Monday, January 25, 2010

RE: [ngoforum] Fw: My article in today's Gorkhapatra on on Pancheshwar

January 19, 2010
Narayan Silwal
Former Secretary
Ministry of Labor and Transport

There are two levels.

Yes, as the treaty has already been signed, it’s a fait accompli. In the national interest we could ask for a review or even cancellation of this treaty and enter into further negotiation. But India, obviously, will not be too eager to do so.

However, Pancheshwar, although an integral part of the treaty, is very different issue. Because it will not get built if we don’t want it built and I would say there is no point in building it under the circumstance. What needs to be remembered is that to build it Nepal will have to invest Rs 111 billion (this is just estimated cost and, based on the past experience, the actual cost is likely to double or even treble). Why should Nepal build it if Nepal is to be required to find scarce resource to build it but the load shedding problem is to be mitigated in India! The important point is Nepal should invest to solve the load shedding problem in Nepal not in India.

More importantly, besides money, Nepal has to invest land and people too to build it – about 8,700 hectares of land and 65,000 people. Yes, to build it Nepal will have to sacrifice it 8,700 hectares of land to inundation and 65,000 people will be displaced if it is built. Therefore, as you have appropriately used the term, lopsided, Nepal shouldn’t make another mistake (first mistake was to sign the treaty) by investing money, land and people to build it, simply because the benefit that will accrue from this project to Nepal is not commensurate to the cost she has to bear.

Further, why should Nepal invest 50% of monetary cost and 43% of cost in terms of land to irrigate 16 lakh hectares of land in India and just 93,000 hectares in Nepal? Similarly, why should Nepal invest just to allow India to benefit 90% from flood control with just 10% for Nepal?

Ideally, to sum up, we should try to have a better treaty signed to replace the current treaty. This may not be possible. Then Nepal should not compound the mistake by further investing money, land and people in building this project.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: [] On Behalf Of Narayan Prasad Silwal
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:36
Subject: RE: [ngoforum] Fw: My article in today's Gorkhapatra on ?????????????


I went through your article on Pancheshor. Now that a treaty is already signed and DPR almost ready, what alternate measures Nepal can pursue to correct the lopsided treaty without breaching it? Is it possible to enter into further negotiation? Or Restart the process again or refrain from entering into force? You could suggest.


np silwal

To: ;From:
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:46:18 +0545
Subject: [ngoforum] Fw: My article in today's Gorkhapatra on

No comments: