Tuesday, August 31, 2010

RE: [NNSD] FW: What Maoist Need Sign to Get Into Power Again ; When King B said No, JanAndolal I started

August 31, 2010

Prof Dr Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University

Dear Prof. Lohani

We need to be aware of one more thing about GP Koirala and Prachanda – they weren’t in power for too long to commit the mistake. Koirala had very comfortable majority in the parliament but called for midterm election and after that NC has never enjoyed comfortable majority in the house and, therefore, didn’t have very many opportunities for the purpose. What needs to be remembered in this respect is: many consider signing of Mahakali treaty is high treason and it was signed with full support of NC, too, with Panchayati parties and UML in the lead.

Prachanda is yet to be tested and what I heard about him is yet to be confirmed.

I too would prefer a dictatorship than have a traitor in the seat of power. Many countries in this world have been economically turned around by “benevolent” dictators.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 13:12
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: [NNSD] FW: What Maoist Need Sign to Get Into Power Again ; When King B said No, JanAndolal I started

Dear Ratna Sansar ji,
Thanks for drawing my attention to the four personalities of Nepal who,in different capacities, had at least not committed treason.While both King Birendra and king Gyanendra ruled as absolute monarchs and Gyanendra had also to lose his throne and institution's abolition,GP Koirala and Prachanda too,according to your information,were not traitors as they refused to sign a treaty which would have turned this country into India's vassal state.Both absolute dictatorship and treason are evils,but as the saying goes 'if there are two evils,choose the lesser one',I think dictatorship is preferable to treason if the latter robs the country of its sovereignty and independence.

Tks and I agree that we need wider dissemination of such facts for public education

With regards,
MP Lohani

--- On Mon, 8/30/10, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: [NNSD] FW: What Maoist Need Sign to Get Into Power Again ; When King B said No, JanAndolal I started
To: "mohan lohani" , "NNSD"
Cc: "Dipak Gyawali" , "Ajaya Dixit" , "Alok Bohara" , tcpokharel@gmail.com, amarsimha@hotmail.com
Date: Monday, August 30, 2010, 2:33 AM
Dear Prof Lohani

We need a discourse on this topic to ensure that Nepali people, who love their motherland, are aware of these things..

Late King Birendra

Monday, August 30, 2010

Re: [NNSD] FW: What Maoist Need Sign to Get Into Power Again ; When King B said No, JanAndolal I started

August 30, 2010

Prof. Dr . Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University

Dear Prof Lohani

We need a discourse on this topic to ensure that Nepali people, who love their motherland, are aware of these things.

Late King Birendra
There is no doubt that the late king Birendra ruled (not reigned) Nepal as an absolute monarch/dictator through till 1990 in the name of Panchayat democracy. But his rejection of the captioned treaty proves that he wasn’t a traitor. Same cannot be said of most of the present crop of political leaders, although there are, I must happily note, quite a few exceptions. He preferred to renounce his authorities, privileges, etc. and give what Nepali people “demanded” rather than succumbing to Indian malicious intent.

Former PM Bhattarai
Former PM Bhattarai is currently in the news due to embezzlement by contractor reposed with the responsibility to build residence for him with government financing. I wonder if people remember that on his return from his first official trip to India, as Nepal’s first PM, in 1990 (leading the all powerful interim government wielding even legislative authorities) he did refer to Nepal’s river system as “waters of the commonly shared rivers”. Obviously he was borrowing the terminology from this “unexecuted” treaty.

He failed to get elected to the parliament and we had GP Koirala as first “elected” PM, after JanAndolal I, who was blamed for getting Bhattarai defeated in the election. If that is true then Nepali people loving their motherland should be grateful to Koirala for two reasons. One, for preempting Bhattarai from signing this treaty and two for not signing this treaty himself. In this manner India failed (so far – touch wood!), in her nefarious design over Nepal’s water resources. He, of course, had to give away a little bit in terms of Tanakpur “Understanding” which is a lot better “treaty” compared to all the treaties so far signed by Nepal with India. Unfortunately, this treaty was replaced with Mahakali treaty (the worst of the three) as Koirala tried to mislead Nepal’s parliament and people in Nepal by claiming that parliamentary ratification of Tanakpur understanding was unnecessary.

Former king Gyanendra
He’s got what he deserved due to abolition of monarchy from Nepal. Besides, due to his greed and mismanagement, he also became instrumental in doing away with monarchy in Nepal. He deserves back-handed compliments for this! However, I have come to learn that India did make overtures to him too for execution of a treaty on similar lines but he refused. I have yet to get evidence to substantiate it. However, if this is true then he may be an incompetent and greedy person, but not a traitor. He may have risked abolition of monarchy for refusing to ink this treaty.

