Sunday, December 26, 2010

RE: FW: Very biased article- today's Kantipur

December 26, 2010
Ram Babu Nepal
Netherland

Dear Ram Babujee

Namaste


Good to hear from you. Thanks a lot for your solidarity. In my considered opinion, not only the adjective he has used “very” is unacceptable but even the word “bias” is out of place. In view of this I challenged him publically (that’s why you all in my list-serve received my email to him) and he has miserably failed to substantiate his charge, which is evident from his response to my email you are referring to. You too can peruse his response by clicking the link below as I have uploaded it in my website:

http://www.ratnasansar.com/2010/12/re-thanks-for-your-response-to-very.html

Your comment on writers is commendable. However, there are “writers” and “writers”. A number of them do churn out lies for a few silvers; in favor of a particular idea, person or party. This breed do not fall in the ambit of writers that you have visualized.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

From: Ram Babu Nepal [mailto:nepalrb@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 17:30
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: Very biased article- today's Kantipur

Dear Ratna Sansarji and Dirgh Rajji,

Namaskar

It may be inappropriate to enter into a debate between two persons. I am writing you both because I have had the chance to read e-mail exchange when Ratna Sansarji forwared it to all of us who are in the NNSD mailing list, I suppose.

I do not see any point to add the adjective very biased for Ratna Sansarji's article because he has given reference to the specific article of the then Constitution. If any article was quoted incorrectly or misinterpreted then it is the duty of a reader (who wishes to make comment) to indicate where was it misquoted. Different persons may view differently to a specific situation and this is common. What Dirgha Rajji is pleading in his e-mail is different from the subject matter of the article. There can be debate about the good and bad aspects of different political systems. Not all aspects of Panchayat system or era were harmful. It is a matter of balance what we achieved in what cost. If return was less compared to investment, then there is room to criticise.

Writers are treated with respect. Therefore, every writer should be careful in sustaining the respect of readers. No writer should manipulate his writing skill and twist facts and figures. Prejudices should be avoided for credibility.

I request that every commentator should thoroughly review and determine whether I am taking right path or picking relevant issues before criticising others and avoid adding adjectives to the extent possible.

With best regards,

Ram Babu Nepal

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

Dear Dirgha Raj Prasai jee

Saturday, December 25, 2010

RE: Thanks for your response to "very biased article" on Paush 1

December 25, 2010
Dirgha Raj Prasai
Kathmandu

Shree Dirgha Raj Prasai jee

I not only wish you good day but also wish you many a good days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries and millenniums to come.

Thanks a lot for appreciating my nationalistic thinking and approaches.

As I don’t have anyone to send to get your book, I would appreciate it if you could arrange to send it to my office at following address:

Water Supply Tariff Fixation Commission (I am a member of the commission)
41 AlokNagar Marg,
Min Bhawan, Kathmandu
Phone # 410 6583/410 6525

You can have the person phone ahead in order to be able to locate it easily.

To counter your argument of my article of first Paush being “very biased” I had challenged you to show/prove an iota of bias in my analysis of 2015 constitution and instead of doing anything as such you have changed gears and you are now “discovering” “confusion” in my writing. I again challenge to prove any confusion in that particular article of mine.

Neither was that particular article of mine on whether I like or dislike monarchy or whether Nepal, being different from other nations, needs or doesn’t need monarchy. You have also written about Hinduism and Buddhism and relevance of secularism for Nepal. That particular article of mine wasn’t even on this topic.

In this backdrop, it is obvious that you have alleged my article to be biased without a shred of evidence. Thanks for taking time to read my article and write to me.

Take care.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/


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

From: Dirgha Raj Prasai [mailto:dirgharajprasai@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:55
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: Thanks for your response.

Shree Ratna Sansar jee !

Good Day !

I highly appriciate your thinking and great nationalistic approaches.

Your articles about Hydro-power are very appriciated. I had also interpreted about our water resourses in my book which is -almost-800 papes. If you will send anybody I will send you to read 1st, last Cap. and water resourses and irrigation.
Dear Mr. Shrestha jee

But, politically, I found some confusion in your writting. Please, don;t mind. Be frank and tray to understand the realityof our country.

You see- minimizing the monarchy in Nepal, we never can adjust. Republican democracy can be institutionalized in other nations. However, Nepal is different to that of other nations. If Nepal remains a republic, as it lies between two boulders-China and India-it will not remain secure. In the absence of the royal institution Nepal could as well break into pieces. If Nepal continues to exist, it will not be democracy that would be established through communism. China will come forward for communism in Nepal. It is so because it is China's compulsion. If China does not communizes Nepal the foreigners and CIA will be subjected to the danger of foreign conspiracy of eternity-the free Tibet. Yes, 'continuity of royal institution is the only way for reforming the system of democracy by saving Nepal's existence and freeing it of communist's pressure and China's intervention. If People's Republic were to be established in Nepal and India, Britain,

America and other contractors of democracy would not be able to conspire and stop communism through bombardment. Althrough, it will bethe cause of great third war.
So in this sense, the conclusion could be that all sectors can opt for creative democratic path. It is our option to choose individual freedom in democratic system. Nepal will not prosper under communist system. If NC, UML and Maoist and other sides want a 'Sovereign-Nepal' then they should embrace 1990 Constitution and form an inclusive cabinet in the presence of King. We can reach a solution in this manner. There are no other alternatives. Nepal is called the Shangri-La, and the World Hindu Conference had passed a resolution that the earth of Nepal was worthy to be bowed down by Hindus all over the world. This is the highest honor Nepal could receive from the international community. Nepal is the country where both Hinduism and Buddhism originated and it is a scared land for more than a billion Hindus and Buddhists. Nepal's prestige and honor would elevate further if this country is declared a Hindu and Buddhist country, instead of a secular one.

