Thursday, December 24, 2009

Re: Declaration of autonomous states/provinces

People have come up with some generalized statement – profoundly pregnant, too - perhaps intended to console people on the matter of eeclaration of autonomous states/provinces by UCPNM. But it raises a number of uncomfortable questions, instead.

We need to contemplate a few issues that are embedded in your statement:

“people can settle wherever they want”
Maybe true. But the way things are going on now and what is happening on the ground (the ground reality) is very different from what you have stated. People from, what is deemed, “hills” are being forced to sell off their properties at distress prices and migrate northwards. This already negates your statement. A few questions crop up in the minds of people who are very concerned by what is happening, is: Will this tendency increase with the restructuring of Nepal on ethno-linguistic-cultural lines? Is there any guarantee that this tendency will not escalate and snowball?

Some may succeed in resisting to this pressure to migrate. But, the question is, at what cost? This is not an issue of little importance that deserves to be swept under the carpet. These issues need to be discussed threadbare before Nepal is provincialized.

They are even planning to give “pre-emptive” right to participate in the governance a particular ethno-cultural-linguistic group. This will render rest of the inhabitants of a particular province second class citizen. Is this a feasible arrangement? Will it be possible for the advocates of provincialization on ethno-cultural-linguistic lines to ensure that no Nepali will become a second class citizen after the restructuring?

I hope you have logical answers to these questions.

“tradition and culture and language prioritaire can be different”
Are you implying that Nepal will no more be “democratic”? Because, if an inhabitant of a particular “state” will not be allowed to practice “tradition and culture and language” different from the official one, the polity will no more be democratic. The construction of your sentence, although intended to comfort people, is very alarming.

“State power can go go to Local people”
What will happen to “non-local” people? For example, what will happen to Newa people in Tansen that is under Magrat Rajya? I hope there are plausible explanations. Because this too will render the other people second class citizen.

“constructuction code will be Newar in Nepal Mandal etc.”
What will happen to Non Newars in Nepal Mandal then?

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Kalapatthar, Copenhagen and Climate Change

In their “concern” for global warming, hence climate change, caused by increasing emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), there have been a spate of steps taken by all and sundry. Highly publicized was the “under water cabinet meeting” held in Maldives, as that is where (under water) most of Maldives will end up if the incremental emission of GHGs at higher rate continues unabated. This globe is able to absorb GHG emission only to an extent through its myriad system, including forest and vegetation. The GHG emissions beyond this level exacerbate global warming and cause climate change.

Receding snow line
In the case of Nepal, direct impact of global warming has been seen in the receding snow lines as well as naked Himalayas (which is expected to be laden with snow). The receding snow line has created many a glacial lakes that can potentially cause glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) and ravage downstream areas. We already have had a couple of GLOFs. The threat posed by Tsho Rolpa glacial lake was mitigated in late 90s by cutting a channel through to let the water flow out of the lake such that its pressure on the moraine dam is released and the risk of GLOF is mitigated to an extent.

Adverse impact on tourismTourism industry becomes vulnerable with Himalayas becoming bereft of snow. As snow capped peaks of Nepal is great attraction to the tourists of the world. No snow will mean no, or reduced, tourists – one of the principal convertible currency earner of Nepal.

Population growth due to immigrationNepal is also vulnerable to the increasing sea level, not just Maldives. Politicos, bureaucrats and even quite a few “environmentalists” don’t seem to be aware of this threat. It doesn’t impact Nepal directly, though, as Nepal is a landlocked country. However, with the increase in the sea level and submergence of coastal areas of Bangladesh, the “environmental refugees” from that country will start migrating to higher altitude and Nepal will be a logical and safe haven for them. During “East Pakistan” war too, Nepal had to face migration of “war refugees” from there; quite a few of them have even settled down here. This will accelerate population growth in Nepal thus increasing pressure on sectors that Nepal is highly susceptible and vulnerable like food security, public services, infrastructure, et al.

Don’t exacerbate
In this backdrop global citizens are required to refrain from doing anything that will exacerbate the problem. Certain level of incremental growth of GHG emission is unavoidable to sustain economic growth, as economic growth feeds on increased energy consumption which fuels GHG emission (unless clean energy sources are increasingly used). A prudent policy is to hold down incremental GHG emission growth to a level the globe can sustain which is not a case any more. Another level of less prudent policy is to put a cap to incremental GHG emission growth rate; entailing abstaining from undertaking any nonessential activity that will thwart an attempt to cap the incremental GHG emission growth rate.

Activities showing concern for climate change – meeting in Kalapatthar
GoN aped (pun definitely intended!) Maldives in holding a cabinet meeting in Kalapatthar, with great pomp and ceremony (pride, too!), and announced certain measures thought to mitigate the problem. But to do this, in the considered opinion of this scribe, a nonessential trip to Kalapatthar was undertaken by 200 odd people as the same decisions could have been taken without exacerbating the problem of climate change. How did they succeed in exacerbating the problem?

In the name of this cabinet meeting these “environmentalists,” the “people” concerned for the environment of the world and Nepal in general and for the pristine environment of Sagarmatha in particular, added 14,485 kg of CO2 unnecessarily and they don’t seem to realize this. They should have at least not undertaken any activity that resulted in incremental emission of GHGs as such unnecessarily.

I have arrived at this incremental GHG emission by doing following computation. The distance from Kathmandu to Kalapatthar, as the crow flies, is about 170 km. But they flew to Lukla and were then ferried to the base camp in helicopters. Therefore, I have assumed the effective one way distance to be 200 km. CO2 equivalent emission per capita/mile in short haul flights is 0.2897 kg. and CO2 equivalent emission per capita for the flight from Kathmandu to Kalapathar comes to about 36.2125 kg and two-way is 72.425 kg. Therefore, CO2 equivalent emission for the trip by 200 people is 14485 kg. In other words, these “environmentalists” added 14.485 tons of CO2 for the meeting that could have been held in Kathmandu, unnecessarily.

Carnival in Copenhagen
It is said that over 600 people participated in Copenhagen jamboree from Nepal; comprising of many nonessential people (some enjoying even second honeymoons!). If these people were really concerned for the climate change only a couple of people should have undertaken the trip so that only a marginal amount of GHG could have been added. But the trip has happened and for this nonessential trip 971.8995 tons of GHG have been emitted and added to the globe thereby exacerbating the problem instead of mitigating it.

I have arrived at this incremental GHG emission by doing following computation. Flight from Kathmandu to Copenhagen can be deemed long haul flight but for the fact that we don’t have direct flight thereto. With the increase in the frequency of take off and landing the fuel efficiency takes a nose dive and intensity of CO2 emission increases. Therefore, I have used the carbon emission factor for medium haul flights of 0.2028 kg per mile. Distance between Kathmandu and Copenhagen is 3993.67 miles. Therefore, CO2 emission by one person during the trip is 809.9163 kg; two-way is 1619.833 kg. Hence CO2 emission by 600 persons during the trip comes to 971.8995 tons.

PS: I have taken the help of to do above computations.

Financial burden
I have not collated data on financial burden due to these trips undertaken in the name of mitigating climate change problem.
Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

"Women" and Declaration of autonomous states/provinces

December 21, 2009
Ms Lucky Sherpa
Member, Constituent Assembly

Lucky jee

In the rush to declare Nepal a federal state and UCPNM’s declaration of autonomous states/provinces, prematurely, people have simply neglected to contemplate the issue of “women”. It could also be due to the fact that “women” aren’t even in a position to lodge claim for their own separate “autonomous state/province” as have ethno-cultural/linguist groups have done. I am apprehensive that, at this rate women will continue to be excluded and marginalized.

I am surprised that very few women are raising these very pertinent issues. You have my full support.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: [] On Behalf Of Lucky Sherpa
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 12:45
Subject: Re: [NNSD] Declaration of autonomous states/provinces

Dear Dr.Lawati and Freinds

Thanks for your insights.

Indeed we are in process of restructuring the state and federalism is one of the way to manage diversity of our country. The only thing is how best we can manage the diversity.
So far while we are in process of crafting a state structure, we are setting up a basic criteria as identity and resource availability, but many experts are designing the structure only through majorotorian concept, but if we are addressing the issues of identity then one who holds less then one percentage of population has a right to have state.

Some questions i have on Federalism debate.
  • Will the Ethnic Federalims gaurantee the rights of Women?
  • How many ethnic states will be leaded by women?
  • How the minorities rights will be ensured in Ethnic federal structure?

With Best Wishes

Lucky Sherpa
Constituent Assembly

Monday, December 21, 2009

RE: [NNSD] Declaration of autonomous states/provinces

December 21, 2009
Mahendra Lawoti, Ph.D.
Associate Professor,
Department of Political Science, Western Michigan University
President, the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies

Dear Mahendrajee

Thanks for forwarding your article advocating ethnic federalism. But no thanks! I have come across many articles/papers/write ups in these lines but none has succeeded in swaying me from my conviction.

Those advocating restructuring Nepal on ethno-cultural-linguistic lines haven’t answered a few important questions of mine. I am recapitulating them below:
  • If Nepal is to have 10 odd autonomous states/provinces on ethno-cultural-linguistic lines, aren’t other 90 odd ethno-cultural-linguistic groups too entitled to statehood on the same lines? I am told there are about 100 ethno-cultural-linguistic groups in Nepal. Why should these groups be deprived from similar rights? In India we are presented with a new state each day (its a bit of exaggeration!) but she can sustain shock/trauma of such centrifugal tendencies. Where will Nepal be if Nepal is to start hiving off new states on ethno-cultural-linguistic lines – a country equal to an Indian state or even smaller?
  • With the proposed provision for special privileges/rights to a specific ethno-cultural-linguistic group in a particular province, what stops the rest from becoming second class citizens?
  • What treatment will be meted out to couples of mixed marriages?
  • Additionally what will happen to the children of such mixed marriage? Will the children be entitled to the special rights/privileges following one parent or become second class citizen like the “other” parent. We already have many mixed marriages. I am close to a Limbu colleague of mine married to a Khas. I hope restructuring of Nepal on ethno-cultural-linguistic lines will not require banning of such marriages.
  • I am given to understand that in none of the proposed “states” on ethno-cultural-religious lines, the so called “main” ethno-cultural-linguistic community is in majority (demographers please speak up). If this group is to have pre-emptive rights -अग्राधिकार - in matters related to governance, wouldn’t it result in minority rule over majority?

I am a proud Newar but first and foremost I am a highly nationalistic Nepali. I am not prepared to see fragmentation of my motherland which potentially could lead to untoward results. However, I am not against federal structure per se, if it is beneficial for Nepal and Nepali people. I, too, have come up with my own suggestion for restructuring of Nepal from the perspective of water resource; having been working in this sector for last two and half decades. I firmly believe that Nepal’s fate lies in optimum exploitation of water resources and I have come up with the recommendation for restructuring under which optimum exploitation of water resources will be ensured. If you haven’t already come across it you can peruse it by visiting following page of my blog:

PS: BTW you are not alone in being rejected by the owners (moderators) of this forum (NNSD) – by not posting your contributions. But it is for the owners to decide to post or not to post pursuant to their policies. However, I am confident that my rejoinder to you (which too got posted) will be posted as it was I who started a discourse on the captioned subject.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Mahendra Lawoti []
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 9:14
To: NSSDCc:;; Misra;
Subject: RE: [NNSD] Declaration of autonomous states/provinces

Dear Dwarikaji, Ratnaji and all:

Please find below my piece on the "Myth of Non-ethnic Federalism" published last year in the Kathmandu Post (Democracy day supplement). I am attaching it in case it had not caught your attention (I am sending the email to your personal address as well because some of my and others' responses have not been posted in this forum in democratic Nepal where "people are free to express their views" (obviously everyone is not extended the rights equally).

Happy reading,

Kathmandu Post 2009 Democracy Day Supplement, February 18

Friday, December 18, 2009

हाम्रो जलबिद्युत बिकासको दर्शन नै उल्टो छ !

हिउँद लाग्यो । यतिबेला हामीलाई विद्युत धेरै चाहिन्छ । ठीक यसैबेला अब विद्युत पुग्नेगरि आपूर्ति हुदैन । त्यसैकारण अब अँध्यारा रातहरु सुरु भएका छन् र बिहान दिउंसो पनि उद्योग धन्दा बन्द गरेर बस्ने अवस्था आएकोछ । हामीले अब उज्यालो नै देख्न नपाउने भन्ने कुरा त भएन, तर जबसम्म नीति निर्माता, कर्मचारी संयन्त्र, राजनीतिकर्मी र शक्ति केन्दमा बस्ने मन्त्रीहरुले समय र समयको आवश्यकतालाई सहिरुपमा पहिचान गर्न सक्दैनन् यो अध्याँरो हट्दैन । हाम्रा नीति निर्माताहरु यही ढर्राबाट अगाडि बढिरहे भने एउटा कुरा के चािहं सुनिश्चित छ भने अबको दश बर्षमा लोडसेडिङ एक दिनमा २४ घण्टा चाँही नाघदैन ! अनि हामीहरु यसैमा खुसी भएर रमाउनु पर्ने हुनसक्छ ।

पाँच बर्षपछि लोडसेडिङ हुन्नहाम्रा ऊर्जामन्त्रीले किटानीका साथ अबको पाँच बर्षपछि लोडसेडिङ हुँदै हुँदैन भन्नु भएको छ । उहाँले यो तर्क पुष्टाई कसरी गर्नु भयो भने त्यत्तिंजेलमा ४ सय ५६ मेगावाटको माथिल्लो तामाकोसी तयार हुन्छ र त्यस्तै अन्य आयोजनाहरुको पनि सम्पन्न हुन्छन् । अहिले जडित क्षमता ६ सय ८९ मेगावाट छ । अब ५ वर्षमा उहाँहरु आठ सय मेगावाट जडित क्षमता थप हुन्छ भन्नुहुन्छ । यसरी अबको पाँच बर्ष पछाडि कूल जडित क्षमता करिब १५ सय मेगावाट हुन्छ र नेपाल बिद्युत प्राधिकरणको प्रक्षेपण अनुसार त्यतिबेला माग करिब १२ सय ७१ मेगावाट हुन्छ । सतही रुपमा हेर्दा लोडसेडिङ हुँदैन । वहांहरुको हिसाब ठीकै देखिन्छ । तर यसमा मेरो भनाई के छ भने यो हिसाब त्रुटीपूर्ण छ । ऊर्जामन्त्रीले सही कुरो नबुझेका कारणले वा नबुझाइएको कारणले यो गलत तर्क अगाडि सारिरहनु भएको छ र जनतामा भ्रान्ति छरिरहनुभएकोछ ।