Former PM Prachanda
I have also learnt that during Prachanda’s visit to India after he resigned as PM last year, he too was approached in this respect and, thankfully, he too refused to execute a treaty on similar lines. If this is true then he deserves to be saluted by patriots of Nepal.
With best regards,

Sincerely,



Ratna Sansar Shrestha

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 6:34
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: Re: [NNSD] FW: What Maoist Need Sign to Get Into Power Again ; When King B said No, JanAndolal I started

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

Thanks for forwarding this much talked about proposal which was turned down by Late King Birendra.You are right Maoists will have to sign a document like this if they intend to get into power.
Tks and regds,
Mohan Lohani 


From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha [mailto:rsansar@mos.com.np]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 7:11
Subject: FW: [NNSD] FW: What Maoist Need Sign to Get Into Power Again ; When King B said No, JanAndolal I started

Secret Draft Proposal Rejected By King Birendra
 Agreement between the Government of India and His Majesty's Government of Nepal on Mutual Cooperation

            The Government of India and His Majesty's Government of Nepal (hereinafter also referred to as the Contracting Parties),
            Recalling the unique, age-old and traditional friendship between the peoples the peoples of India and Nepal based on the bonds of history, geography and of shared social and cultural values,
            Reaffirming their adherence to the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Governments of India and Nepal of 1950, which has ever since been and remains the cornerstone of Indo-Nepal relations,
            Keen to sustain and further strengthen the bonds of friendship, good neighbourliness and mutually beneficial cooperation between the two countries and peoples,
            Determined to strengthen economic cooperation between them.
            Desiring to develop their economics in their own and common interest.
            Convinced of the benefits of mutual sharing of scientific and technical knowledge and experience to promote trade between them, have agreed as follows:

Part- I
Treatment of Each Other's Nationals in
Their Respective Territories

Article I
            Subject to such exceptions as may be mutually agreed upon, the Contracting Parties undertake not to enact and to repeal any laws, rules, regulations, and Government orders which restrict the rights and privilege of the nationals of one Contracting Party in the territory of the other in matters of residence, ownership of property, employment, participation in trade and commerce, movement, participation in industrial and economic development of such territory and the grant of concessions and contracts relating to such development and other privileges of a similar nature as enjoined by the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Government of India and the Government of Nepal of 1950 and the Letters exchanged along with the Treaty.


Article II
            Each Contracting party shall have the freedom to bring to the notice of the other any laws, rules, regulations, and Government orders of the other Contracting Party which may restrict such rights and privileges of its nationals in the territory of the other.

Part- II
 Defence Cooperation
Article I
            In the interest of strengthening their defence capabilities, the Contracting Parties have agreed to cooperate with each other in the military field. To this end, His Majesty's Government of Nepal shall consult and enter into suitable Protocols with the Government of India concerning the acquisition by Nepal of arms, ammunition and other materials and equipment necessary for the security of Nepal.
Article II
            Such cooperation between the Contracting Parties in the military field shall include assistance by the Government of India by providing arms ammunition, other materials and equipment and in coordinating training for the raising of additional formations and units for the Royal Nepalese Army, on the basis of the details to be mutually determined by the representatives of the Contracting Parties.
Article III
            The cooperation between the Contracting Parties in the military field shall also include cooperation in the training of Nepalese Armed Forces personnel.
Article IV
            The Contracting Parties undertake not to enter into any military alliance with any other State against each other. His Majesty's Government of Nepal, in this respect, agree mentioned in Articles I to III above with any other State or organisation without prior consultations and agreement with the Government of India.
Article V
            The arrangements envisaged in Articles I to IV above shall have no bearing on the independent foreign policy of either Contracting Party.

Part- III
             (Agreed Articles on Trade to be included ion this Part)

Part- IV
            (Agreed Articles on Transit to be included in this Part)

Part- V
Cooperation to Control Unauthorised Trade

            (Agreed Articles on Cooperation to control Unauthorised Trade to be included in this Part).

Part- VI
Economic Industrial and Water Resources Cooperation

Article I
            In the traditional spirit of friendly cooperation between India and Nepal and for the benefit and welfare of the people of Nepal, the Government of India undertake to provide, at the request of His Majesty's Government of Nepal, such developmental assistance as may be mutually determined by the Contracting Parties from time to time.
Article II
            Should His Majesty's Government of Nepal decide to seek foreign assistance for the development of the natural resources of Nepal or for any industrial project in Nepal, they shall give first preference to the Government or the nationals of India, as the case may be, provided that the terms offered by the Government of India or Indian nationals as the case may be, are not less favourable to Nepal than the terms offered by any other State or its nationals or by any international organisation or agency.
Article III
            The two Contracting Parties being equally desirous of attaining complete and satisfactory utilisation of the waters of the commonly shared rivers, undertake to (i) plan new uses or  projects  subjects to  the Secret protection of the existing uses on the rivers and (ii) cooperate with each other to formulate and modify the planned new uses or projects taking into consideration the water requirements of the parties.
Article IV
            The Contracting Parties agree jointly to plan, construct and manage projects of mutual benefit. In this regard, the involvement of a third party, where felt to be necessary and in the common interest, shall be subject top mutual consent.
Part- VII
Final Clauses
Article I
            To facilitate the effective and harmonious implementation of this Agreement, the Contracting Parties shall consult each other regularly, and review the implementation of this Agreement, within the forum of India-Nepal Joint Commission. They shall meet for this purpose at least once in twelve months.
Article II
            For the purpose of this Agreement, the various parts specified therein are inter-related and shall be considered as a whole
Article III
            Part I of this Agreement shall remain in force for the same duration of time for which the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the government of India and the government of Nepal of 1950 shall be in force.
            Part II of the Agreement shall remain in force for a period of ten years and it may be renewed for further periods of ten years by mutual consent, subject to such modifications as may be agreed upon.
            Part III of the Agreement shall remain in force for a period of _________________years and it may be renewed for further periods of _____________________ years by mutual consent, subject to such modifications as may be agreed upon.

            Part IV of the Agreement shall remain in force for a period of ______________________ years and it may be renewed for further periods of _____________________ years by mutual consent, subject to such modifications as may be agreed upon.
            Part V of the Agreement shall remain in force for a period of ______________________ years and it may be renewed for further periods of _____________________ years by mutual consent, subject to such ,modifications as may be agreed upon.
            Part VI of the Agreement shall remain in force for a period of _______________________ years and it may be renewed for further periods of _________________ years by mutual consent, subject to such modifications as may be agreed upon.
Article IV
            This Agreement shall come into force on ____________ 1950 and remain valid for the same duration of time for which the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Government of India and the Government of Nepal of 1950 shall be in force.
            Done at Kathmandu on __________ day of _____________ One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety in two originals each in Hindi, Nepali and English languages all of them being equally authentic. In case of doubt the English text shall prevail.

      For His Majesty's Government                For the Government
                      of Nepal                                         of India

·


Note :
  1. This agreement proposed is being published in the book entitled COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONS OF NEPAL, Second Edition.
  2. Those who love Nepal and take interest on Nepali Politics and Development are requested to go through the following books ( among his six dozen publications) by the famous author Dr. Shaastra Dutta Pant, His email address is shastra@wlink.com.np, Phone 977 1 6202399,  Fax : 977 1 4027208

Books in English Language
(1). ILLUSION OF INDEPENDENCE 
(2). MACHINATION OF RAW IN SOUTH ASIA
(3). NEPAL - INDIA  BORDER PROBLEM
(4). CONTINUOUS INTERFERENCE
(5). COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONS OF NEPAL
(6). DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION IN NEPAL
(7). Aspects of Decentralization in Nepal .


2. Books in Nepali Language

(8). g]kfndf …/cÚsf] rnv]n
(9). cla/n x:tIf]k
(10). lrosf] skdf cfFwL -…/cÚsf] rnv]n–efu @_
(11). Jojl:yt a:tL / ufpF lasf;   efu !
(12). Jojl:yt a:tL / ufpF lasf;   efu @
(13). Jojl:yt a:tL / ufpF lasf;   efu #
(14). g]kfn ef/t ;Ldf ;d:of 
(15). d]/f]b]z d]/f] uf}/j
(16). k|ltudg <

  1. Those interested who do not have easy excess to reach the boostall in Kathamandu may get  them through email
  2. Wait, they will be put in the websites, probably the web is : sirud.com.np.
  3. Thanks for your interest. 
With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst
__,_._,___

Sunday, August 29, 2010

My article in NT #517

August 29, 2010

Prof. Suresh Raj Chalise M.B.E.
Kathmandu

Dear Dr Chalise

Thanks for sending in your comments and your encouraging words.

My analysis is based on empirical analysis conducted by ministers and bureaucrats of Bhutan itself. But very many people in Nepal behave like ostriches – put their head in sand and refuse to believe the ground reality.

I fully agree with you on “free lunch” and external assistance. But Nepal’s “aid industry” pretend not to understand all these as they are getting to pocket a big chunk of such aid or benefit in various other ways directly or indirectly from the aid industry.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

From: suresh chalise [mailto:srchalise2002@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 13:38
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: My article in NT #517

Dear Ratna Sansarji

Once again a very succint analysis and citique of the Bhutan model. I fully agree with you. We Nepalis must realise that we have to develop our resources ourselves in accordance with our priorities and needs. We have to work hard and not expect others to provide us prosperity and development. We might have friends but each and every one has his/her own self interest in mind while helping us. There is nothing like free lunch in external assistance, including those from the UN, The World Bank and the likes.

Thank you, once again, for articulating so well and continuing your relentless effort to educate us.

With very best wishes

Yours Ever
Suresh
==========================================
Prof. Suresh Raj Chalise M.B.E.

Friday, August 27, 2010

“Power” to India



Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca

People in Bhutan must have felt magnanimous after reading the Time of India (ToI) article on June 20, 2009 that read: ‘Bhutan PM pledges power aid for India’. For a tiny country like Bhutan to be able to ‘aid’ its giant neighbor India must be a thrill. Advocates of the Bhutan model in Nepal are also salivating at the possibility of wielding immense power (not electricity!) over India by exporting hydropower, in the hope that control will be in Nepali hands.

Of course, they will have forgotten that India will circumvent the possibility of Nepal controlling the flow of power by demanding that they get to ensure the ‘security’ of such projects, by using Indian security personnel. The Karnali Chisapani project, meant to generate 10,800MW, was shelved in the mid-70s by the then Nepali government for this very reason.

These people have their collective heads in the sand for a couple of other reasons. Bhutan’s example illustrates a few ground realities. Kuensel online, Bhutan’s national English-language news portal, reported on July 22, 2009 that “contrary to existing notions, a new study says it is economically more beneficial for Bhutan to supply power to its industries than export to India.” The report details findings from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the royal audit authority, which note that the government makes a profit of Nu 64 million if it exports electricity to India, compared to a profit of Nu 152.8 million from tax receipts if it supplied 15 major national industries. Economic Affairs Minister Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk was reported to have said, “Electricity is the only plentiful raw material, which can be used by our industries to compete with external competitors by value adding on the reasonably priced power.” Ministry Secretary Dasho Sonam Tshering reportedly alluded to Norway, which “also used its hydropower to initially bankroll its industrial development through power intensive metallurgy and fertilizers”.

 

The export-oriented mode of hydropower development in Bhutan has threatened its own industrial development. As early as 2008 Zeenews.com reported that “a severe power shortage may hit Bhutan in view of new industries readying up to kick start operations even as India is banking on borrowing electricity from the Himalayan country by 2020.” Bhutan Power Corporation Limited is reported to have confirmed this, indicating there will not be enough power for the industrialization of Bhutan. Kuensel online has echoed this anxiety as recently as February 2010, suggesting setting up captive thermal power plants and in May 2010, even import of electricity from India!

 

Due to the unique geopolitical relationship between India and Bhutan, the three hydropower projects built so far, with a total capacity of 1,416MW, are owned by Bhutan but funded by India with 60 per cent grant and a 40 per cent soft loan. But this ‘inter-government model’ has been found wanting by the Indian Government of late. The ToI last year noted that “The power ministry is getting the jitters over venture models for setting up hydel projects committed to Bhutan, with an view emerging that the amount of investments India will have to make at one go till 2020 under the present inter-government arrangement may adversely affect our budgetary provisions.”

According to records of a recent meeting called by Indian power sector officials, India is committed to projects in Bhutan of 10,000MW by 2020. This will require fast-track investment of Rs 500 billion at Rs 45 billion per year till 2020. The Indian Government, therefore, is endeavoring to drastically reconfigure the model so future projects are built with 70 per cent loan and 30 per cent grant.  According to Kuensel online, the Bhutanese government has not yet agreed to it.

 

Under the current model, Bhutan seems to be profiting even by exporting power at a dirt cheap rate. But once the financing modality is turned on its head, the benefits to the Bhutanese economy will shrink by a magnitude. By exporting power, furthermore, it is condemned to remain underdeveloped.

 

for Nepal, with a population of 28 million, to reach the same level of ‘gross national happiness’ achieved under the current India-Bhutan inter-government model would require India to finance 52,864 MW of electricity. Unfortunately, India is already experiencing financing fatigue after its relatively small investments in Bhutan. It’s time for the hydrocracy in Nepal – the politicians, policymakers, planners, bureaucrats, and intelligentsia who deal in hydropower – to acknowledge the ground realities and grow out of their short-sighted, juvenile vision for Nepal’s hydropowered future.

 

Published in Nepali Times # 517 (27 August – 2 September 2010)

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

RE: The neocolonial path to power

August 25, 2010
Mr Govind Das Shrestha
Kathmandu

Dear Govind Das jee

I am in absolute agreement with you that most of the so called hydropower experts of Nepal plan for benefit to India rather than Nepal. Examples are planning to export hydropower at dirt cheap rate and planning to import at around Rs 10.72 in the name of mitigating electricity crisis in Nepal. Higher level of treason against Nepal is development of storage projects for (1) export of peak-in energy at dirt cheap rate and (2) surrendering augmented/regulated flow without getting any recompense for submergence of land in Nepal and displacement of local populace.

There is also plenty of disinformation campaign going on in the name of Nepal to be “Oil-Sheik” as you have appropriately put it. I have come to learn that even Susan Goldmark (World Bank Res Rep) has parroted this line but I have yet to locate its evidence in order for me to contradict her (I will do so at first available opportunity). What these people forget that host government share of oil revenue is very high while Nepal gets only Rs 100/kW as capacity royalty and 2% energy royalty (the cumulative total is less than 2.5%) but the share of Norway, for example, is about 80% of the revenue from oil export. I wonder when our intelligentsia will learn to speak only after checking the ground realities! Maybe, as you have put it, their agenda is to benefit India at the cost of Nepal (I don’t want to believe it, though).

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

From: Bimala Shrestha [mailto:bimala@mos.com.np]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 21:23
To: 'Ratna Sansar Shrestha'
Subject: RE: The neocolonial path to power

Dear Ratna Sansarjee,

Thanks. I have always liked Deepak’s writing on water issues.  I always enjoy reading your thought-provoking real life comments and insights. I could not agree more. Nepal is hydro-power poor  because of “poverty of ideas”. The water bureaucrats in Nepal always want Nepal to be “Oil-Sheik” without knowing what it means and costs to develop the resource. Sometimes I think some people enjoy planning for the good and benefit of India. They do not realize that the dream of large scale export of hydro-power in Nepal  is a mirage.

Development priority in Nepal has gone haywire. We always seem to plan for India. I have always strongly believed that there is no short cut to developing our domestic capacity. If we can pass a strong message across the border that we are bent to develop the resources on our strength, India will come to terms. Then we can think of export. Our bureaucrats must understand that “first consume, develop our economy and then export, if surplus is available”.

Regards,

Govind

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha [mailto:rsansar@mos.com.np]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 6:53 AM
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: FW: The neocolonial path to power

Dear Chiranjee

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

RE: The neocolonial path to power

August 24, 2010

Prof Dr Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University

Dear Prof Lohani

Hope of per capita of US $10,000 in Bhutan is a pipe dream as India has already reached financing fatigue. But pseudo intellectuals of Nepal are either unaware this or they love to behave like ostriches.

You are absolutely right; we have been getting cheated time and again. Unless we Nepal understand the importance of water and negotiate from a position of strength, we are more likely to be cheated all over again.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 11:59
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: {Disarmed} RE: The neocolonial path to power

Dear Ratna Sansarji,
Thanks for your compliments and I think all self-respecting people don't sheepishly kowtow to Indian masters for some amounts of money on their terms by selling electricity or hydropower.Only yesterday a relative of mine was praising the Bhutan model like anything and in a few years' time Bhutan's per capita income is going to be 10,000 US dollars which overshadows countries like Nepal with less than 400 US dollars per capita income.Unless we bargain with India on the strength of our precious resources which is water, we are likely to be'cheated 'once again ( I am using the word 'cheated' which was first used by Late King Birendra more than 35 years ago in connection with Koshi and Gandak agreements with India)
Wishing you all the best and with regards,
Mohan Lohani

Monday, August 23, 2010

RE: The neocolonial path to power

August 23, 2010
Mr Chiran S Thapa
Naxal, Kathmandu

Dear Chiranjee

Thanks a lot for joining the discourse.

The discourse has thrown up following issues:

·         Bhutan model could be implemented by India in Bhutan specifically as it is Indian protectorate, thereby enabling India to ensure security of the projects within Bhutani territory by Indian security personnel.
·         Bhutan model is against the principle of energy security of Bhutan as evidenced by the load shedding happening now and likely to happen in future. Further, and more importantly, due to implementation of this model, Bhutan will not have necessary electricity for her industrialization.
·         This model is financially unviable even for India.

Therefore, this model is not replicable in Nepal.

However, there are still some people who advocate replication this model in the name of “trans-boundary realities,” which is like saying that if the rape (begging your pardon for the use of rather a strong word) is inevitable, then the “subject” should lie back and may as well “enjoy” it.

Replication of this model in the name of trans-boundary realities in Nepal is high treason. Notwithstanding so called trans-boundary realities countries like Canada, Lesotho, etc. have succeeded to achieve win-win situation. Therefore, Nepal, instead, should aim to replicate these models.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: C.S. Thapa [mailto:cst21@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of C.S. Thapa
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:39
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: The neocolonial path to power

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

Thank you for your e-mail. I have a copy of DopakG's article in Nepal and
will read the article in English as well. But, as I just debated with
Shanta Pun, in the absence of a 100% win situation, how far are we prepared
to bend, transparently and keeping clarity in expressing the reasons for
accepting losses for correspondingly better benefits? Transboundary
realities have to be accepted and time constraints, the loss in delay of
developing multiuse water resources, cannot be wished away.

Best,

Chiran

On Aug 19 2010, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

> As is his wont Dipak Gyawali has pointed out that the emperor isn't
> actually wearing any gorgeous royal gown, as his subjects are led to
> believe; rather he is wearing nothing in his article titled "The
> neocolonial path to power" published in Himal South Asian of August 2010
> (http://www.himalmag.com/The-neocolonial-path-to-power_nw4642.html) which
> is based on the translation of his article published in vernacular
> "Nepal" magazine. It's not unusual for him to attract wide ranging
> comments and this article is no exception.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

RE: The neocolonial path to power

August 22, 2010

Prof Dr Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University

Dear Prof Lohani

As I had been busy and then I was in Thailand to meet my daughter’s family (comprising her better half and cute daughter), I could only write after some gap. Thank you so much for sending your comments.

A lot of people “wax eloquent”, as you have appropriately termed it, about Bhutan model without fully understand its ramifications and manifestations. Even if the model was sustainable for India financially and, therefore, replicable in Nepal, this not a path for us to follow as it will be foolhardy for a sovereign and independent country to aspire to become Indian protectorate. It is high treason on the part of those people in Nepal wanting to convert it into a protectorate of India. Our forefathers have shed plenty of blood and innumerable lives were lost to ensure that we were never colonized as contrasted from India. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of Nepali version of Lendup Dorjes, to cite an example from Sikkim, whose conscience allows them to “transform” Nepal into Bhutan or even Sikkim . One particular person, professing to call himself hydropower expert, has been going about advocating that we should allow India to take care of our army publicly (on TV and radio programs) which will be tantamount to colonization of Nepal by India. I feel ashamed to have known such a person. However, I am glad that there are people like you who wont let any grass grow under their feet in this respect.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:30
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: The neocolonial path to power

Dear Ratna Sansarji,
It was nice going through your article after a long gap.At a time when champions of the Bhutan model wax eloquent over the sustainability of hydro projects in Nepal with India's financial assistance,you have categorically stated that such model is not 'replicable'  and sustainable in Nepal and as a senior water resource analyst your analysis of why Nepal can't follow the Bhutan model sounds convincing and again,I wonder whether our policy makers are still interested in inviting India to finance our mega projects on their terms,not ours.
Tks and regds,
Mohan Lohani

Saturday, August 21, 2010

The neocolonial path to power

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

As is his wont Dipak Gyawali has pointed out that the emperor isn’t actually wearing any gorgeous royal gown, as his subjects are led to believe; rather he is wearing nothing in his article titled “The neocolonial path to power” published in Himal South Asian of August 2010 (http://www.himalmag.com/The-neocolonial-path-to-power_nw4642.html) which is based on the translation of his article published in vernacular “Nepal” magazine. It’s not unusual for him to attract wide ranging comments and this article is no exception.

Some comments have been made as a reaction to the use of the phrase “neocolonial path”. Politically speaking Bhutan is an Indian protectorate (there is no point in beating around the bush about it) and it will not be efficacious use of time for this scribe to try to distinguish between a colony and a protectorate. However, it is crystal clear that Bhutan is not an independent country comprising of sovereign people. But, DipakG didn’t use the phrase neocolonial because of this hard and cold ground reality. He must have been endeavoring to give a name to the modality of hydropower development in that country and in his article he clearly is cautioning Nepal’s hydrocracy (politicos, policy makers, planners, bureaucrats, intelligentsia, etc. related to hydropower) from following Bhutanese footstep which will lead to neocolonial exploitation/development of Nepal’s water resources. The phrase “banana republic” must also have been coined from similar Central American experience. Parallels could also be drawn from the collapse of Russian economy based on exploitation/extraction of mineral raw materials as well.

However, it doesn’t come as a surprise that the people in Bhutan aren’t too proud of this geopolitical fact of life; nor like being reminded of it. In their resentment with this geopolitical fact, with which they are destined to live till some distant future, they even try to equate themselves to Nepal thereby attempt to pull Nepal (a sovereign and independent country) down a notch or two to their own level. There is no point in being upset with them when people in Nepal, professing to be nationalistic, do go about advocating that Nepal must metamorphose into another Bhutan by replicating Bhutan model. Bhutanese people must be awestruck to learn of some people in Nepal wanting to stoop to their level – demonstrating their willingness to cede Nepal’s sovereignty and independence which Bhutan would give anything to achieve. DipakG’s article is a clarion call for the protagonists of replicating Bhutan model in Nepal to wake up from their slumber induced by the warmth of wet bed and remember that once the mattress cools off it will become very uncomfortable as is being amply demonstrated by what is transpiring in Bhutan.

Bhutan is source of power for India
Bhutanese people must have felt the taste of magnanimity after reading that “Bhutan PM pledges power aid for India” in Times of India (ToI) of June 20, 2009, making Bhutan a source of power for India. For a country as tiny as Bhutan, being able to “aid” India – the giant neighbor – must have been a breathtaking experience. The proponents of Bhutan model in Nepal are also salivating due to this very possibility. They have been going about saying that Nepal can wield immense power (not in the sense of energy related power) over India by a magnitude if Nepal were to export power in huge quantum to India, as the switch to power to India will lie in Nepali hands. It is beyond their foresight and comprehension that India will easily circumvent such a possibility by “demanding” to ensure security of such project(s) by Indian the security personnel. Most people aren’t aware that Karnali Chisapani project, 10,800 MW, was shelved in 70s by the then royal government of Nepal as it received not so subtle hints that India would like to ensure security of the project by Indian the security personnel (vide “India-Nepal Relations – Challenges Ahead” by Jagat Mehta, former secretary of ministry of foreign affairs of India).

Power is input for economic activity
But gems of truth are coming out of Bhutan itself. Kuensel online of July 22, 2009, writing under the heading “Power-profit home advantage”, has stated that “contrary to existing notions, a new study says it is economically more beneficial for Bhutan to supply power to its industries than export to India. The study, by the ministry of economic affairs (MOEA) and the royal audit authority, compares revenue foregone by the government in not exporting subsidized electricity against the money gained as taxes from 15 major industries, which represent 95 percent of industrial power consumption. Here, in spite of the subsidy, the net benefit is about Nu 64m. In the second model, it compares cost of production and distribution of electricity to the tax revenue gained from industries. Here again, there is a benefit of Nu 152.8m over and above cost of production.”

“Electricity is the only plentiful raw material, which can be used by our industries to compete with external competitors by value adding on the reasonably priced power,” said economic affairs minister Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk.

Economic affairs secretary Dasho Sonam Tshering is reported to have said, “Value addition on both electricity and local raw materials, like in the case of Penden and Dungsam cement plants, will be more sustainable in the long run, even if electricity prices change in the region”. He even is reported to have alluded to Norway which “also used its hydropower to initially bankroll its industrial development through power intensive metallurgy and fertilizers”.

Power for domestic consumption
On the other hand export oriented development of hydropower in Bhutan has resulted in different negative externality. Under the headline “Power crisis looms large over Bhutan?” Zeenews.com has reported, on June 16, 2008 that “A severe power shortage may hit Bhutan in view of new industries readying up to kick start operations even as India is banking on borrowing electricity from the Himalayan country by 2020.” It goes on to add that “ Bhutan may talk of thousands of megawatts of power in the next few years but according to Bhutan power corporation limited (BPCL) officials, the country will face a deficit in that period because a lot of upcoming industries will need power to operate. BPCL executive director K B Wakhley has been reported to have said that “If all the industries in Pasakha and Phuentsholing come on stream, there will be a shortage of power," said.

