The sugumbasi occupy open land on the Kathmandu river banks. I went with my friend Gandhiji to learn about them. Many are refugees from hill villages. They’re often from large families with enough land to support the parents but not enough for all the children. When the parents die the younger sons are left landless. They started coming to Kathmandu 25 or 30 years ago because they could get day laboring work. Later, some folks who rent shops in the city chose to live this way because it's cheaper.
The big change came when the government gave land to a few long-established squatters. Land that was worthless to whoever owned it from long ago suddenly had value because it might be bought by the government. Meanwhile the number of refugees grew, especially after Maoist rebels took over the hills a few years ago, supported themselves by stealing from villagers, and began abducting children for ‘education’. After a while new refugees were unable to find any open land to capture. They had to get someone already living there to move. That’s an established practice in Nepal. To open a shop in Kathmandu, for example, you must pay a shop-keeper to leave even though they do not own the shop.
How can you pay someone to move if you have no money? You must borrow. Why would anyone lend someone with no income the money for land they would not own? Maybe a higher bidder (the greater fool theory) would come or the government would buy that land and give it to the occupant who would then give half to the lender. The real estate bubble in Kathmandu has led some wealthy residents to pay people to come from remote villages and occupy land. Brokers go round looking for people who will move. Land in the northern suburbs now sells for around 6 lakh per ana. No need to explain lakh or ana, the ratio is what’s important. It will cost you half to two thirds that amount now to get a sugumbasi to move from river bank land he doesn’t own.
Oh, Nepal. The country is at a standstill again today. A three day general strike, the latest Maoist ‘agitation’, has closed all government offices, shops and schools for a second day, all transport is stopped and there’s fighting in the streets.
Seven months ago Prachanda the Maoist head of government resigned because his firing of the army chief had been over-ruled. The government and army used to report to the king but it’s not clear who has power now the monarchy has fallen. This strike is the latest of escalating protests over ‘civilian supremacy' which the Maoists say was infringed when the army chief was reinstated. He was refusing entry of all former Maoist guerilla ‘soldiers’ into the army, saying only those who are suitable candidates should be admitted. The real issue was the threat of Maoist ‘officers’ gaining control of the army.
The Maoists entered politics after signing a peace agreement in 2006. Their soldiers have been in supervised camps ever since. In last April’s election Maoists got 30% of the vote. International observers said the election was free and fair and so it was where they were stationed. In other places voters were intimidated and ballot boxes stuffed. It’s impossible to know how many legitimate votes were cast but the Maoists did have widespread support. The established politicians had accomplished nothing but their own enrichment. “The movers never move” as one newspaper reported “and the shakers rarely twitch.” It took four months to form a Maoist-led coalition. Many were optimistic even if they did not vote for the Maoists. They hoped new leaders could get the country moving. “But what did they do?” a friend said recently. “Nothing!” One with lower expectations showed me an article about Nepal’s most dangerous 251 gang-leaders. They rarely went to jail even for murder and never stayed more than a week before bribed politicians got them out but she said the Maoist leaders kept the murderers in jail.