Therefore, we must not take up anything that would become too burdensome to carry on. Nepal does not have any basis or foundation that could support republic. Carrying the slogan of a republic is not the solution of our country. Nepal needs a permanent institution that can shoulder the responsibility for its independence, national unity and sovereignty. Nepal needs a credible reply and response from all other parties that they are going to abolish the monarchy for-ever.

It is only my bargaining that as a nationalist you should oppose these traitors of party who are the agents of RAW and CIA.

Please, open- >www.australia.to/2010< there you can read my article about Lord Buddha, Buddhism---. Please click my name or Colomist.

I think, you are bussy althrough, you have power to digest such obstacles.

OK ?

All the best.

Dirgha Raj Prasai

Friday, December 24, 2010

Re: FW: Very biased article- today's Kantipur

December 24, 2010
Prof. Dr Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University,
Kathmandu


Dear Prof Lohani

Some people are monarchists and some are republicans; it is each individual’s liberty to choose. I don’t have problem with that. But he has made a baseless allegation as to my article being “very biased” without being able to substantiate it. That is very unbecoming of him. I would hope my response to his email has made that amply clear to him.

With best regards,

Sincerely,



Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/



From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 23:30
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: FW: Very biased article- today's Kantipur
Dear Ratna Sansarji,

Thanks for forwarding Dirgharaj's comments on your article nd your reply to him.Dirgharaj,as you know,is a diehard monarchist and would like to revive the old system.We should learn to live with the changing times.Of course,when I read your article I did not comment on the early part because that is more or less history,but we should think of the future and all of us should prod the CA members not to commit the same mistakes while drafting the new constitution.CA is not something which can't elected as many times as we wish.

Tks and regds,

Mohan Lohani

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Re: FW: Very biased article- today's Kantipur

December 23, 2010
Keshab Poudel
Editor
Spotlight


Dear Keshabjee

Good to hear from you. When I conceived the idea to write this article, I was fully aware and prepared for all round criticism. Politicians were busy in self gratification (Atmarati) and going around claiming to be great believers in democracy and were successfully hiding their failure to understand whether/if 2015 constitution had elements of democracy (loktantra). In my article I have even implied that they ignored the lack of democratic elements in the constitution and system in their hurry to ascend to power. Therefore, I seem to have succeeded to antagonize them.

Similarly, we have no dearth of monarchists who not only believe that Mahendra was a democrat but also a great statesman. A few of his actions does indicate that Mahendra had some qualities necessary in a statesman. But he is no democrat by any stretch of imagination. My article has outraged these monarchists too.

It is both comforting and consoling that there are discerning readers like you who can assess an article objectively. This is what keeps me going. I appreciate your sending in your analysis.

With best regards,

Sincerely,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

----Original Message-----

From: Keshab Poudel [mailto:keshab42@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 22:34
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: comment with correction please read Loktantra


Dear Ratna Sansarji,

After reading the comment and my interactions with some of propounder of Loktantra, I found both the sections criticized your views. This is the indication that your article was well written and based on objective analysis. Frankly speaking, you tried to defend the situation that the persons from both the extreme do not like to hear.

I read your article twice and I can say your article in based on fact.


With warm regards



Keshab

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Re: FW: Very biased article- today's Kantipur

December 22, 2010
Dirgha Raj Prasai
Kathmandu

Dear Dirgha Raj Prasai jee

Good to hear from you. I am glad that you have spared time from your busy schedule to write to me and I am also glad to know that you have been reading my articles and appreciating them. Thanks for calling me “top intellectual” which I don’t claim to be
Looks like you were unable to appreciate my article this time. I exhort you to read it thoroughly with due care and open mind and arrive at a conclusion without any undue haste (neither with any preconceived ideas, nor any predilection). I reject your contention that my article is biased. In order for you to be right you will have to prove that my analysis is biased; forget being “very biased.” My challenge to you is to establish even an iota of bias in each of my analyses which are based on the dispassionate analysis of the 2015 constitution and the extant political system of the time, with philosophical detachment.

The problem with intellectuals in Nepal is that they label any opinion that they are unable to agree with as “biased.” I, as mentioned above, have made an objective analysis of the constitution of 2015 and the political system thereunder. I, therefore, have challenged you to prove my analysis wrong from any perspective. I have quoted the relevant articles of the constitution and you should read the constitution, especially the articles I have referred to and analyzed, and only then call me biased if you are able to establish any such bias. If you are able to prove any component of my analysis wrong, then I will accept that I have been biased and will publicly accept my bias and tender public apology. I firmly believe that it is well neigh impossible for you to do so. I have thrown the gauntlet at you and you are at liberty to pick it up.

Since a long time I had been hearing politicos (especially Kangresis) going about complaining that Mahendra’s action of first Paush, exactly fifty years back, was unconstitutional and it was a “coups d'état.” The term “coups d'état” is defined by Wikipedia as the sudden, illegal deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another body; either civil or military. But Mahendra’s action didn’t entail illegal deposition of Koirala government, as the constitution, under which the election was held and the cabinet formed under the leadership of BP Koirala, had vested necessary power and authority for the purpose in the king’s hand by article 55 and 56; to do what he exactly did on that day. Besides, Mahendra even could have used Article 12 to do cherry picking with the ministers (to individually sack them) he didn’t like, but he didn’t resort to it. My first objective in publishing the particular article was to prove that Mahendra’s said action was not unconstitutional at all and, hence, it did not amount to a “coups d'état.” I am sure that you will agree with me on this.

Second objective of my article was to conduct an analysis to establish/check democratic credentials of the constitution and the system at that time under that constitution. Unfortunately, for the sympathizers of that particular constitution and that particular political dispensation, no element of democracy existed in that constitution and the system by any stretch of imagination. You please mind that I have specifically analyzed the King’s proclamation of the constitution, Preamble of the constitution, Articles 7(c), 12, 42, 57, 73, 74, 75, 77, etc. of it, besides Article 55 and 56 of it as well as Article 68 of Interim Constitution of 2007. The challenge to you to is to read all of these verbatim and word by word and check and prove if I have misinterpreted any of these, or twisted a word out of the context; or if have I misconstrued any of them.

Thanks a lot for showing concern for my prestige. My prestige would have been negatively impacted if I had misinterpreted the provision of the constitution or twisted it out of context or misconstrued any of them. As I have not done any such thing my prestige is intact and unassailable. I am apprehensive that you have staked your own prestige unnecessarily by making false allegation against me.

You have mentioned that “majority of our political leaders are Indian agents”. I trust that you have necessary evidence to prove them as such. I have yet to come across any evidence to corroborate it, however, in analyzing issues related to water resources of Nepal, I have been forced time and again to wonder why do they accept deals such that India ends up being disproportionately benefitted from these deals. This is not limited to politicos only. Majority of bureaucrats and businessmen also behave in similar fashion. To add insult to injury, they come up with convoluted logic to defend such bad deals. Similarly, most of the politicos are corrupt; there is ample evidence to prove it. I have had many a occasions to wonder whether they are corrupt and therefore, always sign up deals against Nepal’s interest or they are antinational and therefore, resort to corrupt practices.

I am prepared to grant that it may have been historical necessity or geographic imperative for what Mahendra did on that particular day. You, in other words, may be able to justify his action from the perspective of nationalism, patriotism, or necessity due to history or geography, but it will still not make that particular constitution and the system under it democratic. In that particular article of mine of about 1,000 words, I have not done an analysis from historical or geographic perspective. I have made a dispassionate analysis of the provisions of the constitution mentioned in my article with philosophical detachment which led to the conclusion that I have drawn.

Mahendra may have been a great democrat at heart (I have read somewhere that queen Ratna would cook and serve food personally to PM Koirala), and he may have taken the step in Nepal’s national interest but with all the powers of the government (legislature, executive and judiciary) concentrated in him, including power to “give” constitution to his “subjects” and also to amend it as and when it pleased him, the constitution and the system of the time could in no way be called a democratic one. It was plainly and simply an absolute monarchy. The difference between panchayat as a system that followed the aforementioned action and that one was only the fact that political parties were allowed to exist which was prohibited thereafter (till 2047). There is no relationship between your allegation as to my article being biased and the fact that Birendra too was born in Paush or Paush 27 being celebrated as national unity day. Meaning these things in history will not be able to prove bias in my article.

The historical facts as such are incontrovertible and I have not spent a word to deny them.

Similarly, I grant that restriction on purchase of landed property by foreigners is a step in the national interest. East-west highway definitely is Nepal’s economic backbone and he did demonstrate foresight in conceptualizing it and laying its foundation. But the constitution and dispensation at that time still lacked necessary elements of a democratic system. I am also happy that Mahendra made Indian security personnel stationed in Nepal leave. This has made me a fan of him (with respect to his nationalistic stance) and I have mentioned this fact, appreciatively, in a number of my articles and presentations. I also appreciate (also have mentioned it in numerous articles) that Birendra rather decided not to have Karnali Chisapani project, 10,800 MW, implemented as Indian government wanted to station Indian security force for the security of that project in Nepal’s territory. Even now one reason behind my opposition to building of hydropower projects in Nepal for export of power to India with Indian investment is this concern. My contention is that Nepal should secure firm assurance in this respect prior to allowing them to go ahead with such projects; provided that such projects do serve national interest from all other perspectives.

Toni Hagen too seems to be in agreement with me. I didn’t know this. Thanks for the information.

Take care and keep in touch.

With best regards,

Sincerely,



Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/



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

From: Dirgha Raj Prasai [mailto:dirgharajprasai@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 21:42
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: Very biased article- today's Kantipur

Dear Mr. Ratna Sansar Shrestha jee !

