Land is more than a physical resource—it represents the foundation of culture, livelihoods and dignity in Nepal. However, centuries of discriminatory policies have systematically stripped communities like the Tharu, Limbu, and Chepang of their ancestral lands, consequently deepening poverty, exacerbating ethnic tensions, and causing extensive environmental harm.
The 2015 Constitution offers hope: Article 37 ensures every citizen’s ‘right to appropriate housing’ and protection from unlawful evictions, while Article 51(e) calls for scientific land reforms to eliminate ‘dual ownership’, curb ‘absentee land ownership’, and manage land for productivity, ecological balance, and farmers’ access to resources. Yet the crisis remains staggering—the Land Issue Resolving Commission reports roughly 89,144 landless Dalit families, 168,888 other landless families, and 875,164 unmanaged settler families, potentially affecting 1.5m families or 6m people. The High-Level Land Reform Commission (2065) estimates 5.5m landless people, with women owning merely 16 percent of land and Dalits controlling only one percent of agricultural land.
A controversial law
Despite these constitutional mandates, Nepal’s government has tabled a Bill to Amend Some Nepal Acts Related to Land, closely mirroring a previously withdrawn ordinance. Although claiming to address longstanding governance issues, it has generated intense controversy due to concerns that it may facilitate elite capture, enable exploitation by land brokers, benefit real estate businesses, and cause significant environmental damage—including deforestation in the Chure region and misuse of forests, public lands and national parks.
The High-Level Land Reform Commissions, established at various periods in Nepal’s history, have consistently warned against ‘cosmetic’ reforms that fail to tackle semi-feudal structures. Instead, they advocate comprehensive changes to prioritize marginalized groups and protect ecosystems. Through historical institutionalism and political ecology frameworks, this analysis explores the urgent need for equitable reforms aligned with constitutional mandates and Supreme Court rulings.
Historical roots of land injustice
Nepal’s land problems originated centuries ago with policies systematically favoring high-caste elites over indigenous groups, dismantling communal systems that sustained communities. Cox (1990) demonstrates how the 1768 Gorkha conquest centralized land control and disrupted the Limbu’s ‘Kipat’ system—a communal tenure where land was collectively owned and could not be sold, preserving cultural identity and economic stability.
Historical institutionalism reveals how these policies are permanently locked in inequalities. The 1886 ‘male tenure’ policy allowed cultivators, predominantly Brahmans, to claim ‘Kipat’ lands through ‘subinfeudation’—dividing and transferring rights—turning indigenous Limbus into tenants on their ancestral territory. The 1964 ‘Land Reform Act’, while aimed at redistribution, was undermined by loopholes allowing elites to retain control, fueling ethnic tensions. The 1968 ‘Kipat abolition’ completely stripped groups like the Limbu and Chepang of their foundations.
This pattern repeated throughout Nepal. The Chepang’s ‘Kipat’ lands, granted in 1848, became ‘Raikar’—state-owned, taxable land—by 1854, pushing communities into poverty. In Dang valley, the Tharu’s Barghar system, a sophisticated communal model for equitable land use, collapsed after 1950s malaria eradication allowed Hindu settlers to seize prime lands, displacing 3,000 Tharus by 1980. The Limbu’s ‘Satya Hangama’ movement, seeking ‘Kipat’ restoration, was crushed by 1946, reflecting ‘legal pluralism’—the clash between customary and state laws.
According to the HLLRC (2065) report, today’s reality starkly reflects these injustices: 47 percent of small farmers control merely 15 percent of land, while three percent of large farmers hold 17 percent, and 20 percent of fertile land lies unused due to speculative holding by bureaucrats and brokers. Semi-feudal practices persist—dual ownership, absenteeism, and bonded labor systems like Haliya, Kamaiya, Haruwa, Charuwa, Kamalari and Gothala encompass approximately one million agricultural laborers. Women, despite working 18 hours daily, hold only 16 percent of land ownership. Indigenous peoples, one-third of the population, face systematic encroachment. Around 1.02m families (5.5m people) remain landless, forcing migration to India and abroad.
Global lessons
Nepal’s challenges mirror global land inequities. Westwood (1984) shows how the US South’s failed “land redistribution’—General Sherman’s 1865 promise of ‘forty acres and a mule’ to freed slaves—was reversed by political forces restoring elite control. Gates (1976) demonstrates how the 1862 ‘Homestead Act’ favored speculators over genuine settlers while displacing Native Americans. In Muscovy, ‘absentee land management’ triggered ‘peasant revolts’ (Melton, 1978).
Spence (1985) defines ‘landlessness’ as systematic exclusion creating ‘dead capital’—land unusable for loans or investment due to insecure tenure. Political ecology frameworks highlight how power imbalances enable elite capture, echoing Nepal’s current Bill concerns. Smith (2018) notes ‘global land use’ tensions harm marginalized groups, while Hrabovszky (1987) warns ‘land use pressure’ risks deforestation.
A fundamental right
Land represents a fundamental human right central to dignity and survival. Enemark et al. (2014) connect ‘land administration’—managing ownership, value, and use—to Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Article 17 (property) and Article 25 (living standards). ‘Tenure security’ aligns with Article 37 of Nepal’s Constitution. The ‘Social Tenure Domain Model’ recognizes a ‘continuum of land rights’, protecting informal tenure, though facing elite capture risks.
Nepal’s crisis produces profound impacts. Economically, losing ‘Kipat’ and Barghar lands drives poverty and migration through ‘dead capital’. Culturally, these losses sever indigenous traditions. Politically, suppressed movements like ‘Satya Hangama’ mirror global exclusion patterns. Environmentally, ‘land use pressure’ creates risks like Chure deforestation. Socially, bonded labor and inequalities persist with women and Dalits systematically marginalized.
Beyond cosmetic changes
The proposed bill must adopt the HLLRC’s structural reforms rather than perpetuating elite capture. Genuine transformation requires ending ‘dual ownership’ and ‘absentee land ownership’, redistributing land to tillers, and prioritizing Dalits, women and indigenous groups. Land classification must scientifically separate agricultural and non-agricultural uses. Agricultural land should be classified by production zones—grain, fruit, vegetable, cash crops, medicinal herbs, grazing, tea, coffee, cardamong, sugarcane, jute and special zones. Non-agricultural land needs residential, industrial and environmental protection designations. Special measures for fragile ecological zones like Chure and Mahabharat are essential.
Clear policies on priority rights and compensation are critical. As the HLLRC states, “Competition essential for capitalist development must be among equals.” Reforms must promote cooperatives, overhaul corrupt administration, and implement collaborative governance with monitoring to prevent land grabs while ensuring constitutional compliance.
A vision for lasting justice
Nepal’s 1.5m landless families face a pivotal moment. The proposed Bill must move beyond ‘cosmetic’ reforms by implementing the HLLRC’s blueprint to dismantle semi-feudal systems, restore ‘customary tenure’ like Barghar and Kipat systems, and protect ecosystems like Chure and Mahabharat. By aligning with constitutional mandates and Supreme Court rulings, Nepal can ensure equitable land access, empower marginalized groups, and boost agricultural productivity through cooperatives and modern methods.
Learning from global failures and local traditions, Nepal can establish a new standard for land justice, ensuring no community remains landless or voiceless. The choice is clear: continue cosmetic fixes preserving centuries of injustice, or embrace transformative reforms that Nepal’s Constitution demands and marginalized communities deserve.
