land capture some stories from.pdf

7/27/2019 land capture Some stories from.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/land-capture-some-stories-frompdf 1/5

1 | P a g e

FIELD BULLETIN Myths and realities of land capture: Some stories from

the Eastern districts

IntroductionHistorically, land has been one of the most powerful tools for political mobilization in Nepal. The first elected

government of Nepali Congress (NC) in 1959 tried to initiate land reforms to expand its support base among

landless and marginal peasants. However, as the government did not last long, very limited meaningful land

reforms took place. King Mahendra started another set of ambitious land reforms in 1964. However, due to

strong opposition from the landed class and the weak institutional structure in place, no major changes in land

holding patterns could be brought about by these reform attempts either.1

In the 1990s, the communist parties raised the slogan of “land to the tillers” in their election campaigns,

enabling them to expand their support base in the Tarai where they were alleged by rival parties to be

indirectly supporting the capture of public land in rural areas.2 Some other organizations, e.g. the Land Rights

Forum and informal associations of landless people at district level were also involved in encouraging landless

and marginal land owners to encroach upon public land in villages and nationalized forests.3 However, most of

those cases were localized and none of the political parties officially endorsed such activities.

The rise of the Maoists insurgency in the mid-nineties led to a marked departure from the fairly subtle land

capture/land movements across the country, particularly in the Tarai where land has more economic and

agricultural value. The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) officially endorsed land capture from

“feudal” landlords when it started “the People’s War” in 1996 and the policy was used to attract rural landless

people to the party and its army. During the initial years of the insurgency, land captured particularly in the

hills was cultivated in a “commune” manner and the harvest was used to sustain party supporters and fighters

in isolated rural areas. In some cases even small-holders were forced to donate part of their harvest to CPN-M

1 Landownership in Nepal by Mahesh C. Regmi (1977)

2Based on discussion with district level political leaders and local people

3Interview with activists of Land Rights Forum

Issue No. 16:August 2011

United Nations

Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator’s Office



2 | P a g e

in order to be allowed to cultivate their land. This trend expanded throughout the conflict years until the 2006

signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).4

In addition to the commitment to “adopt a policy to introduce a scientific land reforms programme by ending

feudal land ownership”5, the parties to the CPA also specifically agreed to “create an inventory of governmental, public and private buildings, land and other properties occupied, locked up, or not allowed [for]

use in [the] course of the armed conflict and to return them immediately” and that “private property of any

person shall not be seized or controlled except in accordance with the law”6. However, despite these

commitments nothing substantial has been achieved regarding land reform. The issue of return of captured

land continues to be raised as a major point of contention, suggesting little progress has been made here as

well.7

A study by the Carter Centre published in June 20108 explored the interlinked issue of land reforms and return

of captured land. The findings of the report suggested that the Maoists appear to have returned the majority

of the land they seized during the conflict in the Hills and Mountains as well as in some parts of the Tarai.

This study tries to delve into existing dynamics with new developments in the Eastern Region of Nepal and

narrates some real stories from the ground. The study also explores land capture by political and armed groups

other than the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (UCPN-M).

Lack of Information, misinformation, and disinformation

In the three districts visited as part of this field bulletin,9 it was observed that there is very limited credible

information available on how much land has been captured and how much of it has been returned. This

despite the fact that cases of land capture had been extensively reported from these particular districts. When

asked about data available, the Local Peace Committee (LPC) Secretary in one Tarai district displayed complete

ignorance. According to him, the issue has never been discussed in the LPC meetings. The Chief District Officer

(CDO) of the same district also explained that since he has been in the district no case has been brought to his

attention. He stated that “if these were we would take them to an ‘all party meeting’”. A UCPN-M leader

challenged the CDO’s statement that not a single case of land capture has been formally registered in the

district and claims that it is propaganda of “rightist and reactionary” parties dragging their feet on issues of

land reforms. An NC leader on the other hand claimed that at least 50 bighas of land belonging to a former

minister had been captured but that he is not making a formal complaint due to fears of a Maoists backlash.

4Understanding the Maoist Movement of Nepal edited by Deepak Thapa, 2003

5Comprehensive Peace Agreement, Article 3.7, November 2006

6Comprehensive Peace Agreement, Articles 5.1.8 and 7.5.5, November 2006

7This issue has surfaced during negotiations on the formation of government and advancing the peace process. Non Maoists parties

have used it to seek concessions from the Maoists several times after signing of the CPA.

8Land Commitments in Nepal's Peace Process Only Partially Fulfilled, The Carter Centre, June 2010

9Siraha, Udaypur and Dhankuta districts



3 | P a g e

He suggested that the district administration should proactively handle those cases even without a formal

complaint. A human rights activist from the district termed the inactivity of the districts administration as

negligence of duty. In his opinion, “this is a purely legal issue and the administration should be able to

guarantee ‘the right to property’ of ordinary citizens”.However, talking with political party leaders suggests that the issue

is not simply one of rule of law. In one hill district, where the

capture of land belonging to a former Prime Minister often makes

headlines10, the LPC coordinator (UCPN-M) claimed that his land

was returned immediately after the CPA but that as his family lives

in Kathmandu, the land is still cultivated by local villagers, some of

them with consent of the landowner and some without.