I had been reading all your articles which are appreciated. But, I am sorry that you have forgetten all the reality of the Nepalese politics. The article which is published in Kantipur-Pous 1, is completly biased. You are a top intellucual but why you have forgetten your prestige ?

You know-the most unfortunate fact is that majority of our political leaders are Indian agents. It is worthless to expect from these leaders to save our nationality and independence. Unless traitors and corrupt leaders dominating in the big parties are chased away, democracy and nationalism will not be secured. There is no alternative to parliamentary democracy in Nepal. But it does not mean that we follow Indian orders and perish Nepal’s identity. The definition of Nepal’s nationality is to maintain balanced bilateral diplomatic ties with both the countries, China and India, based on democracy and by protecting its pride.

You must understand the facts of History. Before 1960, the situation of Nepal was in dangerous position. Then, the king Mahendra assumed power abolishing the parliament to save Nepal from drowning on 1 Poush (13 December). Nepalese across the nation and non resident Nepalese illuminated butter lamps at houses against Indian expansionism while celebrating king Mahendra’s step on 1 Poush. King Mahendra used to say- The traitor leaders of party, divide not only the people but also the nation. The then king Mahendra did on 1 Poush 2017 (15 December 1960) for prosperity of prosperous, sovereign Nepal and Nepalese is immortal in the history of nationalism. Likewise, patriotic King Birendra was born in 14 Poush (29 December). King Prithvi Narayan Shah the Great was born in the month of Pous created a greater Nepal to protect it from British attack.

Before 1960, foreigners were free to purchase land in Nepal. After 1961, king Mahendra banned foreigners from purchasing Nepalese land. People were compelled to walk through Indian roads to move from one Nepali district to other. In 1961, King Mahendra laid the foundation for East-West Highway at Gailakot to free the people of Indian torment. Nepali language was continued as national language across the nation. Before 1960, 90% of Indian currency notes were in use which was removed and use of Nepali currency was made compulsory. Our pride was restored. King Mahendra without any condition asked the Indian force deployed for security of Nepal to leave.

A Swiss geologist and scholar, Toni Hagen first came in 1950 as a member of the Swiss Mission for Development Aid. His first job was to conduct Nepal's first geological survey. About the reality of the Nepalese politics and the intention of King Mahendra he said- 'I call back December 1960 when King Mahendra staged the royal coup. I never agreed with King Mahendra this step. On the other hand, I would say looking back into the history that King Mahendra was a very great personality. It is mainly for his merit that Nepal survived as an independent country between two big neighbors. He was very clever and handled the dedicate issues.' 25 Nov.1992- Weekly newspaper- The Independent' King Mahendra incorporated the phrase ‘Hindu Kingdom’ in the constitution upgrading the morale of India and Hindus all over the world. His work increased Nepal's prestige. He introduced Nepal in the United Nations by adopting the ideology of foreign policy. He maintained a balanced friendship with Chinese powerful leader Mao Ze Dong and Indian powerful Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. King Mahendra introduced more than 50 industries and organizations that directly benefit the people, fulfilled the essential as education, health, transportation, roads construction, irrigation, electricity. In 17 August, 1963 the late King introduced the Muluki Ain (people's code) and made attempt to break untouchables, caste discrimination and policy of gender-discrimination. In 1955 he declared land reform act and abolished landlords, secured the right of farmers by ending Birta (feudal) system. King Mahendra managed the way of active people's participation in the development sectors from the grass root levels He divided Nepal into 14 administrative zones with 75 districts in it. However, the king had not divided the country based on ethnicity or the origin of people residing in the respective zones or districts which is not possible even today. There were more than 4000 villages every village was divided into nine wards and 35 municipalities whose wards were divided 9-35, vary as per the size of the town. That is why he is immortal.

The British Empire, spreading in Asia, after getting hold of its influence in India had eyed on mountainous region of Nepal. It was not an easy task to fight British imperialistic force in the mid 18th century. But the nation’s nationality is in a dangerous turn. The rulers after the 2006 insulted the major policy of Unity in Diversity to disrespect the creator of the nation and national unification. They have disrespected the Nepal’s sovereignty by scraping public holiday on 27 Pous celebrated as National Unity Day. It is condemnable. Nepali people aspire for political stability and peace through the medium of parliamentary democracy. But an attempt has been made to break these very norms and ridicule the golden history of Nepal’s national unification. Prithvi Narayan Shah unified the small Hindu states and protected Buddhism and other religions. Because the king had kept the originality of mountainous Nepal was kept alive by allowing the Moon-Sun depicting flag to flutter, we Nepalese are proudly known in the world. Nepalese who disrespects and forgets Prithvi Narayan Shah will never be known as patriot.

But, due to the traitor's leadership, since 2006 Nepal is in danger position. The corrupt leaders and parties wish to ride over roughshod over the Nepali people and trampling their hopes, dreams and aspirations in the process. This is what we have witnessed for almost two decades now. Democracy in a true sense is the greatest of liberators of society and humanity but instead in Nepal it has turned into a curse that has polluted the very essence and lifeblood of our glorious nation, a true Holy Land, a Hindu nation.

That is all.

Please, read, think and decide yourselfly.

Never forget-means justify the ends but not- ends justify the means.

