Reevaluating Decentralization and Community Participation in Nepali Heritage Management: Insights from Rani Pokhari and Boudhanath Stupa Reconstruction

Abstract

Along with the amalgamation of a federal republic governing structure in 2015, Nepal moved one step further in implementing decentralization philosophy in practice. The decentralization process, which primarily emphasizes the inclusive participation of the people in every development projects, started to allow local communities to enter into the heritage management process as well. Subsequently, local communities became more concerned about the ability to participate fully in the design and management of their local heritage. Using semi-structured interviews with the community stakeholders and heritage management authorities at the two case study sites in Kathmandu—‘Boudhanath Stupa’ (which was the first successfully reconstructed heritage site after the devastating earthquake of 2015) and Rani Pokhari (reconstruction process of which has been prolonged because of the debates and controversies in the process and finally completed in 2020)—this research investigates the role of decentralized grassroots engagement in shaping more effective and sustainable approaches to cultural heritage management in Nepal.

Introduction

Decentralization is characterized by the inclusive participation of stakeholders, a concept widely embraced globally, particularly in developing countries. Its primary aim is to empower local communities by granting them autonomy and control over resource allocation and investment, based on the belief that these communities are better equipped to identify urgent needs and efficiently deliver public goods (United Nations Development Program, 1999). Community participation is thus integral to decentralization.

Despite increasing recognition in heritage literature, community engagement in cultural heritage management remains limited. Since the early twenty-first century, a paradigm shift in heritage studies has emphasized local engagement and collaborative management (Jameson & Musteata, 2019). This shift aligns with broader sustainable development goals and inclusive political strategies (Cooper & Vargas, 2004). The focus of heritage management has transitioned from a predominantly national perspective to recognizing heritage as communal property and identity (Graham & Howard, 2008). However, tensions often arise between central authorities and local communities due to differing perceptions of heritage, leading to contestation rather than collaboration (Waterton & Watson, 2011). Decentralization in heritage management gained prominence with the acknowledgement of local communities’ roles. Decentralized policies, incorporating outsourcing, devolution, managerialism and privatization, enhance heritage management. Traditional centralized approaches, though superficially effective, require revision to ensure collective ownership and sustainability (Zan et al., 2007).

This study examines post-disaster heritage management in Nepal, focusing on decentralized grassroots engagement. Using semi-structured interviews with local community members and heritage professionals, the reconstruction processes of two Kathmandu Valley heritage sites—Boudhanath Stupa and Rani Pokhari—are analysed.

The 2015 earthquake inflicted extensive damage on the Boudhanath Stupa, which, among the 920 heritage sites affected, became the first to undergo complete reconstruction, with the process concluding in November 2016. The restoration project was financed exclusively through contributions from local communities and individual donors. The Nepali government, while offering technical support through the Department of Archaeology (DoA), did not provide financial assistance for the restoration.

Rani Pokhari, another heritage site damaged by the 2015 earthquake, was initially reconstructed under the oversight of the Kathmandu Metropolitan Office, operating under the authority of the DoA. The reconstruction process, however, encountered significant delays due to ongoing disputes among stakeholders. The reconstruction was ultimately completed in October 2020 under the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) and consumer committee.

Nepali Heritage and 2015 Earthquake

Nepal, a South Asian Himalayan nation of approximately 30 million people, is distinguished by its ethnic and cultural diversity, with 142 ethnic groups and 124 languages (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2021). Despite its inherent richness, heritage management policy is primarily controlled by central government bodies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international NGOs, often overlooking the role of local communities, whose customs and traditions are integral to the heritage itself and ensure their active participation.

Nepal is home to both tangible and intangible heritage, including 10 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage.

Sites: seven in the Kathmandu Valley—Pashupatinath, Swayambhunath, Changu Narayan, Boudhanath and the royal courtyards of Basantapur, Patan and Bhaktapur—and three others: Lumbini, Chitwan National Park and Sagarmatha National Park (UNESCO, 2024).

Heritage preservation in Nepal has historically been linked to tourism and economic development, with a focus on safeguarding sites from damage (Chapagain, 2008). However, the absence of clear policies aligning preservation with tourism and economic goals has led to criticism of Nepal’s centralized governance system. This system has been blamed for inefficiencies in heritage management, stunted local economic growth and broader socio-economic challenges.

