The report ignores the collective aspect of justice, thus preventing changes that could ensure access to justice for Indigenous Women. The report also says nothing about the six essential interrelated components of access to justice: justiciability, availability, accessibility, good quality, provision of remedies for victims, and accountability of justice systems. In addition to being listed in Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) General Recommendation. No. 39, these components are also applicable in the case of Indigenous Women and girls.

One of the fundamental root causes of the injustice suffered by Indigenous Women in Nepal is the lack of recognition of their legal personality, disregarding the distinct identity and their principal role as custodians of the Indigenous collective identity, culture, heritage (tangible and intangible), language, knowledge, civilization, biodiversity, and lands, territories and resources. Women make up 50.4% of the population of Nepal, of which 37.5% are Adivasi Janajati Women. According to the 2021 population census, the Indigenous population comprises 35.2%, and Indigenous Women account for approximately 18%, of the total national population.

Pillars of Sovereignty and Guardians of Nature

Unlike Indigenous Women, the Constitution of Nepal recognizes Dalit women (members of the lowest caste groups in the traditional caste hierarchy) with equal access to privileges such as participation in all State bodies, based on the principle of proportional inclusion; special measures for employment, representation, and participation; resource provision for the traditional occupations, knowledge, skills, and technology of the Dalit community; and land provision for landless Dalit, etc. The right to social justice is not, however, guaranteed to Indigenous Women as they are not recognized in the constitution in the same way as Dalit women are.

Access to justice in the context of Indigenous Peoples is closely linked to the collective exercise of sovereignty over lands, territories, and natural resources. Indigenous Women are pillars of sovereignty and custodians of nature, a cornerstone of Indigenous jurisprudence. Moreover, Indigenous Women hold pivotal decision-making roles in households, communities, and cultural affairs, which are under critical challenge from colonial laws and practices.

In the customary system of the Magar Indigenous people, natural features are given female names, such as Khagar or Kuthi (the Himalayas), Boki (the hills), Kaanta (the foothills) and so on with forests, trees, waters and streams.

In the customary system of the Magar Indigenous people, natural features are given female names, such as Khagar or Kuthi (the Himalayas), Boki (the hills) and Kaanta (the foothills).

One example of this is the religious belief of the Yakthung (Limbu) Indigenous people, which is closely linked to nature. In their belief system of Mundhum, “Tambhungma” is a forest deity, and the forest belongs to her (and not to human beings). Tambhungma represents the supreme power of women to maintain the physical, mental, and spiritual life of humans in balance with nature. When someone falls sick, Tambhungma must be worshipped, and permission must be obtained before taking and using the forest’s products. The daytime is designated for human beings and the night for Tambhungma; human activities are therefore strictly prohibited in the forest at night.

In the customary system of the Magar Indigenous people, natural features are given female names, such as Khagar or Kuthi (the Himalayas), Boki (the hills), Kaanta (the foothills) and so on with forests, trees, waters and streams. In the Magar customary system, which is still practised in Atharah Magarat (the 18 regions or kingdoms of the Magyar people), known as Kachahari, women participate equally in land and resource management, including decision-making.

Towards a Paradigm Shift in Law

Another example of how Indigenous Women’s belonging and cultural identity are reflected differently from the mainstream society can be seen in names. A woman’s surname in Hindu castes (the majority religion in Nepal) changes after marriage whereas in Indigenous customary practice the woman retains her communal identity (both her community belonging and her collective rights). The state laws, however, fail to recognize these aspects of Indigenous Women’s identity, belonging, and role in spiritual practices. Respect for all women, irrespective of their origins, caste, ethnicity, creed, linguistic groups, communities, or denomination, thus requires a paradigm shift in law.

The constitution does not explicitly define what access to justice is and nor does it clarify the six essential interrelated components of access to justice, although it does recognize the right to justice as a fundamental right. The constitution lists criminal justice-related elements but omits the right to a fair trial by an independent, impartial and competent court or judicial body, to which every person is entitled. It also gives the power of exercising justice to the courts and other judicial bodies, in accordance with the constitution, other laws, and recognized principles of justice.

Constitutionally, the courts and other judicial bodies are responsible for delivering justice. The constitution does not, however, recognize the customary justice system, widely practised in Indigenous communities (which have almost no access to formal judicial mechanisms). The constitution not only closes the door on Indigenous jurisprudence but it also denies the Indigenous justice system, which guarantees access to justice in the community. This creates a structural barrier for Indigenous Women in accessing justice, since most Indigenous Women live in rural areas, while the courts are located in the city.

While procedural fairness is therefore an integral part of access to justice, Indigenous Women are, in practice, excluded from the system.

Structural Barriers: Language, Fees, and the Judicial System

Indigenous Women are the victims of inhumane treatment, violence, trafficking and exploitative systems such as Kamlari (bonded labour among Tharu women). Data reveals that Indigenous Women and girls are trafficked at an alarming rate: they make up 70% of the trafficking victims rescued by non-governmental organizations. The Human Trafficking and Transportation (Control) Act, 2007, fails to criminalize all forms of trafficking or establish standardized victim identification protocols. According to the annual report of the Auditor General’s Office (2019-2020), only 19.4% of cases are ever resolved: 10.4% result in a conviction and 8.9% in an acquittal. The court proceedings are extremely slow, and it is hard to obtain justice in trafficking cases.

Alongside this, the court proceedings are not culturally appropriate for Indigenous Women: the official language is Khas Nepali (which is not the mother tongue of Indigenous Women), while court and lawyer fees are prohibitive. On top of this, the courts, in which the dominant caste groups are overrepresented, are largely patriarchal and shaped by the jurisprudence of the Hindu caste system, shaped by institutionalized colonization and racism.

Indigenous Peoples, and women in particular, are thus disproportionately victimized. There are currently 19 presiding judges in the Supreme Court, of which 17 are from the Khas Arya group and only two are Indigenous. In addition, these two Indigenous judges are from the Newar Indigenous people, which is just one of 60 officially-recognized Indigenous Peoples. This structure of representation, along with the influence of the caste system, limits its capacity to ensure access to justice for all.

Towards a Paradigm Shift in Law

The provision of social justice as a fundamental right in the constitution provides for the right to participate in State bodies on an inclusive basis. This applies to 16 categories of people who are economically, socially, and educationally disadvantaged, including Indigenous Peoples and Khas Arya (the dominant caste group). A reservation (quota system) is similarly institutionalized in the constitution to support social justice. There is, however, no guarantee that Indigenous Women are entitled to benefit from these provisions.

In conclusion, hurdles exist in Indigenous Women’s access to justice and are institutionalized in the constitution and laws, which systematically fail to recognize these people’s distinct collective identity/existence. The justice system in Nepal thus colonizes, assimilates, and subjugates them, compelling them to remain in a subordinate position. The constitution and laws relating to access to justice likewise do not recognize Indigenous jurisprudence, Indigenous feminist jurisprudence, their justice systems, or the role of Indigenous Women as custodians of lands and territories.

These are all cornerstones of exercising the rights to self-determination, sovereignty, and freedom from all kinds of discrimination, marginalization, exclusion, and structural violence. Recognition of self-determination and non-discrimination, along with the collective identity of Indigenous Women, their role as custodians of nature, Indigenous jurisprudence and justice administration forms the bedrock of access to justice for Indigenous Women.

The Indigenous Women of Nepal meanwhile live in hope that these rights will one day be fully recognized.

The post Access to Justice for Indigenous Women in Nepal appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Amid the chaos, several homes of political leaders, including the prime minister’s, were torched as he and the home minister resigned. Many parliamentarians went missing for days. Iconic sites such as the Parliament and Supreme Court were also burned down. Although an interim government, formed after talks with Gen Z leaders, is slowly restoring services, the judiciary remains paralyzed—thousands of legal documents were destroyed, including several writ petitions filed by the Indigenous communities of Nepal.

One of these petitions is against a cable car project on a sacred mountain that the Indigenous Limbu community have historically identified as Mukkumlung, renamed about a century ago as Pathibhara, after a Hindu goddess. In more recent decades, Pathibhara has become a popular religious site for Hindu pilgrims. Mukkumlung forms part of the ancestral Limbu territory and is a sensitive geographic region as it borders Tibet (China) and Sikkim (India). It is also geologically sensitive as it forms part of the Himalayan formation, one of the most biodiverse ecological zones. To safeguard it, the Nepal government declared this zone as the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Project in 1997.    

Development and green transition vs Indigenous sacred sites?

“I don’t think we should give up our sacred lands for the sake of development. We are not even going to give up our community forest, let alone our temples, shrines, and sacred spaces,”says Sarita Ghale of Khasur village, in Northern Nepal, in the short documentary Marsyangdi Wile Ri’iba: May you live as long as the river. The film explores the tensions between Indigenous ancestral wisdom, the agency of land’s invisible guardians and the relentless force of ‘progress’ driving Nepal’s hydropower economy. The Gurung language title is a blessing from the elders to the younger generation: “(…) may you live as long as the Simal tree, may you be as strong as the rocks in the Marsyangdi river”.

This short film forms part of the Twin documentary project “Human rights beyond the human?”, produced as part of the six-year interdisciplinary RIVERS research project (2019-2026), funded by the European Research Council (ERC). RIVERS examines the relationship between humans and nature and the role of law through fieldwork in Nepal, Colombia, Guatemala and the United Nations.  It’s Colombian twin, Aty Seikuinduwa: A Judge Between Worlds, follows the spiritual and legal journey of Indigenous Judge Belkis Izquierdo. This intimate portrayal of Aty Seikuinduwa, Judge Belkis’ spiritual name, meaning “mother beyond the darkness”, shows how she brings the living land, multiple life systems, and Indigenous spiritual practices into the courtroom.

What the Nepali government, which endorses the project, and the private company constructing it do not reveal is what would be lost in the process – a complete erasure of Limbu culture and destruction of nature.

What the Nepali government, which endorses the project, and the private company constructing it do not reveal is what would be lost in the process – a complete erasure of Limbu culture and destruction of nature.

Together, these two films challenge the dominant legal frameworks by foregrounding more-than-human voices and Indigenous jurisprudence, offering a powerful reflection on legal pluralism, spiritualism and resistance to extractivism. Overlapping with the concerns these documentaries raise, the cable car project exemplifies the latest onslaught of ‘development’ against sacred land. Registered under ‘Pathibhara Devi Darshan Private Limited’, a private company led by a Nepali billionaire, this 21-million USD project would connect the base of the mountain with its top, flying over the pilgrimage trail that currently snakes its way through the hilly forest, claiming acres of forest.

The company claims that this cable car would ease the pilgrims’ commute while boosting tourism and creating jobs, so ‘bringing development’ to Taplejung district. In such claims, what the Nepali government endorsing the project, and the private company constructing it, do not reveal is what would be lost in the process – a complete erasure of Limbu culture and destruction of nature through the ‘Disneyfication’ of the sacred land as resorts, cafes, hotels and a skating zone, all of which are planned for construction on top of the sacred site.

