Tundikhel: Not Just An Empty Field

Author: 

Benoît Buchy-Dury | United Kingdom

In 1976, the renowned French sociologist Henri Lefebvre wrote “Space is political and ideological. It is a product literally filled with ideologies” in his essay Reflection on the Politics of Space (Lefebvre 1976: 31). Until then spaces were considered as empty containers that were considered neutral, indifferent, and purely physical entities; a mere backdrop for social and economic activities. Lefevbre (1976: 31) challenged this notion by emphasising that the production of space itself is significant, “precisely because it has been occupied and used and has already been the focus of past processes whose traces are not always evident on the landscape”. In other words, the historical, social, and political forces that shape space can become so deeply embedded that they are no longer easily recognizable. Consequently, we might observe certain spaces without realising the complex lineage of events and processes that have shaped their contemporary form.
This understanding is particularly relevant to Tundikhel, the largest stretch of public space in the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal. In 2021, as part of my undergraduate thesis, I explored the importance of urban public spaces in a democracy, using Tundikhel as a case study. In exploring the site’s historical, social and cultural significance, my research revealed how such spaces facilitate political dialogue between authorities and citizens. Scholars like Sengupta (2018; 2021) have similarly examined Tundikhel’s evolving role as both a historically significant and contested space.
Despite its grandeur, Tundikhel has halved in size since the 1960s, when it stretched around 5 km (Poudel 2017). At that time, 52% of its much larger area was open to the public, whereas today, only one-sixth of the significantly reduced space remains accessible (Khanal 2024). Consequently, on November 9, 2019, coinciding with International Freedom Day, a social movement sprang up in the Kathmandu Valley under the banner of Occupy Tundikhel (Ojha:  2019). This movement sought to take back Tundikhel for public use. The notion of taking back was central, as most of Tundikhel like the Dasharat Rangshala (stadium), Army headquarters, Sainik Manch (Military  Headquarter), Khula Manch (Open-air Theatre), Ratnapark (Garden-like park) and Rani Pokhari (A temple surrounded by a pond) (Figure 1) remains under government control, which has faced criticism for inadequate management of these spaces in ways that neglect public interest. The rise of Occupy Tundikhel underscored therefore the complex dynamics surrounding Tundikhel as a public space, revealing deeper tensions between the public and the government. While the movement did not achieve its stated goal of expanding public access, it successfully brought attention to a critical issue.
Figure 1: An annotated map of Tundikhel (The red line indicates the original size of Tudhikhel). Source: Shrestha (2022).

Since my thesis, the contestation has continued in the form of the “Greater Dream for Tundikhel” project, which included plans for a 3 storey parking facility at Khula Manch, though as a result of strong backlash, it has been put on ice (Ohja 2022; Khanal 2024). Shortly afterwards proposals to construct astro-turf football fields have surfaced, however, these too have faced resistance for its singularisation (and potential privatisation) of the public space (Shrestha 2024). Much like the parking plan, these new proposals seem to be left ‘on the bench’ for now. However some point out they have not been abandoned fully either believing that they may both still move forward in a combined project (Awale 2024).

Drawing on Lefebvre’s perspective, this conflict is not merely a political struggle occurring within the space, nor is it simply a matter of planning and development, but, as the French sociologist might point out, it is fundamentally a struggle over the very production and meaning of that space. It is a battle over who has the authority to define, shape, and control Tundikhel and, by extension, the social and cultural narratives that the space embodies. By contesting the control of Tundikhel, the movement is also asserting the right to participate in the ongoing production of urban space, ensuring that the mechanisms of democracy like protests are embedded into the space itself. From the waving of black flags in opposition to the monarchy, to the symbolic cutting down of the khari ko bot by the king, from the decisive gatherings of the Jana Andolan movement to the organisations setting up feeding programs only to be relocated as well as the closure of the prominent open-air theatre that once hosted mass political rallies—these are not just isolated events, but key moments in the ongoing production and transformation of Tundikhel that have had wider ramifications for Nepal.

However as Sengupta (2018: 2796) warns, “The ongoing process [of Tundikhel’s division and encroachment] has the power to erase the history and legacy of the space from the public memory such that the public space is not recognizable any more”’ It is crucial therefore to see Tundikhel as more than just a physical location. The fight for Tundikhel is not merely about reclaiming land; it’s about securing social and political gains that resonate throughout society. This struggle challenges the very processes and power structures that shape public spaces. By defending Tundikhel, citizens are not just protecting a vast green public space — they are opening a doorway to challenge the socio-political forces that produce the shared spaces and, by extension, society itself.

References:

The views and opinions expressed in the piece above are solely those of the original author(s) and contributor(s). They do not necessarily represent the views of Centre for Social Change.

Photo (Masters)

Benoît Buchy-Dury

Benoît Buchy-Dury is currently pursuing an Erasmus Mundus Master's in Urban Studies, a two-year interdisciplinary program across four European cities (Brussels, Vienna, Copenhagen and Madrid) offered by six universities. He holds a Geography degree from the University of Bristol, where he conducted my undergraduate dissertation in Kathmandu, Nepal, exploring the importance of democratic expression in urban public spaces. His research interests focus on the political economy of urbanisation, examining how urban changes are shaped by power struggles and historical forces.