While there is increasing interest in heritage conservation among diverse stakeholders—ranging from local Guthi associations to national and international organizations—conflicts arising from differing priorities and approaches hinder effective collaboration. Despite progress, divergent perspectives among stakeholders persist, exacerbated by the 2015 earthquake, which caused severe damage to Nepal’s heritage. Of the 920 affected heritage sites, 133 were destroyed, 95 partially collapsed and 692 were damaged (DoA, 2024).

Reconstruction remains incomplete even after a decade.

This study investigates decentralized heritage management in Nepal through the reconstruction of two Kathmandu Valley sites: Boudhanath Stupa and Rani Pokhari. These sites were chosen for their contrasting trajectories: Boudhanath Stupa, completed in November 2016, exemplifies successful community-led reconstruction, whereas Rani Pokhari, mired in prolonged debates, was only completed in October 2020. Semi-structured interviews with local community members and heritage professionals provide insights into the challenges and opportunities of decentralization in heritage management.

Case Study 1: ‘Boudhanath Stupa’

‘Boudhanath Stupa’, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is a prominent Buddhist shrine in the northeastern Kathmandu Valley. Its exact construction date remains uncertain, as Nepali historical records lack definitive accounts. However, references to the stupa appear in ancient Rajavamsavali texts from the Lichhavi period, notably under King Mānadeva (464–505 CE), Shivadeva (590–604 CE) and Amshuverma (605–621 CE) (Ehrhard, 1990). While myths surround their origins, no official evidence confirms them. Renowned as one of the largest stupas globally, Boudhanath is a significant pilgrimage site for Buddhists and holds spiritual importance for Hindus.

The 2015 earthquake severely damaged Boudhanath Stupa, causing structural issues, including shattered base walls, a fractured gold-plated crown and spire and cracks in the dome. Despite the widespread devastation affecting 920 heritage sites, Boudhanath Stupa was the first to be fully reconstructed, with work completed in November 2016.

The restoration cost 230 million Nepali rupees (approximately 2.1 million USD). Funding came entirely from local communities, Nepali Buddhists, international Buddhist organizations and individual contributions in the form of labour, cash and gold donations. The Nepali government provided only technical assistance through the DoA and did not contribute financially (The Kathmandu Post, 2016).

Boudhanath serves as a case study due to its community-driven reconstruction process, demonstrating the efficacy of grassroots engagement. Local participation encompassed both fundraising and restoration activities, with minimal reliance on government support, emphasizing the potential of decentralized heritage management.

Case Study 2: ‘Rani Pokhari’

‘Rani Pokhari’ (Queen’s Pond), known locally as Nhu Pukhu in Newari, is an artificial pond of historical and religious significance, situated in the heart of Kathmandu. Built in 1670 ad by King Pratap Malla, the pond was intended to console his queen after the untimely death of their son, who was killed by an elephant. Water from various sacred Hindu rivers and ponds across the Indian subcontinent was collected to sanctify the site, which exemplified mediaeval Nepali architecture and engineering (Parajuli, 2022).

Although not listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Rani Pokhari is a renowned landmark in the Kathmandu Valley. The 2015 earthquake caused significant damage to the site, and its reconstruction was initially overseen by the Kathmandu Metropolis Office under the authority of the DoA. However, the project faced repeated delays due to disputes among stakeholders, particularly over the use of modern construction materials and alterations to the original design. In March 2019, following prolonged contention, the NRA transferred the project to a consumer committee (Ojha, 2019). The reconstruction was ultimately completed in October 2020.

Rani Pokhari illustrates the challenges posed by conflicting stakeholder priorities and the limitations of centralized heritage management in Nepal. It elucidates how potential conflicts among diverse stakeholders can be mitigated through inclusive participation, thereby facilitating effective management, and underscores the indispensability of decentralization.

