Dipesh Shrestha | Kathmandu The proposed cable car project at Mukkumlung, also known as Pathibhara, in Nepal’s eastern Taplejung District has emerged as one of the country’s most contentious infrastructure developments. Promoted by the government as a catalyst for tourism and regional economic growth, the project has simultaneously ignited fierce opposition from sections of the Indigenous Limbu (Yakthung) community, the “No Cable Car” campaign, and identity-based advocacy groups.

At the heart of the dispute lies Mukkumlung, a site regarded by the Limbu community as sacred under the Mundhum, the Indigenous spiritual tradition. Opponents argue that constructing a cable car through the area would irreversibly damage its cultural, spiritual, and ecological integrity while undermining the long-standing tradition of pilgrimage on foot. They further contend that the project has proceeded without obtaining the community’s Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), alleging violations of the principles enshrined in the ILO Convention No. 169 and other international standards concerning the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Government of Nepal and the project’s developers reject these allegations. They maintain that the cable car will improve access to the shrine for elderly people, persons with disabilities, and pilgrims unable to undertake the arduous trek. They also argue that the project will stimulate religious tourism, create employment opportunities, strengthen local businesses, and contribute to the broader economic development of eastern Nepal. According to the developers, all required legal and administrative procedures have been duly completed.
The controversy intensified after violent clashes erupted in January 2025 (Magh 2081 in the Nepali calendar).

Confrontations between protesters and security personnel left members of both sides injured. Several demonstrators who sustained gunshot wounds were airlifted to Kathmandu for specialised medical treatment, while police officers also suffered injuries. The unrest subsequently spread across several eastern districts through strikes, demonstrations, and sustained protest campaigns.

In response to escalating tensions, Nepal’s Ministry of Home Affairs initiated dialogue with representatives of the protest movement. Although preliminary understandings were reportedly reached, campaigners later accused the government of failing to implement agreed commitments while allowing construction activities to continue. The “No Cable Car” movement subsequently launched a second phase of protests and announced that it was prepared to pursue the matter before international bodies if necessary.
The project has also generated significant environmental and legal concerns.

Questions have been raised regarding tree felling, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), construction procedures within environmentally sensitive areas, and compliance with Nepal’s legal framework. Protesters allege that environmental legislation and established regulatory processes have been breached. Project proponents, however, insist that all necessary approvals were obtained in accordance with prevailing laws and regulations.

Further public scrutiny has centred on land transactions associated with the project. Investigative reports published by several media organisations have questioned land acquisitions, rising property values, and the potential involvement of influential individuals and business interests. However, no competent authority has issued a final legal determination on these allegations, and the matter remains under public and institutional scrutiny.

The “No Cable Car” campaign has published a 17-point document outlining its objections. These include concerns relating to the preservation of Mukkumlung’s sacred status, the cultural rights of the Limbu community, environmental protection, legal compliance, community consent, biodiversity conservation, and the safeguarding of public resources. The movement maintains that cable car construction at Mukkumlung is fundamentally incompatible with the site’s religious and cultural significance. Supporters of the project, by contrast, argue that economic development and heritage conservation can coexist through appropriate safeguards and responsible management.

The dispute has drawn the attention of Nepal’s Supreme Court, human rights organisations, civil society groups, political parties, and international institutions concerned with Indigenous rights. Increasingly, the controversy is being viewed as extending well beyond a single infrastructure project. It has evolved into a broader national debate over competing models of development, Indigenous rights, environmental stewardship, the rule of law, and the relationship between the state and local communities.

Many observers argue that a durable resolution will require meaningful dialogue, legal clarity, greater transparency, and the restoration of trust between the government and the communities directly affected by the project.