ऊर्जामन्त्रीले के कुरा बुभुनु भएन भने पोहोर हिउँदमा ८ सय १२ मेगावाट बिजुलीको माग थियो र मध्य मस्र्याङ्दी निर्माण भइसकेकाले जडित क्षमता ६ सय ८७ मेगावाट थियो । तर पोहोर हिउँदमा १६ घण्टा लोडसेडिङ भयो । आठ सय १२ मेगावाट मांग भएको ठाउँमा ६ सय ८७ मेगावाट जडित क्षमता हुँदा १६ घण्टा लोडसेडिङ किन भयो यो प्रश्नको जवाफ खोज्न त्यति गाह्रो छैन । जडित क्षमता ६ सय ८७ मेगावाट भए पनि उक्त समयमा विद्युत उत्पादन तीन सय मेगावाटको हाराहारीमा मात्र भएकोले मांग अनुसार बिजुली आपूर्ति भएन र जनताले लोडसेडिङको मार खेप्न पर् यो ।

यदि भगवानको कृपाले सन् २०१३/१४ सम्ममा ८ सय मेगावाट जडित क्षमतामा थपियो भने त्यो बेला जडित क्षमता १५ सय मेगावाटको हाराहारीमा हुन्छ । माग १२ सय ७१ मेगावाट हुने विद्युत प्राधिकरणको नै प्रक्षेपण छ । उक्त समयमा पनि हिउँदमा सात सय मेगावाटको हाराहारीमा मात्र बिजुली उत्पादन हुन्छ । किनभने जलविद्युतको नियम नै के हुन्छ भने जलप्रवाहमा आधारित आयोजनाबाट जडित क्षमताको ६० देखि ६५ प्रतिशत र कुलेखानी जस्तो जलाशययुक्त परियोजना बाट जडित क्षमताको ३० देखी ४० प्रतिशत मात्र बिजुली उत्पादन हुन्छ । त्यसकारण औषत उत्पादन ५० प्रतिशत भन्दा नाघ्दै नाघ्दैन । अनि हाम्रो माग १२ सय ७१ मेगावाट र उत्पादन सात सयको हाराहारीमा मात्र भएपछि लोडसेडिङ कहाँबाट हट्छ

हामीले माथि नै चर्चा गर् यौँ कि हिउँदमा कूल जडित क्षमताको ५० प्रतिशत भन्दा कम मात्र विद्युत उत्पादन हुन्छ । यस्तोमा यदि १२ सय ७१ मेगावाटको मांगलाई लोडसेडिङ नगरिकन विद्युत उपलब्ध गराउने हो भने हाम्रो जडित क्षमता २५ सय मेगावाट हुनुपर्छ । त्यसकारण मेरो हिसाबले के देखाउँछ भने अर्को पाँच बर्षपछि यदि सरकारी योजना अनुसार विद्युत आयोजनाहरु सम्पन्न भएभने पनि लोडसेडिङ अवश्यंभावी छ । मेरो हिसाब कसैले पनि गलत सिद्ध गर्न सक्यो भने म मेरा सबै शैक्षिक योग्यताका प्रमाणपत्रहरु सार्बजनिक रुपमा च्यातेर आगो लगाउँनेछु । म अमेरिकामा पढेर चार्टर्ड एकाउनटेन्ट भएको हुं । म कानुन व्यावसायी पनि हुँ । मैले व्यवस्थापनमा स्नातकोत्तर पनि गरेकोछु । अबको पाँच बर्ष पछि लोडसेडिङ शुन्यमा झार्ने हो भने १२ सय ७१ मेगावाटको उच्च मागलाई धान्ने गरेर अबको पाँच बर्ष भित्रमा १८ सय मेगावाट जडित क्षमतामा थप गर्नुपर्छ । जुन कुरा वर्तमान नेतृत्व, मानसिकता र प्रबृत्तिले सम्भव छैन । हाम्रो दुर्भाग्य नै यही हो ।

१० बर्षपछि लोडसेडिङ हुन्न
प्राधिकरणको प्रक्षेपण अनुसार अबको १० बर्ष पछि नेपालमा बिजुलिको माग १९ सय ६ मेगावाट हुन्छ । १९ सय मेगावाट भन्दा बढी बिजुलीको मागलाई धान्न त्यो समयमा कूल जडित क्षमता ४ हजार मेगावाटको हाराहारीमा हुनुपर्छ । अहिलेको ७ सय मेगावाट जडित क्षमतालाई ४ हजार मेगावाट बनाउन ३३ सय मेगावाट जडित क्षमतामा थप गर्नुपर्छ । गिरिजाप्रसाद देखि प्रचण्ड र माधव नेपाल सरकारको रबैया र ढर्रा हेर्ने हो भने अबको १० बर्षमा नेपालमा खपत गर्ने गरेर थप ३३ सय मेगावाट निर्माण गर्न सक्दै सक्दैनन् । त्यसैले अबका दश बर्ष पछि जसरी अरु उज्यालो हुने कुरा गरिन्छ तर म त त्यो भन्दा पनि बढी अनुपातमा अँध्यारो बढ्ने सम्भावना देखिरहेको छु ।

अहिले हामीले पंचेश्वरका गफ सुनिरहेका छौँ । अब बनिहाल्ने भयो भन्ने हौवा िफंजाइएको छ । पंचेश्वरबाट नेपाल तर्फ ३३ सय मेगावाट बिजुली उत्पादन हुन्छ भनिएको छ । तर पंचेश्वरको बिजुली नेपालका लागि होइन भारतका लागि हो । पंचेश्वरमा १ सय ११ अरब रुँपैया लगानी गर्नुपर्छ । त्यो नेपालको क्षमताभन्दा बाहिरको कुरा हो । यदि हामीले १० बर्षमा लोडसेडिङ अन्त्य गरेर नेपाली जनतालाई उज्यालोमा बस्न दिने हो भने त्यति पैसाको जोहो गरेर ३३ सय मेगावाट थप नेपालमा खपत गर्ने गरि आयोजना निर्माण गर्नुपथ्र्यो । पंचेश्वरले नेपालको होइन भारतको लोडसेडिङ हटाउँछ ।

हामी एकछिन आशावादी कुरा गरौँ । जस्तो १० बर्ष भित्रमा पंचेश्वर निर्माण भयो । उक्त बिजुली नेपालमै खपत गर्न सकिने भयो । यसो हुँदा पनि लोडसेडिङको बढी चाप, मांग बढी भएको ठाउँसम्म उक्त बिजुली ल्याउन ४ सय केभीको प्रशारण संजाल बनाउनुपर्छ । यो निकै महंगो हुन्छ । यो क्षमताको प्रशारण संजाल बनाएननौं भने आधीभन्दा बढी त चुहिएर प्रशारणमै सकिन्छ । त्यसकारण बुद्धिमतापूर्ण कार्य त के हुन्छ भने नेपालमा १० बर्षभित्रमा लोडसेडिङ हटाउन नेपालको खपतको लागि ३३ सय मेगावाट जडित क्षमता थप निर्माण गर्नुपथ्र्यो । यसका लागि बिजुलीको अत्याधिक माग भएका पूर्वााचल, मध्यमााचल र/या पश्चिमााचल बिकास क्षेत्रमा ३३ सय मेगावाट क्षमताको थप आयोजना निर्माण तिर लाग्नु पथ्र्यो ।

क्षेत्रिय मांग र आपूर्तिअहिलेकै सन्र्दभमा हेर्दा पनि सुदुरपश्चिमााचल बिकास क्षेत्रमा लोडसेडिङ छैन (चौबिसै घण्टा, बाह्रै महिना अंध्यारोमा बस्नेहरु बाहेक) । टनकपुरबाट आएको बिजुली पनि पहिले धेरैजसो खेर जान्थ्यो । अब क्षेत्रगत रुपमा हेर्ने हो भने पूर्वााचलमा विद्युत खपत २ सय ५० मेगावाट जति छ । त्यो ठाउँमा बिजुली उत्पादनमा जम्मा १४ मेगावाट मात्र छ । पूर्वााचलका सबै उद्योग प्रतिष्ठानहरु पूर्ण क्षमतामा संचालनमा आउने हो भने थप २ सय मेगावाट बिजुली त्यहाँ अहिले नैं चाहिन्छ । अर्थात आजकै मितिमा तयार गरेर दिने हो भने पनि ४ सय ५० मेगावाट बिजुली पूर्वााचलले तत्काल खपत गर्न सक्छ ।

अरुण तेस्रो
अहिले अरुण तेस्रो परियोजनाको चर्चा फेरि चलेको छ । यदि सबै कुरा सुचारु र सामान्य ढंगले चल्ने हो भने ३/४ बर्षमा अरुण तेस्रो बनिसक्छ । अब तथ्यांकलाई संयोजन गरेर हेर्ने हो भने पूर्वमा अहिले तत्काल चार सय मेगावाट विजुली चाहिन्छ र अबका ३/४ बर्षमा २/३ सय मेगावाट थप बिजुली पूर्वले माग्छ । भन्नुको मतलब के भयो भने अरुण तेस्रो निर्माण भइसक्ने बेलासम्ममा पूर्वााचललाई ६ सय मेगावाट भन्दा बढी बिजुली चाहिन्छ । हाम्रो सरकारले अरुण तेस्रोलाई निकासीमूलक बनाएको छ । यसो हुँदा के हुन्छ भने अरुण तेस्रोबाट बिजुली उत्पादन भएर भारत जान्छ । भारतको लोडसेडिङ घट्छ । पूर्वााचल अझ अँध्यारो हुन्छ । उद्योगहरु संचालन हुन सक्दैनन् रोजगारीको अभावमा नेपाली युवा बिदेशमा दुख खेप्नेले निरन्तरता पाउनेछ ।

मगन्ते नीित
हाम्रो नीति नै मगन्ते नीति छ । किनभने निकासीमूलक आयोजना बनाउन दिने र त्यसबाट निशूल्क बिजुली पाउने आशामा केन्द्रित हाम्रो नीति हो । अरुण तेस्रोबाट नेपालले ८८ मेगावाट निशूल्क बिजुली पाउंछ । अहिले उत्पादन भइरहेको १४ मेगावाट र अरुण तेस्रो सम्पन्न भएपछि निशूल्क आउने बिजुली ८८ मेगावाट गरेर जम्मा १ सय २ मेगावाट मात्र जडित क्षमता हुन्छ पूर्वांचलमा । ६ सय मेगावाट भन्दा बढी माग भएको बेलामा जम्मा एक सय २ मेगावाट मात्र जडित क्षमता हुँदा संकट त झन् बढ्ने निश्चित छ । यस्तो मगन्ते नीतिले लोडसेडिङको समस्या समाधान हुँदैन । यो कुरा न हिजोकाले बुझे, न आजकाले बुझ्न सकेका छन् । र म के निष्कर्षमा पुगेको छु भने यिनीहरुसँग बुझ्ने क्षमता नै छैन । म भगवानसंग प्रार्थना गर्दैछु कि नीति निर्माताहरुले यस्तो मगन्ते नीतिले लोडसेडिङ हट्दैन भन्ने बुझ्ने क्षमता र बुद्धि प्राप्त गरुन् ।

४३ हजार मेगावाट नेपालले खपत गर्न सक्दैन
नेपालको ४३ हजार मेगावाट जलविद्युत आर्थिक रुपमा सम्भाव्य छ भन्ने कुरा हामी सबैले सुनेका छौँ र यिनीहरु भन्छन् कि यो बिजुली हामी खपत गर्न सक्दैनौँ । यसलाई निर्यात गर्नुपर्छ । प्रमुख समस्या नै यही सोचमा छ । किनभने अहिले नेपालमा प्रतिव्यक्ति वार्षिक विद्युत खपत ७० किलोवाटघण्टा (युनिट) छ । हाम्रा नेताहरु युरोपको गफ गर्छन् । आइसल्याण्डमा प्रतिव्यक्ति वार्षिक ३० हजार युनिट खपत हुन्छ, नर्वेमा २५ हजार युनिट । यदि हाम्रा नेताको सद्बुद्धी आयो र ४३ हजार मेगावाट बिजुली पूरै निर्माण भयो र नेपालमा मात्रै खपत गर्ने भयो भने पनि अहिलेको नेपालको जनसंख्या २ करोड ७० लाखको हाराहारीमा मान्दा विद्युत खपत गर्न प्रतिव्यक्ति ७ हजार युनिट मात्र उपलब्ध हुन्छ । हाम्रो ४३ हजार मेगावाट विद्युत सन् २०३० सम्ममा निर्माण भइसक्यो भने त्यो बेलामा, अहिलेको प्रक्षेपण अनुसार, नेपालको जनसंख्या ४ करोड पुग्छ । यसो हुँदा उक्त ४३ हजार मेगावाट बिजुली सबै नेपालमै खपत गर्दा पनि प्रतिव्यक्ति ४ हजार ७ सय युनिट मात्रै हुन्छ । अर्को किसिमले हेर्ने हो भने १० हजार युनिट बिजुली प्रतिव्यक्ति खपत पुर् याउन नेपाललाई मात्रै ९० हजार मेगावाट भन्दा बढी जडित क्षमता चाहिन्छ । यो कुरा हाम्रा धेरै नीति निर्माताले बुझेनन् । उनीहरु के भनिरहेका छन भने ४३ हजार मेगावाट भनेको साह्रै धेरै हो । यो सबै खपत हामीले गर्न सक्दैनौँ । त्यसकारण एक मात्र विकल्प भारत निकासी गर्नु नै हो ।

हाम्रा नीति निर्माताको दिमागमा यो ज्ञान भरिए हुन्थ्यो कि देशमा ऊर्जा खपतको बृद्धि सँगै आर्थिक सम्बृद्धि पनि बढ्छ । अर्थात ऊर्जा खपत बढेपछि मात्रै आर्थिक बिकास बढेर जान्छ । यो कुरा नबुझेकै कारण हाम्रा राम्रा राम्रा आयोजनालाई भारत निकासीको लागि भनेर राख्ने र त्यसबाट केहि प्रतिशत निशुल्क बिजुली लिएर नेपालको लोडसेडिङ हटाउँछु भन्ने मुख्र्याई यहाँ भइरहेको छ । तथ्यांक नै हेर् यो भने पनि पश्चिम सेतिबाट १० प्रतिशत अर्थात ७५ मेगावाट, माथिल्लो कर्णालीबाट १२ प्रतिशत अर्थात ३६ मेगावाट र अरुण तेस्रोबाट २१.९ प्रतिशत अर्थात ८८ मेगावाट गरेर कूल एक सय ९९ मेगावाट बिजुली नेपाललाई निशूल्क आउँछ । यो मगन्ते तरिकाबाट एक सय ९९ मेगावाट बिजुली नेपाललाई उपलब्ध गराएर नेपालको लोडसेडिङ पाँच बर्ष भित्रमा शून्यमा झर्दैन ।

त्यसकारण मेरो भनाई के हो भने हाम्रो बिकासको दर्शन नै गलत भयो । उहाँहरु ४३ हजार मेगावाट बिजुली नेपालले खपत गर्न सक्दैन भन्नु हुन्छ त्यो दर्शन नै गलत छ । यसो भन्दै गर्दा मैले बिजुली निकासी गर्नु नै हुँदैन भनेको होइन । मेरो भनाई के हो भने आपुूलाई पुग्ने भएपछि मात्र बिजुली निर्यात गर्नुपर्छ भन्ने बुझाई सबैमा आउनुपर्छ । ऊर्जाको खपत र उर्जा खपत गर्ने क्षमता बृद्धिसँगै आर्थिक सम्बृद्धि जोडिएको हुन्छ ।
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
बिजनेस प्लसको वर्ष ३ अंक १० २०६६ पौष १ मा प्रकाशित - वार्तामा आधारित

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Re: [NNSD] Declaration of autonomous states/provinces

December 17, 2009
Dear Bimal Koiralajee

Federalism has already been enshrined in the Interim Constitution and we are bound to restructure Nepal into various provinces and it will be well neigh impossible to not to have federal structure. Therefore, simply saying that “Nepal should not be a federal state” doesn’t solve the problem. Actually this may beget more violence as UCPNM has put its prestige on line for “federal” Nepal.

On the other hand, having been studying the water resource sector in general and Nepal’s water resource sector in particular for quite a while, in my considered opinion, the optimum exploitation of water resource can only be achieved by taking a river basin approach. But this doesn’t seem to be possible in unitary Nepal – not at least from the experience so far. Further, Nepal’s future lies in her water resources and Nepal can easily be metamorphosed by achieving optimum exploitation of it in her own interest.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that we should have 3 provinces based on our three major river systems, viz. Sapta Koshi, Sapta Gandaki and Karnali. I have tentatively called them as follows: Sapta Koshi-Mechi Rajya, Sapta Gandaki Rajya and Karnali-Mahakali Rajya with Kathmandu valley and other minor river systems as federal territory and the capital. I have written an article on the subject which was published in the current issue Urja Nepal. You can peruse the full article at following webpage:

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha,

From: [] On Behalf Of Bimal Koirala
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 17:03
Subject: Re: [NNSD] Declaration of autonomous states/provinces

Dear All:

Nepal's basic problem is the state-people interface; federalism is not the drug for such ills. Since interim constitution has clearly spelt out Nepal as a federal state, I do not write anti-current. However, I must say the threats might become unmanageable if we divide this country solely on the basis of ethnicity. There are several considerations to be made before restructuring the state-its geography, resources, local economy, pattern of trade, infrastructures besides ethno-lingual element. If we forget any of these, we may fall into trap of national division. Social coherence should be the virtue of restructuring.

Let's try to bring this agenda from a narrow coterie of politicians and make a national agenda to be discussed and decided by people-at-large.

Bimal Koirala

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM, <> wrote:

People are free to express their views.But it seems less likely to move backward as the interim constitution has declared Nepal as a federal state and lot of aspirations have been provoked. Now, the only question is how best the country is divided into states keeping sovereignty, integrity, harmony and inclusion intact.

SG Joshi___________________________
Surendra Govinda Joshi

Guru Neupane ---12/16/2009 02:17:09 PM

---Nepal should not be a federal state. --

Guru Neupane <>
Date: 12/16/2009 02:17 PM
Subject: [NNSD] Declaration of autonomous states/provinces
Sent by:

Nepal should not be a federal state.

-- Guru Neupane

Arun Valley Hydropower Company Ltd.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Declaration of autonomous states/provinces

I am an apolitical person and have been commenting on policies and programs of various political parties on the basis of merits thereof. I have, for example, wholeheartedly supported the stance taken by UCPNM as to Mahakali treaty being detrimental to Nepal and anti national. However, I am unable to agree with UCPNM’s spate of declaration of various autonomous provinces mainly for following reasons:

Ø Not legitimate: These declarations are not legitimate because one political party doesn’t have authority to declare as such. In other words, UCPNM doesn’t have authority to restructure Nepal in this fashion.

Ø Not democratic: These declarations, by UCPNM, a party with about 40% seats in CA, do not constitute a democratic move. Besides, all other political parties too can go around declaring various provinces of their own as such and will still be undemocratic. Unless two-third CA members formally resolve to declare as such, the declarations will not be a democratic exercise.

Ø Unconstitutional: Clause (3) of article 138 of Interim Constitution has expressly stipulated that the final decision relating to state restructuring shall be made by the Constituent Assembly. In this backdrop ex parte declaration of various provinces by UCPNM is being done in contravention of the Interim Constitution.

Ø No due process: The process to restructure is for the CA to finish writing the constitution and, thereafter, promulgate it, in doing which a decision will be reached as to how Nepal is to be restructured. As CA has yet to reach a decision in this respect, the declaration fails to conform to the process envisaged by the Interim Constitution.

Ø Not by “popular” demand: The declaration of these “states” doesn’t conform to popular aspirations. According to the survey conducted by Inter Disciplinary Analysts, only 13.4 percent of the population is in favor of declaration of states/provinces on ethnic or linguistic lines or on the lines of nationalities (vide Table 1 below). In my analysis too this is not in Nepal’s interest and I have written several articles on the subject, which can be viewed at:

Let’s take the case of declaration of Newa Autonomous State, to be made today. According to Table 2 below – result of the same study referred to above, only 22 percent of Newa people are in favor of this and 36 percent opine that “Nepal should not be a federal state”. From this it is clear that people in Nepal aren’t in favor of this type of state restructuring. A consensus needs to be reached as to whether Nepal needs to be restructured and how best to do so in the best interest of the country and people and only then a move should be made towards this.

Ø Not genuine declaration: UCPNM has acceded publicly that the declaration is just “publicity”. Based on this confession on the part of UCPNM, some have even called it “publicity stunt” or a political “farce.” UCPNM should be careful in taking such actions.

Table 1

Table 2

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Friday, December 4, 2009

Cabinet meeting in Sagarmatha base camp

They are going to have a cabinet meeting in Sagarmatha base camp. People are coming up with all sorts of commets. However, one also needs to look at this FARCE from another perspective, too. They are going to hold this meeting to draw the attention of the world to global warming, caused by GHG emission. But due to this unnecesary trip of about 200 people to the area - with so may aircrafts flying to and fro, the place with pristine atmospere - many more tons of GHG will be emitted, thereby further aggravating the global warming problem. This whole thing is like a monkey copying from a man having his morning shave.

If these people were genuinely concerned for the environment they should have done something to eliminate/ reduce their carbon footprit, rather than increasing it.
Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Mahakai/Pancheswor project

November 30, 2009
Mr Saughagya Shah
Tribhuvan University

Dear Saubhagyajee

Good to hear from you.

Due to BBC’s time constraint, many important things I said wasn’t broadcast. One question I asked of Mr Lacoul was if the principle of “equality” (not even equity) is enshrined in Mahakali treaty – he kept on emphasizing it – then how can 3.5% and 96.5% be equal. Similarly, my question on how can 93,000 hectares and 1.6 million (he actually said it is 2.4 million) hectare – to be irrigated upon completion of Pancheshwar project – be equal didn’t get broadcast and his failure to answer these questions too.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Saubhagya Shah []
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 15:42
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: ADB pulling out of West Seti project

Dear Mr. Shrestha,

Heard your persuasive facts and arguments on BBC yesterday on Mahakai/Pancheswor project. I fail see why people are so enthusiastic about a project that will give most of the benefits to India. As you mentioned so eloquently, the principle of sovereignty or even equality in the sharing of benefits seems to have been thrown out of consideration.

Keep informing!


From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 7:16:50 AM
Subject: FW: ADB pulling out of West Seti project

Dear Mr Senga

Two mainstream vernacular dailies (Gorkhapatra yesterday and Nagarik on Friday) have reported that ADB is pulling out of West Seti project. We in Nepal would appreciate it if you could confirm the news.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

जलश्रोतको विकासमा संघियता अभिशाप नबनोस्

नेपाल संघात्मक हुने र के कसरी प्रान्तियकरण गर्ने भन्ने विवाद अहिले चुलिएको छ । नेपालमा विद्यमान समस्या र यसको समाधान संघियताबाट के कसरी हुन्छ र संघिय संरचनामा गए पछि जलश्रोतको दोहनमा के कस्तो प्रभाव पर्छ भन्ने सन्दर्भमा विश्लेशण गर्नु समसामयिक हुनेछ ।

समस्याको चुरो
संघियताको पक्षपोषण गर्नेहरुले अधिकांश जनता उपेक्षित, उत्पिडित, सीमान्तकृत छन् र बहिस्करणमा परेको, पछाडि पारिएको आदि कारण दर्शाइ संघियताको पैरवी गरेका छन । विषेश गरेर विभिन्न जातजातीय समूहलाई यसरी पछाडि पारिएको कारण दर्शाइ जातिय आधारमा विभिन्न प्रान्तहरु घोषित गर्नु पर्ने माग उठेको छ । समस्या अवश्य पनि विद्यमान छ । तर समाधान संघियताको नाममा देशको विखण्डीकरण भने होइन । प्रान्तियकरण पछि पनि प्रत्येक प्रान्त एकामत्क नैं हुने छिमेकी मुलुकहरुको अनुभवबाट देखिन्छ । तसर्थ पछाडि पारिएकाको समस्या समाधान नभई अझ बल्झिने अवस्था देखिन्छ ।

वास्तविक समस्या के हो भने जनताको कल्याण र समृद्धिको लागि खर्च गर्ने भनेर छुट्याइएको रकमको ठूलो हिस्सा विभिन्न शिर्षकमा प्रशासनिक खर्च गरेर सकिन्छ । त्यसकारण विकास निर्माणमा जनताको पहुंच पुगेको छैन । अधिकांश जनता शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य जस्ता अत्यावश्यक सेवाबाट बंचित छन् सीमित टाठाबाठा बाहेक । यही कारणले बहुसंख्यक जनता बहिस्करणमा परेका छन् । प्रान्तियकरण पछि विभिन्न प्रान्तको शासकीय संयन्त्रमा थप खर्च भएर जनताको कल्याण र उन्नतिमा हुने खर्च अझ घटेर एक चौथाईको हाराहारीमा झर्नेछ ।

विभेद प्रतिको आक्रोश समेत जातिय संघियताको मागको रुपमा मुखरित भएको छ । भारतमा केही हदसम्म जातिय अथवा भाषागत आधारमा प्रान्तहरु बनाइएका छन् । तर सीमान्तकृत समुदायको र बहिस्करणमा परेकाको समस्या यथावत छ । तसर्थ भारतको अधिकांश प्रान्त भन्दा पनि सानो देश नेपाललाई संघियताको नाममा बिखण्डित गरेर समस्या समाधान हुने होइन ।

काठमाडौंको अधिनायकबाद
नेपालको शासकीय संरचना लगायत नीति निर्माण तथा कार्यान्वयनको संयन्त्र गैरसमाबेशी हुनुको सबै दोष काठमाडौंको तानाशाहीमा थोपर्ने चलन पनि छ । आज पर्यन्त नेपालमा जे जति गैरसमाबेशी नीति निर्माण तथा कार्यान्वयन भए ती सबै काठमाडौंमा बसेर गरिएको यथार्थ हो । तर नेपालको एकिकरण पछि हर्ताकर्ता काठमाडौंका रैथाने कहिल्यै भएनन् । तर दोष जति काठमाडौं माथि थोपरिएको छ र संघियताको नाममा आत्मनिर्णय सहित प्रान्तियकरणको माग गरिएकोछ । त्यो पनि जातियताको आधारमा । प्रश्न उठ्छ दोष काठमाडौंको माटोको हो कि, हावाको अथवा नदीमा बग्ने पानीको (काठमाडौंका आदिबासीको यहां जायजन्म भए तापनि यी पनि बहिस्करणको समस्याबाट मुक्त रहेको अवस्था छैन) । विश्व मानचित्रबाट युगोस्लाभियाको नाम मेटिएबाट धेरैले पाठ सिकेको छैनन् अथवा जानीबुझी देशलाई त्यसै तर्फ धकेल्न चाहन्छन् ।

अन्तरिम संबिधान
संबिधानको ढांचा कस्तो हुने, यसमा के कस्ता प्रावधानहरु राख्ने लगायत मुलुक एकात्मक नै रहने कि संघियतामा जाने आदि विषयमा संबिधान सभाले छलफल गरेर निक्र्योल गरी नयाँ बन्ने संविधानमा समावेश गर्नुपर्ने हो । तर अन्तरिम व्यवस्थापिका-संसदले नै अन्तरिम संविधानको धारा १३८(१) मा पहिलो संशोधनद्वारा "संघिय शासन प्रणाली सहितको अग्रगामी पुनसंरचना गरिनेछ" भन्ने व्यवस्था गरेर नेपाललाई संघियतामा लैजाने निधो गरियो । संघियता के हो, यसले मुलुकमा के कस्ता अनुकूल प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पार्छ भन्ने बारे नबुझिकनै नेपाल जस्तो सानो मुलुक संघिय शासन प्रणालीमा जानु अग्रगामि हुन्छ वा अन्यथा भन्ने निक्र्योल गर्नु अगावै अन्तरिम व्यवस्थापिका-संसदले नैं नेपाललाई संघिय राज्य घोषणा गरिदियो । यस विषयमा छलफल र सहमति गर्ने अवसरबाट संविधान सभाका सदस्यहरु र नेपाली जनतालाई समेत बंचित पारिएको छ ।

