Wednesday, March 31, 2010

२०४७ सालको संबिधान ब्युंताए प्रतिगमन उत्कर्षमा पुग्छ

पूर्व प्रधान मन्त्री कृष्ण प्रसाद भट्टराईले २०६२/६३ सालको जनआन्दोलनोपरान्त जनताबाट परित्यक्त २०४७ सालको संबिधान ब्युंताउनुपर्ने भन्नाले एक किसिमको तरंग प्रवाहित भएकोछ र झिनो स्वरमा उनको समर्थन प्रारम्भ भएकोछ । तिनले उक्त संबिधान उत्कृष्ट रहेको पनि भनेकाछन् ।

संबैधानिक राजतंत्र ब्युंताउने प्रयास
प्रस्तावनामा नै "संबैधानिक राजतन्त्र र बहुदलिय प्रजातन्त्रको सुदृढीकरण" गर्ने लक्ष्य लिएको हुनाले त्यो संबिधान ब्युंताउनु भनेको राजतन्त्रलाई पुनर्जीवित पार्नु हो । यस परिप्रेक्ष्यमा प्रत्येक नेपालीले आत्मसमिक्षा गर्न आवश्यक भएको छ कि राजतन्त्रमा फर्काउन कत्तिको उचित हुन्छ भनेर ।
हुन त विश्व इतिहांसमा उन्मूलन भईसकेका राजतन्त्र ब्युंताईएको उदाहरण छन् । स्पेनमा १९३९ मा अन्त्य गरिएको राजतन्त्र १९७८ मा कायम गरेकोमा छ । त्यस्तै १९७० मा सैनिक बिप्लवबाट निष्काशित राजतन्त्र क्याम्बोडियामा १९९३ मा पुनःस्थापित भयो । यहि तर्कलाई प्रक्षेपण गरेर राजतन्त्रको पुनःस्थापनाको आत्मरतीमा मग्न हुनेको अभाव नेपालमा छैन ।

तर धरातलिय यथार्थले पनि भविष्यलाई निर्देशित गर्ने हुनाले पद्च्यूत राजा ज्ञानेन्द्रको पुनरागमनको सम्भावना अत्यन्त न्यून देखिन्छ । २०५९ सालमा उनलाई सुनौलो अक्षरले इतिहांसमा आफ्नो नाम लेखाउने अवसर प्राप्त थियो । स्वच्छन्द एवम् छाडा आर्थिक उदारबादले भ्रष्टाचार मौलायो भने राजनैतिक दलहरुले यसको मलजल गर्नाले ब्याप्त कुशासनले आक्रांत जनताले उनलाई केहि गर्ने अवसर िदंदै केहि समय पर्खेका थिए । यो पनि स्मरणिय छ कि भ्रष्टाचार, कुशासन, बेरोजगारी, धनी झन धनी हुंदै जाने र गरिब झन बिपन्न हुदैं जाने समस्याले गर्दा नैं देशको कानून व्यवस्था प्रति बितृष्णा बढ्नाले माओबादी दलको नारा र जनयुद्ध प्रति विषेश गरेर ग्रामिण जनतामा आकर्षण बढेको थियो ।

उनीबाट यी समस्याहरुको शान्तीपूर्ण समाधानको अपेक्षा जनताले राखेको थिए र संबिधानको धारा १२७ को अपब्याख्या गरेर २०५९ सालमा, २०६० सालमा र २०६१ सालमा एउटालाई हटाएर अर्कोलाई प्रधानमन्त्री बनाउंदा पनि जनताले धैर्य गरेकाथिए । यस अवधिमा नेपालमा सकृय राजतन्त्रको पुनःप्रादुर्भाव भएको थियो । तर उनीबाट जनताको हितमा कुनै काम हुन सकेन बरु २०६१ माघमा प्रतिगमन उत्सर्गमा पुग्यो र नेपाली जनतामाथि पुनः निरंकूश राजतन्त्र लादियो ।

उनले नेपालीलाई धेरै खिन्न पारेर अत्यधिक अलोकपि्रय बने । समूल नष्ट गरिएको राजा बिरेन्द्रको परिवारको सम्पत्ति मात्र आफ्नो बनाएनन् झण्डै १० जनाको संख्याले घटेको राजपरिवारको खर्च वार्षिक ११ करोड रुपैयाबाट बढाएर ६५ करोड पुर् याएर आफूमा भएको लोभ लालचको खुल्ला प्रदर्शन गरे । यस्तोमा ज्ञानेन्द्रलाई पुनः राजिसंहासनारुढ गराउन नेपाली जनता इच्छुक छैनन् । उनका पुत्र प्रति पनि जनताको धेरै बितृष्णा भएकोले पनि संबैधानिक वा अन्य कुनै प्रकारको राजतंत्र नेपालमा सम्भव छैन र २०४७ सालको संबिधान ब्युंताइएर गणतन्त्रमा पुगेको नेपाल राजतन्त्रमा फर्कन सक्दैन ।

हिन्दु राष्ट्र
२०१५ सालको संबिधान सम्ममा मौन रहेकोमा २०१९ सालको संबिधानले नेपाललाई हिन्दु अधिराज्य घोषणा गरेर नेपालमा भएको धार्मिक, जातिय बिबिधतालाई ओझेलमा पार्न खोजियो । यस क्रममा बौद्ध धर्म लगायतका अन्य धर्मालम्बीहरुलाई समेत हिन्दु भनेर परिभाषित गर्ने काम समेत गरिए । अहिले यसैको विषम प्रतिकृया स्वरुप नेपाल धर्म निरपेक्ष राज्य घोािषत भएको छ । धर्म भनेका प्रत्येक नागरिकको निजी मामिला हो र राज्य आफै कुनै धर्म विषेश प्रति झुकाव राख्नु स्वाभाविक नहुने परिप्रेक्षमा खारेज भई सकेको संबिधान ब्युंताएर नेपाललाई पुनः हिन्दु राष्ट्र घोषणा गर्नु प्रत्युत्पादक हुनेछ । किनभने यसले धार्मिक सहिष्णुता भंग भएर जातिय र धार्मिक विद्वेष फैलन्छ । तसर्थ अब बन्ने संबिधानमा पनि धर्म निरपेक्ष भनेर घोषणा गर्ने कि यस सम्बन्मा मौन रहने भन्ने मात्र दुई विकल्प छन् । मृत संबिधानलाई जीवित पारेर नेपाललाई पुनः हिन्दु राष्ट्र घोषणा गर्ने सपना नसांचे हुन्छ ।

संघियताको समर्थन र बिरोध
अहिले नेपालको लागि संघियता उपयुक्त नभएको तर्फ ध्यान आकृष्ट गर्न विभिन्न कार्यक्रमहरु भएका छन् र लेखहरु प िन प्रकाशित भएकाछन् । संघियताको सिद्धान्तको बिरोधी नभएतापनि यस पंक्तिकार डेढ लाख बर्ग किलोमिटर क्षेत्रफल नभएको यो सानो देशलाई संघियताको नाममा आत्मनिर्णको अधिकार सहित टुक्र्याएर युगोस्लाभियाको बाटो पछ्याउनु हुन्न भन्ने मत राख्दछ । अझ जातिय पहिचानको नाममा जातिय आधारमा प्रान्तियकरण गरेर जातीय विद्वेष निम्त्याउनु, फैलाउनु बुद्धिमत्तापूर्ण हुन्न भन्ने ठान्दछ । तर संघियतामा जान नहुने भन्ने आधारलाई उपयोग गरेर २०४७ सालको संबिधान र साथै राजतन्त्र पनि ब्युंताउने काम स्वीकार्य छैन ।

अर्कोतिर संघियता नेपाल सुहांउदो छैन भन्ने सम्बन्धमा आयोजित कार्यक्रममा माओबादी सम्बद्ध केहिले िहंसात्मक कृयाकलाप गरेको देखियो जुन लोकतान्त्रिक काम होइन । जनयुद्ध बन्द गरेर लोकतान्त्रिक प्रकृयामा आएको दल सुहांउदो व्यबहार यो होइन । जननिर्वाचित संबिधान सभाले यस सम्बन्धमा निर्णय गर्ने नैं छ, जुन लोकतान्त्रिक प्रकृया अनुसार हुनेछ र जे जस्तो निर्णय गरे पनि संघियताका पक्ष/बिपक्ष जता लागेको भए पनि सबैले मान्नु पर्नेछ । यत्तिखेर संघियताको सम्बन्धमा फरक मत राख्ने प्रति असहिष्णु र अलोकतान्त्रिक व्यबहार प्रदर्शन गरेर नेपालमा राजतन्त्र पुनःस्थापना गर्न चाहनेहरुको हात बलियो पार्ने काम अवश्य पनि बुद्धिमत्तापूर्ण हुन्न ।

उत्कृष्ट संबिधान
त्यो संबिधान उत्कृष्टतम् भएकोले पनि पुनर्जीवित गनुपर्ने भन्ने धारणा अगाडि आएकोले यस सम्बन्धमा पनि केहि बिबेचना गर्नु उचितै हुनेछ प्रस्तुत लेखमा गहिराई सम्म पुगेर बिस्तृत बिबेचना गर्न सम्भव नभए पनि ।

अहिले संबिधान सभा देशको लागि नयां संबिधान लेख्नमा ब्यस्त छ र कतिपयले संबिधान सभाको भूमिका संबिधान लेखन मात्र सीमित देख्ने गरेका छन् । संबिधान कसले लेख्छ भन्दा पनि महत्वपूर्ण विषय हुन्छ संबिधान कसले जारी तथा लागू गर्छ भन्नेमा निहित हुन्छ । नेपाली जनताद्वारा निर्वाचित संयत्रले नयां संबिधान निर्माण गरेर जारी तथा लागू गरिने हुनाले नेपाली जनता सांच्चिकै सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न छन् भन्ने पुष्ट्याई नयां संबिधान जारी तथा लागू भएपछि हुनेछ ।

तर २०४७ सालको संबिधानको प्रस्तावना "हामीबाट प्रयोग भईआएको राजकीय सत्ताको प्रयोग गरी बक्सी" भन्दै राजाबाट संबिधान लागू गरिएको हुनाले नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता राजामा रहेको र उनैले उपयोग समेत गरेको स्पष्ट छ । तसर्थ त्यो संबिधान ब्युंताएर २०६२/६३ को जनआन्दोलनबाट नेपाली जनतामा फर्किसकेको सार्वभौमसत्ता बहिस्कृत राजतन्त्रलाई पुनः सुम्पनु कुनै हालतमा पनि बुद्धिमानिपूर्ण मान्न सकिन्न । हुनत सार्वभौमसत्ता सदैव जनतामा रहन्छ तर यस अघि जनतालाई भोरमा पारेर राजाले आफूसंग राख्ने गरेको थियो ।

यस सम्बन्धमा संबिधान जारी तथा लागू गर्न राजाद्वारा २०४७ कार्तिक २३ मा गरिएको घोषणामा "हामीमा अन्तर्निहित संबैधानिक तथा राजकीय सत्ता र विशेषाधिकार प्रयोग गरी" भनिएकोलाई स्मरण गर्नुपर्छ । यो भनाईमा संबैधानिक तथा राजकीय सत्ता र विशेषाधिकार राजामा अन्तर्निहित भएको दम्भ र अहंकार छ । २०४७ को संबिधान स्वीकार गरिरहंदा नेपाली जनताले राजालाई संबैधानिक तथा राजकीय सत्ता र विशेषाधिकार सम्पन्न मानियो । त्यस्तै उनले तिनै अधिकार प्रयोग गरेर "नेपालको संबिधान २०१९ प्रतिसंहरण गरिबक्सेका छौं" भनेकाछन् । अर्थात राजा नयां संबिधान दिने र पुरानो फिर्ता लिनसक्ने सर्बशक्तिमान भएको त्यो संबिधानले पुष्टि गर्दछ ।

२०४७ सालमा नयां संबिधान राजाबाट जारी र लागू गर्नु हुन्न भन्ने यस पंक्तिकार लगायत सानो समूहको धारणालाई उपेक्षा गरियो । जनआन्दोलनबाट पंचायति व्यवस्था फालेपछि बन्ने संबिधान जनताद्वारा निर्वाचित सार्वभौम संसदबाट घोषणा हुनुपर्ने थियो, तर त्यो आवश्यक ठानिएन । यसैको फलस्वरुप ज्ञानेन्द्रले संबिधानमा नभएको पद आफ्नो लागि सृजना गर्नसके । राजाले दिएको संबिधान हुनाले राजाले परिवर्तन, तोड मरोड लगायत गर्न मिल्छ भन्ने धारणा पालेर संबिधानमा नभएको आयोग सम्म पनि गठन गरेर जनतालाई अरु बढी आतंकित गरे । यसै परिवेशमा धारा १२७ को पनि पटक पटक अपब्याख्या गरियो । त्यस्तो संबिधान ब्युंताउने सपना पाल्न छूट छ तर यो काम नेपाल र नेपाली जनताको हितमा छैन सबैले बेलैमा बुझ्न आवश्यक छ ढिलो भएपछि पछुताउनुको सट्टा ।

सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न जनता
उक्त संबिधानको धारा ३ मा "नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता नेपाली जनतामा निहित रहने" व्यवस्था गरिएर संबैधानिक इतिहांसमा पहिलो पटक नेपाली जनता सार्वभौम मानिएका हुन् । त्यो संबिधानलाई उत्कृष्ट भन्नुमा यो कारण पनि हुनसक्छ । यस अघि नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता राजामा निहित मान्थ्यिो । तर स्मरणिय के छ भने राजाले आफूमा अन्तर्निहित ठानेको संबैधानिक तथा राजकीय सत्ता र विशेषाधिकार प्रयोग गरी जारी र लागू गरेको संबिधानले सार्वभौम घोषित जनता सांच्चिकै सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न नभएको कुरा ज्ञानेन्द्रको २०५९ पछिको कृयाकलापबाट प्रष्टिन्छ । घरको मूली फलानो हो भनेर भनिएको व्यक्ति मूलि ठहर्छ कि मूली तोक्ने अधिकारसम्पन्न व्यक्ति मूलि ठहर्छ भन्ने ठट्टाको गम्भिर पाटो यस कुरामा निहित छ । तसर्थ पनि त्यो संबिधान ब्युताएर पंैचोमा प्राप्त हुने सार्वभौमसत्ताको पछाडी नेपाली जनताले दौड्ने अवस्था अब छैन । जनआन्दोलन गरेर, संबिधान सभा निर्वाचित गरेर, राजतन्त्रको अन्त्य गरेर, गणतन्त्र स्थापना गरेर आफू सार्वभौम भएको कुरा नेपाली जनताले पुष्ट्याई सकेको अवस्थामा पछाडी फर्कनु सांच्चिकै पश्चगामी काम हुनेछ ।

अन्तमा
राणाहरुको जहानिया शासन अन्त गर्नु २००७ सालको क्रान्तीको उपलब्धि थियो र बिधान सभाद्वारा निर्मित संबिधान अनुरुप नेपालमा गणतान्त्रिक शासन पद्धति लागू गर्ने प्रतिबद्धता राजा त्रिभुवनले गरे । तर राजनीतिकर्मीहरुको मतमतान्तर, पदलोलुपता, लोभ लालच, अनि दलहरु भित्रका लडाई झगडाको पृष्ठभूमिमा शाहहरुको जहानियां शासनले राणाशासनलाई प्रतिस्थापन गर्नपुग्यो, जुन निरंकुश राजतन्त्रको रुपमा उत्कर्षमा पुग्नाले नेपाली जनता झण्डै ३० वर्ष पंचायती "प्रजातन्त्र"का "प्रजा" भएर बांच्न पर् यो, नागरिक बन्न पाएनन् । २०४६/४७ को आन्दोलनले नेपालीलाई "प्रजा"बाट नागरिक बन्ने बाटो खुल्यो, तर २०४७ सालको संबिधानको कमीकमजोरीको लाभ उठाएर ज्ञानेन्द्रले निरंकूश सकि्रय राजतन्त्र नेपालमा पुन लाद्न सफल भए । अहिले २०४७ सालको संबिधान ब्युंताउन खोज्नेहरुको मूल अभिष्ट नैं राजतन्त्र फर्काउने देखिनाले कुनै पनि हालतमा यस्तो कामलाई जायज मान्न सकिन्न ।

यस पृष्ठभूमिमा सांच्चिकै उत्कृष्ट भएकै भएपनि जनताद्वारा परित्यक्त उक्त संबिधान ब्युंताउनु सामयिक कदम हुन्न भने, माथिको पंक्तिहरुबाट उक्त संबिधान उत्कृष्ट नभएर निरंकूश सकृय राजतन्त्र फर्काउन मिल्ने गरेर चोरबाटो खुल्ला राखेको देखियो । तसर्थ त्यस्तो संबिधान ब्युंताउनु राष्ट्रियहितमा हुन्न ।

समयमा नयां संबिधान बन्न नसक्ने आशंकालाई भजाएर २०४७ सालको संबिधान ब्युंताउने कसरत भएका हुनाले लोकतन्त्रकामी नेपालीद्वारा निर्वाचित संबिधान सभाका सदस्यहरुले कम्मर कसेर समयमा संबिधान लेख्न कटिबद्ध हुनुपर्छ । लोकतान्त्रिक दलहरुले देश संक्रमणकालमा रहेको तथ्य मनन् गर्दै पदलोलुपता त्यागेर, उद्घाटन शिलान्यास छाडेर, बिदेश भ्रमणको लोभसंवरण गरेर सम्पूर्ण ध्यान संबिधान लेखनमा लगाउन पर्दछ । अत्यावश्यकै भए पनि आन्दोलन आदि गर्ने यो बेला होइन । नत्र प्रतिगमनबादीहरुको षडयन्त्रमा देश पर्न सक्नेछ र यो कार्यले गर्दा आगामि पुस्ता अभिशप्त हुनेछन् । अनि जनयुद्धकालका झण्डै १४ हजार ज्ञात अज्ञात शहिदहरु र आगामि पुस्ताहरुले अहिलेका राजनीतिकर्मी लगायतका सबैलाई श्राप दिनेछन् । तसर्थ मृत राजसस्थालाई पुनर्जीवन दिने तर्फ नलागेर बेलैमा संबिधान निर्माणमा सबैको संलग्नता अपेक्षित छ ।
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
२०६६ साल चैत्र १८ गतेको गोरखापत्रमा प्रकाशित

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

RE: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

March 30, 2010

Mr Kul Chandra Gautam
Former Assistant Secretary General, UN

Dear Kul Chandrajee

I am highly appreciative of you for the kind words that you have used about me. I agree with you that Nepal can benefit from what I have come to learn and understand about the sector and a vision that I have developed for this sector.

It’s unfortunately true that I have been performing a role of a fire extinguisher. Powers-to-be make avoidable mistakes that are detrimental to Nepal and her people and I critique them after learning about such decisions. Simply because we don’t have a system under which their “potential and prospective” decisions could be vetted by the likes of me before they are made. I would have enjoyed such a role more than anything, but for outdated and dilapidated system of decision making.

It’s also true that I could have taken a proactive approach and started discourse on issues as to how each should be handled. But that isn’t practical as media will not be too eager to publish writings on things which have yet to become controversial. Moreover, I can limit my critique to a certain number of words in the interest of the restriction of the media concerned (leaving out a couple of, even important point, does not impair the article). But when I am to lay down my vision, any such limit will truncate the vision and neither will people understand it nor will powers-to-be able to implement it. Meaning a vision about a project, sub-sector or sector of the economy will have to be fully complete and media is unable to accommodate such needs. Therefore, I am left to resort to sneaking in a few suggestions while criticizing.

In one article of different genre I have laid down my vision as to how Nepal should benefit from water resource which can be perused by following the link below:
http://www.ratnasansar.com/2008/12/nepals-water-resource-and-new-nepal.html

I thank you for your confidence that I could lead a team to come up with a long-term master plan for the development of water resources and hydro-power. I am sure that I will really enjoy doing such a thing if that was to be possible.

I, unfortunately, am yet to meet George Varghese and it would be interesting to meet him to see if he could support such an activity.

I look forward to learn from you about the responses of George Varghese and Kanak Dixit to your email below.

With best regards,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Kul Gautam [mailto:kulgautam@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 23:45
To: ratna sansar shrestha
Subject: RE: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

dear ratna sansarji,

considering the depth of your knowledge, your competent analyses, your boldness to speak out, and the consistent manner in which you try to always keep the best long-term interest of Nepal uppermost in your proposals, it seems to me that we need to find more effective ways for the country to take full advantage of your ideas and proposals.

so far, many of your writings and media appearances seem to focus on "what not to do"; how to avoid big blunders and unwise decisions. I know you also offer better alternatives when asked, but these are not always the focus of media attention or taken very seriously or constructively by our policy makers.

given the importance of water resources and hydro-power for nepal's future development, it would be very important for thoughtful citizens to come up with a compilation of good proposals - in fact, I would say, a comprehensive master-plan for water resources development. I understand some efforts were made in the past to just do that, but I do not recall seeing any convincing nationally-owned master-plan for this sector. what usually happens is that we seem to commission some studies based on some donor interest or investor interest rather than on the basis of long-term national interest.

donors come with their own baggage, prejudices and preferences. I recall ADB very lightly and summarily rejecting proposals for an electrically-operated railway transport system in favour of fast-track roads based on their expert advice, and we nepalis failed to challenge their claim. you have come up with so many alternative formulations for various past, present and possible future projects, but I fear that these will all be forgotten and ignored by future governments when prodded and prompted by powerful donors and investors.

it would be wonderful if you could lead a team to come up with a long-term master plan for the development of water resources and hydro-power which perhaps some of us in civil society could work together to publicise and advocate with current and future governments, donors and potential investors. such a proactive approach, rather than just critiquing other people's bad ideas would be a real contribution to national development.

I know this is not a task for one individual. it requires collective effort, and perhaps some resources to put such plan together. I am aware that george varughese of the asia foundation in nepal has been contemplating setting up some kind of a policy foundation to precisely look into and promote such policies. I am copying this message to george with the hope that perhaps you and he could meet and chat, if you have not done so already. if necessary and convenient, I would be happy to join.

it seems to me that given the current political stalemate and the long transition period ahead, now is the perfect time to prepare such master-plans in various sectors, so that such ideas can be presented to a more stable future government which hopefully will give priority for a massive national reconstruction and development plan which has not been seriously contemplated by any of our major political parties.

i am copying this to kanak dixit as well with whom i have talked about reconstruction and development for a number of years now. kanak and george are also in touch on setting up a niti (policy) foundation.

with best regards,
kul g
--------------------
Kul Chandra Gautam
www.kulgautam.org
e-mail: kulgautam@hotmail.com
============================
From: rsansar@mos.com.np
To: kulgautam@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:28:38 +0545