Both heritage sites were restored with community participation, but the degree of involvement varied significantly. In the case of Rani Pokhari, community participation primarily served as a watchdog, overseeing and holding accountable the government authorities involved in the reconstruction process. In contrast, the restoration of Boudhanath Stupa saw the community playing a central role in the reconstruction, with the national government acting more as a supervisory entity, ensuring that the community-driven efforts adhered to technical standards and guidelines. This reflects differing dynamics of power and responsibility, with Rani Pokhari highlighting a more reactive role for the community and Boudhanath Stupa illustrating a proactive leadership role in heritage restoration.

To assess Nepal’s heritage management practices and the application of decentralized approaches, I conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of participants, including government and non-government heritage professionals, as well as local community members of Rani Pokhari and Boudhanath Stupa, with five individuals representing each stakeholder group.

In-depth interviews with heritage professionals and local community members involved in the restoration of both sites provide valuable perspectives on the decentralized approach and its implications for Nepal’s heritage management practices. These case studies reveal both the potential benefits and limitations of decentralized management, offering insights into how heritage can be more effectively preserved and managed at the local level.

Nepali Heritage: Organizational and Community Perspectives

Among the 20 participants interviewed in this study, all participants interpreted Nepali heritage as a representation of the collective identity of the people. For these participants, collective identity is derived from historical elements that have been constructed over various time periods, shaped by the interests, needs and necessities of the people. They argue that, as a manifestation of collective identity, Nepali heritage holds a substantial role and thus occupies a position of significant importance in contemporary Nepali society. Some government heritage officials’ projection further illustrates this perspective:

Heritage represents our shared identity, encompassing culture, history, religion, literature, customs, and lifestyle—elements that define how we are recognized globally. Among these, cultural heritage stands out as an invaluable asset, crafted by our ancestors. Safeguarding and passing down this heritage to future generations is a formidable responsibility. In the context of Nepal, the role of heritage holds particular significance, as it is deeply intertwined with the identity of the Nepali community and society. (Interviewee 3, male, over 50: Government official)

The Ancient Monument Preservation Act of 1956 categorizes heritage into tangible and intangible forms. Tangible heritage refers to historical, cultural, and religious buildings and monuments that are over 100 years old, while intangible heritage encompasses the customs, traditions, and values that are closely linked to these physical structures. The significance of heritage remains constant, as it represents our collective treasures and is integral to shaping and expressing our national identity. (Interviewee 11, female, over 50: Government official)

These interpretations of heritage align with those observed in various national contexts and clearly draw from discourses operating at the international level, as evidenced by the definitions of heritage put forth by multinational and international organizations such as UNESCO and International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). A notable characteristic of this approach to heritage is its external perspective—viewing heritage ‘from the outside-in’. The notion of ‘knowing oneself’ in relation to ‘the rest of the world’, grounded in specific characteristics and qualities, reflects the influence of a ‘development mindset’, wherein heritage is commodified for national and international consumption. Moreover, one interviewee’s perspective reflects a static understanding of culture—perceived as something with fixed boundaries that can ‘stand for’ a specific group of people. However, culture is inherently dynamic, and when viewed as static, it becomes easier to justify the application of protectionist conservation practices, based on the assumption that culture belongs to ‘the past’ and should be shielded from any form of change.

Furthermore, interactions with Nepali heritage officials highlighted the commodification of Nepali heritage, as they emphasized its economic significance alongside other attributes. One non-government official underscored this viewpoint:

Heritage serves as a symbol of national identity, and Nepali heritage holds significant cultural, social, religious, and economic value. It embodies the unity found within the diversity of our society, reflecting the shared values and traditions that bind us together. (Interviewee 20, female, over 30: Non-government official)

The economic benefits derived from mass tourism have had a profound impact, involving individuals both directly and indirectly, due to the extensive and visible nature of the economic changes. In this context, heritage exerts a unifying influence, even though, for many ethnic groups, it may entail an unacknowledged loss of cultural autonomy and, in some cases, economic disparity due to uneven distribution of benefits. The narrative of national unity, often associated with heritage, serves as a positive framing for dramatic and unequal economic transformations, offering a convenient deflection from other forms of loss, including the erosion of freedoms.

However, the perspectives of Nepali heritage officials and the national rhetoric surrounding heritage—which explicitly emphasizes unity among the country’s ethnically diverse population—can be perceived as an imposing ideology by community members. Instead of identifying with nationally celebrated heritage sites and monuments, which are supposed to symbolize national unity, community members feel a stronger connection to heritage properties that are directly tied to their everyday lives. As one community member underscores:

I believe our connection to the cultural and religious aspects of our heritage is stronger because they are closely integrated into our daily lives, rather than being due to their greater importance compared to historical or other aspects of our past. (Interviewee 17, male, over 50: Local resident of Rani Pokhari: Shopkeeper)

This community member highlights the notion that heritage is inherently local, personal and unique. His perspective is rooted in lived experience, in contrast to the language of policy often employed by heritage professionals. Throughout all the interviews, it was evident that community members did not seek broader national recognition or justification for the value of the heritage integral to their daily lives. Rather, they engage with their heritage for personal fulfilment, not to persuade others of its significance for economic gain. Moreover, the heritage within a given community does not hold equal importance or serve as a unifying element for all its members. For example, another community member from ‘Rani Pokhari’ remarks:

As a migrant to this community, I do not have a deep attachment to its heritage. However, I actively participate in cultural festivals that are tied to my own culture and identity. (Interviewee 15, male, over 40: Local resident of Rani Pokhari: Lecturer)

Even within a single community, members do not necessarily develop uniform attachments to local heritage, raising the question: How can heritage effectively serve the notion of ‘unity among diversity’ at the national level, as emphasized by heritage professionals? Furthermore, these community members possess divergent perceptions regarding the value and significance of their local heritage. As some of the community members state:

I believe that historical heritage holds greater importance to us, although cultural and religious heritage also plays a significant role. (Interviewee 13, male, over 40: Local resident of Boudhanath Stupa: Government employee)

Religious, cultural, and historical heritage each hold relative value and importance; however, I believe our historical heritage is comparatively more significant among them. (Interviewee 14, male, over 40: Local resident of Rani Pokhari: Professor)

Both interview participants recognize the importance of religious, cultural and historical heritage but differ in their emphasis on which holds the most significance. One participant argues that historical heritage is the most important, viewing it as foundational for continuity and identity. The second participant also prioritizes historical heritage but acknowledges the significant role of cultural and religious elements, suggesting a more integrated perspective where history forms the core and cultural and religious heritage further enriches it. While both viewpoints highlight the interconnectedness of these heritage forms, the first adopts a hierarchical view, whereas the second maintains a more balanced approach. There is a collective understanding among heritage officials, both governmental and non-governmental, that Nepali heritage serves a unifying role among people of different castes, ethnicities, religions and localities. However, this perception is not shared by the community members, who hold diverse views on the role and significance of Nepali heritage.

Despite heritage officials’ assertions that Nepali heritage unites this diversity, the reality often contradicts this claim. According to national statistics (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2021), 81.19% of the population is Hindu, 8.21% Buddhist, 4.39% Muslim, 3.17% Kirat and 3.04% adhere to other religions. However, the majority of UNESCO-listed heritage sites primarily hold significance for Hindus and Buddhists, with five of the 10 sites—Pashupatinath, Boudhanath, Swayambhunath, Changu Narayan and Lumbini—being religiously affiliated with these two groups (UNESCO, 2024). Consequently, the heritage narrative does not fully encompass the cultures of the 10.6% of the population who follow Islam, Kirat or other religions. Furthermore, language and ethnicity influence individuals’ attachment to specific heritage sites, with most UNESCO-listed monuments located in urban areas, thereby neglecting rural cultural heritage, which constitutes the majority of Nepal’s population.

Thus, the concept of heritage as a symbol of ‘unity in diversity’ seems more of a projection by heritage authorities. In Nepal, the dominance of the high-caste Kshetri and Brahmin groups during the Shah Dynasty (Hutt, 2004) has influenced the national heritage narrative, positioning Hindu and Buddhist symbols as key representations of national unity and identity. The following section examines the mechanisms through which this power structure has been established in the management of Nepali heritage.

