Kathmandu: Five human rights organizations have jointly appealed for a human rights-friendly resolution to the ongoing dispute surrounding the Pathibhara Temple cable car project in Taplejung district through meaningful dialogue. Accountability Watch Committee, Amnesty International Nepal, the Justice and Rights Institute (JURI-Nepal), Advocacy Forum Nepal, and the Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC) have expressed deep concern over escalating tensions and violent clashes in the Taplejung district.
A monitoring team representing these organizations had conducted a field visit to the Pathibhara area from 8 to 12 March 2025. During this visit, the team engaged with various stakeholders, including government officials, law enforcement, business representatives, construction contractors, local residents, human rights activists, and political leaders. They also reviewed national and international legal frameworks regarding the rights of indigenous peoples and the ongoing Supreme Court case related to the project.
The visit revealed several key findings regarding the ongoing dispute over the 2.5 km-long cable car project, highlighting growing tensions, a lack of transparency, and concerns over indigenous rights.
Human rights organizations said the conflict has escalated into unrest, protests, and violent clashes, with allegations of excessive police force, particularly during an incident on 25 February. While the right to peaceful protest is constitutionally protected, some demonstrations have turned violent, leading to property damage and confrontations with security forces.
Authorities have largely approached the issue from a security perspective rather than addressing the root causes, human rights defenders claim. This has further exacerbated tensions. The dispute has gained political and international attention, and actions such as land surveying, deforestation, and the establishment of an Armed Police Force base have intensified opposition from local communities.
A significant issue identified is the lack of transparency in project documentation. Despite assurances from local authorities and investors regarding infrastructure improvements and employment opportunities, key documents remain inaccessible to the public, fueling skepticism and resistance.
Additionally, the Pathibhara Temple holds immense spiritual significance for both Hindu and Buddhist communities, with indigenous groups, particularly the Limbu community, asserting that the site, known as “Mukkumlung,” has deep historical and cultural importance, the human rights bodies said. However, the government has yet to conduct thorough studies on the area’s religious and historical heritage.
The opposition to the project is also grounded in constitutional and international legal frameworks, including Nepal’s Constitution and the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169, which guarantee indigenous rights. Nepal’s laws mandate meaningful consultation with indigenous communities before implementing development projects that affect them, yet authorities have not established an official mechanism for engaging with the Limbu community.
Elected representatives at both local and federal levels have been urged to facilitate dialogue rather than take partisan positions in the dispute.
Five human rights organizations have recommended several measures. These include modifying or reconsidering the project to align with the religious and cultural values of the Limbu community, establishing a specialized mechanism to facilitate meaningful dialogue with indigenous groups, and investigating reports of violence and excessive force to ensure accountability.
“Transparency must also be improved by publicly releasing all project-related documents, while a shift in development policies should incorporate cultural and environmental conservation,” the human rights organizations said. While calling elected representatives to play a constructive role in conflict resolution, they have also demanded that national human rights institutions should actively monitor and engage in resolving the dispute to prevent further escalation.
Comment