During their campaign, the Maoists earned notoriety for targeting people by seizing lands and houses and killing a large number of innocent people. The continuing seizure of land, especially in the far-and mid-western regions in the Tarai and the mid-hilly areas forced the victims to either migrate to the district headquarters or Kathmandu, leaving their properties behind. So far, the government does not have a comprehensive, credible and impartial record of seized properties and as such it is unable to accurately estimate the total amount of seized land, amount of land returned and land yet to be returned. On most instances, land is returned either conditionally or unconditionally at the district level, depending on the discretion of the Maoist cadres. Land owners are compelled to sell off their properties, often well below the market price. With few exceptions, the victims did not prefer to approach the government believing local administration to be either unable or unwilling to deal with the land seizure cases. Although to a lesser scale than in the insurgency period, the Maoist and its breakaway faction Matrika group have continued their land-grabbing activities. Similarly, various armed groups have sprouted and are using land grabbing as a tool to make quick gains and to make their presence felt. In the beginning, NC and CPN-UML had provided support to the occupation of encroaching unregistered public lands, which has resulted in growing numbers of professional landless who are backed by the Maoists and many armed groups.
The distribution of seized land to the landless has been a political agenda of the Maoists. As a result, the Maoist leaders are facing strong difficulties to convince their cadres to return land to the real owners.
A political solution was inevitable to address these problems. The political parties that the victims were associated with were under heavy pressure to protect their cadres. For the purpose of promulgating the new constitution and reaching a logical conclusion of the peace process, several rounds of formal and informal consultations were resumed. Finally, political parties including the seven-party alliance and the insurgent Maoist party opted for a political solution. A Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed in 2006 to move Nepal toward the peace process.
In the CPA, both parties agreed to return the properties seized during the insurgency and to formulate policies for scientific land reform. Some special provisions were clearly stipulated in the CPA such as to create an inventory of government, public and private buildings, lands and other properties occupied, locked up or not allowed for use in the course of armed conflicts and to return them immediately. Understandings were reached to adopt a policy to introduce a scientific land reform program by ending feudal land ownership and to adopt a policy to provide land and other economic and social security to the economically-backward classes including the landless, bonded laborers and pastoral farmers. It was also stipulated in the understanding that private properties of any person shall not be seized or controlled, except in accordance with the law in the post-conflict period.
The distribution of seized land to the landless has been a political agenda of the Maoists. As a result, the Maoist leaders are facing great difficulties to convince their cadres to return land to the real owners. On the other hand, the members of other parties feel that their party leadership has failed to protect the fundamental rights to property of their workers, party cadres and of the ordinary citizens. With both sides having conflicting stands, it is not surprising that this issue has led to misunderstandings between political parties.
Let me offer some practical solutions to the problem. Land reform commission formed in different periods were not effective and some of the reports not even disseminated. Although agreements were partially fulfilled, it was not adequate for both parties to fully respect their commitments. Grievances persist among those individuals who are affected by land seizers and landless awaiting land reforms. Sincere efforts are required simultaneously toward land return and land reform. Complex problems remain as official records do not exist on the areas of land seized, the amount of land returned to the real owner and the amount of land yet to be returned. A complete official record of seized land needs to be maintained so that it will further facilitate the impartial compliance of the agreement. Seizure of land violates the fundamental property rights of individuals, thus all the seized lands need to be returned immediately without any conditions. A complete mechanism led by appropriate government authorities including the representatives of the victims as well as the representatives of the land seizers needs to be established, with full authority to return the seized land to the land owners. Periodic monitoring of the process and progress by the competent authority is essential. A monitoring mechanism should be established in the center and in the district level with the inclusion of representatives from the government, the community leaders and the representatives of the political parties. The committee must be assigned with monitoring duties to ensure that land is returned unconditionally and should also be made responsible for the purpose of submitting periodical progress reports, as and when required by the central committee.
As a way to fulfil the agreements made in the past, the government has to work on land reform, and for this to happen, processes to establish clear-cut land record systems, including private and public land, is a must. Reliable data of land throughout the nation should be collected. Those merely posing as landless for the purpose of holding and selling land, should be identified and punished. Transparent efforts of the government toward establishing a record of the real landless people needs to be prioritized. Based on the recommendations of different commissions, both parties have to form a committee to study the land reform recommendations, as well as provide suggestions to the government to formulate new land distribution policies. If we are really committed to solving this grave problem facing the state, an intensive participation of the concerned stakeholders, signing parties and the government in the process of finalizing policies, agreement on enforceable legislation regarding the land ownership ceiling and finalizing common programs to materialize land use policy are highly essential.
Bearing in mind the peace process, all the responsible parties have to be serious in respecting the rule of law. Thus, all the seized lands of individuals should be returned unconditionally and land reform programs started as soon as possible. Then only, the country would move forward on the path of nation-building.
Writer is secretary, Water and Energy Commission
Related story
South Korea should coordinate with U.S. to avoid 'misunderstand...