Nepali Heritage: Power Structure and Management

In response to the question regarding the key stakeholders in the management of Nepali heritage, all heritage officials interviewed identified three primary groups: Government authorities, NGOs and local communities. As one official from the DoA noted:

In Nepal, heritage management involves three primary stakeholders: Government bodies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and local communities. Key government agencies include the Department of Archaeology, the Ministry of Culture, Guthi Sansthan, and territorial development trusts such as those for Lumbini, Pashupati, and Boudha. Prominent NGOs in the heritage sector include the Nepal Heritage Society, the Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust (KVPT), and UNESCO. (Interviewee 12, male, over 40: Government official)

While these three stakeholder groups are central to heritage management in Nepal, the statement overlooks other key actors, such as the governments of India, China and Sri Lanka, which are currently involved in heritage reconstruction projects in Nepal. These external powers’ influence on Nepali heritage is often underacknowledged. Government heritage officials do not readily accept these foreign bodies as major stakeholders, viewing their involvement as a pragmatic response to specific needs. This reluctance to acknowledge significant external influence obscures the complexity of power dynamics in contemporary heritage management.

Moreover, all three heritage management authorities operate through centralized mechanisms, despite the post-disaster context demanding more decentralized approaches. The involvement of foreign governments in heritage management is ambiguous, especially given that local communities—the primary beneficiaries—remain largely excluded from the management structure.

At the same time, non-government heritage officials express concerns about the centralized heritage policy’s failure to address critical renovation and restoration needs. They argue that the extensive damage to Nepali heritage sites is primarily due to the lack of timely restoration and renovation efforts. As one heritage official notes:

I believe that regular renovation and restoration of heritage sites are essential to maintaining their structural integrity, reducing the risk of significant damage during natural disasters such as the 2015 earthquake. For example, the Patan Bhimsen Mandir, which underwent renovation just prior to the earthquake, remained unaffected by the disaster, highlighting the importance of timely maintenance. (Interviewee 20, female, over 30: Non-government official)

A decentralized heritage policy is vital for successful restoration and renovation, as the government, despite its responsibility, often fails to coordinate effectively between different levels of administration. This lack of coordination impedes the development and execution of efficient and timely renovation strategies. As one government official acknowledges:

At the national level, coordination of heritage management is overseen by bodies such as the Department of Archaeology, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Civil Aviation, and Guthi Sansthan. At the local level, coordination is handled by the District Coordination Committee, Metropolitan and Rural-Metropolitan Offices, and Ward Offices. However, effective coordination between these national and local bodies is not always guaranteed, and the outcomes are often less than optimal. For example, the Department of Archaeology, a key monitoring body, faces challenges due to limited manpower and a single central office tasked with overseeing supervision and monitoring activities across the entire country. (Interviewee 12, male, over 40: Government official)

The aforementioned quote highlights a clear lack of decentralized practices in heritage management. The government official stresses the need for coordination between central and local government bodies, a process he acknowledges has been ineffective due to insufficient manpower. However, there is no mention of involving local communities in this process.

Furthermore, despite claims of multi-party involvement by all interviewed heritage officials, the dominance of Nepali government authorities in heritage management remains evident.

Even community members with limited knowledge of the management processes tend to believe that the responsibility for heritage lies solely with the Nepali government.

I think, government authority, specifically, the Department of Archaeology is mainly responsible for Nepali heritage management. (Interviewee 14, male, over 40: Local resident of Rani Pokhari: Professor)

As far as I know from media reports, government authorities are responsible for the management of Nepali heritage. (Interviewee 9, female, over 40: Local resident of Boudhanath Stupa: Non-government employee)

The remarks from the community members suggest that Nepali heritage continues to emphasize the concept of ‘heritage for the community’ rather than ‘community heritage’. Government authorities convey the message that heritage is to be owned and managed by the state on behalf of the community, rather than empowering local populations to take initiative. Interestingly, the media also plays a passive role in disempowering these communities by limiting their responsibility in heritage management. Within the current management framework, communities are not encouraged to take proactive steps in heritage preservation; instead, institutional authorities position them as passive recipients. The limitations of this power structure are evident to community members, as one points out:

Both government and non-government organizations are involved in Nepali heritage management; however, their efforts have not been as effective as needed, a shortcoming that is particularly evident in the post-earthquake context. (Interviewee 19, male, over 50: Local resident of Boudhanath Stupa: Private employee)

As this participant pointed out, this tendency is especially noticeable in the current post-disaster context, where the ineffectiveness of the centralized management system is apparent. Government officials’ perceptions and interpretations of heritage appear to impose a singular view on other stakeholders, particularly local communities. The knowledge, values and understandings of these communities are disregarded, as they are excluded from the preservation and management process. Furthermore, the state of Nepal’s tangible heritage in the aftermath of the earthquake, coupled with government officials’ mindset, suggests the persistence of a syndicate-like system in heritage management. In this system, government authorities remain the primary agents responsible for preservation, restoration, management and regulation, despite their limited workforce and ineffectiveness.

