With just 24 hours’ notice, Nepal’s government has uprooted hundreds of families by declaring their homes unauthorized and illegal. In Kathmandu, families living along the riverbanks were wailing and crying while the bulldozers, with little warning, were erasing entire communities—one after another. Some of these families had lived there for decades. Overnight, they lost their homes, livelihoods, and their children’s access to nearby schools. Some of them were relocated to distant temporary shelters without basic daily amenities. Others were left homeless, traumatized, and wounded in their self-respect. It’s hard to grasp this sense of hopelessness unless we visualize ourselves in that position.
Government officials argue that clearing squatters from riverbanks reduces flooding risks, improves urban planning and public safety, and addresses long-standing issues related to illegal settlements. They have also promised to identify legitimate squatters and provide eligible families with land/housing. However, these are promises for the future, and until that promise materializes, the families will continue to suffer. Critics have argued that evictions were carried out without adequate support or consultation. They warned that this approach could lead to a humanitarian crisis, leaving displaced families struggling to access basic needs such as food, water, healthcare, safety, and shelter, which were in existence until the government destroyed them.
Development at What Cost
When governments make decisions to push whole communities out of their homes, no matter how inadequate, what responsibility do we have as observers? It is easy to label these actions as just or unjust. The government presented these actions as necessary for development, safety, and environmental protection. But that yet-to-be-realized dream came at a huge cost to hundreds of poor and powerless families. This government action disrupts not only people’s livelihoods but also their sense of belonging, their sense of citizenship. These two positions—the government’s rules and regulations vs. our own assessment of traumatic situations—often pull us in two different directions. It is within this tension that things start to feel a little less clear in the position taken, the first step to meaningful introspection.
International Tribunal on Evictions calls for action as forced...
Governments generally focus on infrastructure and legality, but very rarely on people’s sense of belonging in their communities. Who is thinking about where and how displaced people will rebuild their lives? What does stability mean for those who have lost everything? Governance is not just about inserting systems and regulations into communities, but empathetically assessing the impact its actions are going to create on people. Should government actions be accepted by people simply because they come from a position of power, or should they be examined more critically? If we are in charge, what would we prioritize: security or compassion, efficiency or patience, immediate human need or immediate legal action regardless of the trauma it may inflict?
Why We Accept What Feels Wrong
From a psychological perspective, people’s reactions to such situations are often shaped by mental shortcuts known as heuristics, as well as cognitive biases. Many individuals rely on heuristics, making quick judgments and accepting government decisions without critically examining them. Similarly, cognitive biases can influence how we respond without our own awareness of those biases. These biases can distort our judgment. Government actions are often viewed as justified because many assume the state acts in the public interest. Cognitive dissonance also plays a key role in determining where we stand on any issue. People experience this when they hold conflicting beliefs or values. For example, someone may support the government while also believing that people deserve fair treatment. When evictions occur, these beliefs clash, creating discomfort. To reduce this tension, individuals may rationalize the situation rather than fully confronting both perspectives. They acknowledge the harshness of evictions but still justify them as necessary for development.
But we do not need to reach these hasty, unexamined conclusions if we pause before taking a stance on issues. That is where self-reflection becomes essential. It allows us to slow down, take a step back from impulsive reactions, and recognize our own biases. Instead of simply asking, “Do I agree or not?” we can ask, “Why do I feel this way, and what shapes my reactions?” This kind of reflection is known as metacognition—“thinking about thinking”—which helps us identify and examine not just our opinions but the mental paths that led us to take a particular stance.
Why the State Fails Its People
Philosophically, this issue raises important questions about the government’s authority and moral responsibility. What is the purpose of a government? Is it solely to maintain order, enforce laws, and manage resources, or does it also have an ethical and moral obligation to protect the dignity and well-being of all citizens, especially the most vulnerable?
The concept of the social contract can come to our rescue here. It is an implicit agreement between individuals and the state. People accept the authority of the state in exchange for fairness and protection. These families are part of society and follow the rules, so it is reasonable for them to expect some level of security from the state. When they are displaced without consultation and without long-term support, it raises concerns about whether the government is upholding its end of the deal responsibly.
Ultimately, the government must balance the collective good and individual rights. While such actions may benefit a larger population, they also raise tough ethical questions, i.e., does progress have to come at the expense of a specific group? People’s safety is being prioritized, the government argued. But other legally constructed homes by the riverbanks are equally unsafe—would they be demolished as well? Who is going to make the judgment on how much harm is acceptable during development? Kathmandu is a concrete jungle, without enough green space to breathe fresh air, and hundreds of people die of air pollution every year. “Air pollution, particularly hazardous PM2.5 levels, has reached alarming heights exceeding WHO standards by 4.9 times, with Kathmandu even ranked as the world’s most polluted city in April 2025,” reports a journal of the Nepal Medical Association published in September 2025.
That means the whole city is really unhealthy. Is the government going to bulldoze certain communities to make the city livable, or build more open green space to save hundreds of people who would otherwise die? Everyone needs breathing space. Almost everyone will support this “breathing space” initiative in Kathmandu. But how many communities are ready to give up their own homes for a healthy Kathmandu? These questions remind us that there are no quick fixes to decades of unplanned urbanization. The state has a responsibility to protect every citizen, regardless of how far they are from the power structure. Being a part of a state is a sense of belonging—not just being seen, but heard, and protected from harm. Here the government itself inflicted harm. So, as observers, is our role limited to passive acceptance or more than that? Questioning is key to accountability. Are we ready to rethink squatter evictions now?
The author holds degrees in Psychology and Critical and Creative Thinking and lives in Boston with her family.