Thank you.



Dirgha Raj Prasai

Kathmandu.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

RE: My article on First Paush

December 19, 2010
Dr Tilak Shrestha
USA

Tilak ju


Jwajalapa

It’s nice to know that you are in agreement with my analysis. However, reviving the constitution of 1990 is not the way out. I have done an analysis on the issue and have already published an article on this topic which I have uploaded in my website (http://www.ratnasansar.com/2010/03/blog-post_30.html).

Constituent Assembly, elected by sovereign Nepali people, should write a constitution and also proclaim it.
With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

From: Tilak Shrestha [mailto:tilakbs@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 22:08
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: RE: My article on First Paush
Dear Ratna Sansar Ju

Jwajalapa

Thanks for the article and I agree with your analysis. King Mahendra may be within the constitution but he did imprison the democratically elected government. On the other hand, given the corruption of NC in 1990's, it may be hard to speculate what Nepal would be with NC in command. Monarchy\Panchayat did not do better either. We were bottom third at the beginning and same at the end. However, Panchayat era has some degree of stability. This also is at the price of not grooming true leaders and swiping political problems under the carpet. A balanced view is hard to derive.

I also agree that Maoists are bent on imposing one party and non democratic system. Given the scenario of inability of writing constitution and Maoists aggression, one way could be to revive 1990 constitution. Then
make appropriate amendments. After all, it is a republic constitution, i.e. sovereignty is with the people, not with the king. It was written in peace with the help of all the political parties and accepted by people. A
number of elections were conducted under it, where all the parties participated including Maoists. It also has ample provision for amendments, if need be.

It is not to say that 1990 constitution is better than the constitution to be written. But it is to say that given the current scenario a bad 'Khichdi' hotch potch of parliamentary and communist systems may be the result.

Let me also note that the Maoists insurgency in 1996 is against the democratically elected government. The death of over 13,000 Nepalese and destruction infrastructure is due to their attempt at imposing communism.

Let us remember that under the 1990 constitution Maoists also have right to peacefully present their case to people and get elected.



Sincerely,

Tilak Shrestha, Ph.D.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Re: My article on First Paush

December 16, 2010
Prof. Dr Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University,

Dear Prof Lohani


It makes me happy to note that you agree with me in seeing the need to warn CA members. These people need to learn lessons from the past constitutional history and especially from the constitution of 2015 under which the election was held and cabinet formed in the leadership of BP Koirala, and what transpired through till Paush first in 2017. All politicos, especially Kangresis, are being disingenuous in blaming Mahendra as undemocratic and labeling his action of that day as unconstitutional. Because, both of these aren’t true at all. He was what he was when the elections were held and eventually cabinet was formed. Further, he did what he did under the very constitution these people fought the election and won it with overwhelming majority, though. Essentially these people have been effectively misleading Nepali people. That is why I felt a need to write the article, that too without mincing words. In articulating all these I am not trying to defend Mahendra. I have also described the then system as absolute monarchy which allowed formation of political parites.

I agree with you with regards the beauty of democracy inherent in check and balance between the three arms of governance: legislature, executive and judiciary. We have to make sure that these people that we have elected to CA are able to enshrine such check and balance in the constitution they are busy “writing.”

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 22:47
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: My article on First Paush

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

Yes,I read your Pousha one article with great interest and carefully.You have rightly warned the CA members who are currently involved in the constitution drafting exercise that the new constitution should under no circumstance repeat the mistakes of the past and it should incorporate certain democratic norms and values as 'unamendable or unalterable'.If this is not done,as you have rightly pointed out,there is every danger of authoritarianism in the garb of one pary rule raising its ugly head to smother once again the fledgling democracy. I hope your article will alert all the stakeholders,including the constitution makers and constitutional experts of the country to make our new constitution truly democratic.Right now I am in the US,I have noticed the American constitution which was promulgated more than 2 centuries ago is functioning so well despite some disputes and controversy over Presidency vs Congress from time to time.The system of checks and balances has been so effectively maintained and no president who can hold office for two terms only can impose his or her dictatorial decision on the country.This is the beauty of democracy.

Tks and regds,

Mohan Lohani


--- On Thu, 12/16/10, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

Friday, December 17, 2010

RE: My article on First Paush

December 16, 2010
Dr Sushil Koirala
Kathmandu

I am pleasantly surprised. As I expected Kangresi people and their supporters to be upset/angry with me. Because, so far they have been taking undue benefit by painting themselves as the victims or rather martyrs and Mahendra as the villain. No doubt, Mahendra is a villain who couldn’t stand any democratic norm. But Kangresi people accepted his absolute monarchy and did their best to fool people saying that that system was the epitome of democracy till Mahendra used the very provision of the constitution deemed to be highly “democratic” to sack them.