जनताले निर्वाचित नगरेको तत्कालिन अन्तरिम व्यवस्थापिका-संसदका सदस्यहरुलाई संविधान लेख्नकै लागि जनताद्वारा निर्वाचित संविधान सभाकै जस्तो अधिकार सम्पन्न मान्न सकिन्न । नेपाली जनता संघियता भनेको के हो यसले के कस्तो सकारात्मक/नकरात्मक प्रभाव पर्छ भन्ने बुझ्न चाहन्छन् । नेपाल जस्तो सानो मुलुकलाई आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार सहित विभिन्न प्रान्तहरुमा बिखण्डित गर्नु लाभदायक हुन्छ कि हुन्न भनेर वृहत रुपमा छलफल, मन्थन, चिन्तन हुनु जरुरी छ । यसरी बिखण्डन गरे पछिको परिणति के हुनसक्छ भन्ने पनि बेलैमा सोच्न आवश्यक छ ।

अग्राधिकार र शासकीय संयन्त्र
अहिले कतिपय राजनैतिक दलको समर्थनमा जातिय आधारमा संघियताको माग सशक्त रुपमा उठेको छ । जस अन्तर्गत जातिविषेश, रैथानेलाई अग्राधिकार अथवा विषेश अधिकारसम्पन्न हुने भनिएकोछ । अन्य जातजातिको अधिकारमा अंकुश लाग्ने वा अन्यलाई सीमित अधिकार मात्र हुने जानकारीमा आएको छ । यसको सोझो अर्थ हुन्छ नेपाल भित्रै प्रान्त विषेशमा नेपाली नागरिक दोश्रो दर्जाका ठहरिनेछन् । अनि अग्राधिकार र विषेश अधिकार अन्तर्गत प्रान्त विषेशमा निश्चित जातजातिले मात्र शासकीय संयन्त्रमा प्रवेश पाउने कुरा पनि आएको छ । लोकतान्त्रिक हिसाबमा जातजाति विषेशको बहुमत रहेको अवस्थामा शासनमा यिनको हालीमुहाली हुनु स्वाभाविक मान्नुपर्ने हुन्छ, जातजाति विषेशले एकै प्रकारले मतदान गरेको अवस्थामा । अन्यथा बहुमत माथि अल्पमतले शासन गर्ने अवस्था आउँछ । जनताको अधिकारमा अंकुश लागेमा वा तिनीहरुले सीमित अधिकार मात्र पाउने स्थिति भएमा र शासकिय संयन्त्रमा समेत सहभागिता नपाउने अवस्था बनेमा थातथलो छोडेर जाने अवस्था पनि आउने सम्भावना हुन्छ । पहाडिया मूलका भनिएका स्थानिय बासिन्दा तराईबाट बसाई सर्ने प्रकृयामा शुरु नै भईसकेछ र जातिय आधारमा राज्यको पुनःसंरचना भएमा यो प्रकृयाले विकराल रुप लिनसक्छ । आफ्नो घरजग्गा अत्यन्त न्यून मूल्यमा बिक्री गरेर नेपाल भित्रैबाट नेपालीले बसाई सर्न पर्नु भनेको शुभ लक्षण होइन । नेपाल जस्तो सानो देशलाई यस्तो समस्या थेग्न सजिलो हुने छैन ।

आर्थिक बोझ
अहिले नेपालमा एक/एक वटा राष्ट्रपति, उपराष्ट्रपति, प्रधानमन्त्री र ४०/४५ जनाको मन्त्रीमण्डल, अनि व्यवस्थापिका, न्यायपालिका, बिभिन्न आयोगहरु बिद्यमान छन् । यत्तिको लागि वार्षिक झण्डै १ अर्ब रुपैयाँ खर्च हुने देखिन्छ । जसको तुलनामा केन्द्रको साथै हरेक प्रान्तमा गभर्नर तथा मुख्य मन्त्री सहितको २०/२५ जनाको मन्त्रीमण्डल, न्यायपालिका, विभिन्न आयोगहरु लगायतका संस्थागत संरचनाको निर्माण भएपछि थप ८/१० अर्ब रुपैंया खर्च हुने निश्चित छ । स्वच्छ खानेपानी नपाएर र खाद्यान्न नभएर अनिकालबाट नागरिक मरिरहेको यो देशले यसरी थप खर्च गर्नु औचित्यहिन हुन्छ ।

प्राकृतिक श्रोत
जहाँसुकै जन्मी हुर्केर बसे पनि यस मुलुकको कुनै पनि कुनामा अवस्थित प्राकृतिक श्रोतमा सबै नेपाली नागरिकको समान हक हुन्छ भन्ने सर्वमान्य सिद्धान्त हो । तर नेपाललाई संघियताको नाममा विखण्डित गरे पछि विभिन्न प्रान्तबीच प्राकृतिक श्रोतको बाँडफाँड पनि जटिल हुने निश्चित छ । यस सन्दर्भमा मनाङको नार हत्याकाण्डलाई स्मरण गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ, जहाँ यासा्रगुम्बु माथि मनाङबासीको मात्र हक लाग्छ भन्ने भ्रम पालेका केही मनाङबासीले गोरखाका ७ जना निर्दोष निहत्था जनताको निर्मम हत्या गरेका छन् । यस परिवेशमा प्रान्तियकरणपछि एक प्रान्तका बासिन्दाले अन्य प्रान्तबाट एउटा सिन्का पनि लिन नपाउने धारणाको समेत विकास हुन थालेको देखिएको छ ।

जलश्रोतएकथरि मानिसहरुको बुझाइमा जलश्रोत भनेको जलबिद्युत मात्र हो भन्ने भए तापनि खानेपानी, िसंचाई देखि जलपरिवहन, जलकि्रडामा आधारित पर्यटन, औद्योगिक प्रयोजनको लागि पानी पनि जलश्रोतको समुचित उपयोग हो । यसकारण संघियताको आधारमा देशलाई बिखण्डन गर्नु अगावै संघियता अवलम्बन गर्दा जलश्रोतको समुचित दोहन/उपयोग हुनसक्छ कि सक्दैन र यसमा कुनै बाधा अवरोध आउनसक्छ कि सक्दैन आएमा कसरी निराकरण गर्न सकिन्छ भन्ने सम्बन्धमा चिन्तन मन्थन गर्न आवश्यक छ । किनभने जलश्रोत नेपालको भाग्यरेखा हो । यसको समुचित दोहन बिना नेपालको आर्थिक उन्नति सम्भव छैन । साथै बाध्यात्मक रुपमा संघियता अवलम्बन गर्नु पर्ने भएमा के कस्ता कुराप्रति सचेत हुनुपर्छ जलश्रोतको अधिकतम दोहन कसरी सम्भव हुन्छ र के गर्दा देश र जनताको भलो हुन्छ भन्ने कुरामा विचार पुर् याउन जरुरी छ ।

जलश्रोत पनि प्राकृतिक श्रोतहरुमध्ये एक भएतापनि अन्य प्राकृतिक श्रोत भन्दा यसको प्रकृति उपयोग/दोहन गर्ने र लाभान्वित हुने तरिका फरक छ । संघियताको सन्दर्भमा जलश्रोतबारे विवेचना गर्नु अगाडि जलश्रोत र अन्य प्राकृतिक श्रोतको फरक बुझ्नु आवश्यक हुन्छ । जमिन, जंगल, जडीबुटी, खनिज पदार्थ जस्ता श्रोत स्थानिय बासिन्दा आफै संलग्न भएर उद्यम गरेर र उपयोग गरेर लाभान्वित हुनसक्छन् । तर जलश्रोतको दोहन यसरी हुन्न, स्थानिय बासिन्दाले िसंचाई लघुजलबिद्युत जलपर्यटन सम्बन्धी कुटीर उद्योग आदिबाट लाभान्वित हुने गरेर गरिने कृयाकलाप बाहेक ।

एउटा गाउँका बासिन्दाले खानेपानीको लागि अर्को गाउँबाट मुहान किन्ने गरिएको समाचार प्रसारण भएकैछन् । काठमाडौं उपत्यकाको खानेपानी समस्या समाधान गर्न भनेर सिन्धुपाल्चोक जिल्लाबाट मेलन्ची नदी छेकेर सुरुङ्गमार्गबाट पानी ल्याउने भनिएको ३० वर्ष पछि हालै ठेक्का सम्झौता भएको छ । तर मेलम्चीका स्थानिय जनताले लेभी स्वरुप केहि रकम प्राप्त हुनुपर्ने देखि पानीबाट बंचित हुने स्थानिय जनतालाई दीगो आयश्रोतको व्यवस्था गर्नपर्ने समेतका माग राखेको अवस्था छ । तर त्यस्तो केहि व्यवस्था गर्नको लागि खानेपानी महसूलले थेग्न सक्दैन र महसूल वृद्धि गरेर पनि साध्य हुन्न ।
पिउन तथा सरसफाइको लागि पानीलाई नागरिकको मौलिक अधिकारमा समाबेश गर्नुपर्ने धारणा धेरैको छ । अर्कोतिर पानी अन्य सरसामान जस्तै किनबेच गर्ने वस्तुको रुपधारण गरिसकेको अवस्था छ । विषेश गरेर बहुराष्ट्रिय वित्तिय संस्थाले खानेपानी सेवाप्रदायक संस्था पनि अन्य व्यापारिक संस्था जस्तै संचालन हुनुपर्ने भन्ने अडान लिएकोले धारामा आउने पानीको "मूल्य" व्यापारिक अवधारणामा निर्धारण गर्ने दवाब आएको अवस्था छ । प्लाष्टिकका बोटल, जार तथा यस्तै भाँडोमा र ट्यांकरबाट बिक्री गरिने पानी त व्यापारिक अवधारणामा बिक्री बितरणको प्रचलन आई नै सकेको अवस्था छ । तर यो अवस्था आउनुमा खानेपानी सेवाप्रदायक संस्थाको अकर्मण्यता बढी जिम्मेवार छ ।

ठूला जलबिद्युत आयोजना निर्माण भएमा स्थानिय बासिन्दा माथि प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पर्छ भने अन्यत्र बत्ति बाल्ने जनता लाभान्वित हुन्छन् । बत्ति मुनि अँध्यारो चरितार्थ हुने गरेर ठूला आयोजनाका निर्माणस्थल वरपरका जनताले बत्ती बाल्न नपाएका दृष्टान्तहरु अनगिन्ती छन् ।

अहिले पश्चिमााचल विकास क्षेत्रले सबभन्दा बढी झण्डै ३ सय ३० मेगावाट जलविद्युत उत्पादन गरेर आधा जति खपत गर्छ भने पूर्वााचल विकास क्षेत्रले १४ मेगावाट उत्पादन गरेर त्यो भन्दा धेरै बढी खपत गर्छ । मध्यमााचल विकास क्षेत्रले आफ्नो उत्पादन २ सय ७५ मेगावाट भन्दा केहि बढी खपत गर्छ । विद्यमान ५ विकास क्षेत्रहरुलाई नैं प्रान्त घोषित गरिएमा पनि यस किसिमको मिलिजुली उत्पादन एवम् उपयोगको सम्भावना कम हुन्छ । एक प्रान्तबाट अर्को प्रान्तमा कति मूल्यमा बिजुली उपलब्ध गराउने भन्ने सामान्य विषय पनि विवादमुक्त हुन नसकेर एक प्रान्तले अर्को प्रान्तमा बिद्युत आपूर्ति नैं बन्द गर्ने सम्मको अवस्था आउन सक्छ । भारत निकासी गर्दा बढी मूल्य पाउने अवस्था आएमा नेपालकै एक प्रान्तलाई बिजुली उपभोगबाट बंचित राख्ने अवस्था सृजना हुन सक्छ ।

उपभोग्य उपयोगमा प्रतिबन्धजलश्रोतको उपयोगको सम्बन्धमा जलश्रोत ऐन, २०४९ को दफा ७ को उपदफा (१) मा खानेपानी र घरेलु उपयोगलाई पहिलो प्राथमिकतामा राखेको छ भने िसंचाई दोश्रो, पशुपालन एवम् मत्स्यपालन जस्ता कृषिजन्य उपयोगलाई तेश्रो प्राथमिकतामा राखेको छ । जलबिद्युतलाई चौथो प्राथमिकतामा राखिएको छ । तर जलबिद्युत आयोजनालाई अनुमतिपत्र प्रदान भई कार्यान्वयन भई सकेपछि जलश्रोत ऐनको प्राथमिकता क्रम सैद्धान्तिक रुपमा सीमित रहन पुग्छ र व्यवहारिक प्राथमिकता क्रम फरक पर्न जान्छ ।
कुनै पनि जलबिद्युत आयोजना निर्माण हुंदा आयोजनाको अनुमतिपत्र लाईसेन्स ले प्रदान गर्ने जलाधिकारको कारण माथिल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रमा नयाँ जमिनमा िसंचाई गर्नबाट बंचित हुन्छ । किनभने आयोजनालाई उपलब्ध हुने पानीको परिमाण घटेमा बिद्युत उत्पादन घट्नाले राजश्व घटेर आयोजना असफल हुने हुन्छ । विद्युत नियमावलीको नियम २० मा यस सम्बन्धमा व्यवस्था गर्दै अनुमतिपत्रमा तोकिएको परिमाणको पानीमा अनुमतिपत्र प्राप्त गर्नेको हक लाग्ने व्यवस्था छ । दृष्टान्ततः माथिल्लो कर्णाली आयोजना निर्माण भएमा जुम्लाका जनताले तिला नदीको पानीबाट िसंचाई गर्ने गरेर नयां िसंचाई आयोजना निर्माण गर्नबाट बंचित हुन्छन् । तसर्थ िसंचाई दोश्रो प्राथमिकतामा परे पनि चौथो प्राथमिकताको जलविद्युत आयोजना कार्यान्वयन भईसकेको अवस्थामा उक्त आयोजनालाई अनुमतिपत्रले प्रत्याभूत गरेको पानीको परिमाणमा प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पर्ने गरेर िसंचाईको लागि पानी उपयोग गर्न प्रतिबन्धित हुन्छ ।

खानेपानी तथा घरेलु उपयोगले पहिलो प्राथमिकता पाए पनि यस प्रयोजनको लागि ठूलो परिमाणमा पानी नचाहिने हुनाले प्रतिबन्धको कुरा सान्दर्भिक हुन्न । तर काठमाडौं उपत्यका जस्तो घना बस्तीका लागि पानी ल्याउने सम्बन्धमा भने कार्यान्वयन भईसकेका जलबिद्युत आयोजनाको कारण अवरोध आउने छ । यस सम्बन्धमा मेलम्ची परियोजना अन्तर्गत दोश्रो र तेश्रो चरणमा सिन्धुपाल्चोक जिल्लाका यांग्री र लार्के खोलाहरुबाट काठमाडौं उपत्यकामा पानी ल्याउने अवधारणा भए तापनि यसमा अवरोध हुनेछ । यी नदीहरुको पानीमा निर्भर जलविद्युत आयोजना सम्पन्न भईसकेकोछ र आयोजनाहरु निर्माणाधीन पनि छन् ।

अझ स्मरणिय के छ भने रोपाइंको बेलामा वर्षात नभई खेतीमा अवरोध भएमा किसानले खानेपानीको पाइप नैं काटेर आफ्नो खेतमा पानी लगाउने गर्दछन् जसबाट उपभोक्ता खानेपानीको उपभोग गर्नबाट बंचित हुने गर्छन । यद्यपि जलश्रोत ऐन अनुसार खानेपानी पहिलो प्राथमिकता क्रममा पर्दछ । देश प्रान्तिय अवधारणामा गईसकेपछि यस्तो घटनाले गम्भिर बिबाद र द्वन्द्व निम्त्याउने सम्भावना छ ।

वातावरणीय प्रभाव
यस अतिरिक्त नदी छेकेर नहर/सुरुङबाट आयोजनामा पानी लैजानाले नदीको एउटा भेग नैं पानी रहित हुनपुग्छ र नदीको यस भेगको पानीमा निर्भर स्थानिय बासिन्दा परापूर्वकालदेखि आफूले प्रयोग गर्दै आएको पानी उपयोग गर्नबाट बंचित हुन्छन् । यस्तो प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नदी प्रवाही (Run of River) आयोजना भन्दा जलाशययुक्त आयोजनाबाट अझ बढी पर्छ । यस्तोमा उत्पादित बिजुली अन्य प्रान्तमा उपयोग हुने भएमा आयोजना निर्माणको लागि स्थानिय जनता राजी हुने सम्भावना अत्यन्त न्यून हुन्छ र सम्भाव्यता अनुरुप जलविद्युत उत्पादन गर्ने सम्भावना क्षीण हुन्छ ।

जलाशय निर्माण गिरंदा जग्गाजमिन वनजंगल वन्यजन्तु पर्यटकीयस्थल मन्दिर देवालय स्थानिय पूर्वाधार समेत डुबानमा पर्नुको अतिरिक्त स्थानिय बासिन्दा विस्थापित समेत हुन्छन् । यसरी ठूला जलाशययुक्त आयोजना निर्माण गरेर जलश्रोतको उपयोग गरेको अवस्थामा स्थानिय बासिन्दा लाभान्वित हुनुको सट्टा धेरै कुराबाट बंचित हुन्छन् । जुन अवस्थामा आयोजना निर्माण हुने प्रान्तका जनता आयोजना निर्माणप्रति सकारात्मक हुन कठिन हुनेछ ।

तल्लोतटीय लाभ
अर्कोतिर जलाशययुक्त आयोजनाको निर्माणबाट तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रमा सुख्खायाममा समेत थप पानी उपलब्ध हुन्छ जुन खानेपानी, िसंचाई, औद्योगिक प्रयोग, जलाधारको सुधार आदिमा मात्र उपयोग नभई सुख्खायाममा निश्चित परिमाणमा पानी बग्नाले जलपरिवहन र जलक्रीडामा आधारित पर्यटकिय प्रयोग समेत भएर तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्र लाभान्वित हुन्छ । हाल चर्चामा रहेको प्रान्तिय संरचनामा जाने हो भने एक प्रान्तका नागरिकले डुबान तथा विस्थापन ब्यहोर्न पर्ने हुन्छ, त्यस भन्दा माथिको प्रान्तको बासिन्दाको पानीको उपभोग्य उपयोगमा प्रतिबन्ध लाग्दछ र आयोजना निर्मित प्रान्त भन्दा तल्लो तटीय प्रान्तका बासिन्दाले भने सुख्खायाममा समेत िसंचाईबाट लाभान्वित हुने अवस्था आउँछ । यस्तोमा माथिल्लो तटीय प्रान्त र डुबान एवं बिस्थापन व्यहोर्न पर्ने प्रान्तले जलाशययुक्त बहुउद्देश्यीय आयोजना निर्माणमा सहमत हुने सम्भावना एकदम न्यून हुन्छ ।

जलाशय निर्माण गर्दा तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रमा वर्षातमा आउने बाढी पहिरो पनि नियन्त्रण हुन्छ । माथिल्लो तटीय क्षेत्र डुबानमा पार्दा तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रमा प्रभावकारी रुपमा बाढी पहिरो नियन्त्रण गर्न सकिन्छ । तर माथिल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रले धेरै मूल्य चुकाएर तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रमा बाढी नियन्त्रण गर्न दुई भिन्न प्रान्तहरु सजिलै सहमत हुने सम्भावना हुन्न ।

नेपालमा झण्डै ४० लाख हेक्टर खेतीयोग्य जमिन छ भने ५ लाख हेक्टर १३ प्रतिशत भन्दा कम मात्र िसंचित छ त्यो पनि अधिकांश वर्षातमा मात्र । देशमा खाद्यसुरक्षा बहाल गर्न र नगदे बाली प्रबद्र्धन गरेर किसानलाई समृद्ध पार्न सुख्खायाममा समेत िसंचाई गरेर खेती गरिनु जरुरी छ । यसको लागि जलाशय बनाएर वर्षातमा लगभग ४ महिना परेको पानी संचित गरेर बाँकी ८ महिना पनि िसंचाई गर्नुपर्दछ । यस्तोमा तराई छुट्टै प्रान्त बनेमा जलाशययुक्त आयोजना निर्माण गर्दा माथिल्लो तटीय प्रान्त डुबानमा पर्छ भने िसंचाईको लाभ तल्लो तटीय प्रान्तले प्राप्त गर्ने हुनाले यस्तो आयोजना बन्ने सम्भावना कम हुन्छ ।

भारतको खेतीयोग्य भूमिमध्ये १ दशमलव ५ प्रतिशत मात्र भूमि पंजाब राज्यमा छ । तर भारतको धान र गहुंको ४० प्रतिशत आवश्यकता यहि प्रान्तले आपूर्ति गर्छ । स्मरणीय छ पंजाब भूमिगत पानीमाथि निर्भर छ, जसको सतह द्रुतगतिमा घट्दैछ । नेपालको तराईमा १४ प्रतिशत उर्बर भूमि छ र जलाशययुक्त आयोजनाहरु निर्माण गरेर समुचित िसंचाई गरेर बहुबाली प्रथा कार्यान्वयन गर्ने हो भने नेपालको आवश्यकता भन्दा ३ गुणा धान, गहुँ लगायतका खाद्यान्न र अन्य नगदे वाली उत्पादन हुन सक्दछ ।

अझ बढी मनमुटाव बढाउँछ बहुउद्देश्यीय आयोजनाबाट विस्थापित स्थानिय जनताको पुनर्वासको मुद्दाले । जलविद्युत आयोजनाको लागि जलाशय निर्माण समथर भूभागमा सम्भव हुन्न । पहाडी संरचना आवश्यक हुन्छ । तर पहाडी भेगमा पुनर्वासको लागि आवश्यक जग्गा जमिनको अभाव हुन्छ भने आवश्यक जग्गा उपलब्ध हुने ठाउँमा जातिय सन्तुलन बिग्रने कारण दर्शाएर पुनर्वासको लागि सहमत हुन्नन् । पश्चिम तराईका थारुहरुले पश्चिम सेती आयोजनाबाट विस्थापितलाई आफ्नो भूभागमा पुनर्वास गराउन असहमति नैं जनाईसकेका छन् । यस्तोमा छुट्टाछुट्टै प्रान्त गठन भईसके पछि अन्यत्र कतैका शहर बजारहरुमा उज्यालो छर्न, तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रमा िसंचाईबाट लाभान्वित हुन माथिल्लो तटीय प्रान्तले आफ्नो भूभाग डुबाएर स्थानिय बासिन्दा विस्थापित गरेर जलाशययुक्त आयोजना निर्माण गर्न सहमत हुने सम्भावना हुन्न ।

विभिन्न जातजातिय समूहले आ-आफ्नो प्रान्तको क्षेत्र सम्बन्धी अपेक्षा व्यक्त गरेकोबाट प्रान्त विषेशको सीमा कहाँसम्म हुने भन्ने विषय विवादमुक्त नहुने अवस्था आएकोछ । साथै नेपालका अधिकांश जिल्ला अाचल विकास क्षेत्रका सीमाना विभिन्न नदीहरुलाई बनाइएको छ । अझ प्रान्तहरुको सीमांकन पनि नदीमा आधारित भएमा दुई किनाराका प्रान्तहरुको दुई किसिमका आकांक्षा, आवश्यकता, प्राथमिकता हुने सम्भावना उच्च हुनाले विवाद अझ घनिभूत हुन्छ, जसले गर्दा समेत जलश्रोतको समुचित दोहन कष्टसाध्य हुनजान्छ ।

प्रान्तिय द्वन्द्वप्रान्तिय द्वन्द्वको उदाहरणको लागि धेरै टाढा जानु पर्दैन, भारतमा विद्यमान यस सम्बन्धी प्रान्तिय द्वन्द्व अवलोकन गरे मात्र पुग्छ । संघियताको संघारमा पुग्न लागेका नेपालीको आँखा छिमेकमा विद्यमान यस सम्बन्धी बिबादले मात्रै पनि खुल्नु पर्ने हो । पानीको बाँडफाँट सम्बन्धमा पंजाब र हरियाणाबीच विवाद छ भने नर्मदा विवादमा मध्यप्रदेश, महाराष्ट्र, गुजरात र राजस्थान संलग्न छन् । त्यस्तै तमिलनाडु र कर्णाटकबीच काबेरी विवादले उग्ररुप िलंदा काम अघि बढ्न सकेकोछैन । अझ गंगा नदीमा कानपुरमा आयोजना निर्माण गर्ने उत्तरप्रदेशको प्रस्ताव बिहारको विरोधको कारणले कागजमा मात्रै सीमित रहेको छ । भारतीय संविधान अनुसार जलश्रोत प्रान्तिय मामला मानिन्छ । तर धेरै प्रान्त भई बग्ने नदीहरुको सम्बन्धमा केन्द्रलाई अधिकार छ, तर पनि द्वन्द्व निराकरण भने सरल भएन । तथापि भारतको भूभाग ठूलो हुनाले संघियता जायजै मान्न सकिएला, तर भारतको एक प्रान्त भन्दा पनि सानो नेपाललाई अझ स-साना प्रान्तमा विभाजन गर्दा जलश्रोतका समुचित दोहनमा विभिन्न प्रान्तबीचको विवादले धेरै अवरोध पुर् याउने देखिन्छ । पाकिस्तानमा पनि पंजाब र सिन्धबीच कालाबाग आयोजना बनाउने र नबनाउने विवाद चुलिएको छ समाधान देखापरेको छैन ।

कोशीदेखि गण्डकी टनकपुर हुंदै महाकाली सन्धिसम्मको यात्रामा नेपालले धेरै गुमाईसकेको अवस्था छ । यो कृयाकलाप नेपालमा संघियता लागू हुनुभन्दा अगाडी भएको हो । तर एकपटक नेपाल विभिन्न प्रान्तहरुमा विभाजित भएपछि यी प्रान्तहरु नैं आपसमा द्वन्द्वरत रहने भएकोले मित्र राष्ट्रसँग सन्धि-सम्झौता गर्दा अझ बढी गुमाउने अवस्था आउनेछ । नेपालभित्रका विभिन्न प्रान्तलाई जुधाएर लडाएर कोशी, गण्डकी, महाकाली पुनरावृत्ति गर्ने अभिष्ट पनि पूरा हुने अवस्था आउन सक्छ ।

नेपालको धन हरियो वन भनिन्थ्यो अहिले धेरै वन बाँकी रहेको अवस्था छैन र आज पर्यन्त देशले यो श्रोतबाट तात्विक रुपमा लाभ लिन सकेको छैन । तर जलश्रोतमा नेपालको भाग्यरेखा कोर्ने क्षमता छ । जलश्रोतको उच्चतम दोहन गरेर नेपालको कायाकल्प गर्न सकिन्छ । तथापि संघियतामा जलश्रोतको उच्चतम दोहनमा धेरै अवरोध आउने देखिनाले सकेसम्म यति सानो मुलुकलाई संघियताको नाममा बिभिन्न प्रान्तमा विखण्डन गरिनु हुन्न ।

देशलाई संघियतामा पुनःसंरचना नगरि नहुने अवस्थामा सप्तकोशी, सप्तगण्डकी, कर्णाली जस्ता मूख्य नदीहरुको जलाधार क्षेत्रको आधारमा सीमित प्रान्तहरु मात्र बनाइनुपर्छ । यसो गर्दा सप्तकोशी-मेची राज्य, सप्तगण्डकी राज्य र कर्णाली-महाकाली राज्य समेत ३ राज्य हुनेछ र बागमती नदी र अन्य नदीहरुको जलाधार समेटेर एउटा छुट्टै राज्य बनाउन सकिन्छ । यसको अनुमानित खाका निम्न नक्सामा देखाइए जस्तो हुनेछ ।

यस्तो अवस्थामा मात्र प्रत्येक नदीको उच्चतम दोहन सम्भव हुन्छ । आफ्नो प्रान्त भित्रको नदीको के कसरी उच्चतम दोहन गर्ने सम्बन्धमा निर्णय गर्ने अधिकार सम्बन्धित प्रान्तमा रहनेछ । नेपालको भौगोलिक संरचनाको कारणले नदीहरुको जलाधार क्षेत्रको आधारमा सीमित प्रान्तहरु बनेमा दुई भिन्न प्रान्तहरु बीच विवाद हुने सम्भावना न्यून हुन्छ ।

अहिले नेपालभित्र वा बाहिर जहाँंको पनि ब्यक्ति वा कम्पनीले लाइसेन्स ओगटेर राख्ने परिपाटी छ । यसले गर्दा स्थानिय जनता आफ्नै घरदैलो भएर बग्ने नदीको दोहन गर्ने अवसरबाट बिमुख भएका छन् । तसर्थ यस सम्बन्धमा दुई हिसाबले सुधार गर्न वान्छनिय छ । लाइसेन्स प्राप्त गर्न स्थानिय बासिन्दालाई अग्राधिकार हुनुपर्छ र आयोजना कार्यान्वयन गर्न आवश्यक वित्तिय जोहो गर्ने हैसियत नभएका स्थानिय बासिन्दा लगायतलाई अनुमतिपत्र दिइनु हुन्न । यसले गर्दा जलश्रोतमा लगानी गरेर लाभान्वित हुने मौकाबाट स्थानिय जनता बंचित हुनेछैनन् र लाइसेन्सको दलाली गरेर धनी बन्ने सपना देख्नेहरुको अभिष्ट पनि सफल हुनेछैन । अर्कोतिर हजारौ मेगावाटको लाइसेन्स जारी भएपनि आयोजना निर्माणको अभावमा देशले बिद्युत संकटको सामना गर्न पर्ने थिएन । निर्माण हुने आयोजनामा स्थानिय जनताले लगानी गरेको अवस्थामा स्थानिय जनताले आयोजनामा अपनत्व पनि महसूस गर्छन् र स्थानिय जनताको नाममा खडा गरिने अवरोधको समस्या पनि निराकरण हुन्छ ।

जलश्रोतमा आधारित आयोजनाहरु पूँजीप्रधान हुने हुनाले यस्ता आयोजनाबाट उच्च दरमा रोयल्टी असूल गर्ने सम्भावना हुन्न त्यो पनि ऋणमा साँवाब्याज चुक्ता नभएसम्म । तसर्थ रोयल्टी जस्ता दस्तूर प्राप्त गर्ने अधिकार सम्बन्धित प्रान्तमा निहित राखिनुपर्छ र यो रकम ग्रामिण बिद्युतिकरण िसंचाईका लागि मात्र खर्च गर्न पाउने व्यवस्था हुनुपर्छ ।

नेपाल सरकारले मध्य पश्चिमााचल र सुदूर पश्चिमााचल विकाश क्षेत्रमा नयाँ विश्वबिद्यालय स्थापना गर्ने घोषणा गर्दा कुन शहरमा विश्वबिद्यालय खोलिनुपर्छ भन्ने विवाद चर्केर विभत्स रुप लिएको धेरैलाई अवश्य सम्झना हुनु पर्छ, जुन विवाद अझै टुङ्गिएको छैन । हालै नेपाल सरकारले सुन्सरी जिल्लामा रंगशाला निर्माण गर्ने निर्णय गर्दा इनरुवामा निर्माण गर्नु पर्छ भनेर आन्दोलित हुनेले जनजीवन अस्तव्यस्त पारे भने अहिले इटहरीकाले पनि दावी गरेकाछन् । नेपाललाई विभिन्न प्रान्तमा विखण्डन गरे पछि प्रान्तिय राजधानी कहाँ राख्ने भन्ने विवाद सजिलै टुंगिने अवस्था छैन । यसले नेपालमा अरु अस्थिरता निम्त्याउने लगभग अवश्यंभावी छ ।

तसर्थ भावी पुस्ताप्रति अन्याय हुने गरेर देशलाई संघियतामा लैजाने नाममा यो मुलुकको विखण्डीकरण गर्नु बुद्धिमानि हुनेछैन । बेला छंदै युगोस्लाभियाको दृष्टान्तबाट हामीले पाठ सिक्न जरुरी छ । देशको अस्तित्वमा खतरा नभएपनि प्रान्तियकरणको कारणले जलश्रोतको अधिकतम दोहन गर्न नसकेर पिछडिएर बस्ने स्थिति नआओस् । वर्तमान पुस्ताले आगामी पुस्ताको सरापको भागिदार हुन नपरोस् । आगामी पुस्तालाई पनि अभिशप्त बनाउने काम यो पुस्ताले गर्न हुन्न ।
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
"उर्जा नेपाल"को वर्ष २ अंक १ (कार्तिक-मंसिर) मा प्रकाशित

Re: ADB pulling out of West Seti project

November 30, 2009
Mr YB Thapa
Former Memeber
National Planning Commission

Depends on which from which perspective you are looking at it. There are people everywhere in my analysis.

  • In my concern for displacement not only by the reservoir but also in 5 VDCs in Banke that isn’t even covered by EIA.
  • Similarly, my concern for people is manifest in being deprived for using cost effective peak-energy.
  • In being short changed in terms of missing the opportunity to increase cropping intensity in the downstream areas – in over 250,000 ha – and become prosperous.

I could keep in going on but I will have to repeat all the things I have written in the article which does not make sense.

I am amazed at your failure to see it. I urge you to read my article more carefully.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Y.B.Thapa []

Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 12:07

To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Subject: Re: ADB pulling out of West Seti project

Rantn ji

Where are people in yiur analysis

----- Original Message -----
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:17 AM
Subject: ADB pulling out of West Seti project

Dear Mr Senga

Two mainstream vernacular dailies (Gorkha

Monday, November 30, 2009

Re: ADB pulling out of West Seti project

Sunday, November 29, 2009 8:23
Mr Kunio Senga
Director General
South Asia Dept., ADB

Dear Mr Senga

Thank you so much for reverting back, even on a Sunday and amazingly so promptly, to me.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: []
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:59
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Cc: Bill Bultitude;;;;; Neeta Pokhrel;;; NNSD;;;;;;
Subject: Re: ADB pulling out of West Seti project

Dear Mr. Shrestha,

Thank you very much for your mail. We will also look into your points as part of our ongoing review.

Best regards,

Kunio Senga

From: "Ratna Sansar Shrestha" []
Sent: 29/11/2009 07:10 AM ZE5C
To: Kunio Senga
Cc: "Bill Bultitude" ; B. N. Lohani; Binita Shah Khadka; Gyongshim An; Kathie Julian; "Neeta Pokhrel" ; Neside Tas-Anvaripour; Nigel Savidge; ; Richard Vokes; Samuel Tumiwa; MD Shahid Parwez; Shreejana Rajbhandari; Sultan Rahman; Barry Hitchcock

Subject: ADB pulling out of West Seti project

Dear Mr Senga

Two mainstream vernacular dailies

ADB pulling out of West Seti project

Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:11
Mr Kunio Senga
Director General
South Asia Dept., ADB
Dear Mr Senga

Two mainstream vernacular dailies (Gorkhapatra yesterday and Nagarik on Friday) have reported that ADB is pulling out of West Seti project. We in Nepal would appreciate it if you could confirm the news.

I have been closely studying this project since some time and in my considered opinion this is “one of the best projects of its genre, because it not only generates peak-in energy – good quality power – but also does so at low cost and its implementation, further, results in flood control and dry season augmented flow for lower riparian areas. Moreover, export of hydropower to India from this project results in carbon offset benefit which is tradable in the carbon market and has potential as a good source of revenue.” However, all these benefits don’t accrue to Nepal. My article on this was published in Issue # 5 (July 2009) of Hydro Nepal (journal of water, energy and environment)” which is also available at blog (available at following link):

I firmly believe that this project should be built. However, it should be built such that Nepal uses the low cost peak-in energy for the industrialization of Nepal from which employment could be generated at the higher plane (not just to mitigate the problem of load shedding here) and head toward becoming a self reliant economy (for commodities like cement). Even “10,000 MW task force” has concluded that by the time this project is commissioned Nepal will be in a position to use most of the energy generated by this project. Moreover, Nepal should use the augmented flow to increase cropping intensity in over 250,000 hectares of land in west Terai thereby contributing to the achievement of food security.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Monday, November 23, 2009

Re: Federalism and Peter Galbraith

November 21, 2009
Er L B Shilpakar
Dear Shilpakarjee

Good to hear from you.

Let me start by agreeing to disagree with you on a few things you have said.

First of all I don't believe in communism, nor in socialism. Besides, having closely watched the work of communist parties in Nepal, both in the government and out of it, I also have reason to believe that they merely pay lip service to communism and socialism but do what is told them to do by others, including multilaterals. Neither Nepali congress adopted socialistic policy nor communist parties.

Similarly, I don't agree that federalism is relevant for Nepal; although I have had my "education" on federalism and am aware of its positive sides. If we are to follow what UCPNM is saying in this respect we will end up with more than 75 ethnic provinces - it will be like committing hara-kiri as Nepal is too small to sustain that many provinces.

I think Nepal needs to be alert to ensure that we don't have our own "Galbriath" who are advocating disintegration of Nepal in the name of federalism.

I agree with you on neo-colonialism, though. What I have seen is most of the political parties take their instructions from India, mainly, and this too is a form of colonialism.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: laxmi shilpakar []
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:27
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Neo-colonism

Dear Ratna Sansar ju,

I was also going through the news of Peter Galbriath in the media. While appreciating your effort on exposing the ill motives of the foriegn advisor like that of "Peter Galbraith" I see the issue a bit different and broader way.

Majority of the people of middle class or bourgeois class understanding is that only western style of democracy is true democracy and if some body talk off the track of "western democracy" they are branded as "leftist, communist, radicles" etc. And the political parties or groups who serves interest of 'Galbraiths" are considered as moderate, democrat, liberalIn fact. Development in Nepal during and after so called democracy movement could be fitting example of the trend.

In majority of the events of so called democracy movement, there were vested interest of "Peter Galbraiths" to capture resources of the third world countries. The issue may ranges from "democarcy", "federalism", "human right", "terrorism", "religious freedom" etc. Starting from eastern europe, Romania, Chech, Poland, previous soviet states, and South American countries like, Chile, Paragua, Nicaragua, Hondurus, Venezuella and Asian countries like Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc, these "Galbraiths" had role to capture the resources of the country in question. In otherwords, it is what called "neo colonism".

I am hopeful of building a self defended and prosperous Nepal if the learned person like you well tries to learn from the history and defend our motherland and society from "neo colonism".
With best regards,

Laxmi B. Shilpakar

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Wed, November 18, 2009 5:47:38 AM
Subject: Fw: Federalism

Dear Colleague

The attachment is very revealing in as much as why a foreigner wants to have a nation go federal. No wonder we have a multitude of INGOs (with our own version of Peter Galbraiths) advocating restructuring of Nepal on ethnic lines.

I trust we could learn a lesson or two from this.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Federalism in Nepal and Peter Galbraith

November 21, 2009
Mr Padma Jyoti
Member, Constituent Assembly
Dear Padma Jyotijee

Thanks for reverting back.

I am not against federalism per se. But, in my considered opinion, what is being imposed on Nepal – a tiny country – does not augur well. Fragmentation of Nepal into over 75 provinces in the name of ethnic federalism is a nightmare scenario. I hope you don’t mind my criticizing UCPNM in this respect, because that party has nominated you to CA. I have been openly critical of them and others who advocate ethnic federalism for Nepal. I have had debate even people like Dina Nath Sharma in a forum where I presented a paper on the subject. I am hoping to have an interaction on the matter with people like Prachanda and Dr Bhattarai.

I am sure that you would like to point out an error in my statement above about 75 provinces as parties like UCPNM are asking for only about 17 provinces. But with the formation of provinces for about 10 ethnic groups, other ethnic communities will definitely ask for level playing field and we will soon have actually more provinces, not less.

Being a student of law and due to my own interest I have studied quite a lot about these issues, including governance. There is no direct bearing of federal structure on governance issues. No one in the right mind will disagree that the weakness in the governance needs to be dealt with. But under federal structure, instead of one unitary country, we will end up with several provinces with weak governance.

Junior Galbraith is definitely dishonoring the good name his father had earned. But GREED has no barriers in terms of color, geography, religion, et al. I know of many a famous people, within and without Nepal, who give in to greed, knowingly or unknowingly. I know of many a rich people who, in their quest to hoard more, succumb to greed forgetting about human decency, what they owe to their motherland, that their own prestige may be at stake, including prior commitment they have made. I guess junior Galbraith is no different. My concern here is: whether and if we have our own Galbraiths (Nepali or expatriate) who are angling to profit by pushing this country into disintegration in the name of federalism.

I too am sad but for senior Galbraith. He must be turning in his grave! God bless him.

With best regards,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
From: P Jyoti []
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 16:11
Subject: Re: Federalism

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

I enjoy and learn from your viewpoints and writings provoking a good debate, including one on Federalism recently. We need not be totally against federalism if it is well thought out and constructed to address the weakness of governance issues.

I did not know Peter Galbraith was the son of John Kenneth Galbraith whom I greatly admire for his wit and writings. He was one of the shining knights of the JFK Camelot years. If true, I am sad to read about Peter Galbraith's misuse of power for personal gain.

Best wishes,
Padma Jyoti

----- Original Message -----
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November, 2009 7:01 AM
Subject: Fw: Federalism

Dear Colleague

The attachment (copy pasted below) is very revealing in as much as why a foreigner wants to have a nation go federal. No wonder we have a multitude of INGOs (with our own version of Peter Galbraiths) advocating restructuring of Nepal on ethnic lines.