Bureaucratic and legal violence

As part of the post-war peace process following the end of Nepal’s decade-long ‘People’s War’ in 2006, the country ratified International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (1989) and endorsed the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007. These human rights instruments recognize Indigenous Peoples as collective-rights holders, including the right to self-determination, land, territory, and natural resources, and establish the right of FPIC – Free, Prior, Informed Consultation and Consent over decisions affecting their rights.

Initially, Nepal was hailed as a regional leader in Indigenous rights protection. It was the first Asian country to ratify ILO Convention 169 and, in its 2015 Constitution, explicitly recognized Indigenous Peoples’ rights.  The country also ratified the 1978 World Heritage Convention, and the 2010 Convention on Intangible Heritage; articles 26 and 34 of its Constitution furthermore protect communities’ rights to preserve religious sites and cultural practices.

Multilateral development banks and the Nepalese government systematically fail to uphold Indigenous rights, including FPIC, in major hydropower projects.

Multilateral development banks and the Nepalese government systematically fail to uphold Indigenous rights, including FPIC, in major hydropower projects.

Almost 20 years later, Nepal’s leadership has proved to be a false dawn. A recent report “Hanging by a Thread: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Renewable Energy Transition”, published by Accountability Council and Lawyers’ Association of Human Rights of Nepali Indigenous Peoples, documents how multilateral development banks and the Nepalese government systematically fail to uphold Indigenous rights, including FPIC, in major hydropower projects.

Besides destroying sacred sites, the Nepal government, in endorsing the cable car project, has approved the cutting down of thousands of trees, destroying the habitat of threatened animal species and, in the process, dismantling the very reason why it created the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Project in the first place. More recently, this has morphed into full-blown violence meted out against the peaceful community protestors. The armed police force has been deployed  to aggressively clamp down on protests, throwing tear gas canisters inside private houses in the middle of the night, destroying surveillance cameras, putting people behind bars, physically assaulting and opening fire on the protestors, and severely wounding people, while filing cases against the protestors for ‘creating unrest’.

Knowledge that comes from the territories

Nepal is now forging much-needed reforms on many fronts. Amid state-induced violence, the legal future of Mukkumlung rests in the hands of Nepal’s Supreme Court – which is currently literally rising from its ashes. Could this High Court finally transform Nepal’s leadership in Indigenous Peoples’ rights protection on paper into progressive jurisprudence, allowing the Limbu sacred mountain to win its legal battle? 

The innovative Indigenous jurisprudence of Colombia’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace may offer new legal pathways for Nepal’s court cases on harm to Indigenous lands from development and green transition projects. Since its 1991 Constitution recognized ethnic and cultural diversity, Colombia has built a strong body of multicultural jurisprudence. Yet it was only in 2014 that the judiciary appointed its first Indigenous assistant magistrate, Belkis Izquierdo Torres—a historic milestone. Four years later, she became one of the 31 judges of the Peace Tribunal, alongside three other Indigenous judges.

“To recognize the Territory as a victim means acknowledging it is alive, that it is a sentient being, that it is a subject of rights”.

“To recognize the Territory as a victim means acknowledging it is alive, that it is a sentient being, that it is a subject of rights”.

Created as part of the 2016 Peace Agreement between the Colombian government and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP), the JEP investigates and prosecutes cases linked to the armed conflict, which disproportionately affected Indigenous and Afro communities. These groups secured the inclusion of the Agreement’s late-added Ethnic Chapter, guaranteeing recognition of their rights and territories within the transitional justice process. In line with its victim-centered mandate, this tribunal has elaborated a participatory territorial based investigation methodology.

As Judge Belkis Izquierdo explains in the short film: ” [Judges] need to get out of the confines of the office a little … to feel, to smell the Territory. …. Our [Indigenous] knowledge comes not only from human reason; it comes from the Territories because knowledge is territorialized.”  The idea that land itself can be a bearer of legal knowledge stands in stark contrast to Nepal’s jurisprudence on Indigenous rights.  The judge adds: “To recognize the Territory as a victim means acknowledging it is alive, that it is a sentient being, that it is a subject of rights. That, within the context of the armed conflict, it has suffered, it has been damaged, and it is still in pain. And that it needs to have a voice in the judicial process so that this harm can be acknowledged and repaired.”

Could Nepal’s Supreme Court set a legal benchmark in South Asia?

This marks a significant legal milestone: it is now recognized that it is not only human beings, but also sacred sites, spiritual beings and their interrelationships that can suffer harm. Indigenous territories in Colombia are thus accorded rights to truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-repetition— rights previously reserved for individuals and groups affected by armed conflict.

In a similar vein, Nepal’s Supreme Court could consider an in-situ visit or a fact-finding mission to Mukkumlung to directly assess the territorial disputes and alleged violations. Over the past decade, the  Inter-American Court of Human Rights and several Latin American high courts have conducted similar visits to Indigenous and Afro communities, gathering additional evidence and hearing all parties involved. The Inter-American Court’s first in-situ visit took place in 2012 in the emblematic case Pueblo Indígena Kichwa de Sarayaku v. Ecuador, where the judges traveled by plane and canoe to hold proceedings within the Amazonian community’s territory. Since then, this regional Court has carried out 15 in-situ visits, six of them to Indigenous communities across Latin America.

If Indigenous movements worldwide are understood as a permanent struggle and resistance, the historic ruling in Colombia under Judge Belkis represents a monumental moment to which Nepal might aspire.

If Indigenous movements worldwide are understood as a permanent struggle and resistance, the historic ruling in Colombia under Judge Belkis represents a monumental moment to which Nepal might aspire.