Current heritage policy clearly favours government authorities, who exercise near-autonomous power from policymaking to supervision. Ironically, there remains a continued demand for more power, coupled with indifference towards the effectiveness of decentralized practices. As one government official asserts:

The Department of Archaeology should be granted full authority and autonomy in heritage management, as demonstrated by some of our neighboring countries. In cases requiring urgent action, there should be no need to request intervention from other government bodies, as this often leads to delays and inefficiencies. A current example of this issue is the presence of unauthorized and illegal private constructions at some heritage sites. The Department of Archaeology lacks the authority to remove these structures and must instead report the issue to other government bodies, awaiting their response. This process hinders effective heritage management and timely intervention. (Interviewee 3, male, over 50: Government official)

Despite a growing trend to better include community groups in heritage management (Waterton & Watson, 2011), officials from the DoA assert that they should retain autonomous power and full authority. While both government and non-government officials acknowledge local communities as key stakeholders in Nepali heritage management, they emphasize that communities should not play an active role in management, preservation or reconstruction in the current context.

A key observation from these interviews is the disconnect between the rhetoric of shared responsibility among government authorities, non-government organizations and local communities, as well as the reality of heritage policy. Existing policies do not effectively implement decentralized practices nor engage meaningfully with community perspectives. In practice, heritage management in Nepal is largely conducted for communities rather than with them. While community involvement is limited to raising awareness, educating members about their local heritage and gathering feedback during conservation efforts, direct and extensive participation is not encouraged. This tendency is reflected in the opinions of heritage officials expressed during the research:

We organize community awareness programs, public hearing and publish a public notice including all the details of our project. (Interviewee 6, female, over 40: Government official, emphasis added)

We conduct regular meetings before and during conservation work with representatives from local authorities and community members. These meetings provide an opportunity to inform them about the project and seek their suggestions and recommendations. (Interviewee 10, male, over 40: Non-government official, emphasis added)

Both heritage officials describe ongoing heritage projects as ‘our project’, reflecting the notion that contemporary Nepali heritage is primarily owned by organizations rather than the local communities. In this context, communities become ‘outsiders’ to their own heritage spaces, while organizations assume the role of insiders. Furthermore, the organization of awareness programmes, meetings and public hearings by heritage authorities highlight their dominant position in the management process, fostering a ‘one-way’ communication flow with community members.

Voices from the Community: A Current Overview

This research seeks to explore the perspectives of community members regarding the ongoing heritage management process, with a particular focus on the completed Rani Pokhari and Boudhanath Stupa projects. The community members from both heritage sites believe that there was active community participation in the reconstruction efforts at both locations. As one of the interviewees from Boudhanath Stupa remarked:

When the Boudhanath Stupa was damaged in the earthquake, a delegation, including local community members, approached the Boudhanath Area Development Committee to discuss the reconstruction of the site. The committee informed us that it would be unable to secure the necessary funds for the restoration due to the extent of the damage. In response, the community members decided to contribute through donations in the form of money, goods, and labor. Initially, we were concerned that the donations would not be enough to complete the reconstruction, and we might need to request additional funding from the government. However, we were fortunate to gather sufficient donations to successfully complete the restoration. (Interviewee 4, male, over 60: Local resident of Boudhanath Stupa: Local businessman)

As one of the most significant Buddhist religious sites, Boudhanath Stupa fosters strong religious connections and emotions among Buddhists worldwide. Consequently, the reconstruction process attracted substantial financial contributions from both domestic and international donors. Even community members who were unable to make monetary donations actively participated by offering their labour for the reconstruction. Some community members recall:

I voluntarily worked for a week on the reconstruction, and I even prepared food at home for the other workers on the site. Additionally, some of my relatives, who are currently living abroad, sent money for the reconstruction, and I made a donation on their behalf. (Interviewee 7, male, over 50: Local resident of Boudhanath Stupa: School teacher)

I used to visit Boudhanath Stupa at least once a day to perform my religious rituals, and I was deeply devastated when the earthquake damaged this sacred site. Upon learning that we could contribute to its reconstruction, I donated both money and construction materials. (Interviewee 18, female, over 70: Local resident of Boudhanath Stupa: Retired private employee)

A strong religious affiliation was one of the key factors that motivated the community members to engage directly in the reconstruction of Boudhanath Stupa. In contrast, the reconstruction of Rani Pokhari faced significant delays and obstacles, as government authorities did not encourage local community involvement in the process, despite the community’s interest in participating. As some local community members from Rani Pokhari remembered:

When the Kathmandu Metropolitan Office accumulated modern construction materials, including cement, steel, and iron rods, at the Rani-Pokhari reconstruction site, We, the local community members, padlocked the reconstruction site and went as a delegation to the Kathmandu Metropolitan Office. The Metropolitan Office assured that the site would be reconstructed using the same materials as those originally used, and that the local community would be involved in the reconstruction process. However, neither of these commitments were honored, leading to the eventual withdrawal of the Metropolitan Office from the project. (Interviewee 8, male, over 70: Local resident of Rani Pokhari: Retired professor)

We attended the press conference when the Department of Archaeology transferred the authority for the reconstruction of Rani Pokhari to the Kathmandu Metropolitan Office. During the meeting, we questioned why the local community was not given a role in the reconstruction process, particularly in utilizing local knowledge and resources. However, both the Department of Archaeology and the Metropolitan Office declined, stating that they possessed sufficient resources and expertise to manage the reconstruction on their own. (Interviewee 16, male, over 40: Local resident of Rani Pokhari: Media reporter)

Ironically, when local community members and heritage professionals proposed that Rani Pokhari be reconstructed according to its original 1670s design, the DoA rejected the suggestion, citing the absence of official documentation reflecting the site’s initial architectural design. What is particularly surprising is the reluctance of government authorities to collaborate with other stakeholders, despite the fact that even small initiatives from these stakeholders have proven to be pivotal for the preservation of Nepali heritage.

Beyond Boudhanath Stupa, a recent example is the Nepal Architecture Archive, a private initiative aimed at preserving the traditional architecture of the Kathmandu Valley. The reconstruction of Kasthamandap, a historic structure from which Kathmandu derives its name, was made possible, and the architectural archive proved invaluable in accurately recreating this construction (Dhakal, 2023).

Current heritage management practices continue to follow a predominantly top-down approach. After a decade since the earthquake, 800 heritage sites have been reconstructed, but 120 remain to be restored (DOA, 2024). This indicates a failure by heritage authorities to learn from ongoing reconstruction processes, particularly in terms of inefficiencies and delays. A critical gap remains in adapting strategies to expedite restoration efforts. Notably, community engagement—a successful strategy during the reconstruction of the ‘Boudhanath Stupa’—has not been applied to other heritage sites in a systematic manner.

Existing heritage management policies, as Mahajan (1987) notes, are not static and must evolve to reflect societal needs and contexts. Heritage, emerging from specific cultural, social and historical backgrounds, requires management policies that are sensitive to these dynamics. Nepal’s conservation policy should thus be rooted in local cultural institutions, traditional practices and economic structures to effectively address the country’s diverse geographical and cultural landscapes (Chapagain, 2008).

The reconstruction of ‘Rani Pokhari’ illustrates the limitations of centralized policies that neglect the roles of key stakeholders, particularly local communities. In contrast, the reconstruction of ‘Boudhanath Stupa’ demonstrates how management policies can be enriched by integrating community knowledge and fostering active local participation. Incorporating traditional ecological knowledge into conservation initiatives can enhance cultural understanding among policymakers and conservationists while supporting ecological processes. Active involvement of community members in decision-making is also essential for building trust between local communities and governmental authorities. Responsible institutions should therefore adopt an integrated conservation approach that emphasizes public participation while ensuring technical, financial and legal efficiency.