With best regards,

Sincerely,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

From: Dr.Sushil Koirala [mailto:skoirala@wlink.com.np]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 19:06
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: My article on First Paush

Dear Ratna Sansar Ji ,

Accept compliments of my Dad. He has appreciated very much.


regards

Dr. Koirala

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

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:23 PM
Subject: FW: My article on First Paush
Dear Colleague

Thursday, December 16, 2010

पौष १ गतेबाट सिक्नैपर्ने संबैधानिक पाठ

नेपालको इतिहाँसमा २०१७ साल पौष १ गते कालो दिनको रुपमा अंकित छ तत्कालिन राजा महेन्द्रले सम्पूर्ण शक्ती लिएर निर्वाचित सरकार तथा संसद भंग गरी प्रधानमन्त्री लगायतलाई सैनिक हिरासतमा राखकोलॆ । यसलाई महेन्द्रको असंबैधानिक काम भनिन्छ र तिनले प्रजातन्त्रको घांटी निमोठेको मानिन्छ । अहिले नयाँ संबिधान निर्माणाधीन छ र त्यो परिघटना त्यस बखतको संबैधानिक कानून आदिबाट अहिलेका संबिधान सभाका सदस्यहरु र संबिधान निर्माणमा चासो राख्ने सबैले पाठ सिक्नु वान्छनिय छ ।

धारा ५५ अन्तर्गतको कदम
२०१५ साल फाल्गुण १ गते घोषणा गरिएको नेपाल अधिराज्यको संबिधान २०१५ को धारा ५५ मा राजालाई संंकटकाल घोषणा गर्ने लगायत संसद सरकारी निकायमा निहित कुनै वा सबै अधिकार ग्रहण गर्ने व्यवस्था थियो भने धारा ५६ मा संकटकाल घोषणा गर्ने अधिकार पनि थियो । महेन्द्रले धारा ५५ प्रयोग गरेर प्रधानमन्त्री मन्त्रीहरुलाई पद्च्यूत मात्र गरेनन्, जेलमा पनि कोचे संसद पनि भंग गरे । यस्तै धारा ५६ अन्तर्गत संकटकाल घोषणा गरे । यस पृष्ठभूमिमा पौष १ गतेको कदमलाई असंबैधानिक भन्न मिल्ने अवस्था छैन । तर आश्चर्यजनक प्रश्न के उठ्छ भने राजनीतिकर्मीहरुले यितंजेल संबिधानका यी व्यवस्थाहरु बारे अनभिज्ञताबस वा अज्ञानताबस अथवा नपढीकनै उक्त कार्यलाई असम्बैधानिक भनेर िहंडेका हुन् कि पढेर पनि नबुझेर !

आजको दिन पारेर यो लेख छपाउँदा यस पंक्तिकार महेन्द्रको कदमको प्रतिरक्षा गर्दैछैन न कहिल्यै पनि निरंकुश राजतन्त्रको पक्षधर रहे । प्रस्तुत लेख तत्काल प्रचलित सम्बैधानिक व्यवस्थामा आधारित एउटा विश्लेषणात्मक बिबेचना मात्र हो ताकी बिगतबाट आगतको लागि पाठ सिक्न सकियोस् । बरु निरंकुश राजतन्त्रात्मक पंचायती प्रणालीलाई विश्वकै उत्कृष्ट प्रजातान्त्रिक दर्शन एव्म व्यवस्था हो भनेर स्वनामधनी बुद्धिजीविहरुले भजन गाएर िहंडेको बेलामा यस पंक्तिकारले सप्रमाण विश्लेषण गरेर उक्त व्यवस्थालाई निरंकूश राजतन्त्र सिद्ध गरेर लेखेको लेख मानस साप्ताहिकमा २०४० साल माघ १३ गते प्रकाशित गर्ने साहस देखाएको थियो (http://www.ratnasansar.com/2009/01/blog-post_21.html)

प्रजातन्त्रको हत्या
अब लागौं प्रजातन्त्रको हत्या तर्फ । उक्त संबिधानको प्रस्तावनामा राजालाई संबैधानिक अधिकारको श्रोतका साथै राजाबाट नेपालका प्रजालाई संबिधान प्रदान गरिएको भनिएकोछ । संबिधानै पनि २०१५ साल फाल्गुण १ घोषणा गरिएपनि सम्बिधानको नाम तथा प्रकाशन गर्ने व्यवस्था भएको धारा ७३ अनि राजेच्छामा यो संबिधान लागू गराउने व्यवस्था भएको धारा ७५ मात्र जारी हुनासाथ लागू भयो र बांकी धाराहरु राजाले चाहेको दिन देखि मात्र प्रारम्भ गर्ने व्यवस्था थियो । तद्अनुरुप २०१६ असार ३ गते एक तजबिजी घोषणा गरेर असार १६ गते देखि बांकी धाराहरु महेन्द्रले प्रारम्भ गरिएको घोषणा गरे । अर्थात राणाकालमा जस्तै महेन्द्रको हुकुमी शासन थियो ।

धारा ७४ ले २००७ सालको अन्तरिम बिधान तत्काल खारेज गरेपनि यो संबिधान लागू भईनसकेकोले २०१६ असार १५ गते सम्म २००७ सालकै अन्तरिम बिधान प्रचलनमा रहेको मान्नु पर्ने हुन्छ संबैधानिक शुन्यतामा देश नचल्ने हुनाले । महेन्द्रको कृयाकलापले पनि यो कुराको पुष्टि हुन्छ, २०१५ फाल्गुणमा खारेजीमा परेको २००७ सालको संबिधानमा छैठौं पटक २०१६ ज्येष्ठ १३ गते महेन्द्रले संशोधन गरेबाट । तर २०१५ साल फाल्गुणमा नैं खारेजीमा परिसकेको २००७ सालको संबिधानमा २०१६ ज्येष्ठ मा संशोधन गर्ने हास्यास्पद काम राजाले स्वच्छन्द एवम् स्वेच्छाचारीतापूर्वक गरेको पनि प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रणाली अन्तर्गतै कृयाकलाप मान्न सकिन्न ।