Even though the Indigenous communities in Nepal remain skeptical about their country’s judicial system – often perceiving a structural bias against Indigenous cases – there a few alternatives but to turn to the national courts. The state has shown no political will to upholds its international human rights obligations. Indicatively, during a hearing in the Supreme Court in May 2025 on the cable car project, a company lawyer dismissed Indigenous claims over the sacred land by saying: “It is like listening to fiction and poetry … their argument belongs in the stone age”. The irony, one could argue, lies in how much such racist remarks sound archaic when compared to innovative legal practices, such as in Colombia, where a plurality of knowledge systems is integrated into environmental and Indigenous litigation.

As Shree Linkhim, one of the young Indigenous leaders of the #NoCableCar movement reflected in a private conversation: “When you think of it, this [the Indigenous movement] really goes beyond cancelling cable cars and hydropower projects. At the heart of it all, the struggle is really about pushing to transform the character of the Nepali state.” Easier said than done, but that is their resolve. If Indigenous movements worldwide are understood as a permanent struggle and resistance, the historic ruling in Colombia under Judge Belkis represents a monumental moment to which Nepal might aspire. Whether it ever gets there will depend on how the character and practice of the Nepali state and judiciary evolve in the wake of the Gen Z uprising and the upcoming 2026 elections that promise to reshape the country’s political landscape.

The post When Sacred Land Meets the Law: Stories of Legal Resistance from Nepal and Colombia appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

This article focuses on the Magar community of Dungeshwor and the culturally-sensitive methodology applied to conduct the community surveys. This process led to the creation of a project defined and managed by the community itself, aimed at promoting its self-determined development through collective empowerment. The project actively works to preserve their language and culture while revitalizing their traditional institutions of self-governance.

Data Collection in the Magar Communities

Numbering more than 2 million people, almost 7 percent of Nepal’s total population, the Magar Indigenous People are one of the largest in Nepal. The community survey was conducted in the community of Dungeshwor Municipality, Dailekh District (western Nepal), in close collaboration with the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) – Dailekh and the Lawyers Association for the Human Rights of Nepal’s Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP).

Founded in 1995 by Indigenous lawyers, LAHURNIP works for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous Peoples in Nepal. It undertakes to protect, promote and defend their rights, promoting the effective implementation of ILO Convention 169, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and other international human rights instruments. To this end, it employs various strategies such as the tools of the Indigenous Navigator Initiative, which enable the recognition and fulfilment of these rights to be monitored.

The national workshop’s objectives were to establish a common understanding of Indigenous rights and development, and to provide attendees with the skills necessary to collect data according to the Indigenous Navigator methodology.

The workshop’s objectives were to establish an understanding of Indigenous rights and to provide the skills necessary to collect data.

For its part, NEFIN is an autonomous and representative organization of Nepal’s Indigenous Peoples, created in 1991. It has district branches throughout the country, including NEFIN-Dailekh, which supports the district’s Indigenous Peoples to promote and defend their rights. LAHURNIP supports NEFIN-Dailekh’s interest in monitoring the situation of Indigenous Peoples at the community level. The Indigenous Navigator Initiative aligned itself with this agenda, resulting in community surveys in two Magar communities in the district.

To kick off the data collection, LAHURNIP organized a three-day national workshop for communities interested in generating their own data. Participants included community leaders, local government representatives and NEFIN-Dailekh delegates. The objectives were to establish a common understanding of Indigenous rights and development, and to provide attendees with the necessary skills for collecting data according to the Indigenous Navigator methodology.

Community Participation in Implementing the Survey

During the workshop, thematic experts and a representative from the National Human Rights Commission trained participants in the 12 areas of Indigenous rights covered by the questionnaires. The training included concepts of human rights and fundamental freedoms, women’s rights and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, officials from the National Statistics Office guided the attendees on the use and quality of data when developing public policies.

Following the workshop, NEFIN-Dailekh presented a plan for conducting a survey in two Magar communities. Based on previous experiences, the focus group technique was chosen as the method. LAHURNIP recommended including between 15 and 25 diverse participants in each group, ensuring at least 33 percent female representation. During the focus groups, participants received guidance on the rights of Indigenous Peoples as recognized in the UNDRIP and an introduction to the SDGs. Community members thus became aware of their rights and learned how to monitor their compliance.

Implementing community surveys is not a linear process: it requires in-depth knowledge of the communities involved, an understanding of the context and sensitivity to the daily lives of the participants.

Implementing community surveys requires knowledge of the communities, an understanding of the context and sensitivity to daily life.

Data collection required two days of continuous work with the participants, making it difficult to retain the same people across both days. In addition, some questions were too technical for community members. To ensure active participation, different tools were used, including discussions supported by a review of the literature, which helped stimulate dialogue and data production. For example, simple questions were asked about birth certificates (a topic of interest to women), citizenship documents, land titles and traditional occupations.

It should be noted that implementing community surveys is not a linear process: it requires in-depth knowledge of the communities involved, an understanding of the context and sensitivity to the daily lives of the participants. In turn, the responses were compared with other available data sources and the results consolidated into a draft. The next step was to hold a workshop with the community to cross-check the information, and then the survey was sent to a LAHURNIP representative for review. Finally, the verified data was uploaded and published on the Indigenous Navigator portal.

Reviving Heritage and Self-Governance through Community Action

The survey revealed a worrying situation for the Magar communities: a loss of their cultural heritage. “The survey reached 1,797 people in our community and revealed alarming findings. We discovered that our cultural and linguistic heritage, along with our customary institutions, are being lost. Centuries of colonial domination and state policies of assimilation have eroded our language, traditions and Indigenous identity. In response, we decided to start working to protect and promote our identity, language and cultural heritage,” explained local coordinator Rama Kumari Thapa.

