Rising from the Rubble? Examining Post-Disaster Recovery and (Re-)Development in Nepal

Abstract

Nepal, a landlocked country between India and China, experienced a powerful earthquake (7.8 Mw) in April 2015 that claimed nearly 9,000 lives and injured more than 20,000 people. Half a million houses were destroyed. The catastrophe triggered massive emergency relief needs due to widespread poverty in the earthquake-affected districts. Given the scale of devastation, the need to rebuild livelihoods and reconstruct homes was obvious. Poor and marginalised groups are typically the most impacted when disasters occur. They face complex challenges in recovering from the devastation. The body of knowledge on casteism, ethnic marginality, and disasters is still limited. Therefore, this study makes an important contribution to such disaster scholarship. Using qualitative research methods, this study aims to critically examine the post-disaster emergency response, livelihood recovery, and housing reconstruction process in the aftermath of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake, with reference to the marginalised and disadvantaged social groups—specifically Dalit and Ādibāsi-Janajāti. Interviews were conducted with disaster survivors, government representatives, and humanitarian and development workers in international and national non-government organisations. The theoretical concepts of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu—capital, field, habitus, and symbolic capital—were applied to understand the post-disaster recovery and reconstruction phenomenon. The findings show that humanitarian assistance was crucial in addressing several unmet needs of disaster-affected rural households in resource-poor settings in Nepal. However, the interventions were generally fragmented, insufficient, neoliberal-led (forcing market dependencies), and largely business-as-usual in their orientation. The research found that caste-based discrimination and social exclusion were perpetuated in the aftermath of the earthquake. Similarly, the “replacement” or “restoration” concept (the idea of regaining what was lost or damaged by a disaster) is problematic as it overlooks the pre-disaster vulnerability of poor and marginalised households who experience disproportionate disaster impacts. The findings suggest that the housing reconstruction process was rendered technical, fixating on the technical details of buildings generated far away. This ignored the local realities of everyday rural life, compromised people’s agency and participation in planning and decision-making processes. As a result, the reconstruction resulted in the rebuilding of concrete houses which, while technically safer than many they replaced, are spatially insufficient, climatically unsuitable, and practically inconvenient for local people. The research shows that without pro-poor targeted recovery policies and programmes, pre-disaster inequalities between the haves and have-nots are likely to continue, if not grow, in post-disaster environments. Finally, in contrast to what may commonly be believed, the findings suggest that disaster survivors are not passive recipients of humanitarian assistance. They should be recognised and encouraged for their willingness and ability to bring positive changes to their lives/families following a crisis.