Dear Kul Chandrajee

Thursday, March 25, 2010

RE: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

March 25, 2010

Mr Kul Chandra Gautam
Former Assistant Secretary General, UN

Dear Kul Chandrajee

I highly appreciate your reverting back to me and, more importantly, for the encouraging words. This is what keeps me going on with my “crusade”; some people have described, what I am doing, as a crusade and I like this description. It, actually, is tuning out like one for a number of reasons:
  • People have very superficial understanding of the water resource sector (I am sure many would protest in disagreement with me, though).
  • People mix up between water resource sector and hydropower sub sector. Generation of electricity, most of the time, from a particular site may not be the best use of water resource at that particular site. There is many an example of unfortunate “abuse” of such sites (upper Karnali stands out like a sore thumb), as economic benefit to Nepal’s macro economy would have been a lot higher from the alternative or comprehensive use of water resource of a specific site. Meaning an optimal decision can only be reached by making comprehensive option assessment of exploitation of each site and Nepal’s best interest may be served by not putting up a hydropower plant at that particular site. An interesting example from this perspective is Middle Bhote Koshi project, 80 MW. I am told that if this project is built, the water sports based tourism (like rafting, bungee jumping, etc.) on this river will be wrecked and the benefits accruing to Nepal’s macro economy and the local populace will be lost for ever which is relatively higher than from electricity generation (I have yet to make an in-depth analysis of this project from this perspective). I have mentioned this in a couple of programs and I could see that it was difficult for many to understand. However, I am sure that you will definitely understand this. In my considered opinion, GoN should study this aspect prior to granting licenses for hydropower projects. But this is yet to dawn on the hydrocrats of Nepal.
  • People are ill-informed. No construction activity is taking place in this particular project, but people, including Ajit Narayanjee, have jumped to the conclusion that UCPNM is obstructing the construction activity. From the perspective of timing, this is the best time to raise questions related optimal decision, which is not designed to disallow GMR from making investment. Majority of the people are yet to understand that.
  • I am not too sure of UCPNM’s intentions, though. There are some indications that what they are doing now could be designed from the perspective of political expediency. If true, that will not only be unfortunate for the sector and this country but it will also be unfortunate for that party itself. Because all the people are no fools and all of them couldn’t be fooled for all the time; to use an old cliché.
  • People don’t seem to have clear idea about how to benefit from the sector and its sub sectors. Although it’s an export oriented project, I have discovered that even my friends and family are belaboring under the misconception that commissioning of this project will alleviate energy crisis in Nepal!
  • People don’t realize that the question in their mind is self contradictory until someone like me points out. Ajit Narayajnee seems to think that implementation of this project amounts to “us using it meaningfully” (emphasis mine). Except for 36 MW power (which will generate only about 12 MW power during dry season, at the time when we need most), this project will use the water of Karnali river at this stretch for India “meaningfully.” What I am advocating is the meaningful use of this water for Nepal and Nepali people; including optimal exploitation of it. But very few seem to appreciate it and you are one of the few exceptions. They equate my questioning the project as opposition of the project and the investors. They couldn’t have been more wrong from both perspectives.
  • They seem to think that Nepal should allow export of power to the country from where the investors hail from. We have had investors from Norway and US and weren’t required to export power to those countries. Similarly, there is talk of investment coming from Qatar and I am sure that power won’t be evacuated to that country. Therefore, there is nothing against GMR in my “crusade”, nor am I against export of electricity per se (I recommend export of energy, not power). What is in the best interest of Nepal is tapping our water resources, not just to mitigate our energy crisis (first domestic consumption) but also to use it for drinking water and sanitation (to ensure no deaths due to lack of safe water), irrigation, navigation, recreation, improvement of watershed, industrial use of water, etc.
  • People wonder about Nepal’s ability to implement such projects, forgetting the ground reality within and without Nepal. It’s true that Nepal hasn’t built any project from “wire to water” completely on its own. However, I doubt if even developed countries bother to do so, irrespective of whether they are capable or otherwise. We have our resource, we are in a position to exploit the resource and utilize it. With proper vision, policy and strategy in place, we should be able to attract investment and source for necessary men and material nationally and internationally (maximizing use of domestic input as well) and get such projects built in our interest. Specifically, Nepal can benefit by industrializing and generating employment within the country by using production of such hydropower projects and exporting remaining energy. For the purpose, Nepal should allow capable investors to build such projects at shortest possible time and buy all power at “best” price and after selling as much as possible domestically at affordable prices, she (not the project developer) should export the remaining energy at the going rate (we are currently importing at INR 6.70 from India) not at rock bottom price like all these export oriented projects are proposing to do. Nepal should aim to export energy following “value for energy” concept; higher tariff during peak (from demand perspective) hours and peak season and lower during off peak hours and off peak season.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Kul Gautam [mailto:kulgautam@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:49
To: ratna sansar shrestha
Subject: RE: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

dear ratna sansarji,

my hats off to you - i admire how thoroughly and logically you make your case - a case that also happens to be always in nepal's best interest.

it is clear that you put your heart and soul into studying and analysing these issues with great rigour - a rare quality among nepali commentators and activists.

i am in awe with your intellectual and analytical capacity - and above all, your integrityin calling a spade a spade without trying to be politically "correct" in these turbulent and partisan times.

keep up the good work and keep enlightening us. i am confident that sooner or later your views will be heard.

kul g

--------------------

Kul Chandra Gautamwww.kulgautam.orge

-mail: kulgautam@hotmail.com

============================
From: rsansar@mos.com.np

To: rsansar@mos.com.np

Subject: FW: FW: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:00:40 +0545

Dear Ajit Narayanjee

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Re: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

March 24, 2010

Mr Ajit Narayan S Thapa
Former Managing Director
Nepal Electricity Authority

Dear Ajit Narayanjee

I am highly enthused by your joining this discourse. Thanks a lot. By sending following email you have afforded me an opportunity to clarify a number of issues that are at the top of people’s mind. This will help crystallize not only this issue but it will also help with the thought process of the people.

I generally welcome such questions but I welcome these from you more so for reasons that will become obvious to you as you read on. I will answer each of your questions below:

Q1. Why did not the maoist led Gov' obstruct the construction of the project and or its cancellation (if this was so detrimental to our national interest) when it was in power?

A1. The answer to this particular question of yours will have to come from UCPNM. I hope you will direct this question to the concerned.

The reason you have asked this question of me is due to the fact that, I suspect, people are mistakenly associating me with that particular party as my opinion and the opinion of that party converges on this particular issue. I am not associated with that party in any manner whatsoever; for that matter neither am I involved with any other political party. I am not only an apolitical person but I, moreover, don’t believe in any form of communism; least of all Maoism which is considered to be at the extreme fringes of the left. I believe in rule of law, democracy, et al and I am against any form of dictatorship or absolute rule (I have even written/published against absolute monarchy about 26 years ago, in the heydays of absolute monarchy, and was saved from getting incarcerated by the proverbial skin of the teeth).

Contrasted with the fact that there is similarity of opinion between myself and UCPNM on the matter of Upper Karnali specifically, I happen to disagree with them on a gamut of issues related to water resources, like Naumule storage project, Pancheshwar project, etc.; all of which is on public record. Besides questioning Prachanda’s reported proclamation in India, during his visit to Tehri project, that he will take initiative to implement Pancheshwar Project in my articles, I have categorically criticized him for his reported stance, in programs, inter alia organized by YCL on 5th December last year and by UCPNM on 9th January. Mohan Vaidya Kiran came to Prachanda’s defense in the first program and Prachanda was personally present in the second program where he denied having made any such commitment.

I also disagree with UCPNM on the matter of restructuring Nepal on ethnic lines. Although, I am not against federalism per se, but I fail to see justification for parceling out this tiny country into 14 provinces, that too, mostly, on ethnic lines. I have written a number of articles on this subject such that I even got inducted into a panel against federalism in Nepal last Wednesday. UCPNM has already publicly declared that that panel is its foe.

UCPNM has supported the idea of building fast track access to Tarai from Kathmandu. I not only am opposed to this but have published number of articles criticizing the idea, including in “Greatway Magazine” published by Om Sharma who was Press Secretary to Prachanda when he was PM. In my considered opinion Nepal should go for electrification of transportation in all viable routes (this particular segment is most viable due to the heavy traffic) instead of perpetuating dependency on fossil fuel further, with appurtenant problems of balance of trade and balance of payment (including hemorrhaging NOC) as well as local pollution and global warming impact.

I trust you will now understand that, unfortunately, there are more issues that I disagree with them than agree.

PS: BTW, although you are talking of obstruction of construction of this project by UCPNM, you should note that, as the construction of the project is yet to begin, UCPNM isn’t in a position to obstruct its construction. Some impediment did get placed on the completion of detailed studies that GMR is conducting. From my perspective it is right time to draw people’s attention to the failure to properly optimize the project. After the commencement of real construction work, it will be too late to even wonder about the real potential of the project. From this view point, UCPNM’s work is timely.

Q2. If it were a 4000MW storage project, why has it been pedalled around as a 300 MW for so many years?

A2. This is another question that should better be addressed to the powers-to-be, present and past. This scribe, who has never been in power, nor intends to be, isn’t in a position to supply an answer to this question of yours. A study commissioned by NEA, financed by the World Bank, conducted by Himalayan Power Corporation (HPC), has categorically concluded that the specific site’s full potential is 4,180 MW storage; report published in 1989. The report also categorically states that 4,180 MW storage project is mutually exclusive of 300 MW RoR project. Now the energy minister is going about telling that the site has been optimized at 900 MW, but that, if true, is still detrimental to Nepal as she will be deprived of building it at its optimum capacity. I am sure that you are aware that built as a storage project, it will generate peak power (which will be of higher quality, fetching higher tariff, compared to RoR power that generates spill energy in wet season and not much energy when we need in dry season) and also generate augmented/regulated flow of water in the dry season which has a significant value on its own (Lesotho supplies 18 m3/s water to South Africa for US $ 25 million per annum).

The powers-to-be pedaling it at around 300 MW, as you have put it, must have done so either due to their ignorance (criminal or negligent) of the existence of this study report, which amounts to sheer incompetence on their part or for benefits pecuniary or otherwise – some form of corruption. It could be a case of “both of them.” Your guess is as good as mine.

Q3. If you were so confident about its true potential, why did U not speak up for so many years when repeatedly,it was being touted around fo as a 300 MW project?

A3. I like the tone and tenor of this question of yours. Because, you have effectively placed me on a pedestal by charging me with the responsibility to “speak up for so many years.” Further, you have gone on to challenge my “confidence about its true potential”, too

The task to ensure optimum exploitation of this particular site (for that matter any other site) has never fallen on my shoulder. If I were ever reposed with that sort of responsibility, only then I could be charged with dereliction of duty and your question would have been relevant. Unfortunately, the situation warranted for me to speak up just recently and even now people are trying to silence me. If I had spoken up before it became relevant like now, then nobody would have listened to me. Besides, as an outsider (never in power), I only learn about the mistakes powers-to-be make after the mistakes are made. If the situation/process had been such that powers-to-be would have been required to seek the opinion of the likes of me prior to arriving at a decision then there would have been fewer mistakes that the powers-to-be could/would have committed.

Further, it’s not my confidence about its true potential that is important and relevant here. Simply because, it wasn’t I who was involved in the assessment of its true potential and, besides, like yourself, I am not a technical person that would and could have been charged with that particular responsibility, nevertheless. As mentioned above, the true potential was assessed by HPC, who, I believe, were qualified and competent for the purpose. If the people assessing the full potential are unqualified and incompetent then too I am not accountable simply because I didn’t “hire” them in the first place.

In effect you, without saying so, you are also asking me “why now.” You will have to grant me that it will not be possible for me to have read the reports of all studies ever commissioned by NEA. One would refer to such reports only when impelled to by the situation/circumstance. You could still ask me, like the tiger, drinking water upstream, of a lamb, drinking water downstream, why didn’t I study the report sooner. Then I will have to ask you why you, in particular, are asking me this question. Because, you should have been informed of the true potential of this project sooner than me as you were MD of NEA in early 90s. From your line of questioning it looks like you too came to know about it only recently. It was NEA which commissioned the study and you must have had access to this report while you were its chief executive. I have to admit that I too got associated with NEA in the capacity of a member of its board of directors in 2002. But unlike an MD, I get involved only with the issues that are tabled in the board meetings and board members aren’t expected to go about poking their noses in matters not included in the agenda of board meetings (having been CEO of many an institutions, you must be aware of this). Besides, unlike an MD, a director isn’t associated full time with NEA and there is no potential for the likes of me to go about accessing all study reports; nor could I afford time for the purpose. Moreover, from August 2003 to August 2004, I was forced by the situation to behave like a member of opposition bench within the board with the change in chair of the board.

At another level it’s also true that all those working in/associated with water resource sector (or for that matter hydropower sub sector) should have been aware of this, including this scribe. However, by that very token you too would be expected to be aware of this, and sooner too, than me as you were chief executive of NEA in, I think, 1994 (I am not aware when did you join NEA) while I became a mere member of its board only in December 2002.

I realize that I still haven’t answered your question as to “why now”. The question is important in the backdrop of requests of the Parliamentary Committee on Natural Resources and Means for my appearances from time to time for hearings on different issues and I also need to respond to this question to record it for the sake of posterity.

Parliamentary Committee first sought my opinion with regard to whether competitive bidding process already underway for this project should be scrapped and Elysee NEA Upper Karnali Hydro Electric Power Ltd. be allowed to implement the project, in the summer of 2007. You will recall that in the name of “fast track” a Singapore based company named Elysee Frontier was “given” this project in July 2001, through the backdoor; long time after you demitted your office in NEA. As this developer was unable to do anything within the stipulated time limit, the MoU lapsed (died its natural death) and there was no reason for GoN to reinstate MoU with it (the MoU was not legally binding agreement as GoN had decided not to execute it as a legally binding one), thereby preempting the need for the GoN to scrap the competitive bidding process. I rendered this opinion to the committee and the committee reached a decision on these very lines.

Charged with a task to select a developer to implement this project under the process I have mentioned above, Bhanu Acharya committee submitted a report to GoN but the Parliamentary Committee was unsatisfied with the report and it intervened, again. Then too I was requested by the committee to render my opinion on the selection criteria and process in late 2007. Having studied the selection criteria thoroughly, I reached the conclusion that the selection criteria was faulty and based on which a fair selection couldn’t be made. In this instance, the committee didn’t accept my opinion and it authorized GoN to go ahead with the selection of GMR for this project.

In signing the agreement with GMR for this project GoN acted in contravention of article 156 of the Interim Constitution (under which parliamentary approval is mandatory for agreements for the sharing of utilization of water resources) and a few legal practitioners including yours truly got together to take GoN to task. Therefore, we filed a writ application in the Supreme Court against GoN in early 2008. In the wake of news reports published about this project, Dr Ananada B Thapa, on his own, published articles in various papers expressing outrage over GoN’s failure to ensure exploitation of full potential of this project; 4,180 MW storage. I became aware of the full potentiality only after reading his articles. There was no way for me to know about this before reading his articles. Although the writ application was silent with regard to the issue of its full potentiality, I, for the first time, raised this point during the hearing in the Supreme Court on 12th March 2008. Since then I too have been trying to draw people’s attention to this failure of GoN, besides Dr Thapa.

Q4. Does Nepal have the capcity to finance storage project on its own in view of the fact that it has taken over 3 years to do a financial closure of the 456 MW Upper tama -Kosi project( exhauting practically all the internal financial resources)

A4. If you were to go through the list of power project so far implemented in Nepal, it will be difficult for you to find very many projects that were “financed by Nepal”. Most of the projects so far implemented by NEA were financed with external funding and same is the case with IPP projects. Of around 700 MW installed capacity in the country less than 50 MW was implemented with Nepal’s internal financial resources. Therefore, where does the finance come from is not relevant. What is relevant and important is to ensure the optimum exploitation of the resource for the benefit of Nepal and her people.

The obverse side of this argument is that it shouldn’t be for the financier to decide on optimum use of our resources, no matter where the financing comes from. Nepal should decide about it and ask for financing accordingly. To use an analogy, a horse shouldn’t be allowed to decide as to where should it go. As a horse needs to be fed and taken care of, similarly, an investor’s interest should be taken care of by ensuring adequate return but decision regarding optimum potential of the project and where should the benefits flow should be decided by Nepal and Nepal only.

Q5.If we keep on protesting against decisions to suit our own needs, will we not be bogged down by the indecision syndrone- analysis to th point of paralysis
A5. I am taken aback by your question. If we aren’t to exploit our resource “to suit our own needs,” then what is the point of exploiting our natural resources at all? What will happen to future generations to come if we are to continue to exploit our resources “to suit others’ needs”? Because at this rate and in this manner we will soon exhaust our natural resources for others’ benefit and the future generations to come will be deprived from its benefit and the dependency syndrome will be perpetuated which will be of a lot higher magnitude than now. Dependency syndrome is much more dangerous and “indecision syndrome”. Because, once the powers-to-be see the light and learn what is good for Nepal and Nepali people, right decisions can be taken eventually. But after giving away projects in this manner, these will be irreversible; mainly in the case of water, as the “right to existing prior consumptive use” will get invoked. I am sure that you are aware of this issue.

Q6. Can we really contemplate a 4000 Mw when we can not even begin the 600 MW Budhi-Gandaki project?
A6. Frankly speaking “we” haven’t implemented even a 10-MW project fully on our own as I have already pointed out above. Only Puwa khola project, 6.2 MW in Ilam, was built with full funding from NEA. Similarly, Chilime was done by “us” from financial perspective. But Electro-mechanical equipment for this project was supplied from Europe and civil works was done by L & T from India (part of it was done by CGGC from China earlier). In this backdrop, the important issue isn’t who implements a particular project. Rather the issue is whether a particular project is implemented in the interest of Nepal and her people or not.

In this respect too I disagree with UCPNM who say that they are “against implementation of projects by foreigners.” It is true that in order to benefit from investment linkage at the optimum level, capital from Nepal must have be entitled to first opportunity to invest. But in cases where Nepal lacks adequate capital, foreign investors must be allowed to invest. Take the case of Khimti which got implemented because of the breakthrough achieved due to the PPA signed during your tenure in NEA. People now are criticizing NEA for signing that particular PPA, but if Khimti wasn’t implemented at that time, present crop of IPPs would not have come to existence (Khimti definitely did show the way to investors that hydropower too could be lucrative business); nor would have load shedding problem mitigated in 2000 (you must be aware that Nepal saw the last of load shedding problem in 2000 after commissioning of Khimti) which began in mid 90s.

Therefore, to recap, the issue isn’t who implements a particular project but how; from the perspective of forward linkage benefit accruing to Nepal. You must be also aware that due to lower level of industrialization of Nepal, she is not in position to benefit from backward linkage. Hence, implementing this project at its optimum level is most important; it should be implemented to use electricity not only to mitigate our load shedding problem but also to industrialize the country and electrify transportation and also to use electricity for agro-processing purposes, etc.

Moreover, once built as a storage project, Nepal should plan to use augmented/regulated flow from this project to intensify cropping intensity in the downstream districts and to take advantage from other multidimensional uses of this water.

Q7. In view of our severe lack of implementation capacity,should we still let the waters of the karnali flow ( without us using it meaningfully_) for another20 years or begin to usethe 900MW( a fourth of the optimum size) as a less optimal decision is better than no decision and thus no implementation at all?
A7. Having established that whether Nepal lacks implementation capacity or not is irrelevant in the implementation of any project, there is no question of going for less “optimal decision” at all merely on this ground. In asking this particular question you are coming from the wrong perspective of why “still let the water flow (without us using it meaningfully)” which presupposes that water flowing in the rivers is “wasted”. Water flowing in the rivers is a part of natural hydrological cycle and it has been happening since last 4.54 billion years; not just since your or my time. Water flowing in the river naturally has no value unless spatial or temporal value addition has been done after investing for the purpose. Moreover, the phrase you have written in the parenthesis is what is of utmost importance: “us using it meaningfully”. Exporting power to India while we are suffering from huge load shedding problem and is likely to suffer it for many years to come, is not “us using it meaningfully”. We will be using it meaningfully, if we were to use it for generation of electricity to not only mitigate our load shedding problem but also to industrialize Nepal, electrify our transportation, etc. (I have said this earlier too). Therefore, this is an instance where the project is neither implemented at its optimum capacity nor are we using the water meaningfully for our own purposes.

Once a wrong project is built on a specific site, Nepal loses the opportunity of taking advantage of the better option. In this instance, additionally, it will be criminal to deprive the mid and far western development region from using 500 m3/s water in the dry season that can potentially irrigate 1.5 million hectares. Importantly, this project has been dedicated as export oriented project wrongly while Nepal is languishing in energy crisis which is likely to last for next decade or so if the present policy based on wrong vision is to continue to prevail. Therefore, a less optimal decision is not a better decision than “no decision.” Simply because a less optimal decision, if implemented, will put Nepal in a straightjacket after reaching a point of no return in its implementation. But if “less optimal decision” is not made then Nepal will have necessary latitude to make full optimal decision soon.

What we need to be wary of in hurrying with wrong projects in a rush to use water that is “flowing” is the potentiality to have to repent at leisure. Wrong projects planned to be built (this is an example) or projects implemented wrongly (middle Marshyangdi is a good example) in the name of water flowing away will give us ample opportunity to repent for long time to come. Talking about middle Marshyangdi, costing Rs 51 billion, Nepal could have built about 500 MW for this kind of funding. Similarly, making haste in the name of water flowing away to build storage projects like West seti, Budhi Gandaki, will entail Nepal losing the potential to use water during the dry seasons. Projects like these and upper Karnali should be built as multipurpose project. There is no dearth of funding and implementation capability for the purpose in this world as long as Nepal puts in place correct vision, policy and strategy and ensure investment friendly environment. Please remember that Khimti did chart a way forward in this respect such that 9th five plan succeeded in achieving over 90% target. But 10th five year plan fell flat on its face!

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Ajit Thapa [mailto:thapa.ajit@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 19:46
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

I read your article with interest and fascination. I have a few querries:

1. Why did not the maoist led Gov' obstruct the construction of the project and or its cancellation (if this was so detrimental to our national interest) when it was in power?

2. If it were a 4000MW storage project, why has it been pedalled around as a 300 MW for so many years?

3. If you were so confident about its true potential, why did U not speak up for so many years when repeatedly,it was being touted around fo as a 300 MW project?

4. Does Nepal have the capcity to finance storage project on its own in view of the fact that it has taken over 3 years to do a financial closure of the 456 MW Upper tama -Kosi project( exhauting practically all the internal financial resources)

5.If we keep on protesting against decisions to suit our own needs, will we not be bogged down by the indecision syndrone- analysis to th point of paralysis

6. Can we really contemplate a 4000 Mw when we can not even begin the 600 MW Budhi-Gandaki project?

7. In view of our severe lack of implementation capacity,should we still let the waters of the karnali flow ( without us using it meaningfully_) for another20 years or begin to usethe 900MW( a fourth of the optimum size) as a less optimal decision is better than no decision and thus no implementation at all?

I woud be interested to hear your views

than u

with warm regards

Ajit Thapa
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

Upper Karnali Uproar!
Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Re: Talk at Sangam Institute & Upper Karnali project

March 17, 2010

Mr Chiran S Thapa
Naxal, Kathmandu

Chiranjee

Yes, I am making a number of small contributions to complete a big jigsaw puzzle in my writings. Unfortunately, the powers to be don't understand such things, or pretend not to understand. In some instances such things dawn on them with inordinate delay. Take the example of West Seti project. Energy minister Mahat recently affirmed that SMEC was unable to mobilize necessary funding to implement the project. I had pointed this out more than 7 years back but nobody took notice. Now he has said what I said some time back.

I just hope the present government will be able to find the way forward with regards to this project without having to grope for too long. Because, I have charted out the way forward in my in depth paper published in Hydro Nepal (also uploaded in my website). In couple of sentences, the way forward is to develop it as a multipurpose project. Nepal can uses the peak-in power that will be generated at rock bottom price from this project to industrialize far and mid western development regions. Any energy that could not beused as such can be transmitted to central and eastern development regions by stringing up 400 kV transmission network. We can even export this energy at the right price - right price for peak-in power is a lot higher than what we are paying India now, INR 6.70. Nepal should build a network of canals in the downstream areas to use the augmented/regulated flow from this project of about 90 cubic meter per second which will enable us to increase cropping intensity by a magnitude.

I have explained this to premier Nepal upon his return from China where it was agreed that a Chinese company will invest 51% equity in this project. Specifically, I told him that he now should ask Chinese government for financial assistance to build canal network and 400 kV transmission network to link this project with the load centers in the eastern Nepal. I just hope that he has understood it all. Dipakjee and Ajayajee were present during this meeting.

Dr Prakash Chandra Lohani too has advised PM Nepal along these lines before I did so and, I have to acknowledge that, I sought the appointment with PM at the suggestion of Dr Lohani.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

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

From: C.S. Thapa [mailto:cst21@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of C.S. Thapa
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 13:45
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Talk at Sangam Institute on 04 March 2010

Ratna Sansarji,

Your article on the Upper Karnali Project in Spotlight shows how the country's government should move forward. I have been mulling with reference to your recent communications on different projects over what the best negotiating strategy is - a breakthrough or two will opefully set precedents. What can we learn from King Birendra's approach? Have a look at my presentation earlier this month.

Best,

Chiran


Subject: Talk at Sangam Institute on 04 March 2010
>
> It gives me great pleasure to see so many familiar faces. At The Sangam Institute, which I wish to thank for providing faclities for my presentation as well as for earlier presentations, familiarity breeds respect. May I thank others whom I know less well for taking the time to be present here.
>
> My presentation today as the distinguished convenor Ambasador Keshav Raj Jha has just mentioned is the late King Birendra's foreign policy, very much a part of the allotted theme of Sharing Experiences: Serving under a democratic King. King Birendra's contributions during 29 years and four months of his reign/rule were far-reaching and in the best interests of Nepal and the Nepali people but out of respect for the late King's extraordinary modesty, I shall put his foreign policy formulations in the context of general theories and practice of diplomacy and foreign affairs rather than highlight them as my own inclination drives me toward. I shall put his contributions as part of a twenty-four hour day rather than the day's high noon. I will highlight in the presence of so many knowledgeable practitioners, theorists and commentators those issues and episodes not normally dealt with in the serious issues and concerns of the formulation and conduct of diplomacy and foreign affairs.
>
> Offsetting handicaps: I would recommend everybody to read Stephen Hawking's book, The Theory of Everything, for his path-breaking analysis of the origin and fate of the universe. But the relevance for my presentation today is to project how someone as severely handicapped as Hawking can achieve what he has. A relatively small country like Nepal has handicaps of least development, landlockedness, terrain, non-inclusiveness,disease, hunger, illiteracy, handicaps of geography, history, and poverty, but if in the past, which the Sangam Institute referrs to as episodic periods of glory, the country and people have managed to survive, one person's example, Hawking's, should challenge us to not only survive, but progress with political stability and toward prosperity offsetting handicaps and eventually overcoming them.