संबिधान मसौदा कमिशनबाट तयार पारिएको २०१५ सालको संबिधान महेन्द्रले छानेका व्यक्तिहरुबाट लेखिएर राजेच्छामा जारी गरिएको हो । त्यस्तै संसदको दुई तिहाईले पारित गरेको संबिधान संशोधन विधेयक स्वीकृत गर्ने/नगर्ने स्वविवेकिय अधिकार पनि धारा ५३(२)(घ) बमोजिम राजामा रहेको र धारा ७७ मा बाधा-अड्काउ फुकाउन आवश्यक सम्झिएका आदेश पनि राजाले जारी गर्न सक्ने व्यवस्था थियो जुन खारेज नभएसम्म संबैधानिक प्रावधान सरह मानिने व्यवस्था थियॊ । तसर्थ संबिधान कानून आदि सबैको श्रोत राजा मानिएको र त्यस बखतको संसद सरकार तथा राज्यका सबै अङ्गहरु यसै संबिधानमा आधारित भएर बनेका हुनाले राजालाई आँखालाई देखे/भेटे सम्मको अधिकार (emperor of all "I" survey) थियो र पौष १ गतेको काम संबिधानले दिएको अधिकार नाघेर गरेको देखिएन ।

राज्यका तीन अंगहरु
व्यवस्थापिका कार्यपालिका र न्यापालिकाहरुको गठन प्रजातान्त्रिक परिपाटीमा हुन्थ्यो कि भनेर परिक्षण गर्नु पनि समसामयिक हुनेछ । मन्त्रीमंडल गठन सम्बन्धमा धारा १२ मा प्रतिनिधि सभाबाट राजाको स्वविवेकमा प्रधानमन्त्री लगायतका मन्त्रीहरु नियुक्ति गर्ने र कसैले संबिधान प्रतिकूल काम गरेको सम्बन्धमा राजा सन्तुष्ट भएमा पद्च्यूत गर्ने व्यवस्था थियो । यहि धारा अन्तर्गत स्वर्गीय विश्वेश्वर प्रसाद कोइरालाको नेतृत्वमा मंत्रीमंडल गठन गरिएको थियो ।

त्यस्तै संसदबाट पारित बिधेयकहरु स्वीकृत गर्ने नगर्ने स्वविवेकिय अधिकार धारा ४२ अनुसार राजामा हुनाले संसद पनि सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न थिएन । यस सन्दर्भमा संसदीय चुनाव हारेका कृष्ण प्रसाद भट्टराईलाई राजाले सभामुख बनाएको कुरा पनि स्मरणिय छ । अनि धारा ५७ अन्तर्गत सर्बोच्च अदालतका न्यायाधीशहरुको नियुक्ति र पदमुक्तिको स्वविवेकिय अधिकार पनि राजामा हुने व्यवस्था भएबाट न्यायपालिका गठन पनि प्रजातान्त्रिक सिद्धान्तको आधारमा नहुने प्रष्टिन्छ । माथि उल्लिखित प्रावधानहरु पढेर संबैधानिक कानून तथा संबिधान बुझ्ने जो कोहिले पनि यी कुराहरु बुझ्न सक्छन्, फरक व्याख्या सम्मको पनि गुाजायस छैन ।

"प्रजा"लाई संबिधान दिने, संबिधानमा आफू अनुकूल संशोधन गर्ने, बाधा-अडकाउ फुकाउनेको नाममा संबिधानमा परे सरह मानिने आदेश जारी गर्ने, संसदबाट पारित बिधेयक पनि स्वविवेकमा स्वीकृत गरेपछि मात्र ऐन बन्ने र राजाको स्वविवेकमा गठन हुने कार्यपालिका र न्यायपालिका रहने व्यवस्था कुनै पनि कोणबाट प्रजातान्त्रिक थिएन ।  त्यस संबिधान तथा व्यवस्थामा प्रजातन्त्रको लागि आवश्यक कुनै पनि तत्व थिएन, न सीमित प्रजातन्त्र नैं, फगत निरंकुश राजतन्त्र थियो । तर धारा ७(ग) ले राजनैतिक स्वतन्त्रताको मौलिक अधिकार अन्तर्गत राजनैतिक संघ संस्था खोल्ने अधिकार दिएकोले यो व्यवस्थालाई बहुदलिय, निरंकूश, राजतन्त्र सम्म भन्न सकिन्छ ।