Indigenous communities that have conducted surveys with the Indigenous Navigator can use the results to advocate for their rights locally and to design solutions to identified issues, drawing on an Indigenous Navigator small grants fund. LAHURNIP is currently supporting three communities in this process, including the Magar community in Dungeshwor Municipality. In a proposal writing workshop organized by LAHURNIP, Magar participants used the survey data to identify the key challenges facing their community.

We discovered that our cultural and linguistic heritage are being lost. Centuries of colonial domination and state policies of assimilation have eroded our language, traditions and Indigenous identity,” explains coordinator Rama Kumari Thapa.

“Centuries of colonial domination and state policies of assimilation have eroded our language, traditions and Indigenous identity,” explains coordinator Rama Kumari Thapa.

The Magar community decided that the best way to develop a proposal and monitor the implementation of activities was to form a Project Implementation Committee, composed of community members. This committee set out the objectives and activities to be carried out and, with the support of LAHURNIP, prepared a proposal for one year of financial support, in line with the Indigenous Navigator’s requirements.

Based on the discussion of the community survey results and the findings of concern, the community decided that the grant should focus on promoting their self-determined development through collective empowerment by re-establishing the institutions of self-governance, while also preserving their language and culture.

Hope for the Community

Appointed to manage the implementation of one of these small grant-funded projects, Magar leader Thapa Magar expressed her hope for the process: “As an Indigenous woman activist in Dailekh District, I have always felt deeply connected to the struggles of my people. For years, I witnessed the gradual loss of our cultural and linguistic heritage and identity. But now things are changing for the better thanks to the Indigenous Navigator community project.”

As part of this initiative, the Magar community in Oiru village has succeeded in re-establishing the Bheja, their traditional self-governance institution. Although these institutions existed in other Magar areas, they had long since disappeared from Dungeshwor. The project not only raised awareness in the community of the rights of Indigenous Peoples but also provided them with tools and opportunities to dialogue with the local government and advocate for their own development agenda.

As part of the project, a series of community engagement activities were carried out to connect the Magar community in the rural municipality of Dungeshwor with the local authorities. As a result, in 2024, the local government allocated funds to protect Magar cultural heritage (including traditional dances, songs and costumes) and support activities aimed at preserving their language.

Data as a Pathway to Self-Determination and Cultural Revival

The experience of the Magar community in Dungeshwor demonstrates how member-led data collection, based on culturally-sensitive methodologies and guided by Indigenous rights frameworks, can effectively assess and document the challenges they are facing, such as a loss of cultural heritage. Through structured community surveys, they were able to generate valuable information that not only made their members aware of their rights but also produced reliable disaggregated data to support their advocacy work.

Crucially, the data collected became the basis for designing and implementing concrete, community-led initiatives to preserve their language, culture and governance systems. As a result, the community succeeded in establishing the Nepal Magar Sang at the local government level, which is now active and functioning independently. A Magar Women’s Organization of Nepal was also formed to promote their rights. Both organizations have implemented activities linked to ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with a strong emphasis on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and land, territory and resource rights.

Alongside this, efforts to revive and promote the Magar mother tongue have secured funding from the local government. Most significantly, the project has supported the revival of the traditional institution known as the Bheja, marking a fundamental step towards the re-establishment of traditional governance. This has undoubtedly been a significant step in exercising their right to self-determination and regaining control over their own future.

The post Empowerment through Data: a Nepalese Community’s Path to Self-Determination appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

The first wave was the mass migration of Hindu Bahun-Chetri groups into the hill regions following the Muslim invasion of northern India after the 14th century, along with the introduction of the caste system among the Indigenous Newar people by King Jayasthiti Malla. The second wave was the colonization led by King Prithvi Narayan Shah in the 18th century, which resulted in the loss of the sovereignty and autonomy of Indigenous Peoples along with state land grabbing. A third wave came with the introduction of Hindu jurisprudence through the enactment of Nepal’s first civil code in 1854, which classified Indigenous Peoples as liquor-drinking castes within the Hindu hierarchy, further dividing them into masinya (enslavable) and namasinya (non-enslavable) categories.

A fourth wave came with the nationalization of forests in 1956 and the abolition of the Kipat communal land tenure system in 1963. A fifth wave followed in the 1970s with the introduction of the fortress model of conservation since the 1970s with establishment of national parks, wildlife reserves, hunting ground, conservation areas, and community forests. Finally, the sixth wave was marked by the application of the doctrine of eminent domain and increasing aggression in the name of development from the 1970s onward.

From Dispossession to Resistance

Over the past 250 years, the state has expropriated the lands, territories, and resources of Indigenous Peoples through violence, warfare, treaties, and land seizures without recognition of ownership—applying doctrines similar to terra nullius (“land belonging to no one”) and the regalian doctrine (“royal jurisdiction”). In response, Indigenous Nepalis are fighting to reclaim their lands and resume their role as stewards. Yet this struggle is not only uphill—it has become a prolonged and invisible war, one that has consumed several generations and may continue to consume many more.

Before 1951, resistance against the state began with uprisings by the Yakthung (Limbu), Magar, Tamang, Tamu (Gurung), and Sherpa peoples against the autocratic Rana regime, as well as with the establishment of the Tharu Kalyankari Sabha by the Tharu Indigenous people in 1950. During the autocratic, partyless Panchayat regime (1960–1990), Indigenous resistance continued through the Setamagurali movement. Later, Indigenous Peoples participated in the Maoist People’s War (1996–2006), demanding autonomy and the right to self-determination, including the right to secede. However, the Maoist party failed to deliver on its promises during the drafting and promulgation of the 2015 Constitution.

In particular, the Yakthung (Limbu) and Tharu intensified their struggle for autonomy, but were brutally repressed by the government. As a result, the revival of their unfinished agenda has gained new momentum. Today, Indigenous Peoples are divided into three main groups: those who continue to fight tirelessly for autonomy with self-determination, customary self-governance, and stewardship of their lands, territories, and resources; those who are members and leaders of mainstream political parties—dominated by majority caste groups—who strongly oppose this movement; and an intermediate group that cannot abandon its Indigenous identity or collective rights, yet does not actively pursue autonomy and self-governance. Instead, they settle for cultural rights, including cultural autonomy.

The Peaceful Struggles of Indigenous Nepalis

In recent years, Nepal’s Indigenous Peoples have engaged in a range of struggles to strengthen their processes of autonomy. Although the outcomes have been varied, these efforts show that the aspiration for self-determination remains very much alive.

• During the first term of the elected Constituent Assembly between 2008 and 2012, Indigenous Peoples formed an Indigenous Caucus that effectively raised the issue of autonomous, protected, and special areas for Indigenous communities. After the deliberate demise of the first CA, the IP caucus was prohibited in the second CA, and subsequently, the movement for autonomy ceased to exist.
• The Tharu of Baridya began to legally recognize Barghar customary self-governance system by enacting a law by the Baridya Municipality. Later, other municipalities also formally recognized Barghar by their respective local governments.
• The Newa people declared the Newa Autonomous State in 2009, although they have faced problems in implementing it. The Kiritipur Municipality enacted a law declaring the Cultural Autonomy of Kirtipur.
• The Newa of Kathmandu valley (their ancestral land), protested against the government bill to kill their customary self-governing institution Guthi by merging it with religious endowments of various Hindu religious institutions.

The Majhi IPs are protesting against Marin Diversion, and Sunkoshi Hydropower Project in Ramechap.

The Majhi IPs are protesting against Marin Diversion, and Sunkoshi Hydropower Project in Ramechap.

• The Tharu succeeded in enacting a law in Morang declaring Gramthan as their sacred site.
• After declaring Dhorpatan Wildlife Hunting Ground on Magar Kham’s ancestral land without obtaining Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), the community strongly protested declaring communities as “buffer zones” around the Hunting Ground. They come face to face with armed police and the Nepal Army who seek to establish a military base on the region.  
• The Majhi Indigenous Peoples are protesting against the Marin Diversion, and Sunkoshi-3 Hydropower projects in Ramechap and the diversion of water resources towards the Marin river.
• The Khambu (Rai) Indigenous Peoples protested the government’s plan to break a stone rock called Khuwalung lying in the Koshi River, which they consider a sacred site. Due to mounting pressure from the community, the government finally pulled back.

Five Cases of Violent Struggles

At the beginning, many Indigenous Peoples, especially Magar, Tharu, Tamang, Tamu (Gurung), Majhi, Khambu (Rai) and Yakthung (Limbu) were the pillars of the People’s Liberation Army of the CPN Maoist, which waged People’s War from 1996 to 2006 against. This was a class-based movement led by non-Indigenous Peoples. It resulted in the death of 17,000 but the Maoists have abandoned the promised autonomy for Indigenous Peoples with the right to self-determination and the right to secede.

Secondly, on 24 August 2015, thousands of Tharu community members publicly demonstrated in their ancestral lands demanding a separate Tharuhat/Tharuwan autonomous province that was denied by the Constitution of Nepal promulgated in 2015 without obtaining free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous Peoples. Police fired tear gas into crowds and the crowd responded by attacking the police and killing eight of them. In retaliation, the police carried out arbitrary arrests, detentions, torture, and ill-treatment against members of the Indigenous Tharu community, accusing them of murder, attempted murder, and robbery. According to the Amnesty International report “Nepal: Torture and Coerced Confessions – Human Rights Violations of Indigenous Tharus after the August 2015 Police Killings in Kailali”, released on 19 July 2016, the detainees were forced to sign confessions under coercion.

One Yakthung (Limbu) demonstrator was killed and two sustained bullet injuries by the security personnel during the No Koshi movement in Biratnagar. Earlier, two Indigenous Peoples were killed by the security personnel during the Limbuwan autonomy movement. Armed police forces used prohibited bullets, rubber bullets, tear gas, water cannons and batons against the demonstrators.

If the government is determined to use excessive force, crimes against humanity, and human rights violations just to protect a cable car project of a private business company, how far they could go if Indigenous Peoples declare their autonomy or rebel by raising arms?

If the government is determined to commit crimes against humanity just to protect a cable car project of a private business company, how far they could go if Indigenous Peoples declare their autonomy or rebel by raising arms?

In the same vein, during the “No Cable Car” movement or Save Mukkumlung movement, two persons received bullet wounds to the chest close to a lung, a broken thigh, broken shoulder bone from hitting with the butt of the gun, broken hands and deep neck wounds from Khukuri (big “Gurkha” knives). Injuries were also caused by baton charges and hurling stones, and police and vigilantes inflicting torture on children, women, family members and guests throughout the night. All of this occurred as the government armed police force backed the construction of a cable car on the sacred site Mukkumlung in the Yakthung community of Limbu.