The contrasting experiences of these two heritage site reconstructions underscore the importance of community engagement in ensuring both technical and legal authenticity. The centralized approach to the ‘Rani Pokhari’ reconstruction raised concerns about authenticity. Despite recommendations from a committee of heritage professionals and experts to restore ‘Rani Pokhari’ to its original 1670 design, the DoA rejected this proposal, citing the absence of the original architectural design. This divergence reflects differing interpretations of authenticity: For the local community, the authentic structure was the one based on the 1670 design, while the DoA prioritized authenticity as it existed immediately before the 2015 earthquake. Ultimately, following a series of interventions and objections raised by local community members and activists, this heritage site was restored to its original form, adhering to the Shikhara architectural style as it was originally constructed by King Pratap Malla in 1670 ad (The Kathmandu Post, 2020).

In contrast, the ‘Boudhanath Stupa’ reconstruction, which engaged the local community throughout the process, faced no questions regarding authenticity. This highlights a growing shift away from the ‘heritage for the community’ model—where heritage is provided to communities—towards the ‘community heritage’ approach, which recognizes the community as an integral part of heritage management. This approach has proven more effective in ensuring authenticity and fostering sustainable management practices.

Conclusion

Although Nepal adopted a federal republican political system in 2015, dividing the country’s legislative structures into 77 districts, 7 provinces and 753 local administrative units (Acharya, 2018), the philosophy of decentralization and its projected goals of inclusive, sustainable and effective development remain largely unfulfilled, particularly in the domain of heritage management. The slow pace of restoration and preservation work, which continues even after a decade of the catastrophic earthquake, underscores the ineffectiveness of current heritage management strategies. Despite the intended aim of the administrative restructuring—to empower local communities and promote self-sustainability through the use of local resources—this vision has largely proven illusory. Central government authorities remain resistant to recognizing the critical role of local communities, let alone involving them in meaningful ways in preservation, management and restoration efforts.

In the post-disaster context, the response from heritage management authorities has been markedly sluggish. Even after a decade of widespread destruction, limited manpower and resource constraints can no longer justify the delays in restoration work. Notably, the reconstruction of the ‘Boudhanath Stupa’, the first heritage site to be rebuilt after the earthquake, was completed in under 2 years. This achievement serves as a model for the success of community participation in heritage preservation. However, the reluctance of Nepali heritage authorities to replicate this approach in subsequent restoration projects has contributed to considerable delays.

The reconstruction of Rani Pokhari, from its initiation following community protests to its eventual completion, also underscores another significant gap in Nepali heritage management: the insufficient incorporation of local traditions and expertise in heritage preservation. The sustained campaigns by heritage professionals and community members advocating for the integration of local expertise and resources highlight the effectiveness and sustainability of such approaches in heritage conservation. One notable example is the use of ‘dyo cha’ (black clay), traditionally employed for its superior water retention properties, which was incorporated into the Rani Pokhari reconstruction. This material, sourced from various areas within the Kathmandu Valley as recommended by local community members and heritage professionals, exemplifies the rich engineering knowledge embedded in local practices. This illustrates the vital importance of incorporating indigenous knowledge in the management and preservation of cultural heritage, demonstrating its potential for enhancing both the sustainability and authenticity of heritage conservation efforts.

Current heritage management policies in Nepal are characterized by ambiguity, with foreign national governments often perceived as more reliable partners for reconstruction projects than local communities, despite the demonstrated success of community-led initiatives.

Paradoxically, community involvement is considered a last resort, undertaken only when other alternatives have been exhausted. The reconstruction of ‘Rani Pokhari’ exemplifies this misplaced prioritization.

Despite the country’s transition to a decentralized administrative framework, heritage management practices in Nepal remain predominantly centralized. Among government and non-government officials, as well as community members involved in this research, there is widespread agreement that community participation is essential for effective and sustainable heritage management. However, what is urgently required is a more defined and coherent vision within government policy regarding the implementation of community participation. Existing heritage laws and policies do not guarantee active community involvement in preservation and management; they only acknowledge local communities as stakeholders. While communities are often identified as primary beneficiaries and key stakeholders, current policies fail to ensure their substantive participation in the heritage management process, indicating a lack of genuine commitment to integrating them meaningfully into heritage governance practices.