I trust we could learn a lesson or two from this.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Copy Paste of the attachment:
Peter Woodard Galbraith (born December 31, 1950) A.B., M.A., J.D., is a former United States diplomat. He is the son of John Kenneth Galbraith and Catherine (Kitty) Merriam Atwater. Peter Galbraith holds degrees from the Commonwealth School, Harvard College, Oxford University, and Georgetown University Law Center.

Galbraith was a professional staff member for the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1979 to 1993, where he published many reports about Iraq and took a special interest in Kurdistan. In 1987, he uncovered Saddam Hussein's systematic destruction of Kurdish villages and a year later wrote the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" which would have imposed comprehensive sanctions on Iraq because of the gassing of the Kurds. The bill unanimously passed the Senate but was opposed by the Reagan Administration as "premature" and did not become law. In 1993, President Bill Clinton appointed Galbraith as the first United States Ambassador to Croatia. In 1995, he was the co-mediator and principal architect of the Erdut Agreement that ended the war in Croatia by providing for the peaceful reintegration of Serb-held Eastern Slavonia. From 2000 to 2001 he served with the United Nations in East Timor, where he was head of the UNTAET political section and Cabinet Member for Political Affairs and Timor Sea in East Timor's first Transitional Government. He was East Timor's lead negotiator for maritime boundaries with Australia and produced two agreements, including the 2002 Timor Sea Treaty, that effectively quadrupled East Timor's share of the petroleum resources between the two countries. He was also a Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College, in 1999 and between 2001-2003.

Galbraith favors the independence, real or de facto, of Kurdistan - although it has recently been shown that Galbraith is standing to financially benefit from his stances. In 2003, he resigned from the U.S. government after 24 years of service in order to be able to criticize U.S. Iraq policy more freely. His 2006 book The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End, advocates acceptance of a "partition" of Iraq into three parts (Kurdistan, Shiite, and Sunni) as part of a new U.S. "strategy based on the reality of Iraq" (pp. 4, 12, 222, 224). He argued that the U.S.'s "main error" in Iraq has been "wishful thinking." He has also written extensively on Iraq in the pages of the New York Review of Books. Norwegian financial newspaper Dagens Næringsliv reported on October 10, 2009 on Galbraith's secret ownership interest in Kurdish oil fields. Galbraith's company, Porcupine LP, had a "contractual relationship" with the Norwegian oil company DNO, which in turn has a 55% stake in the Kurdistan oil field Tawke. Reportedly, "his company was among those claiming to have been squeezed out of a small stake in the ... field ... when DNO ... renegotiated agreements with Kurdish authorities" in 2008. The Porcupine stake stemmed from Galbraith's involvement in DNO's initial entry into Kurdistan in 2003.

Galbraith is a senior diplomatic fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Removed from United Nations.
Galbraith was announced as the next United Nations' Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan on March 25, 2009. He is considered a close ally of Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan. However, Galbraith abruptly left the country in mid September 2009 at the request of UN Special Representative to Afghanistan Kai Eide following a dispute over the handling of the reported fraud in the 2009 Afghan presidential election. On September 30, the UN announced that he had been removed from his position by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. In response to his firing, Galbraith told The Times, "I was not prepared to be complicit in a cover-up or in an effort to downplay the fraud that took place. I felt we had to face squarely the fraud that took place. Kai downplayed the fraud."

Galbraith Financial Benefit from his Support of Iraqi Kurdistan
In 2009 Galbraith was exposed for his stances on Iraqi matters that have recently been identified as steered by his personal financial investment in Iraqi Kurdistan's oil fields. According to an article by Reidar Visser, Galbraith influenced the development of Kurdish politics in a direction from he stood to benefit financially.

Personal Life
He and his wife, a Norwegian social anthropologist, Tone Bringa, have three children and a home in Townshend, Vermont. Two previous marriages ended in divorce.

Galbraith was also a good friend of the twice elected Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto, dating back to their student days at Harvard and Oxford Universities, and was instrumental in Bhutto's release from prison in Pakistan for a medical treatment abroad during the military dictatorship of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq.

It is widely known that the former US diplomat Peter Galbraith has been one of the most prominent figures in shaping the state structure of Iraq in the period after 2003, especially with his vocal advocacy of various forms of radical decentralisation and/or partition solutions for Iraq’s political problems that are reflected in his books and numerous articles in the New York Review of Books, especially in the period from 2004 to 2008. Until now, though, it has generally been assumed that Galbraith’s fervent pro-partition propaganda was rooted in an ideological belief in national self-determination and a principled view of radical federalism as the best option for Iraq’s Kurds. Many have highlighted Galbraith’s experience as a former US diplomat (especially in the Balkans in the 1990s) as key elements of his academic and policy-making credentials.

Today, however, it has emerged that the realities were probably rather different. For some time, Norway’s most respected financial newspaper, Dagens Næringsliv (DN), has been focusing on the operations of DNO, a small Norwegian private oil company in Kurdistan, especially reporting on unclear aspects concerning share ownership and its contractual partnerships related to the Tawke field in the Dahuk governorate. One particular goal has been to establish the identity of a hitherto unknown “third party” which participated with DNO in the initial production sharing agreement (PSA) for Tawke between 2004 and 2008, but was squeezed out when this deal was converted to a new contract in early 2008, prompting a huge financial claim of around 500 million US dollars against DNO which has yet to be settled. Today, DN claims to present proof that one of the two major “mystery stake-holders” involved in the claim was none other than Peter Galbraith, who allegedly held a five-percent share in the PSA for Tawke from June 2004 until 2008 through his Delaware-based company Porcupine. Galbraith’s partner was the Yemenite multi-millionaire Shahir Abd al-Haqq, whose identity was revealed by the same newspaper earlier this month. DN has published documents from Porcupine showing Galbraith’s personal signature, and today’s reports are complete with paparazzi photographs of Galbraith literally running away from reporters as they confront him in Bergen, where he is currently staying with his Norwegian wife. He refused to give any comment citing potential legal complications.

If proven correct, the implications of this revelation are so enormous that the story is almost unbelievable. As is well known, DNO has been criticised for the way its operations in the Kurdistan region interfere with Iraq’s constitutional process. To their credit, though, DNO are at the very least perfectly forthright about their mission in the area: They are a commercial enterprise set up to make a maximum profit in a high-risk area currently transitioning from conditions of war. Galbraith, however, was almost universally seen as “Ambassador Galbraith”, the statesmanlike former diplomat whose outspoken ideas about post-2003 Iraq were always believed to be rooted in idealism and never in anything else. Instead, it now emerges, he apparently wore several hats at the same time, and mixed his roles in ways that seem entirely incompatible with the capacity of an independent adviser on constitutional affairs.

It can be useful to briefly recapitulate the extent of Galbraith’s involvement in creating the institutions of government in the “new Iraq”. In fact, the best guide to this subject is Galbraith himself, who recounted his own role in the book The End of Iraq, published in 2006. It seems clear he got involved on the Kurdish side early on in 2003: “Two weeks after Saddam’s fall, I began discussions with the Kurdish leaders on the future of Kurdistan and what they could achieve in the new Iraqi constitution (italics added, p.159)”. Supposedly, according to a later book by Galbraith, he was at this point a consultant for ABC News! Later, he appears to have been a regular consultant for the Kurds. While his various books only make vague acknowledgement as far as payment is concerned (“for a few months at the end of 2003 and the beginning of 2004 I did some compensated work for Kurdish clients”, and in the second book from 2008 there is reference to unspecified “corporate clients with several of which I have an ongoing business relationship”), it seems pretty clear from the narrative in the book that at least some of this refers to consultancy work for the Kurdish political leaders in the period leading up to the drafting of the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) which was adopted in March 2004.
It is Galbraith’s description of the period between 2003 and 2005 that provides the fullest account of his influence on Iraq’s current system of government. Two key principles of the 2005 constitution – the idea that residual powers belong to the provinces and not to the central government, as well as the supremacy accorded to local law over federal law – stand out in particular. In many centralised states (and indeed even in certain federations), powers not explicitly granted to the regions belong to the centre. In Iraq’s constitution of 2005 it is the other way around, and the list of central government powers is hilariously short when compared to other federations of the world. This, it seems, comes directly from Galbraith and his influences on the Kurdish leadership back in 2003 and 2004. According to Galbraith, “after I left Iraq in May 2003, I realised that the Kurdish leaders had a conceptual problem in planning for a federal Iraq. They were thinking in terms of devolution of power – meaning that Baghdad grants them rights. I urged that the equation be reversed. In a memo I sent Barham [Salih] and Nechirvan [Barzani] in August, I drew a distinction between the previous autonomy proposals and federalism: ‘Federalism is a “bottom-up” system. The basic organising unit of the country is the province or state. The state or province is constituted first and then delegates certain powers (of its choice) to the central government…In a federal system residual power lies with the federal unit (i.e. state or province); under an autonomy system it rests with the central government. The central government has no ability to revoke a federal status or power’…Finally I wrote …'any conflict between laws of Kurdistan and the laws or constitution of Iraq shall be decided in favour of the former' (160–61).”

Later, Galbraith urged the Kurds to be maximalist about their demands: “The Bush administration might not like the Kurds insisting on their rights, I said, but it would respect them for doing so (163)”. Then, leading up to the TAL negotiations in the winter of 2004, Galbraith worked specifically for the Kurds in framing their demands. It is very easy to see how the Kurdish gains in the TAL and not least in the 2005 constitution are based on this contribution from Galbraith. Galbraith writes, “On February 10 [2004], Nechirvan [Barzani] convened a meeting at the Kurdistan national assembly of the top leaders of the PUK and KDP. I presented a draft of a ‘Kurdistan chapter’ to be included in the interim constitution [i.e. the TAL]… Except for a few matters assigned to the federal government (notably foreign affairs), laws passed by the Kurdistan national assembly would be supreme within the region. The Kurdistan Regional Government could establish an armed force…The Kurdistan Region would own its land, water, minerals and oil. Kurdistan would manage future oil fields (and keep revenues) but the federal government in Baghdad would continue to manage all oil fields currently in commercial production. Because there were no commercial oil fields within Kurdistan as defined by the March 18, 2003 boundaries, this proposal had the effect of giving Kurdistan full control over its own oil…The permanent constitution of Iraq would apply in Kurdistan only if it were approved by a majority of Kurdistan’s voters (166–67).” Subsequent achievements noted by Galbraith as personal successes include staging the informal 2005 referendum on Kurdish independence (171).

The influence of Galbraith can be discerned already in the 2004 Transitional Administrative Law (where the principle of residual powers for the provincial entities was put in place), even if Galbraith was dissatisfied with the relatively long list of powers accorded to Baghdad and blamed the “centralising” policies of Paul Bremer and the Bush administration generally for this “defect”. But his hand is even more evident in the 2005 constitution, which combines residual powers for the regions with the supremacy of local law (albeit not if it contradicts the constitution, a “shortcoming” Galbraith later tried to gloss over), and which also specifically mentions the regional right to local armed forces. The narrative in Galbraith’s books turns somewhat weaker in this period, and it is less clear exactly how he continued to exercise influence – apparently less directly now, and more through the general advice on federalism given to the Kurds earlier. But at one revealing point in the book, he clearly cannot resist the urge to reveal just how influential he was until the very last minute of the constitutional process in 2005. On page 199, in a footnote, he writes, “A British treasury official serving as an advisor to his country’s embassy nearly derailed the constitution two hours before the final deadline. He was reading an English translation being made as drafts of the Arabic text became available, and realised the federal government had no tax power. He was about to charge into a meeting of Iraq’s political leaders when a quick-thinking Kurdish constitutional advisor grabbed an available Westerner – me – to explain the situation. The omission, I told him, was no mistake and he might want to consult with his ambassador before reopening an issue that could bring down Iraq’s delicate compromise”.

Almost drunk with success, it seems, and probably truly convinced that Iraq was heading for breakup, Galbraith could not disguise his satisfaction. Indeed, with the new information about his supposed economic interests, the way he engaged on specific issues relating to oil in the US public debate at this fateful point of transition seems utterly reckless. In August 2005, during the final negotiations, while he appeared to be satisfied with the way the new constitution developed as far as decentralisation was concerned, he did voice scepticism to growing Islamic influences in the new document and at one point considered the alternative of an overhaul of the TAL to make the regions stronger in that charter instead. He wrote again in the New York Review of Books, this time stressing how “the Kurdish leaders would accept its [i.e. the TAL's] continuation provided the text was clarified to assure Kurdistan's ownership of petroleum in the region and if the status of the disputed region of Kirkuk were resolved (italics added)”. He also expressed hope that “oil contracts made by the Kurdistan government” (one of the few at that time was of course Tawke, to which Galbraith now has been linked through the PSA) could be exempted from general federal control through separate bilateral agreements between Baghdad and Arbil.

As for the ramifications of these revelations, when they become known in Baghdad, it is really hard to predict. There has been a myriad of conspiracy theories concerning secret schemes to partition Iraq; while most of them are probably exaggerated the Tawke saga seems to be the most explicit intersection yet of international capitalism and advocacy of a divided Iraq, embodied in Peter Galbraith through his dual role as an alleged stake-holder in the Tawke oilfield and intellectual advocate of Kurdish secession from Iraq. While he was advising the Kurds on the principles of federalism and trying to persuade an American Democratic audience about the virtues of partition as an alternative to the Bush administration policies in Iraq, Galbraith supposedly held a 5 per cent stake in an oil field whose profit potential was directly governed by the constitutional and US policy decisions Galbraith was seeking to influence (his suggestions also included the idea of a permanent US airbase in Kurdistan).Under any circumstances, this new development is likely to strengthen the tendency among Iraqis to be more critical about the details of the 2005 constitution and not least the historical context in which it was conceived – a criticism that even Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki articulated during the run-up to the last local elections. Seemingly, Maliki’s ideas of rectifying this towards greater centralism (i.e. removing some of Galbraith’s pet projects from 2005) have met with success among voters so far.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Discourse on federalism

Septermber 8, 2009

Mr Arujun Dhakal


Good to hear from you.

You must have been responding to my emailed response to Ambika Adhikari on the captioned matter, but you didn’t copy your email to him.