> Switzerland is a landlocked country where in the early sixties when I was a student at the University of the small town of Fribourg, I used to see out of my classroom window cows munching grass bringing memories of my schooldays in Godavari some six/seven years earlier. The difference was that Swiss cows had rich grass to feed upon and the Swiss had developed despite many difficulties a worldclass milk and milk products industry of such brands as Nestle, when Nepali cows at Godavari gave barely enough milk and manure for owners to survive with some supplies for primary marketing and it took the Swiss to show us how Nepali cows in Chyalsa and Jiri could also produce cheese of international standard and demand. The Swiss have developed with their coastal neighbours, Germany, France, and Italy over many years of negotiations practical rights for access to and from the sea. This brings me to two priorities of King Birendra's foreign policy formulation: the importance of non-confrontational negotiations and Nepal's need to overcome the disadvantages of landlockedness.Negotiations with our coastal neighbour, India, continued for years: King Birendra's priorities were Nepal's rights in internationally accepted conventions leading to practical realities on the ground of less costly and quicker port handling In Kolkata port and less costly and quicker transport of Nepal-bound third-country imports and Nepali exports to third countries through Indian territory. King Birendra's first visit abroad after accession to the throne in 1972 was to the nonaligned summit conference in Algiers in 1973. When the Nepali delegation took up the rights of landlocked countries in the economic committee, it pointed out that India was on record supporting the right of access to and from the sea for landlocked countries. K.B. Lall, a distinguished Commerce Secretary, who represented India at the Comittee, asked where India had made the commitment. Our delegates showed the text and locale of India's commitment to I believe the satisfaction of Mr Lall. A month later at a luncheon hosted by the late Premier Indira
Gandhi during King Birendra's state visit to India in October 1973 no less a personality than Justice Nagendra Singh of the International Court of Justice confirmed to the then Ambassador of India L.P.Singh at the formal venue of Rashtrapati Bhavan the rights of landloced countries for access toand from the sea. King Birendra followed up these rights, hard-won on occasion, by proposing to the central government of India and the State government of West Bengal practical measures for improved port handling of Nepali and Nepal-bound goods, more broad-gauge rail transport and more efficient handling of goods where transfer had to be made from bigger trains plying the broad-gauge network to smaller trains which used a smaller-gauge network. This co-operative but forceful assertion of Nepal's rights combined with practical improvements on the ground and in the sea in the interests of both our coastal neighbour and landlocked Nepal continued when in the late nineteen-seventies, King Birendra took the position that Nepal-India relations are best served by two treaties/agreements, one on transit and another on trade on the grounds that negotiations on transit have the bottom line of internationally-accepted landlocked countries' rights whereas trade is a bilateral issue with conventions at most within the framework of WTO, then GATT, of which Nepal became a member much later. When negotiations faltered on the question of two treaties, King Birendra took the line that on the coastal neighbour's insistence, Nepal would sign a single Trade and Transit Treaty as in the past but would raise the issue of two treaties the next time around. Two different treaties of different duration were fortunately signed to the satisfaction in principle of both coutries. Trying to optimize Nepal's gains in principle, the suggestion was put forward for a Transit Treaty and a trade agreement projecting the different nature of transit and trade issues on the scale and comprehensiveness of rights and binding commitments.
>
> The practical aspect of King Birendra's dual strategy of Nepal's rights backed by practical negotiations for effective on-grund results extended to appointment of personnel with experience and training specific to Nepal's needs. The personnel based in Nepal's Consulate-General in Kolkata had to have transit-specific experience and training -Consuls-General Madhav Raj Bhandari, Laxmi Lal Shrestha and Dr Madhusudan Lohani fulfilled these requirements - ditto for the personnel in our short-lived mission in Chittagong, Bangladesh, which was closed with consideration less than warranted by Nepal's long-term interests.
>
> A Head of State has the prerogative of appointing Ambassadors. King Birendra consulted the Prime Minister of the time when he himself exercised powers and appointed the nominees of the government during the nineteen-nineties. In the complex of King-Prime Minister relations, there was agreement regardless of the power equation between the two positions. It is said a man is known by the company he keeps - in the case of a King, it is more appropriate to say that a King is judged by his appointees. King Birendra was more than average in his assessment of a
person's professional competence. The long tenures of the two most important Ambassadorial appointments, both Foreign Secretaries at different times, Major-General Padma Bahadur Khatri and Sardar YaduNath Khanal showed his interest in the best possible representation of the Nepali people. In a way, both were inherited from the reigns of King Birendra's grandfather, Tribhuban and his father, Mahendra. At the first major international conference which Nepal attended, the Bandung Conference of 1955, both Khatri and Khanal were members of a small team.

> They were selected because they were considered among the few at the time competent enough to represent Nepal. I can give any number of examples of the extraordinary grasp and conduct of foreign policy by the two: Khanal and Khatri. Shortly after King Birendra became king in January 1972, two Pakistani prisoners of war held in India fled into Nepal. The Foreign Secretary at the time would consult the Palace every day on what measures to take. The new King's inevitable answer was to do what international convention called for with consideration for Nepal-India good-neighbourly amity. The two POWs' issue continued without resolution until General Khatri came from New York to be Foreign Secretary a second time. He let the POWs fly to Bangkok with a sureness of touch and deft handling of what could have become - but fortunately didn't- an issue in Nepal's relations with an important neighbour. During Khatri's tenure as Foreign Secretary, Ambassador to the US/UN, and Foreign Minister, Nepal's external relations forged ahead globally diversified and with rich content. Few instructions were sent from our Foreign Ministry during the existential problems in the early nineteen-seventies of a regional country when Khatri formulated the ingenious policy of opposing the dismemberment of Pakistan, a member state of the United Nations, but supporting the emergence of Bangladesh. In his tenure as Foreign Minister, Khatri received the backing of the government of Italy to King Birendra's zone of peace proposal in a short early-morning meeting with his Italian cunterpart and the backing of the government of Malta during a 45-minute stopover at the airport in Malta's capital.

> Ambassador Khanal is identified with the removal of foreign armed personnel from Nepali soil in 1969 with no irreparable damage to our relations with India because of King Mahendra's and then Premier Bista's firm handling of the issue supplemented by effective negotiations where Ambassador Khanal had a primary role. During his two Ambassadorships in the reign of King Birendra, Khanal made lasting contributions to our relations with China and the United States. Apart from his appreciation of the professional qualities of Khanal and Khatri, King Birendra's assessment of personnel is also seen in the appointment of Dr Trailokya Upraity as Ambassador to France, where he laid the groundwork for King Birendra's leadership of Asian countries at the Least Developed Countries' Conference in Paris in 1981 and President Mitterrand's visit to Nepal in 1983, both connsumated during the tenure of Upraity's successor in Paris. King Birendra felt that Ambassador Upraity, so successful in bringing the first visit to Nepal of a leader with the power to unleash a nuclear war and his work in preparing King Birendra's participation during the LDCs' Conference called for Ambassador Upraity's elevation to a diploatic assignment even more challenging than Paris. Had Ambassador Upraity not accepted the UNESCO assignment in Bangkok shortly after the tenure of his Paris Ambassadorship, it would be reasonable to assume that he would have been appointed to one of three or four diplomatic assignments of greatest challenge to Nepal's interests.
>
> I have mentioned Hawking for his achievements despite his handicaps from which our government and people can learn and draw inspiration from. He also happens to be the national of a country which is one of the most successful in the conduct of diplomacy. It is said that the ideal Europe would have German order, French administration and Italian culture supplemented by British diplomacy. In world affairs, Britain clearly punches as has been said above its weight. King Birendra was aware that when our application to join the United Nations was rejected in the nineteen-forties by a Soviet veto, the government of Nepal sent a rejoinder saying that no foreign flag had ever flown in Nepal, Nepal had always had its national army officered entirely by Nepali nationals , Nepal engaged in armed conflict and made peace on her own, and Nepal had a long history of its own decimal coinage, different from what obtained in China or India or Great Britain. Which country could be more independent? The missing ingredient during King Birendra's reign about the last thirty years of the twentieth century was Nepal's gruelling poverty which called for its diminution if the country was ever to be taken seriously.
>
> In King Birendra's thinking, the best fora for projecting Nepal were the Nonaligned Conference Summits, of which he attended six times as leader of the Nepali delegation , Algiers in 1973, Colombo in 1976, Havana in 1979, Delhi in 1983, Harare in 1986 and Belgrade in 1989. In these Conferences and at the Conference of Least Developed Countries mentioned earlier, he took every opportunity to collaborate on a global scale with countries facing similar problems of least development and landlockedness. His participation in 4 conferences of countries of SAARC, in the formation of which he had a leading role, was to establish a region of peace where the interestsof a billion people would receive paramount interest in contrast to armed hostilities which pushed back the frontiers of development. Here his achievements were limited at best because the focus, the priorities and beneficial sequencing should have had centrality elsewhere, viz., integration of our economy,political culture, and national security with countries of the West led by the United States and Japan and South Korea. As an indefatigable traveller within Nepal and as a leader with an open mind, he was aware of the country's problems but even discounting the advantages of hindsight, a foreign policy with lack of focus on integration with the richest and most powerful countries, viz. the West and Japan/South Korea could contribute at most to the country's sovereignty with little to show in terms of economic growth, sustained improvement in the people's standard of living and national security founded on the personal security of individual citizens. These were necessary conditions if the country was going to punch above its weight or even manage to punch at all.
>
> I would be remiss if I were to leave out some major incidents,achievements and problems, some well-known, others barely known, during King Birendra's nearly three-decade long occupancy of the Throne of Nepal. I will mention three in ascending order of importance. First, where Nepal's diplomatic missions were asked to and received the home government's permission in arranging meetings between the officials of two countries at daggers drawn. Our mission in Rangoon was the locale of talks between the representatives of the governments of China and the United States and our Ambassador visiting Romania arranged a meeting between the US Ambassador at the time, Harry Barnes, and representatives of the government of China. These took place before or around the time of President Nixon's trail-blazing visit to Beijing in February 1972. Second, with an unerring eye for the right moment to make the right diplomatic moves, the King told me to contact the Soviet Charge d'affaires in the mid to late nineteen-seventies for arms, almost exclusively nonlethal and/or defensive. These arms and equipment, provided at good prices, came through Kolkata port and despite our treaty commitments we didn't have to informthe transit country of the nature and quantity of the goods that the Soviet government sold us. This was a transaction, the problem-free nature of which surprised all the powers that were! It may be projection from Nepal's experience of the co-operation of the supplier country and the transit country the decision to import arms a decade later from across our northern border was made. It must be emphasized that these arms , like the arms bought earlier from the Soviet Union, were exclusively defensive in nature, but, unlike the earlier transaction where the transit country had to be kept informed, there were no treaty comitments which required Nepal to do so in import of defensive arms directly across the northern border and not through any transit country. Since these defensive equipment posed no threat of any kind to India,it was probably felt that as in the case of bilateral trade, where the Indian share fell from more than 90 percent to almost a third before rising back again, these arms would also be part of Nepal's diversification needs. To allay India's security fears blown out of all proportion, I was deputed by King Birendra to talk with then Premier Rajiv Gandhi's personal emissary, Ambassador Ronen Sen. We had several rounds of talks in three capitals, Kathmandu, Delhi and Belgrade, the third capital being the venue of the last Summit Conference of Nonaligned Countries for both King Birendra and Rajiv Gandhi. We worked out a formula acceptable to both sides. Due to opposition from some circles in Nepal's government establishment and the change of government in India, what would have been an opportunity for Nepal to punch above its weight without hurting any country's interest was lost, I believe, to the detriment of Nepal-India relations.
>
> To do justice to a King, who was on the Throne for almost three decades, and who took active interest in formulating and conducting foreign policy would take more than half an hour, the time allotted. I could talk of the King's zone of peace proposal, which in its essence boiled down to reciprocal guarantees not to allow the use of Indian and Chinese territory and the soil of other signatory states for hostile activities against Nepal with Nepal guaranteeing not to allow her territory for hostile activities against other signatory states. The proposal received the backing, enthusiatic in some cases, of more than 111 countries, including four of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. I could also mention how the late King's personality, prepared for all eventualities but modest in self-projection was an important factor in Nepal's image and foreign perception of our country. But to conclude, I would say, as Hawking does in his study of the universe, the universe is uniform looked on a large scale at any direction and from any point but there are stars and galaxies because of differences in average density. King Birendra's reign/rule was one of extraordinary significance when viewed broadly. For almost three decades as King, on the existential issues of national interest, democracy and develpment , he did what he should have done and didn't do what he shouldn't have done. One can say this of very few leaders of Nepal and elsewhere. Focusing specifically on foreign policy, he projected our national interest forcefully and accepted the need for democracy first in a referendum in 1980 for the choice of polity that the people of Nepal wanted and return ten years later of a multiparty system with the King as a constitutional monarch of the European kind but he could have done more to advance the country's economy and reduce the poverty of Nepali households by using his tremendous power at most times and his overarching influence at all times for integrating our economy, political culture and security interests with the Western cuntries led by the United States and Japan/South Korea. The Chinese realized that integrating with these countries was the key to regeneration and rebirth of a new China, India took longer to come to this realisation. King Birendra could have led Nepal to do likewise in the best interests of Nepal and the Nepali people.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

दोहरो नागरिकताको माँग नेपालले थेग्न सक्छ ?

