largest informal settlements, home to nearly a million people—illustrates both the importance and complexity of such communities. While slums often face poor housing, sanitation, and flooding risks, they also support strong local economies and tightly knit communities. Residents of Dharavi run significant informal industries in recycling, tailoring, and pottery. Yet redevelopment plans have raised concerns about displacement and inadequate consultation—reflecting a global tension in which efforts to “improve” slums can threaten the very communities they are meant to help.

Similarly, in Delhi, the demolition of Madrasi Camp—home to around 370 Tamil migrant families who had lived there for decades—was carried out following a court order declaring it an encroachment. Residents were left homeless with limited notice and inadequate rehabilitation. Across Delhi, thousands of slum dwellings have been removed in recent years, often relocating the urban poor far from their workplaces and excluding many through strict eligibility criteria.

In Nepal, the actions taken under Prime Minister Balen Shah reflect attempts to address unmanaged settlements and urban risks. While such steps are often seen as bold and necessary, they equally underscore the importance of careful planning, proper consultation, and humane resettlement to ensure that development does not come at the cost of the communities it claims to serve.

The current debate in Nepal over dissolving trade unions has become one of the most consequential constitutional and labor policy questions of 2026. The government's reform agenda reportedly includes measures to abolish party-affiliated trade unions in the name of improving governance and ending institutional interference. It is argued that this will strengthen governance and reduce encroachment between institutions. However, concerns about the politicisation of unions remain both valid and understandable. Simply abolishing all trade unions would contravene Nepal's constitution, labor laws, and international obligations. The real question is not whether unions should exist, but how they can be improved.

A useful perspective is offered in the Shift Project’s article, Realizing Trade Union Rights: Diagnosing Barriers and Moving to Action. It argues that freedom of association and collective bargaining should not be viewed merely as labor entitlements, but as ‘enabling rights’ that support fair wages, safe working conditions, dignity in the workplace, and protection against discrimination. It further contends that institutional failures arise not from the existence of unions themselves, but from the failure of governments and employers to take meaningful, proactive steps to ensure these rights function effectively in practice.

That insight is highly relevant to Nepal.

Nepal's labor movement has long suffered from fragmentation and political capture. Multiple unions tied to rival political parties often operate within the same enterprise or sector. Rather than bargaining collectively on wages, safety, and benefits, some unions have functioned as extensions of party competition. This has weakened productivity, discouraged investment, divided workers, and eroded public sympathy for organised labor. Even many ordinary citizens now distinguish between genuine worker representation and partisan unionism.

Public dissatisfaction with politicised unions should not, however, be treated as lawful justification for abolishing union rights altogether. Article 34(3) of the Constitution of Nepal guarantees workers the right to form and join trade unions and to engage in collective bargaining. This is not a matter of shifting policy preference that can be withdrawn by executive announcement; it is a fundamental constitutional protection. Similarly, Nepal’s Labor Act recognises trade unions, collective bargaining mechanisms, and workplace representation—safeguards introduced to maintain industrial peace through negotiation rather than coercion. Any attempt to dissolve unions through administrative action would undermine the rule of law and create uncertainty within the labor market.

The international dimension is equally important. Nepal is a member of the International Labor Organization and has ratified core conventions safeguarding freedom of association and collective bargaining, including Convention No. 87 and Convention No. 98. These instruments not only prevent governments from suppressing unions, but impose a positive obligation to create conditions in which workers can organise without fear of retaliation. Measures that hinder independent union formation could constitute a breach of Nepal’s international commitments and weaken its standing in the international community. Any perception that Nepal is retreating from these obligations may carry wider consequences for its reputation and diplomatic relationships.

There are also significant economic implications. Countries seeking foreign investment, export expansion, and integration into global supply chains are increasingly assessed on the quality of their labor governance. International buyers and responsible investors routinely consider whether states respect worker representation, due process, and social dialogue. A government perceived as dismantling unions may signal instability and regulatory uncertainty rather than credible reform.

That said, defenders of the status quo should also be cautious. Nepal’s current union structure does need change. Too often, workers’ institutions have become vehicles for political patronage. Strikes are sometimes called without exhausting dialogue. Leadership can grow unaccountable. In parts of the public sector, union influence has been linked to resistance against performance management and administrative reform. These are legitimate governance concerns.

But law-based reform is different from abolition. Nepal should adopt a balanced approach: depoliticizing trade unions while preserving constitutionally protected labor rights. First, legislation could prohibit formal affiliations between registered trade unions and political parties. Unions should represent workers’ interests, not function as auxiliary branches of partisan organisations. Second, stronger financial transparency requirements, including audited accounts, disclosure of funding sources, and regular democratic internal elections, would improve accountability. Third, sectoral consolidation could be encouraged to address fragmentation, for instance through representative bargaining councils in place of competing workplace-level unions.

Fourth, strike regulation could be modernised in a manner consistent with international labor standards. In essential public services, this might include minimum service requirements, cooling-off periods, structured mediation, and advance notice obligations—measures that balance the right to industrial action with continuity of essential services. Fifth, institutional dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly labor courts and mediation bodies, should be strengthened so that employment conflicts are resolved through formal legal channels rather than public confrontation.

Most importantly, any meaningful reform must be built on genuine social dialogue. Reforms imposed unilaterally are more likely to generate resistance and mistrust; those developed through consultation with workers, employers, and civil society are more likely to achieve legitimacy and durable implementation.

As labor relations scholarship has consistently shown, progress occurs when institutions move beyond symbolic commitments and take meaningful action. Nepal would do well to embrace this lesson. If unions are dysfunctional, the response should be to redesign incentives and improve governance structures. If partisan capture is the central concern, mechanisms should be introduced to sever political control. If public services are disrupted, conduct should be regulated through proportionate legal measures. What should not be discarded is the constitutional right itself.

History demonstrates that suppressing worker voice does not eliminate grievances—it often drives them into informal channels, where they become more volatile and harder to manage. Democratic systems require organised mechanisms through which labor concerns can be expressed and addressed. Independent, accountable trade unions remain among the most important of those mechanisms.

Nepal’s deeper problem is not too much democratic participation within institutions, but too little institutional discipline. Removing unions while leaving patronage networks intact would simply shift power from one informal actor to another.

Nepal today stands at a crossroads between frustration-driven shortcuts and principled reform. Dissolving trade unions may appear decisive, but it would likely trigger constitutional litigation, labor unrest, and international criticism. Reforming unions through law, transparency, and democratic accountability would be harder—but considerably wiser.

The real question is what kind of trade unions Nepal wants: ones that serve the interests of powerful politicians, or ones that genuinely represent the needs of workers and the broader public. In a country that values democracy, the answer ought to be clear. A mature democracy puts the needs of its people first

The author is a section officer at the supreme court of Nepal 

President Ram Chandra Paudel issued the Cooperative (First Amendment) Ordinance, 2083 on Thursday. 

President Paudel, on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, issued the ordinance in accordance with Article 114 (1) of the Constitution, said Ritesh Kumar Shakya, the Spokesperson for the Office of the President. 

Nepal may finally be entering a period of political stability. A majority government now offers something the country has lacked for years of continuity.

That continuity is critical for the water and sanitation sector. Despite its importance, the sector has often struggled to remain a sustained political and investment priority. We have made notable progress over the years, particularly in expanding access and achieving open defecation free status and have performed relatively well compared to others in the region. However, moving from basic access to safely managed and system level services will require a different level of institutional and financial commitment. Current spending suggests we are not there yet. Annual investments in water and sanitation are estimated at around $300m to $450m, equivalent to only two to three percent of the national budget and still insufficient to meet safely managed service targets.

At the same time, the broader financing landscape is also beginning to shift. Globally, water and sanitation financing still remains under $100bn annually, far behind sectors like energy and transport. And as traditional funding such as ODA and grants continue to shrink, the narrative around water and sanitation is also shifting. It is increasingly being positioned within climate and economic agendas. For countries like Nepal, this opens space to look beyond the usual WASH funding channels.

The question here is not whether financing will come. It is whether we are ready to use it well when it comes to us. From where I see it, this readiness challenge in the water and sanitation sector plays out across four stages.

Sectoral need

When financing becomes available, infrastructure often becomes the immediate focus, and rightly so. But repeated findings from our sector reviews and national sanitation planning documents show that the gaps are not only in infrastructure, but equally in the softer components that enable these systems to function. The challenge is that while we acknowledge this, we do not always define or plan for these needs with the same rigor. 

As a result, planning often remains incomplete. We know what infrastructure is needed, but are often less clear on what institutional, regulatory, operational and capacity strengthening must come alongside it. These gaps then surface during implementation, often becoming the very bottlenecks that delay or weaken delivery. Before asking how much financing is needed, we must first understand the true breadth of what the sector requires.

Required capacity

Our planning processes may be delivering projects today, but the more important question is whether it is building the internal capacity and institutional memory needed for Nepal to increasingly lead this work itself over time. Large-scale water and sanitation planning is relatively new in Nepal, and much of it continues to rely on external consulting support. This is not to say planning is weak, but opportunities for domestic institutions and firms to build practical experience remain limited.

If this is to change, the way projects and loans are structured must also change. Local firms and experts need to be made an integral part of planning and design teams, not brought in only for supporting roles. This is how practical knowledge is transferred, institutional memory is built and domestic capacity is gradually strengthened to lead such projects more independently over time.

Failed execution

Even when needs are clear and projects are well-planned, execution often remains the weakest link. In Nepal, this challenge can broadly be traced to four areas.

Structure: Our constitution mandates local governments as the service providers for water and sanitation. However, in practice, the way large scale investments are structured does not always reflect this. Most major projects are still routed through the national government, which leads the design and implementation and later hands the assets over to municipalities. What this often creates is a gap. Cities receive the infrastructure, but not always the understanding, ownership or readiness needed to operate it as intended. While consultation and participatory processes may happen along the way, these are rarely enough for already stretched municipalities to engage in a truly meaningful way.

Capacity: Municipalities are expected to take ownerships, but many still do not have dedicated teams or clearly assigned roles for managing water and sanitation systems. Existing staff are already stretched across multiple responsibilities, and bringing in additional capacity is not always straightforward. As a result, new systems often get absorbed into already burdened municipal structures, without the people or institutional strengthening needed to manage them properly.

Operations: Most often infrastructure is handed over without the necessary systems in place to operate it fully. This includes clear operating procedures, financing arrangements, accountability mechanisms and practical guidance on how these systems are to be managed over time. As a result, municipalities may receive infrastructure, but not always the full operational framework required to run it sustainably.

Community: The final piece is the community itself. Long-term service delivery does not depend only on infrastructure and institutions, but also on whether people understand, accept and adapt to the systems being introduced. Yet community engagement often remains limited to short-term awareness or consultation activities during the project period. For services that rely on behaviour change and sustained uptake, this is rarely enough.

Until these gaps are addressed together, even well-planned projects will continue to struggle in execution.

Monitoring and relearning

The fourth aspect is the sector learning from its own implementation. This is only possible when we have systems which capture information in a way that remains usable, reliable, and relevant over time. With digitalization now a growing government priority, the water and sanitation sector should also be thinking more strategically about the systems it builds. Municipalities are already working with some digital platforms, but what we want to address is their use in isolation. 

What is needed is a more integrated approach, systems that can build on what already exists, connect across functions, and provide usable information for decision making. At the same time, building platforms for monitoring alone is not enough. Equal emphasis must be placed on building the capacity to interpret and use this data for planning, prioritization and investment decisions. Otherwise, we risk collecting more data without improving how decisions are made.

So, where does this leave us? Nepal now has a rare opportunity to strengthen the foundations of its water and sanitation sector while much of it is still evolving. Rather than seeing current gaps as a weakness, we should treat them as a chance to reassess our institutions, capacities, priorities and readiness before larger scale investments begin to accelerate. The goal should not simply be to secure financing when it comes, but to be ready to define our own priorities, articulate our own needs and shape the direction of the sector ourselves. Because ultimately, the future of Nepal’s water and sanitation sector will depend not on how much financing comes in, but on how prepared we are to lead and deliver it well.

The author is currently working as Deputy Chief Operating Officer at Global Water & Sanitation Center at Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand