The images from the Radha Swami holding center in Kirtipur should force the government to rethink how it treats some of the country’s poorest citizens. Families moved from informal settlements in the name of safety found themselves wading through floodwater, pulling clothes, utensils, school supplies, and food out of thick mud. They escaped one disaster only to face another.
Soon after the current government came to power, it launched a drive to clear government land occupied by squatters, especially along riverbanks in Kathmandu. Officials argued that the settlements were illegal, blocked river restoration work, and exposed residents to flood risks. River corridors need protection, and public land cannot remain under permanent encroachment. Yet clearing settlements is only one part of the job. The harder task is ensuring that people who are genuinely landless are not pushed from one crisis into the next.
Many families accepted the government’s promise that they would stay in a temporary holding center for just 15 days before being relocated permanently. Three months later, they are still waiting. The monsoon has now exposed how weak that arrangement was. Floodwater entered the shelter in the middle of the night, forcing children, elderly people, and those with chronic illnesses to flee. Whatever little they owned was soaked or washed away. Some say they did not receive rescue assistance until hours later.
I will deliver on my election promises: PM Dahal
This is more than a story about a flooded shelter. It raises a larger question about planning. If authorities knew the holding center was vulnerable to flooding, why was it chosen? Temporary shelters should reduce risk, not create new dangers. When public agencies relocate families, they also accept responsibility for their safety and basic living conditions.
The debate over squatters often becomes trapped between two extreme positions. One side argues that every squatter must be removed because public land belongs to the state. The other insists that every settlement should remain untouched. Neither approach solves the problem. Not everyone living on government land is genuinely landless. Some have multiple properties elsewhere, while others have occupied land for commercial gain. The government has every right to act against such cases. But many families have nowhere else to go. They survive through daily wage work and have spent years building fragile homes because they lacked any alternative. They cannot be treated in the same way as land grabbers.
That is why proper identification matters. Ensuring transparency, the government must be more sensitive when verifying families, so that only the “innocently landless” are included, not opportunists. The truly landless should be supported with access to basics like reliable housing and public services, which can help them rebuild their lives.
Relocation should not mean simply shifting people from one riverside settlement to another flood-prone area. The humanitarian aspect of the situation also needs immediate attention. Since the monsoon is still ongoing, families in temporary shelters urgently need dry bedding, food, clean water, toilets, healthcare services, and child and elderly protection. These basic necessities are government duties, not charity.
The Kirtipur event should serve as an eye-opener for authorities. Clearing public land may be justified for administrative reasons, but success cannot be measured only by the number of demolitions. People’s lives after the demolitions must be considered as well. A government that removes families from their homes without providing suitable shelters merely shifts the problem elsewhere.
Real landless people expect at least safety and security alongside the fulfillment of their daily needs. What matters most is that they be given security, dignity, and the opportunity to live without facing floods and other crises permanently.