सुगौली सन्धी लगत्तै नेपालीले बेलायति सेनामा र पछि भारतीय सेनामा काम गर्न थालेर लाहुरे कहलिए । जनसंख्या बृद्धि, रोजगारीको अभाव र अझ माओबादी "जनयुद्ध" शुरुभएपछि लाहुरे बन्न देखि बाहेक पनि धेरै बिदेशिन थाले । दक्षिण एशिया बाहेक अन्यत्र २५ लाख नेपालीहरु छन् भनिन्छ । दक्षिण एशियाली मुलुक गएकालाई प्रबासी भनिन्थ्यो भने अन्यलाई गैरआवासीय शब्द प्रयोग गरेर फरक देखाउन कोशिस थालिएकोछ ।

गैरआवासीयको प्रकार
मातृभूमि छोड्नेहरु मूलतः दुई किसिमका छन् । युरोप, उत्तरी अमेरिका, अष्ट्रेलिया, न्यूजिल्याण्ड, रुस जस्ता पहिलो विश्व कहलिने देशमा र दक्षिण एशियामा सपरिवार एक थरी बसेकाछन, जसमध्ये कतिले उतैकासंग बिहेबारी गरेकाछन् । अधिकांशले जन्मभूमिको नागरिकता त्यागेर कर्मभूमिको नागरिकता प्राप्त गरेकाछन् भने केहिले कर्मभूमिमा स्थायीरुपमा बसोबास गर्नपाउने अनुमति मात्र प्राप्त गरॆकाछन् । यी मध्ये केहिले बिदेशमा नैं व्यापार व्यवसाय गर्छन् भने अधिकांश नोकरी गर्छन् जस मध्ये थोरै मात्र उच्चपदस्थ छन् । धेरै जसो खाईजीविका गर्छन्, रातो दिन मेहनत गर्छन् । केहिले त नेपालमा नगर्ने र रैथानेले त्यहां गर्न नमान्ने खालको "इज्जत" वा योग्यता अनुरुप नभएको काम गर्छन । यिनलाई रैथानेले आफनो र आफना सन्तानको काम माम खोस्न आएका ठानिन्छन् । पहिले रैथाने सरह मेहनताना पाउने गरेकोमा अहिले आएर, विषेश गरेर भारतीयमूलका व्यापारिकोमा काम गर्नेहरु कम पारिश्रमिकमा काम गरेर शोषित समेत हुन थालेकाछन्, प्रचलित न्यूनतम दर भन्दा कम पारिश्रमिक नगदमा प्राप्त गर्छन् ।

यो तप्का मध्ये नेपाली नागरिकता नत्याग्ने केहिले हालै बैंक, जलबिद्युत, टेलिभिजन, दूरसंचार आदिमा नेपालमा लगानि गरेकाछन् र समाजसेवामा समेत अग्रणी भूमिका पनि बहन गरेकाछन्, जुन प्रशंसनिय छ ।

अर्काथरी बैदेशिक रोजगारीमा गएकाछन्, आफ्नो परिवारलाई नेपालमैं छोडेर, केहि अपवाद बाहेक । सुदूर पश्चिमबाट भारतका बिभिन्न शहर, थाइलाय्ण्ड, मलेशिया, कोरिया देखि अरबमा गएकाछन् । अधिकांश अदक्ष, अर्धदक्ष, कामदारको रुपमा कार्यरत छन् भने थोरै दक्ष कर्मचारीको रुपमा । यसमध्ये धेरै कमले नेपालको नागरिकता त्यागेकाछन् । कतिपयले रैथानेले गर्न नमान्ने खालका कठिन जोखिमयुक्त काम गर्छन् । केहि मानव तस्कर र दलालबाट ठगिन्छन भने केहि रोजगारदाताबाट शोषित हुन्छन् । अझ नेपाली चेलीहरु यौन शोषणमा समेत पर्छन् ।

दोश्रो प्रकार मध्ये सानो समूह रैथानेले भन्दा धेरै गुणा बढी कमाएर ससम्मान बस्छन्, बैदेशिक विषेशज्ञको रुपमा । यो समूहका केहिले मात्र आफ्नो परिवार उतै लगेको छन् र अधिकांशले नेपाली नागरिकता त्यागेका छैनन् । उतै घरजम गर्ने सोच पनि राख्दैनन् ।

विप्रेषणबाट योगदान
विप्रेषणको दृष्टिकोणबाट यिनलाई दुई किसिममा बांडन सकिन्छ । नागरिकता नत्याग्नेहरुमध्ये धेरैले आफ्नो आर्जन नियमित रुपमा परिवारलाई पठाउंछन्, जुन बिदेशमा फिर्ता, प्रत्यावर्तनको माध्यमबाट, लग्ने अपेक्षा राखेका हुन्नन्, कानूनी व्यवस्था पनि छैन । यस्तोलाई लगानि पनि मानिन्न र लगानिको सुरक्षाको प्रश्न पनि उठाइंदैन । धेरैले औपचारिक एवम् आधिकारिक माध्यमबाट नपठाउने हुनाले विप्रेषणबाट जम्मा कति रकम नेपाल प्रवेश गर्छ भने यकिन तथ्यांक छैन । तैपनि यो वर्ष आधिकारिक श्रोतबाट मात्र २ खर्ब रुपैया भन्दा बढी प्राप्त हुने अनुमान छ ।

बिदेशी नागरिकता लिने र नलिएपनि स्थायी बसोबासको अनुमति लिएर सपरिवार बस्ने मध्ये कमले मात्र आफ्नो कमाई नेपाल पठाउंछन । परिवारको पालनपोषणमा, घर जग्गा सम्पत्ति जोड्नमा, गाडी किन्नमा खर्च/लगानि गर्छन् र यस सन्दर्भमा लिएको ऋणको सांवाब्याजको किस्ताबन्दी तिर्ने चक्रब्युहमा हुन्छन्, नेपालमा लगानि गर्ने सोचेकै हुन्नन्, बरु धेरैले नेपालमा रहेको आफ्नो पैत्रिक सम्पत्ति समेत बिक्री गरेर उतै लग्छन । कतिपयले व्यापार व्यवसाय गर्छन भने थोरैले नेपालमा लगानि गर्न चाहन्छन्, जसको लागि लगानिको सुरक्षा र फिर्ता लैजाने प्रत्याभूति, भंसार दैदस्तूर, कर आदि छूटको अपेक्षा आकांक्षा राखेकाछन् ।

दोहरो नागरिकता
स्पष्ट छ कि भारत बाहेक अन्यत्रका २५ लाख मध्ये १ लाख भन्दा कमले मात्र नागरिकता त्यागेका छन् र दोहरो नागरिकताको आवश्यकता परेकोछ । बिदेशमा १८० दिन लगातार बसेमा अथवा त्यहां स्थायीरुपमा बस्नपाउने अनुमतिपत्र प्राप्त गर्नेहरु गैरआवासीय नेपालीको परिभाषा भित्र पर्दैमा नेपालको नागरिकता गुम्दैन र दोहरो नागरिकता आवश्यक हुन्न । अप्ठेरो कुरा के हो भने नागरिकता त्याग्ने प्रायजसोले आफ्नो आम्दानि नेपाल पठाउदैनन् । अर्थात विप्रेषणबाट नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रलाई टेको दिईरहने अधिकांशले नागरिकता त्यागेका छैनन् र दोहरो नागकिरताको आवश्यकता पर्दैन । अर्को तर्फ नागरिकता त्यागेर नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रमा योगदान नगर्नेहरुलाई भने दोहरो नागरिकताको आवश्यकता परेकोछ ।

जे होस परित्यक्त आमाबाबुलाई पनि आफ्नो सन्तान प्यारो हुन्छ र यस्तालाई पनि अंगालोमा बांध्न आमाबाबु लालायित हुन्छन् । त्यसैले नागरिकता त्यागेपनि दोहरो नागरिकता दिनेमा काजुस्यांई गर्नु हुन्न । धेरै जसो राजनैतिक दलहरुका नेताहरुले यो अवधारणामा सहमति जनाउनु खुशीको कुरा हो ।

"प्रबासी"लाई बाहेक दोहरो नागरिकता
दक्षिण एशियाकालाई बाहेक दोहरो नागरिकताको मांगिएकोले दक्षिण एशियामा बस्ने "प्रबासी" प्रतिको पूर्वाग्रह भने बुझ्न कठिन छ । प्रश्न के उठ्छ भनॆ "प्रबासी" र "गैर आवासीय" नेपालीहरु बीच दोहरो नागरिकता दिने सन्दर्भमा बिभेद गर्न मिल्छ ? अन्यत्र बस्ने सन्तानलाई काखा र दक्षिण एशियामा बस्नेलाई पाखा पार्न मिल्दैन र यस्तो व्यबहार समानताको नैसर्गिक हक बिपरित पनि हुन्छ । यस्तो कुनै नियम कानून बने नैं पनि कार्यान्वयन हुनसक्दैन किनभने यस्तो कानूनलाई सर्बोच्च अदालतले असंबैधानिक भनेर ब्याख्या गर्ने निश्चित छ, समानताको हकको मौलिक अधिकारको बिपरित हुने हुनाले ।

तसर्थ दोहरो नागरिकताको दिने भए बिना भेदभाव नेपाली मूलका सबैलाई नेपालीलाई दिइनु पर्छ । तर भारतमा मात्र पनि झण्डै १ करोड नेपालीले बसोबास गर्छन् जुन अहिलेकॊ कूल जनसंख्या पौने तीन करोड भित्र पर्दैन र यिनलाई पनि दोहरो नागरिकता दिएर नेपाल जस्तो सानो मुलुकले थेग्न सक्दैन भन्ने तर्फ दोहरो नागरिकता माँग गर्नेहरुको ध्यान गएको देखिन्न ।

सम्झेर ल्याउंदा भुटानी शरणार्थीको रुपमा पूर्वी नेपालमा पन्ध्रौं वर्ष देखि दुखः पाएर बसेकाहरु पनि गैरआवासीय नेपाली हुन । दोहरो नागरिकता दिने नीति बनेमा यिनको पनि नेपाली नागरिकतामा
उत्तिकै हक लाग्छ । दोहरो नागरिकताको चर्चा गर्दा र चर्चा गर्ने राजनीतिकर्मी लगायतले यो कुरा पनि स्मरण गरेर नीति निर्माणको सिफारिस गर्नुपर्छ र तद्अनुरुप नीति बन्नुपर्छ ।

किन दोहरो नागरिकता ?
दोहरो नागरिकता किन भन्ने सम्बन्धमा त्यति स्पष्ट छैन । तर गैरआवासीय नेपाली संघको नेतृत्व तहले नेपालको हरियो पासपोर्टमा भिसा प्राप्त गर्दा हुने हिनताबोध, बिदेशमा नेपाली पासपोर्ट देख्नासाथ गरिने दुब्र्यबहारले गर्दा नेपालको पासपोर्टको सट्टा आफ्नो कर्मभूमिको पासपोर्ट प्राप्त गर्न दोहरो नागरिकताको मांग भएको देखिन्छ । यो समस्या नेपालको नागरिकता त्यागेर कर्मभूमिको नागरिकता लिईसकेकालाई भने छैन ।

स्मरणिय छ, आफ्नो मातृभूमिमैं सेवारतले पनि यो समस्याको सामना गर्न नपरेको भने होइन । अझ बैदेशिक रोजगारीमा रहेका, जसले पठाएको विप्रेषणले अहिले मुलुक धानिएकाछ तिनले पनि यो समस्या भोगेकाछन् । समस्या यहि मात्र हो भने नेपाल नछाडनेलाई र बैदेशिक रोगजगारीमा जानेलाई पनि दोहरो नागरिताको सुविधा प्रदान गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ जुन सम्भव छैन । नेपालीले बिदेश जानेक्रममा र बिदेशमा हुने दुब्र्यबहारको निराकरण गर्न नेपालको छवि सुधारिएमा बरु बढी प्रभावकारी रुपमा समस्या समाधान हुन्छ । यसको लागि सबैको योगदान अपेक्षित छ । कर्मभूमिको नागरिकता लिईसकेकोले पनि नेपालको छवी सुधि्रएमा सगर्व शीर उठाएर बांच्ने अवस्था आउनेछ ।

बुझिएअनुसार दोहरो नागरिकताको आवश्यकता नेपाल प्रवेशमा लाग्ने भीसा शुल्कले गर्दा पनि भएकोछ । आफ्नो मातृभूमि फर्कनेले भीसा शुल्क तिर्नपर्नु अपमानजनक ठान्छन् । यसो हेर्दा ठीकै लाग्छ । तर सम्झनु के पर्छ भने नेपालको नागरिकता त्यागेर, नेपालमा आफ्नो आम्दानी नपठाएर, मातृभूमिको सेवा गर्नबाट बिमुख भएर, नेपालमा आयकर लगायतका कुनै कर, दैदस्तूर नेपाल सरकारलाई नतिर्नेले भिसा शुल्कबापत थोरै रकम तिनुपर्दा गुनासो गर्नु त्यति जायज हुन्न । आफ्नो जन्मभूमि फर्कंदा भिसा शुल्क स्वरुप यो देशको कोषमा थोरै भएपनि योगदान गर्न पाएकोमा गर्व गर्नुपर्ने हो । तथापि मातृभूमिले पनि आफूलाई परित्याग गर्ने सन्तानप्रति ठूलो हृदय राख्न आवश्यक छ र अन्यत्र जस्तै परिचयपत्रको माध्यमबाट भीसाशुल्क मिनाहा गर्न सकिन्छ । नेपाल जस्तो सानो मुलुकले थेग्न नसक्ने दोहरो नागरिकताको झंझटमा पर्न आवश्यक छैन । भारतमा बस्ने बहुसंख्यक प्रबासीलाई यसै पनि यो समस्या छैन ।

लगानिको सुरक्षा, प्रत्यावर्तन र अचल सम्पत्ति
नागरिकता परित्याग नगर्नेलॆ आफ्नो आयको ठूलो हिस्सा नेपाल पठाईरहेकाछन् र पछि यस्तो रकम बिदेश लैजाने अधिकार खोजेका छैनन् भन्नॆ कुरा प्रष्ट भइसकेकोछ । तर बिदेशी नागरिकता लिनेले भने नेपालमा लगानि गर्नको लागि लगानिको सुरक्षा र प्रत्यावर्तनको प्रत्याभूति खोजिरहेकोछ र यसैसित दोहरो नागरिकता माँग पनि जोडेकाछन् । तर बिदेशी लगानि तथा प्रबिधि हस्तान्तरण ऐन २०४९ ले कुनै पनि बिदेशी नागरिकलाई आवश्यक सुविधा र सुरक्षा प्रत्याभूति गरेकोहुनाले दोहरो नागरिकतासंग लगानिको कुनै सम्बन्ध छैन । प्रतिफल (मुनाफा)को लागि लगानि गरिने हुनाले अन्यत्र भन्दा बेसी प्रतिफल पाउने भए मात्र नेपालमा लगानि गर्नेहुन् । अन्यथा दोहरो नागरिकता दिइएमा पनि लगानि गर्नेछैनन् जहां बढी प्रतिफल पाउने सम्भावना हुन्छ लगानि त्य िहं हुन्छ । यस सम्बन्धमा राजनीतिकर्मी र कर्मचारीतन्त्र स्पष्ट हुन जरुरी छ ।

साथै नागरिकता त्यागीसकेपछि पनि नेपालमा अचल सम्पत्तिमाथि स्वामित्व कायम राख्न/गर्नको लागि दोहरो नागरिकताको आवश्यकता हुन्छ । तर समस्या हुन्छ भारत बसोबास गर्ने १ करोड प्रबासीलाई नेपालमा अचल सम्पत्तिमाथि स्वामित्व कायम गर्ने सुविधा दिने कि नदिने भन्नेले । नदिएमा समानताको नैसर्गिक अधिकार उल्लंघन हुन्छ भने दिएमा यो सानो मुलुकले थेग्न सक्दैन ।

अन्तमा
आफ्नो आम्दानी नेपाल नपठाउने गैरआवासीय मध्ये केहिले नेपालमा सामाजिक आर्थिक कृयाकलापमा लगानि गरेर योगदान गरेको सराहनिय छ । बांकी मध्ये केहिले दोहरो नागरिकता पाएमा लगानि गर्ने भनेको छन् भने कतिपयले पैसा भन्दा बौद्धिक दृष्टिकोणबाट नेपालको मद्दत गर्ने भनेकाछन् । यो पनि सराहनिय छ । तर नेपाल छाडेर जान नमान्नेहरु, नेपालकै सेवा गरेर बसेकाहरुले पनि बौद्धिक योगदान गरिरहेको परिप्रेक्ष्यमा गैरआवासीयले बौद्धिक योगदान गर्ने नाममा रैथानेले भन्दा बढी सुविधा खोज्नु त्यति उचित नहुने तर्फ पनि ध्यान दिन जरुरी छ ।

गैरआवासीय नेपालीले देशको माँयाले गर्दा मातृभूमिको सेवा गर्नको लागि नीति नियम सुधारेर थप केहि सुविधा माँगेको भनिएकोछ । तर यहां दुइटा कुरा बिस्रन हुन्न । पहिलो कुरा देश छाडेर नजानेहरु पनि देशकै माँयाले छाडेर नगएकाहुन् । यस्ता मध्ये कतिपयले, उदाहरणार्थ अमेरिका जस्ता समृद्धशाली देशमा सुसम्पन्न तथा सम्मानजनक जीवनयापन गर्नपुग्ने आयआर्जन गर्न सक्ने योग्यता, क्षमता, दक्षता र शीप आर्जन गरेकाछन् । तैपनि शान्ती सुरक्षा तथा सुविधाको अभाव खपेर, फोहर र दुर्गन्ध सहेर, समृद्ध देशमा सम्पन्न बन्नसक्ने अवसरलाई तिलांजली दिएर, अबिचलित भएर मातृभूमिको सेवारतछन् । त्यस्तै नागरिकता नत्यागी बैदेशिक रोजगारमा कार्यरतले २ सय अर्बको हाराहारीमा सालिन्दा पैसा पठाउंछन्, देशकै माँयाले । तसर्थ देशको माँया गर्ने नाममा मातृभूमिले थेग्न नसक्ने शर्त तेस्र्याउंदा मातृभूमिको हित नहुने कुरा प्रति पनि सचेत हुन मातृभूमि त्याग्नेहरुलाई मातृभूमि नत्याग्नेहरुको सुझाव छ ।

तसर्थ नेपालमा निशर्त आफ्नो आर्जन पठाउनेले र मातृभूमिलाई नत्यागी सेवारतले भन्दा नेपालको नागरिकता त्याग्नेले नेपालको बढी माँया गर्छ भन्ने दावी गर्न पक्कै पनि सुहाउंदैन । देशको माँया गर्नेले निशर्त माँया गर्नुपर्छ किनभने माँया, प्रेम, स्नेहमा शर्तको मिलावटले अवमूल्यन हुन्छ । साथै दोहरो नागरिकताको व्यवस्था अन्तर्गत दक्षिण एशियाकालाई पनि यहि सुविधा दिनु पर्दा देशलाई धेरै अप्ठेरो पर्छ र जन्मभूमिको मांया गर्नेहरुले आफूलाई मात्र काखा गर्नुपर्ने शर्त लगाउनु पनि उचित हुन्न । यो पंक्तिकार दोहरो नागरिकताको बिपक्षमा छैन । तर दक्षिण एशियामा बस्ने प्रति बिभेद गरेर यो सुविधा दिनु उचित हुन्न र नेपालमा बिद्यमान जनसंख्याको एक तिहाईलाई यो सुबिधा दिएर देशले थेग्न सक्दैन । तसर्थ आग्रह एउटै हो कि धरातलिय यथार्थमा बसेर माँग गरियोस् र तद्अनुरुप निर्णय होस् ।
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
२०६६ चैत्र ३ गतेको गोरखापत्रमा प्रकाशित

Friday, March 12, 2010

Re: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

March 11, 2010

Mr Bihari K Shrestha

Dear Biharijee

Unfortunately, SC too has failed to understand the importance of water resource for Nepal and Nepali people. It has already set a wrong precedent in the case of west seti (we lost the case and have filed a review petition). Current Chief Justice was involved in that wrong precedent. Therefore, we are waiting for this CJ to retire and new one to take up in time for the hearing of the case related upper karnali.

I used to call what I am doing a “campaign.” Contemplating hard, this indeed has become a “crusade”. Thanks for supplying an appropriate word.

You can help in several ways and at various levels. One, please spread the word more widely. A big section of Nepali intelligentsia is “uneducated” about water resource sector. A prominent example is their failure to understand that Nepal’s load shedding problem cannot be mitigated by exporting power to India. There is no need to oppose export of power per se. But it doesn’t make sense to allow cherry picking to export power to India (dedicating best projects generating good quality power at low cost for export) while Nepal is suffering from load shedding problem which is likely to last for decades to come if current policies and attitudes is to continue.

Two, you can also help by asking questions at every opportunity. It’s not necessary that the questions are asked with powers to be and bureaucrats only. If you were to ask the critical questions with lay consumers, it will occur to and dawn on them that exporting power doesn’t solve Nepal’s energy crisis (I have been getting scolded by my own relatives for my opposition to this project on the plea that its completion will ensure end of load shedding!). Then if you could encourage them to speak up and if more consumers do speak up then may be the defective vision, short sighted policies and self serving attitudes will be changed.

Same is true for other sub sectors of water resource (electricity is only one sub sector), like drinking water, irrigation, fishing, navigation, recreation, etc. I firmly believe that water resource sector, if properly handled (exploited at optimum capacity in the interest of Nepal and Nepali people), can metamorphose this country’s economy and people. Unfortunately, Nepal is going the wrong way by getting projects like west seti implemented - high quality power at cheap price to India and giving water stored by inundating Nepali land and displacing Nepali people free of cost to India.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: bihari [mailto:bks@wlink.com.np]
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2010 22:45
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

Dear Ratnajee,

Thank you for giving me all these revealing details. I only hope that the SC would take up the case soon, and have the Energy Ministry and the NEA stand in the dock to do some explaining. I am sure the event would at least create a precedent also for other sites where there would be a big difference between the optimum and applied-for capacities.

Thank you once again for all these instructive details. Is there any way I too could be of help in your "crusade"?

Warm regards
Bihari
----- Original Message -----
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Bihar Krishna Shrestha
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

Dear Biharijee

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Re: FW: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

March 11, 2010

Prof. Dr Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University

Dear Prof. Lohani

Thanks for reverting back. I am highly enthused and encouraged to receive feedback from you sort of regularly.

Hari Roka is a good friend of mine (he used to be a student of mine some 3 decades back). He did phone me on his way to the shooting of the program and we discussed potential questions. I am happy that he was able to throw light on the lack of vision on the part of GoN. Minister Mahat revealed how “ignorant” he is by questioning the optimum capacity of this project. Because the optimum capacity was established in a study conducted for NEA with funding from World Bank. This doesn’t come from the likes of Hari Roka or this scribe. It is categorically stated in this study that 300 MW (or 900 MW), single purpose (generating electricity only) is mutually exclusive of 4,180 MW (multipurpose project). Minister Mahat succeeded to sort of shout down Hari on this point, but the higher decibel level of his voice proved how highly he is misinformed or how hard he chose to present false picture to the audience of the program. With people like him in power and the policies adopted by them in place, Nepal’s future is dark (not just because of load shedding)!

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

-----Original Message-----
From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2010 16:25
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

Dear Ratnasansarji,

Thanks for forwarding your article on Upper karnali.your analysis and conclusions are in the national interest.Like you, Hari Rokka, CA member from the Maoist pary was one of the participants in 'Sajha Sabal'run by BBC yesterday March 7,pleashouded strongly for self-reliance in the energy sector.Nepal qshould think of exporting energy only when the country has surplus.You have once again argued in favor of full capacity exploitation of Upper Karnali which is expected to meet our domestic requirements first.

