Nepal’s Usury Victims Face Uncertainty After Government Deal

Despite a recent agreement between the government and the Usury Victims’ Struggle Committee, many victims of usury in Nepal are facing uncertainty and fear of retaliation.

In Ashar 29, 2083, the government and the committee signed a nine-point agreement, which included the cancellation of all usury-related documents. However, many victims are now facing threats and intimidation from moneylenders.

Indal Sahani, a resident of Basbariya municipality in Sarlahi district, was attacked by a group of people, including a moneylender, on Ashar 5, 2083. Sahani had participated in a protest against usury and had returned to his village after the agreement was signed.

Another victim, Purnam Sah, is facing a similar situation. Sah had lent money to his neighbor, Ramratna Yadav, in 2075, but Yadav has refused to repay the loan. Sah has taken the case to court, but the recent agreement has put his case in jeopardy.

Uncertainty Over Usury Documents

The agreement between the government and the Usury Victims’ Struggle Committee has raised questions about the validity of usury-related documents. While the government has declared all such documents invalid, many victims are facing difficulties in getting their loans repaid.

Utam Bahadur Suvedi, a former AIG of Nepal Police and a member of the fact-finding committee on usury, said that the government’s decision to cancel all usury-related documents is not practical. Suvedi argued that not all moneylenders are dishonest and that the government should have taken a more nuanced approach.

Tej Bahadur Karki, a former judge of the Patan High Court and chairman of the commission on usury, also expressed similar views. Karki said that the government should have first identified the fake documents before declaring all usury-related documents invalid.

Rajan Ranamagar, a member of the Usury Victims’ Struggle Committee, defended the government’s decision, saying that it was necessary to protect the victims of usury. Ranamagar argued that the government’s decision would not harm honest moneylenders and that the victims would get justice.