Representatives of other political parties in the LPC confirmed the

claim by LPC coordinator. A local political and social activist argued

that the former Prime Minister’s land is not of significant

economic importance for him anymore but that he continues toraise the issue more for political purposes. The CDO of the district confirmed that there has been no formal

complaint registered by the former Prime Minister about this case.

In another hill district, however, 18 bighas of land belonging to a businessman have not been returned despite

a formal complaint registered by him. The CDO of the district explained that as he is new to the district he was

unaware of the case. However, he noted that he would refer such cases to an “all party mechanism”. The

district UCPN-M leader claimed that the land owned by the businessman is above the legal ceiling11 and that

he therefore will not request those occupying the land to release it. The villagers, mostly Dalits, who have been

cultivating the land for more than seven years asserted that unless and until the state provides them with land,

they will not leave.

Although the perception that UCPN-M has been involved in most of the land capture in the districts appears to

be correct, there have been other players as well. There have been several reports of land capture particularly

in some Tarai districts by the Communist Party of Nepal Maoists-Matrika (CPNM-Matrika) and several other

Tarai armed groups. It was suggested that most of the land capture cases by Tarai armed groups are either

symbolic or as a result of family and local disputes (where one party may be using the name of an armed

group). No evidence of real “land capture” by those groups could be confirmed. It was also noted that the

CPNM-Matrika has encouraged people to capture public land and that in at least one case in Siraha, their

active involvement in capturing land belonging to a member of the former royal family was confirmed.12

CPNM-Matrika has distributed that piece of land to around 100 landless dalit families to build huts. Having

lived in the huts for over a year, the residents claimed that no one has asked them to leave.

10Review of local and national media reports regarding land capture

11The Agricultural land ceiling varies by region; in the Tarai, the land ceiling has been set at 11 bighas; in the Hills and Mountains it is 80

ropanis (approximately 5.75 bighas); and in the Kathmandu Valley it is 20 ropanis (approximately 1.43 bighas).

12Based on Interview with people squatting on the land

Dalit settlement on captured land



4 | P a g e

Do it yourself or forget it

As per the provisions of the CPA the onus on returning captured land to the rightful owner rests upon the state

and the then CPN-M (now UCPN-M). However, the findings of this small study at least was that in most of the

cases where land was returned it was not through formal intervention by the state or by an “all party

mechanism”, but rather through individual negotiations at the local level. In some cases “donation” and

“charity” were essential parts of the negotiations as well. During a conversation with people cultivating the

land of absentee landlords in one Tarai district, one man claimed to have received a phone call from a senior

central level leader of UCPN-M, who hails from the same constituency and was asked by him to vacate the land

of a particular land owner and shift onto the land of

another landowner. Local people stated that they

thought this particular landowner may have ‘cultivated’

good relations with the Maoists leader while his land was

being cultivated by others.

In another case a major landlord and businessman of

national repute who hails from the same village managed

to recover his 20 bighas of land by promising to build a

hospital in the village, which he subsequently did. A local

UCPN-M activist stated that the landlord has done a lot

for development in the village by contributing in cash

and kind so that his party no longer considers him a

“feudal”. They have therefore informally “released” his land. A former politician and one of the major landlords in the Tarai, who hails from the same district but who

moved to India after the regime change of 1990, had most of his land captured by UCPN-M supporters and

individuals without links to any group. However, according to District Administration Office (DAO) staff, the

landlord does not seem preoccupied about the land and only comes to the district for social functions or

during elections. One of his close aides opined that the landlord is simply waiting for the “opportune political

moment” to reclaim his land. A local journalist opined that, in his view, if the state fails to legally evacuate

those squatting on the land, there is a risk the landlord may one day resort to violence to reclaim his land.

Conclusion

In the districts visited, there is a perception that there are in fact not many cases of land capture remaining.The UCPN-M has in most cases, without any formal decision, returned the captured land. However, as seen

above, there are still some cases where land has not been returned. Many interviewees expressed concern

about the perceived indifference of the state, represented by the district authorities, in conducting an

inventory of seized land and monitoring the situation. In some cases where formal complaints have been

lodged, the authorities have failed to initiate the legal process. On the part of the UCPN-M, there seems to be

a lack of a coherent policy and decisions regarding the return of captured land remain ad hoc and dependent

on local party leaders. The presence of some radical groups like CPNM-Matrika and armed/criminal groups

further complicates the situation in the Tarai .

A Hospital on a piece of land which was captured



5 | P a g e

This issue continues to figure prominently as a “fault-line” in the peace process at national as well as local level

and may one day lead to violent clashes in rural areas. A policy level decision and the political will to

systematically address this problem on the part of the government and UCPN-M are clearly desirable to

resolve the dispute around land and to avoid any long term or short term violent conflicts in the transitionphase of the country.

United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator’s Office

GPO Box: 107, UN House, Pulchowk, Kathmandu

Email: [email protected]

Phone: +977 1 5523200, Fax: +977 1 5523991

Visit the UN Nepal Information Platform at http://www.un.org.np

Disclaimer: This field bulletin is prepared following a brief field study and also uses secondary data. The information

presented in this field bulletin does not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Although

the RCHCO aims to confirm all information independently, occasional factual inaccuracies can occur .

land capture some stories from.pdf

Documents