Tks and regds,

Mohan Lohani

--- On Sun, 3/7/10, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

> From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
> Subject: FW: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali
> To: "Ratna Sansar Shrestha"
> Date: Sunday, March 7, 2010, 8:14 PM
>
> Upper Karnali Uproar!

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Re: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

March 9, 2010
Mr Bihari Krishna Shrestha


Dear Biharijee

The problem related to granting a license for 300 MW only for a site with optimum capacity of 4,180 MW can be explained "away" in two parts

One, people in DoED act rather mechanically on the basis of application received. There are many more licenses issued at the installed capacity as "demanded" by the applicant instead of issuing at its optimum capacity. Someone with some time on hand can easily unearth these. In the case of upper Karnali, they didn't even refer to a study conducted with World Bank funding for NEA where it is categorically mentioned that developing the site at 300 MW is mutually exclusive of 4,180 MW. You must be aware that the applicant is required to pay some "fees" based on the installed capacity applied for. Hence, the lower the capacity, the lesser amount the applicant has to shell out. This is one form of treason. Nepal's best interest will be served by ensuring optimum exploitation of water resource projects (not just hydropower project) for the betterment of Nepal and Nepali people.

Development of the site as a run-of-the-river project (whether at 300 MW or at 900 MW as the energy minister is going about claiming) manifests "high" treason as Nepal will be deprived of multidimensional uses of water from this particular site. If developed as a multipurpose project at full capacity, it will not only generate high value electricity (peak-in power, instead) but Nepal stands to benefit from increase in cropping intensity etc. I have already quantified the loss to the nation due to this mistake.

The high treason has another facet too. India as a lower riparian country would never be happy if a upper riparian country was to use Karnali water for its own consumptive uses, simply because, it will reduce downstream flow. However, under international law and also under the principles established in, much condemned, Koshi and Gandak treaties, Nepal, as a sovereign country, has every right to use water from a river flowing in its territory. India too, following this very principle, has built Farakka barrage to the detriment of Bangladesh. However, our consumptive use of Karnali water will not adversely impact by the magnitude of Farakka barrage. Indian developers, therefore, have applied for licenses with this in mind, which is natural for an Indian citizen, corporate or otherwise, to ensure Indian national interest. Conversely, Nepali officials should have taken this into account and ensured that the license is granted such that Nepal could benefit from multidimensional use of water.

Moreover, by the time this project will be built Nepal will need all the power (high quality), with the project developed at its full potential. But Nepali bureaucracy has failed Nepal, for their neglect of Nepal's power need and agreeing to dedicate it as an export oriented project.

You are, unfortunately, right about UCPNM (I have used the word unfortunately in the context of the way they work), too. As I have pointed out in my article, I have been involved in crying out aloud about this project that the "emperor is naked" since some time back . I am also involved with the writ petition pending with Supreme Court since the beginning (as a legal practitioner, I did appear for a hearing). However, the topic became heated only now, which prompted me to write this article. The article, in turn, is the output of a paper that I was asked to present in a program organized with the involvement of UCPNM. Essentially, you are right in the sense that they have jumped into the bandwagon only recently and I have, in my articles, warned UCPNM, not to use this project for their political expediency. I wonder if they will listen (when I said so during my presentation, Mohan Vaidya Kiran did nod his head gravely, though).

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: bihari [mailto:bks@wlink.com.np]
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2010 16:46
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

Dear Ratnajee,

It should be further revealing for non-esoteric audience like me if you could shed light on how a project site with a potential capacity of 4,180 MW could be subjected to a design for only 300 MW, in other words, what was the anatomy of "the high treason"?

Regarding UCPNM, given their expertise in ... people only, their initial objectiion to Upper Karnali was not based on this discrepancy between the design and potential cpacities of the site. Their activities were only designed to disrupt the contractors' works and bring disrepute to the government. If they have taken up the cause as you have propounded it, then, salute to you, your writings on the subject has been doubly beneficial to the country, including putting some intellect into the head of the murderers.

Warm regards
Bihari

----- Original Message -----
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 6:42 AM
Subject: FW: My article in Spotlight on Upper karnali

Upper Karnali Uproar!

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Reeya dearest pedalling away!


Re: Fw: Your article on Karnali project in "Yo Sata"

March 3, 2010
Bishnu Hari Nepal, PhD
Former Ambassador and Freelance Visiting Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies

Dear Bishnu Nepal jee

Thanks for reverting back. Yes, World Bank did eventually correct the error committed by some people who based the whole thing on “back of the envelope” calculations.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Dr. Bishnu Nepal [mailto:bhnfsr@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 5:26
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: Fw: Your article on Karnali project in "Yo Sata"

Dear Ratna Sagar Shresthaji

I am not water resources expert. I have developed only some vision on regional navigation and formation of water statutes and they are named as NIBB-CAP Water Ways 21stCentury Multi-purpose Project and SA-RRR-S Model respectively (Please visit South Asia Policy Analysis Network-SAPANA/SAFMA websites). I have also not gone throw the referred articles on Upper Karnali Project but after reading your empirical analysis I am convinced that this project also is not in Nepal's favor. On that ground, UCPNM stand seems justifiable.

When I was Ambassador in Japan in mid-90's, I tried my best to convince Japanese government in favor of Arun-III until the last day of the cancellation by the visit of the Vice President of World Bank to Tokyo after Kathmandu. By your analysis, it seems that it would have been a mistake if it had been successful.

Best Regards
Bishnu Hari Nepal, PhD

Monday, March 8, 2010

Re: Your article on Karnali project in "Yo Sata"

March 1, 2010
Mr Bihari Krishna Shrestha

Dear Bihari Krishnajee

Yes, there is a section of so called intelligentsia who are prepared to mortgage Nepal’s sovereignty and he seems to be a representative of that clique. Perhaps they are just giving continuity to what BP Koirala had to say when Nepal sought membership of UN. I recall having read that he opposed the move by saying something to the effect of Nepal not being entitled to it as she is supposed to be some sort of an administrative unit of greater India.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: bihari [mailto:bks@wlink.com.np]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 23:17
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: Your article on Karnali project in "Yo Sata"

Dear Ratna sansarjee,

Thank you for the information. The information on Upper Karnali, particularly about is much larger potential capacity, was very instructive. I am sure not many Nepalis are aware of this aspect of the problem. I hope the apex court takes up the case soon.

I once had the opportunity of listening to Radhesyamjee speak, and he seemed to be convinced that Indian security interest should have precedence over Nepal's own priorities in our approach to Indo-Nepal relations. His wriitngs quoted by you in your response to him seemed to further confirm it.

Thank you once again, and look forward to continue to receiving such informative communication.

Warm regards
Bihari Krishna Shrestha
----- Original Message -----
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:59 PM
Subject: Fw: Your article on Karnali project in "Yo Sata"

Mr Radheshyam Adhikari
Member, Constituent Assembly

Dear Radheshyamjee

Friday, March 5, 2010

Upper Karnali Uproar!

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

UCPNM’s opposition to Upper Karnali project is creating uproar as it is beyond the comprehension of some people in Nepal (attracting condemnation for venturing to do so). Actually it deserves to be “commended” for being able to see through the façade of the project, belatedly though, and establish that this project isn’t in Nepal’s national interest (it’s definitely in Indian national interest, though). The likes of this scribe have been pointing out the deficiencies in the way this project is structured and packaged since January 2008. A case filed in the Supreme Court is still pending.

Lose/Lose Proposition
This project is a lose/lose proposition. The project site is a rare gift of nature and implementation of the project with installed capacity of 300 MW is mutually exclusive of storage project of 4,180 MW, the optimum capacity from the perspective of Nepal’s national interest. From 300 MW Nepal will earn Rs 358 million annually as royalties, while from 4,180 MW Nepal could have earned Rs 4.84 billion; a difference of 1344%!

Under the MoU signed with the proponent, Nepal stands to receive 12% free energy, valued at Rs 458 million, if priced at Rs 2/kWh while the same from 4180 MW will amount to Rs 4 billion. Exploited at its full potential, as a storage project, it will generate augmented/regulated flow of about 500 m3/s, capable to irrigate 1.5 million hectares of land during the dry season in the lower riparian area. Excepting for some ground water irrigation projects, the area is devoid of dry season irrigation facility. Far western and mid western development regions, possessing good agricultural land, are food shortage area. With irrigation facility during dry season, by implementing this project as a storage project, the area can be easily metamorphosed. Additionally, with ample electricity becoming available at low cost, the two development regions have the potential to become economic power houses of the nation. In order to understand the magnitude of the value of this quantum of water, a parallel needs to be drawn with arrangement between Lesotho and South Africa. If Nepal is to make the water available to India (instead of using it for irrigation purposes in Nepal), Nepal stands to earn Rs 52 billion annually.

As such Nepal stands to lose Rs 60 billion each year if it is implemented at lower capacity. The magnitude of this amount can be understood by comparing it with this year’s Nepal’s total domestic revenue of Rs 176 billion. Being prepared to forgo such an amount is tantamount to committing high treason against Nepal.

Energy CrisisSome have opined that non-implementation of this project will aggravate energy crisis in Nepal, wrongly. It is an export-oriented project and there is no relationship between its implementation and mitigation of energy crisis in Nepal. On the contrary, if it’s to be built at its optimum capacity, Nepal would not only be self reliant from the perspective of peak power but could also utilize it to industrialize and generate employment in Nepal such that those working in foreign countries will be afforded dignified employment in their own motherland, enabling them to avoid disintegration of their families.

While a project like this, that can sell electricity at the bulk rate of Rs 2 per kWh, is being dedicated as export oriented, Nepal is importing from India at Rs 10.72. Even the cheaper power exchange rate of Rs 7.81 is close to four times of this rate. Exporting at low rate and importing at high rate definitely reflects intellectual famine. Besides, such a policy perpetuates dependency. People also need to remember that India treats electricity as a “strategic” commodity; evidence of which can be found in the refusal of India, in last Baisakh, to export 30 MW power to Nepal which led to the collapse of Prachanda government.

Indian security force in NepalCA member Mr Radheshyam Adhikari, in an article published in vernacular weekly, with reference to UCPNM obstructing implementation of this project, in “Yo Sata” has opined that “India could force our authorities to concede in the area of security. They could ask their security personnel stationed in the said project to protect their citizens (sic) investment interest.” The clear implication is that it will be justified for India to demand as such and Nepal should be wiling to concede in view of UCPNM obstruction of the project. This merely amounts to using UCPNM as an excuse for the purpose. Because without any provision as such in, much condemned, Koshi and Gandak treaties, and with no UCPNM at that time to provide convenient excuse, Indian security force is stationed in the barrages of Koshi and Gandak projects.

Most people don’t know that Karnali Chisapani project, 10,800 MW, was shelved by the then royal government of Nepal as India, prematurely, let it out that the security of this project will be ensured by Indian security personnel. Jagat Mehta, former secretary of ministry of foreign affairs of India, in his book titled “India-Nepal Relations – Challenges Ahead,” has revealed it. Although the monarchy got eliminated from Nepal as it deserved, but at least from this perspective it must be commended. Similarly king Mahendra too deserves to be commended for succeeding to evict Indian military check posts and mission in June 1969.

Conclusion
In view of the above this project shouldn’t be implemented at less than its optimum capacity and neither should it be made export oriented, forcing India to be dependent on it as making her feel insecure. We should first aim to become self reliant and export energy, not power, in case we have surplus. This project should be developed as a multipurpose project to ensure that Nepal benefits from multidimensional use of water. However, it will be disingenuous for people to jump to conclusion that electricity should not be exported at all. It reflects poorly on intellectual capacity to export power while keeping more than 75% of the populace in the dark, industrial growth stunted due to energy crisis, having to export human resource of prime age group for lack of industrialization and employment generation with attendant problems of disintegration of families and rampage of diseases like HIV.

UCPNM needs to be applauded for succeeding to draw attention to the extant tunnel vision in Nepal’s hydropower policy in particular and water resource policy in general (or for lack of a coherent policy). Policy lacuna lies in the failure to optimize in the national interest (current plans to raise the capacity to 900 MW is equally detrimental to Nepal’s national interest) and unwillingness to allow Nepal to benefit from multidimensional use of water by developing it as a multipurpose project.

Published in Vol. 3, No 20 (March 5, 2010) of Spotlight Newsmagazine.