UML and Mahakali Treaty

September 5, 2009

Er Sagar Gnawali

Lalitpur

Sagar Bhai

I really do become disheartened to learn of your party’s view and it is no wonder that this country is suffering as such. However, there is consolation in the fact that there are people like Pradip Nepal who understand things better. He has written a number of articles in newspapers denouncing Mahakali treaty. I am responding to each of your points below. I hope you will dare to go back and tell those people in your party what is correct and what is not.

1. Catchment area doesn’t decide who does a river belong to. I am surprised that they are happy to surrender our own Mahakali river in the name of catchment area. If that principle is valid then most of the rivers in northern part of USA will belong to Canada. To take an example closer to home, by that logic river Brahmaputra will belong to China as its 75% catchment area is in China.

Sugauli treaty, signed in 1816, is very clear and you should ask your party people to read it, instead of exhibiting their ignorance as such. Nepal’s western boundary was Sutlaj River, now in Pakistan and India, before we were defeated in war with British colonizers in India that ended in 1816. Nepal was forced to sign this treaty giving up claims on land west of this river. Mark those words, we had given up claims to land “west of Kali river”, and the river wasn't declared a boundary river (Sajha!).

Thus, even under this dishonorable treaty this river belonged to Nepal fully. But your party leader Madhav Nepal took the initiative to sign Mahakali treaty under a so called “package” deal and committed treason by declaring this river a border river, limiting Nepal’s right to water to just 50%.

Another level of treason was committed by arranging to irrigate only 3.5% land in Nepal and 96.5% in India, under Mahakali treaty. I take it you will be able to find in the traty that, although declared a border river, entitling Nepal to half water, we ended up with just 3.5%. Therefore, those people are traitors.

2. You should read Mahakali treaty for yourself and decide; not run after crow when someone tells you that your ear has been stolen by a crow. I have attached it for your benefit so that you don’t become a clone of the likes of Madhav Nepal. Under sub article 3 of article 3, each country is entitled to electricity based on investment. Therefore, if India invests 60% then they will take 60% electricity. It’s highly foolish to be happy with such provision. If we have money we can take the benefit by investing in hydropower anywhere, in Nepal or outside Nepal. In order to benefit from investment we don’t even need to invest in hydropower, we can set up shoe factory or whatever. Therefore, don’t get carried away by what the likes of DB Singh say. Last Thursday, Radio Sagarmatha organized a program on Pancheshwar with me and him but he refused to attend the program with me. I have challenged him several times publicly (on television too), but he has not dared to contradict me. I have sent several emails to him contradicting his contentions but he has not reverted back to me.

3. You sound happy that India has agreed to “allow” us to irrigate 96,000 hectares of land when they are going to irrigate 1.6 million hectares. If Nepal is entitled to 50%, then Nepal should be irrigating over 800,000 hectares instead of just 96,000 hectares. This is anohter clear case of treason.

As an engineer you should be able to figure out that for the Pancheshwar project Nepal will have to sacrifice over 8,700 hectares of land which is 43% of the total submergence. Then logically Nepal is entitled to at least 43% water from the reservoir. Therefore, by agreeing to inundate 43% land to irrigate under 5% land, those people are committing treason at another level. Conversely, if Nepal is to irrigate just 5% land (96,000 hectares) then we should have to sacrifice only 5% land in submergence, instead of 43%.

I hope the above is clear to you. By the way I met your party leader and PM of this unfortunate country Madhav Nepal last Wednesday to discuss Pancheshwar project.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

http:www.ratnasansar.blogspot.com/


-----Original Message-----

From: sagar gnawali [mailto:sagar.gnawali@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 12:57

To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Subject: Mirage of illusionary benefit of Rs 45 billion from Pancheshwar Project

Ratna Sir,

I am learning many things with your close interaction. I have little bit different voice then you in the subject of Mahakali Treaty and Pancheshowr. I request you take this as a question to his GURU by his CHELO(?). I should belive in trouth, so that this mission is towards trouth. You couldn't tell me that I am the member of CPN UML so that I can't go against the views of my party.

1. More then 60% catchment area of Mahakali river is lies in india. Then How we call tell that the full authority of Mahakali river is with in us showing Sugauli Sandhi?

2. The 60% investment is in the part of india, and most of the land to be sinking lies in India( I looked the documents by ER. singh) but the electricity is divided at same ratio. Is this is not beneficial to us?

3. The main concerns of us is water division. I heard that Our land to be cultivated is 96 Thousand hector. And India is ready for that.

I just started studying these documents curiously. I had read various articles in Newspaper.

It is my first step of being Future Ratna Sansar Shrestha. I am feeling happy to take a discussion with you with different openion in
same subject.

--

Sagar Gnawali
President
Our Technology: Prosperous Nepal
Mobile No. 0977-9841803113