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,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: ksenga@adb.org [mailto:ksenga@adb.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:59
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Cc: Bill Bultitude; bnlohani@adb.org; bkhadka@adb.org; gyongshiman@adb.org; kjulian@adb.org; Neeta Pokhrel; ntasanvaripour@adb.org; nsavidge@adb.org; NNSD; rvokes@adb.org; stumiwa@adb.org; msparwez@adb.org; srajbhandari@adb.org; shrahman@adb.org; bhitchcock@adb.org
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" [rsansar@mos.com.np]
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):

http://ratnasansar.blogspot.com/2009/09/erer.html

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,

Sincerely,

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,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: laxmi shilpakar [mailto:lbshilpakar@yahoo.com]
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 rsansar@mos.com.np
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@mx-01.subisu.net.np
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,

Sincerely,

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,
Sincerely,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
From: P Jyoti [mailto:pjyoti@mos.com.np]
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:;"@mx-01.subisu.net.np
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,

Sincerely,

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
NNSD


Arjunjee

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,


Sincerely,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha


From: Arjun Dhakal [mailto:arjundhakal@yahoo.com]

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.

Regards,
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 ।