If you have read my writings that have been circulated by NNSD you will realize that I don’t merely contribute on "load shedding". I do write on a variety of topics and mainly concentrate on water resources. The captioned article is neither related to load shedding, nor water resources. My aim in writing is to start a healthy discourse/dialogue and I am always particular in taking a balanced approach in my writings and, therefore, stay neutral. I tend to write from the perspective of our national interest and there is hardly scope for being branded as non-neutral for speaking on behalf of the motherland.

Take the case of the captioned article (I pity that the members of NNSD have been deprived from reading it). One of the purposes of my writing this article is to de-construct of the myth of Bahunbad perpetrated by the likes of Dr Krishna Bhattachan who have been aggressively demanding fragmentation of our motherland hoping to uplift ethnic communities from the “tyranny of Bahunbad”. Actually the article is based on my notes prepared to speak in GAA forum on federalism last Thursday in which besides him, Dr Shankar Sharma and Jainendra Jivan joined me in the panel. On the other hand, Newars (you do realize that I am a Newar, too) too seem to agree with him with few exceptions like yours truly. Therefore, it is very important for the intellectuals of Nepal to know that all Newars don't want fragmentation of this country and I am sure that there are many prominent people from various ethnic communities who see eye to eye with him but don't dare to speak out. Unfortunately, they (members of NNSD) didn't get to read my thought provoking article. Otherwise, it would have triggered a much needed and healthy dialogue on federalism and whether it is appropriate for such a tiny country like Nepal. Too bad!

Take care and keep in touch.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Arjun Dhakal []

Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2009 20:32

To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Subject: RE: Article in Nepali Times # 467

Ratna Sansar jee:

Highly appreciated your contribution on load shedding in the past. As you know, we strongly encourage neutral and unpublished views and healthy dialogues. I do expect the same from all members to maintain the standard of NNSD as ever. You are always welcome.

Arjun Dhakal

Monday, November 2, 2009

मेलम्चीले काठमाडौं उपत्यकाको खानेपानी समस्याको समाधान गर्दैन

काठमाडौं उपत्यकाको खानेपानी समस्या विकराल छ भनिरहन आवश्यक छैन । भाग्यमानि उपभोक्ताको धारामा दैनिक केहि घण्टा पानी आउंछ भने अन्यले ३/४ दिन बिराएर एक/डेढ घण्टा पानी धारामा थाप्न पाउंछन् । केहि घण्टा धारामा पानी आउने उपभोक्ता मध्ये धेरैजसोको घरमा सुत्नुपर्ने समयमा पानी आउंछ र निन्द्रा बिथोलेर भएपनि पानी थाप्न बिबस छन् । बांकीले खानेपानी नपाए पनि खानेपानी महशूलको बिल चािहं नियमित रुपमा पाउंछन् ।

हाल न्यूनतम मासिक १० हजार लिटर पानीको ५० रुपैया महशूल लाग्छ । तर धारामा पानी नआएर त्यत्तिकै परिमाणको पानी ट्यांकरबाट खरिद गर्न भने १८ सय ९५ रुपैया खर्च गर्नुपर्छ । सेवाप्रदायकले यथोचित आपूर्तिको व्यवस्था गर्न सकेको भए उपभोक्ताले यसरी बढी खर्च गर्नुपर्ने थिएन । सिन्धुपाल्चोकमा बग्ने मेलम्ची नदीको पानी सुरुङ्गमार्गबाट काठमाडौं ल्याएपछि समस्याको समाधान हुन्छ भनिएकोछ । बुझिए अनुसार सुख्खायाममा मेलम्चीमा बग्ने दैनिक लगभग २० करोड लिटर मध्ये १७ करोड लिटर काठमाडौं उपत्यकामा आपूर्ति गरिनेछ । हाल आपूर्ति हुंदै गरेको साँढे ९ करोड लिटरमा १७ करोड लिटर थिपंदा साँढे २६ करोड लिटर उपलब्ध हुन्छ भने लक्षित गरिएअनुरुप सुरुङ्गमार्गको काम सन् २०१३ मा सम्पन्न भएमा दैनिक ३५ करोड लिटर मांग हुने हुनाले केहि राहत पुग्ने देखिन्छ ।

तर वास्तवमा राहत हुने सम्भावना भने न्यून छ । किनभने हाल आपूर्ति हुंदै गरेको भनिएको साँढे ९ करोड लिटर मध्ये आधा भूमिगत श्रोतको हो, जसको सतह घटेर आपूर्ति पनि घट्दो छ । यस्तै काठमाडौं उपत्यकाको बितरण सन्जालबाट ४० प्रतिशत चुहिएर खेरजाने कुरा सम्बन्धित संस्थाले आधिकारिकरुपमा स्वीकारेको अवस्था छ । त्यसकारण मेलम्चीको पानी यहां आपूर्ति हुन थाले पछि उपभोक्तालाई वस्तुतः १२/१३ करोड लिटर मात्र बितरण गर्नसकिने छ र ३५ करोड लिटर मांग हुने हुनाले अभावबाट राहत हुने अवस्था छैन । यो स्थिति सन् २०१३ मा हुनेछ भने त्यस पछिका वर्षहरुमा मांगमा क्रमिकरुपमा बृद्धि हुंदै गएर समस्या उत्तरोत्तर रुपमा अझ विकराल हुंदै जान्छ ।

हुन त यसरी उत्तरोत्तररुपमा बढ्ने मांगलाई सम्बोधन गर्नै भनेर दोश्रो र तेश्रो चरणमा क्रमसः यांग्री र लार्केबाट थप १७/१७ करोड लिटर पानी काठमाडौं उपत्यकामा ल्याउने अवधारणा नभएको होइन । तर अवधारणा बनेको ३० वर्ष पछि बल्ल केहि गम्भिरतापूर्वक मेलम्चीमा काम थाल्ने उपक्रम भएको परिप्रेक्ष्यमा यांग्री र लार्के सम्पन्न हुन अरु धेरै समय लाग्नु अस्वाभाविक हुन्न र मेलम्ची आयोजना सम्पन्न भएपछि पनि काठमाडौं उपत्यकाका बासिन्दाले खानेपानीको चर्को समस्या ब्यहोर्न पर्ने समय पनि लामै हुने सम्भावना पनि उच्च छ ।

यस पंक्तिकार संलग्न एउटा स्वयम्सेवी अनौपचारिक समूहलॆ बहुउद्देश्यीय मेलम्चीको अवधारणा अगाडी ल्याएकोछ जुन कार्यान्वयन भएमा भने काठमाडौं उपत्यकाको खानेपानी समस्या दीर्घकालिनरुपमा समाधान मात्र नभएर मध्यमान्चल विकास क्षेत्रको बिद्युत संकटको समस्या समेत समाधान हुनेछ । यस अवधारणा अन्तर्गत ढलमतीको रुपलिईसकेको बागमती नदीले पुनर्जीवन पाउनेछ भने बागमतीमा जलपरिवहन पनि संचालन गर्नसकिनाको अलावा बारा रौतहट र सर्लाही जिल्लाको झण्डै ४० हजार हेक्टर जमिनमा सुख्खायाममा समेत िसंचाई गर्न मिल्नेछ । मनग्गे खानेपानी आपूर्तिको व्यवस्था गर्न बागमती नदीलाई नवजीवन दिन र तराईमा िसंचाई गर्न थप छुट्टै लगानि पनि गर्न आवश्यक छैन, करिब ६० करोड डलरको लागतमा २ सय ६५ मेगावाट क्षमताको जलबिद्युत आयोजना निर्माण गर्ने व्यवस्था गरिएमा बांकी सबै कुरा स्वतः सम्भव हुन्छ ।

हालको अवधारणामा खानेपानीको लागि दोश्रो र तेश्रो चरणमा यांग्री र लार्केबाट पानी ल्याउने भनिएकोमा बहुउद्देश्यीय मेलम्ची आयोजनाको अवधारणा बमोजिम यी दुई नदीको अलावा बलेफी समेतबाट गरेर थप ९५ करोड लिटर पानी काठमाडौं ल्याउनाले २ सय ६५ मेगावाट क्षमताको जलबिद्युत आयोजना निर्माण हुन्छ; सिन्धुपाल्चोकको टिम्बुमा ५० मेगावाट र दक्षिणकाली मन्दीरबाट १९ किलोमिटर दक्षिण पूर्वमा अवस्थित हुने आयोजनाबाट २ सय १५ मेगावाट । यी दुवै आयोजनाको लागत ६० करोड डलर पर्ने अनुमान गरिएकोछ । बहुउद्देश्यीय आयोजनाको मुहान हेलम्बुको नुकुटे भन्ने ठाउंमा मेलम्ची नदीमा निर्माण गर्नु पर्ने हुन्छ जसको लागि बलेफीको पानी लार्के र यांग्रीको पानीमा थप्दा काठमाडौं उपत्यकामा दैनिक १ अर्ब १२ करोड लिटर पानी उपलब्ध हुन्छ ।

यो परिमाणमा काठमाडौं उपत्यकामा पानी आपूर्ति भएको अवस्थामा प्रत्येक उपभोक्ताको धारामा हरदम पानी आउने हुन्छ र गैर कानूनी रुपमा बितरण संजालबाट सोझै पम्प लगाएर पानी तान्ने बाध्यता, घर मुनि र छानामाथि पानी संचय गर्ने ट्यांकीहरु राख्ने, अनि पानी तान्ने र माथि फाल्ने गरेर दुईवटा पम्प लगायतमा लगानि गर्ने बिबसताबाट पनि उपभोक्ता मुक्त हुनेछन् । यस प्रयोजनमा खपत हुने बिजुलीको पनि बचत हुन्छ । यस परिवेशमा उपभोक्ताले हाल बहन गर्नु परेको वित्तिय भारमा धेरै नैं कमी आउने निश्चित छ ।

बहुउद्देश्यीय अवधारणा कार्यान्वयन गर्दा टिम्बुमा निर्माण गर्न प्रस्तावित मेलम्ची आयोजनाको मुहान र माटो बालुवा थेग्राउने संरचना पनि बनाउन आवश्यक पर्दैन; यी दुवै संरचना बिद्युत आयोजना अन्तर्गत नुकुटेमा निर्माण हुन्छ र यस हद सम्म हालको मेलम्ची आयोजनाको लागत पनि घट्छ । साथै दोश्रो र तेश्रो चरणको नाममा काठमाडौं उपत्यकाको लागि यांग्रीबाट मेलम्ची सम्म ७ किलोमिटर र लार्केबाट यांग्री सम्म ४ किलोमिटर सुरुङ्ग निर्माणमा थप लगानिको व्ययभार पनि खानेपानीको शिर्षकमा बहन गर्न पर्दैन ।

बिद्युत संकटले गांजेको मध्यमााचल विकास क्षेत्रमा यसरी उत्पादन हुने बिजुली सजिलै खपत हुन्छ; विषेश गरेर बागमती नदीमा निर्माण हुने आयोजनाबाट उत्पादित बिजुलीले बिरगंज-परवानिपुर करिडरमा अवस्थित उद्योगहरुलाई ठूलै राहत दिनेछ ।

यसरी काठमाडौं उपत्यकामा दैनिक १ अर्ब १२ करोड लिटर पानी भित्रिएपछि उपभोक्तालाई मनग्गे पानी बितरण गर्न सकिन्छ र बितरित पानी मध्ये ८५ प्रतिशत गैर उपभोग्य (पिउन र खाना बनाउन) खपत हुने बाहेक (जस्तै नुहाउन लुगा धुन प्रयोग हुने खपत हुन्छ) र बिभिन्न नदी नाला हुंदै बागमती नदीमा फर्कन्छ जसको परिमाण दैनिक ९५ करोड लिटर हुने अनुमान छ । सुख्खायाममा समेत यो परिमाणमा पानी बागमती नदीमा बग्न थाले पछि अहिलेको ढल बग्ने गरेको नदीले निश्चय पनि नवजीवन पाउनेछ । यसको अर्थ हाल काठमाडौं उपत्यकाका बासिन्दाले अवलम्बन गरेको ढल सोझै नदीमा मिसाउने असभ्य प्रचलनलाई निरन्तरता दिए हुन्छ भन्ने चािहं होइन ।

हाल बागमती िसंचाई आयोजना अन्तर्गत तराईको बारा, रौतहट र सर्लाहि जिल्लामा िसंचाई भईरहेकोछ, तर यो िसंचाई वर्षातको पानीमा निर्भर छ । सुख्खायाममा पनि बागमती नदीमा दैनिक ९५ करोड लिटर पानी उपलब्ध भए पछि यी जिल्लाहरुमा झण्डै ४० हजार हेक्टरमा िसंचाई सम्भव हुन्छ र यति जमिनमा कम से कम ३ बाली अझ ४ बाली लाग्ने अवस्था हुन्छ जसले गर्दा यस भेगका किसान समृद्धशाली हुनेछन् ।

समग्रमा काठमाडौं उपत्यकाको खानेपानी, बिद्युतिय संकट र मृतप्रायः बागमती नदीको समस्याको समाधान बहुउद्देश्यीय मेलम्चीको अवधारणा कार्यान्वयन गरेर मात्र सम्भव छ । यस अवधारणाको सौदर्य भनेको हिमालको पानीबाट तराईका बासिन्दा समेत लाभान्वित हुनुमा छ, जसको लागि थप लगानि पनि आवश्यक पर्दैन । २ सय ६५ मेगावाट क्षमताको जलबिद्युत आयोजना निर्माण गरिएमा हाल लक्षित गरिए भन्दा दैनिक ९५ करोड लिटर थप पानी पनि कुनै अतिरिक्त लगानि बिना उपलब्ध हुन्छ । आशा गरौं समय छंदै नेपाल सरकारका सम्बद्ध पदाधिकारीहरुले कुरा बुझ्नेछन् र रातभर रुङ्गदा पनि के चािहं जिउंदै भने जस्तो आयोजना सम्पन्न भएपछि पनि खानेपानीको समस्या बिद्यमानै रहने गरेर आयोजना बनाउने छैनन् ।
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
यसको केहि अंश कार्तिक १६ - २९, २०६६ को हिमाल खबरपत्रिकामा प्रकाशित भएको छ ।