Finally, in Bojeni, located close to the Kathmandu Valley, armed police threatened to shoot at Tamang women who are fighting against the construction of a high voltage electricity station. The community has been terrorized by the security personnel and threatened with eviction. What has transpired from these past and ongoing conflicts between Indigenous Peoples and the State is that if the government is determined to use excessive force including gun shots, crimes against humanity, human rights violations, and cultural genocide just to protect a cable car project of a private business company, how far they could go if Indigenous Peoples declare their autonomy or rebel by raising arms?

Hurdles in Realizing Autonomy

There are both external and internal hurdles in the realization of autonomy in Nepal. External hurdles include continued and intensifying racism, colonization, Brahmanism (domination of people belonging to the Hill Hindu Bahun caste group who comprise not more than 12 % of the total 30 million population of Nepal), Hinduization, Sanskritization, militarization, globalization, criminalization, and Hindu patriarchy.

The main internal hurdles include Bansha Gaddar (Clan traitors), “blue eyed boys” (and girls) cadres, followers and leaders of the main political parties controlled and led by the leaders belonging to the dominant caste groups, captive-minded Indigenous Peoples, and the disconnection between the younger generation from elders. In this sense, it is said that Indigenous Peoples know how to “give”: give lands, give territories, give resources, give blood but do not know how to take from others. In contrast, the people belonging to the dominant caste know how to take from others without giving back anything. Even “modern” education, foreign employment, prominent religions, mass media, and many other factors are adding fuel to the fire in degrading the autonomy of Indigenous Peoples.

People from the dominant group never tire of discussing democracy, federalism, rule of law, justice, and human rights. Still, their mindset, policies, actions, and practices are the opposite. For Indigenous Peoples, they are nothing but colonizers, predators, development aggressors, dictators, anti-federalists, and anti-Indigenous Peoples. They make the rules of the game and adopt them if they win, but reject them if they lose, creating a new game rule and repeating the same vicious cycle.

A Ray of Hope

There is a ray of hope, which is the meaningful implementation of national and international commitments to autonomy and self-determination. Though the Indigenous Peoples’ movement has disowned the Constitution of Nepal of 2015 for being racist and predatory to Indigenous Peoples, its Article 56(5) states that law would be enacted for autonomous, special, and protected areas. The Supreme Court of Nepal issued a directive order for its meaningful implementation in line with the international commitments. However, the government has not demonstrated any clear advancement in these areas.

Similarly, the Nepalese government ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and ILO Convention No. 169 and adopted United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and CEDAW General Recommendation N. 39. CEDAW committee made recommendations to the state party Nepal in 2018, and in 2025 to amend the Constitution of Nepal in line with the UNDRIP to explicitly recognize the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples and all the rights of indigenous Women. If CEDAW recommendations are sincerely and meaningfully implemented in Nepal, Indigenous Peoples could live in their collective ways in Shangri-La.

Following these advances, Indigenous Peoples’ fight for recognition of the right to self-determination with autonomy and customary self-government at the international level is no longer required. Its application in Nepal is needed, which has not been easy since the 15th century. The present generation of Indigenous Peoples in Nepal is at a crossroads, one leading to the realization of autonomy and the other, the definitive disappearance of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples.

The post Between Eclipse and Resistance: Experiences of Autonomy among the Indigenous Peoples of Nepal appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

According to the 2021 population census report, Indigenous Peoples, also known as Adivasi Janajati, make up around 35.08% of Nepal’s total population of 29,164,578. However, Indigenous experts, scholars, and organizations argue that their population exceeds 50%. There are 60 Indigenous groups officially recognized, while the 2021 census report lists 19 additional Indigenous groups that have yet to be recognized.

Indigenous Peoples in Nepal have endured centuries of systematic discrimination, colonization, racism, exclusion, and marginalization in social, cultural, political, and economic spheres. Over the past 250 years, the modernization efforts—such as state-building, land and resource nationalization, cultural assimilation, territorial reorganization, power centralization, infrastructure development, forced labor, and the shift from feudalism to capitalism—have significantly harmed Indigenous Peoples.  Nepali society remains highly stratified, with the state-imposed Hindu caste system favoring upper castes (Bahun and Chhetri), who occupy key positions in the state. Nearly half of the population within 90% of Indigenous groups lives in extreme poverty.

Legal Commitments vs. Threats

National Climate Change Policy 2019 aims to reduce the vulnerabilities of communities, build the resilience of ecosystems, and mobilize international financial resources in a just manner to contribute to the socio-economic prosperity of the nation by building a climate-resilient society. Nepal’s Long-term Strategy for Net-Zero Emissions 2021 aims to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.

During the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP 28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in December 2023 in Dubai, Nepal committed to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and fully utilizing hydropower potentials to secure clean energy. The energy transition plan outlined in the Second Nationally Determined Contribution of 2020 aims to generate 15,000 MW (1,400 MW baseline in 2021) of clean energy by 2030. However, it aims to generate only 5,000 MW using national resources. The Fifteenth Plan (Fiscal Year 2019/20 – 2023/24) aims to develop 40,000 MW of electricity by 2044.

In response, Indigenous Peoples defend their self-determination in the face of threats posed by clean energy projects: forced evictions, militarization and environmental damage.

Indigenous Peoples defend their self-determination in the face of threats posed by clean energy projects: forced evictions, militarization and environmental damage.