Similarly Kuensel online of February 9, 2010, writing under the title “Huge power shortage expected” has reported that “Bhutan, rich in hydropower could face power shortage, up to 20 MW, by the late winter months of 2010 and early 2011.” Moreover, Kuensel online of April 15, 2010 has reported that “Dagana crippled by power cuts.” Dagana residents are, reportedly, so frustrated with the erratic power supply in their dzongkhag that they are asking Bhutan Power corporation (BPC) for an alternative source of electricity. Power supply is disrupted two or three times a day, which civil servants, businessmen and local residents say is affecting their day-to-day activities. On weekends, the dzongkhag suffers a power blackout. “The disruption isn’t new, it’s been there for years, but the situation worsened this year,” said a town resident. A civil servant told Kuensel that their performance is hampered, since all activities are disrupted due to frequent power failure.

Further, Kuensel online of May 3, 2010 has reported that “Power shortage likely this winter.” It reports that Bhutan could face a shortfall of power this winter, with domestic demand projected to touch 300 MW (megawatt), when total generation shrinks to around 282 MW in the cold months. The 300 MW demand projection is based on the domestic demand growth rate, which has been increasing at an average of 26 percent in the past three years. This deficit is likely to be borne by the energy intensive industries the biggest users of energy within the country.

Like ostrich, some people are hiding their collective heads in the sand, but it will not make the potential disaster vanish and, therefore, people need to review this modality of hydropower development not only in Bhutan but also in Nepal.

Financially unsustainable model
Due to the unique geopolitical relationship between India and Bhutan three projects so far built in Bhutan, aggregating a capacity of 1,416 MW, are owned by Bhutan but funded by India through 60% grant and 40% soft loan touted as the ‘inter-government model’. However, even Indian government is finding out that this is not a sustainable model. Reporting under the heading “Power ministry jittery on Bhutan investments” ToI of November 9, 2009 has mentioned that “The power ministry is getting the jitters over venture models for setting up hydel projects committed to Bhutan, with an view emerging that the amount of investments India will have to make at one go till 2020 under the present inter-government arrangement may adversely affect our budgetary provisions.”

Kuensel online of 10 November 2009 has quoted, ToI news story, under the heading “Misgivings on inter-govt. model.” It has been reported that “India’s investment in Bhutan’s 10,000 MW hydro projects could have an adverse impact on their annual budgetary provisions if it is in the ‘inter-government model,’ according to records of a recent meeting called by the Indian power sector officials.

The report, according to ToI, says that India, under the inter-government arrangement, is committed to building projects of 10,000 MW by 2020. For this to happen, India will have to take up many projects at one go on a fast-track, requiring an investment of Rs 500 billion at Rs 45 billion per year till 2020.

Therefore, Indian government is endeavoring to drastically reconfigure the inter-government model. Kuensel online of December 30, 2009 has reported that “the Indian government has proposed that future hydro projects be done on a 70 percent loan and 30 percent grant basis, according to reliable sources. The Bhutanese government has not yet agreed to it.” Kuensel online of January 11, 2010 continued with the same news story

With this drastic change in the configuration “gross national happiness” is bound to transform itself into “gross national unhappiness.” Under current arrangement (60% grant 40% soft loan), Bhutan, apparently seems to be gaining even by exporting power at dirt cheap rate. But once it is juxtapositioned, percolation into Bhutanese economy will shrink by a magnitude. It must be remembered that due to the underdeveloped state of Bhutani economy there is no backward linkage, no forward linkage, and no investment linkage for its “famed” hydropower development and it won’t take too long to achieve “gross national unhappiness” of significant level.

Conclusion

Therefore, in view of Bhutan’s need for power/energy for it to grow out of its medieval economic state export oriented development of hydropower is unsustainable. Similarly, this model is financially unsustainable for India to continue to spoon feed.



Neither is this model replicable in Nepal. Because for a population of 28 million in Nepal, India will have to finance 52,864 MW under this modality (60% grant 40% soft loan). However, India has already reached financing fatigue after financing 1,416 MW (relatively smaller quantum) in Bhutan for a population of 750,000.


 


Hence, it is time for the hydrocracy (politicos, policy makers, planners, bureaucrats, intelligentsia, etc. related to hydropower) in Nepal to grow out of their short sighted juvenile vision for Nepal’s hydropower development.



From the above it is clear that we are getting to hear the same thing from the horse’s mouth. It just takes a little bit of digging to come up with gems of wisdom. The likes of this scribe and DipakG are only a little ahead of time. A number of articles on this very topic written by this scribe are available in his website.