Nepal ratified the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No.169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007. Articles 51(b)(3) and 51(j)(8) of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 commit to implementing international treaties and ensuring Indigenous Peoples’ rights to a dignified life, identity, and participation in decision-making processes. In 2023, the Supreme Court of Nepal issued a mandamus order directing the government to implement the ILO Convention 169, UNDRIP, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the Declaration on the Right to Development in the context of development projects. Yet, these treaties have not translated into meaningful change on the ground.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has expressed concerns about the absence of laws guaranteeing Indigenous Peoples’ rights to own, use, and develop their traditional lands and resources. Despite Nepal’s legal frameworks, Indigenous Peoples continue to face systemic exclusion.

Indigenous Peoples are defending their land, resources, and self-determination against the threat posed by clean energy projects, which have led to land dispossession, forced evictions, militarization, and environmental harm. These projects jeopardize Indigenous cultural identity, spirituality, and livelihoods. Despite growing movements advocating for sovereignty and self-determination, the government and developers continue to push these aggressive energy projects in the name of development and decarbonizing the economy.

Case Studies: The Human Cost of Energy Projects

Currently, 81 hydropower projects are in operation, 180 are under construction, and 311 are undergoing license surveys. The state, private entities, public institutions, and International Financial Institutions are investing in these projects as they continue to commit to increasing their roles as climate banks. Nearly all of them are located within the traditional territories of Indigenous Peoples. Nevertheless, the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the affected communities has been routinely ignored. Accordingly, the pursuit of renewable energy projects is revealing the darker side to this transition—one that disproportionately impacts Indigenous Peoples and their rights to land territories and resources and self-determination.

1. World Bank-financed Bharatpur-Bardaghat Transmission Line

The World Bank-financed Bharatpur-Bardaghat 220kV power transmission line, part of the Nepal-India Electricity Transmission and Trade Project, is in operation in Binayi Tribeni Rural Municipality-2, Nawalparasi district. Implemented by the Nepal Electricity Authority, the state-owned corporation, the project caused significant adverse impacts on Indigenous and local communities, including damage to homes, schools, cultural sites, agricultural lands, and the environment, and posed health and safety risks. The affected communities filed a complaint with the World Bank’s Inspection Panel on October 18, 2021.

The World Bank Board approved an investigation into the project on March 3, 2022. The parties involved agreed to pursue dispute resolution, and a Dispute Resolution Agreement was signed on April 11, 2023. However, nine signatories withdrew from the process, and those dissatisfied with the resolution filed a case against the project in the Supreme Court with support from the Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP). The case is still pending.

2. European Investment Bank-Financed Marshyangdi Corridor Transmission Line

The 220 kV Marsyangdi Corridor transmission line project in Lamjung district, funded by the European Investment Bank, has raised significant concerns regarding Indigenous Peoples’ rights. The bank has financed €95 million for the project, which is part of a broader investment in Nepal’s hydropower sector. The project has failed to uphold the Indigenous Peoples’ right to FPIC, violated the bank’s social and environmental safeguards, and breached its finance contract with Nepal Electricity Authority. In 2018, affected communities filed a complaint with the bank’s accountability office, which issued an investigation report in 2021 that identified grave human rights violations and recommended corrective actions, including halting the Marsyangdi Corridor project until the violations are addressed.

Though the bank suspended further disbursements, the affected communities continue to press for the implementation of the report’s recommendations. Despite this, the Nepal Electricity Authority and the bank are pushing forward with the project, supported by security forces. Legal and strategic support for the communities is provided by LAHURNIP and the Accountability Counsel, a US-based legal organization working to hold development banks accountable for their social and environmental policies and human rights.

3. Asian Development Bank-Financed Tamakoshi-Kathmandu Transmission Line

In Kathmandu’s Shankharapur municipality, Indigenous Tamang communities have been protesting against the Asian Development Bank-financed Tamakoshi-Kathmandu 200/400 kV Transmission Line and substation projects for the past 5 years. The substation is being built in a populated area, while the transmission line crosses homes, lands, and sacred sites. In January 2023, the Nepal Electricity Authority deployed security forces to forcefully begin survey work, leading to protests and the detention of 10 community leaders, including women and a minor. Despite filing complaints through multiple grievance mechanisms, including the National Human Rights Commission and the Asian Development Bank Nepal Resident Mission, the communities’ demands for FPIC have been ignored.

The government also set up an Armed Police Force camp at the site, further escalating tensions. The use of security forces to suppress Indigenous protests has become a concerning pattern. Police were deployed to intimidate and arrest community members. On 16 January 2025, 18 protesters were brutally beaten and arrested, with six detained for nine days and coerced into signing agreements to stop their protests, criminalizing their resistance. On February 4, LAHURNIP filed a complaint with the complaint mechanism of the Asian Development Bank.

A Call for a Truly Just Transition

Nepal’s transition to renewable energy must not come at the expense of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. A just transition is not only about reducing carbon emissions; it must also center the rights, dignity, and self-determination of the Indigenous Peoples who have stewarded the Earth for generations.

The cases in Nawalparasi, Lamjung, and Shankharapur are just a few examples of how this transition is negatively affecting Indigenous Peoples in Nepal. It is the legal duty of the Government of Nepal to translate ILO Convention No.169, the UNDRIP, and court orders into action to ensure that the just transition is genuinely just for Indigenous Peoples. It is imperative that the state, policymakers, developers, and International Financial Institutions respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and sovereignty in the context of the just transition.

Will Nepal’s energy transition become a model for environmental justice, or will it continue to prioritize economic growth at the expense of its Indigenous Peoples? The answer depends on whether the state, policymakers, developers, and international financiers are willing to listen to the voices of those who stand to lose the most in this transition.

The post The Unseen Cost of a ‘Just Transition’: Indigenous Rights at Risk in Nepal’s Renewable Energy Projects appeared first on Debates Indígenas.