राजनैतिक दलहरु उक्त संबिधान तथा त्यस अन्तर्गतको व्यवस्थालाई प्रजातान्त्रिक मानेर चुनाव तथा सरकारमा सहभागि भए । सायद सत्तामा पुग्ने होडबाजीमा, सत्ताको लागि मोलमोलाई गरेर, प्रजातन्त्रको लागि लगनशीलतापूर्वक लाग्ने धैर्य गुमाएर । जुन संबिधानैकि व्यवस्था अन्तर्गत प्रधानमन्त्री मन्त्री आदि बने त्यहि संबिधानको व्यवस्था अनुरुप यिनलाई पद्च्यूत गरे पछि मात्र राजा निरंकूश भएको र प्रजातन्त्र मासिएको चेत खुलेछ । तत्कालका महान राजनैतिक हस्तीहरु र प्रजातन्त्रका ठेकेदारहरुले यो कुरा नबुझेकोमा स्तम्भित हुनुपर्ने अवस्था छ ।

जनता आफैले संबिधान लेख्ने अवसर
यिनै नेताहरुको सत्तारुढ हुने चटारोले गर्दा २००७ सालमा जनताले आफ्नो लागि संबिधान आफैले लेख्न पाएको अधिकार समेत गुमेकोछ । जहाँनिया राणा शासनबाट नेपालीहरुले मुक्ति पाउंदा त्रिभुवनले घोषणा गरेबमोजिम "नेपालको अन्तरिम शासन बिधान २००७" को धारा ६८ मा "नेपालको निमित्त एक विधान बनाउने विधान परिषदको निर्वाचन" गर्ने व्यवस्था थियो । तर २०१५ साल ज्येष्ठ २५ गते यसमा चौथो पटक संशोधन गरेर धारा ६८ उक्त वाक्यांशको सट्टा "नेपालको निम्ति संसदको" निर्वाचन गर्ने लेखियो र २००७ सालमा टुङ्गिएको क्रान्तीबाट प्राप्त सार्वभौम जनताले आफ्नो लागि आफैले संबिधान निर्माण गरेर जारी गर्ने अधिकार नेताहरुले राजालाई बुझाए । कैयौं नेपालीहरुले मृत्युवरण गरेर हासिल गरिएको यस्तो अधिकारको अपहरण चुपचाप स्वीकारेर राजाले "बक्सेको" संबिधान अन्तर्गत सत्तारुढ भएपछि सत्ताच्यूत हुंदा जनतालाई अन्यौलमा राख्न राजालाई गाली गरेर आफू साखुल्ले बन्ने प्रयास भएको देखिन्छ । अन्याय तथा गलत काम क्षम्य हुंदैन र निरंकूश राजा महेन्द्रलाई अहिले आएर चोख्याउन जरुरी छैन तर अन्याय सहनु, जनतालाई गुमराह पार्नु क्षम्य हो कि होइन भनेर सोच्ने र बोल्ने बेला आएको छ ।

राजनीतिकर्मीहरुको मतमतान्तर, पदलोलुपता, लोभलालच, अनि दलहरुका आन्तरिक लडाई झगडा, अझ दल विशेष भित्र पारिवारिक कलहको परिणति स्वरुप शाहहरुको जहाँनियां शासनले राणाशासनलाई प्रतिस्थापन गरिएर नेपाली जनताले पाचायति प्रणालीमा झण्डै ३० वर्ष "प्रजा" भएर बाँच्न पर् यो, नागरिक बन्न पाएनन्, ६० वर्ष सम्म आफ्नो संबिधान आफैले निर्माण गरेर जारी गर्न पाएनन् । यसको अपजस मनपरे पनि नपरेपनि राजनीतिकर्मीहरुकै भागमा पर्छ ।

सिक्न पर्ने पाठ
यस पृष्ठभूमिमा नेपालको संबैधानिक इतिहाँसबाट पाठ सिक्ने बेला आएकोछ र निर्माणाधीन संबिधानमा कुनै कमीकमजोरी नहोस् भनेर चनाखो हुन जरुरी छ । अहिले केहि राजनीतिकर्मीले लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्य मान्यतालाई अपरिवर्तनिय नमान्ने धारणा सार्वजनिक गरेकाछन् । जसले गर्दा नेपालीले भविष्यमा फेरि पनि लोकतन्त्रबाट बंचित हुनुपर्ने खतरा देखिएकोछ ।

संचार माध्यमका अनुसार दुई तिहाईको बहुमतद्वारा संबिधान संशोधन गर्नसकिने भएको छ र लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्य मान्यता अपरिवर्तनिय नमानिएको खण्डमा लोकतन्त्र प्रति पूर्वाग्रह राख्ने दलले प्रचण्ड बहुमत ल्याएर दुई तिहाई पुर् याएको अवस्थामा सजिलै अधिनायकबाद, एक दलिय, एकतन्त्रीय, निरंकूश व्यवस्था लाद्न मिल्ने हुनजान्छ र नेपालबाट लोकतन्त्र पुनः गुम्नेछ । छिमेकी भारतको बिहारमा हालै सम्पन्न चुनावमा सत्तारुढ दलले दुई तिहाई भन्दा बढी बहुमत पुर् याएको छ । तसर्थ कसै गरेर पनि लोकतन्त्रलाई नामेट गर्न सकिने व्यवस्था निर्माणाधीन संबिधान राख्नुहुन्न । कुनै पनि कारणले नेपालले फेरि लोकतन्त्र गुमाएमा जनयुद्ध लगायतमा शहादत प्राप्त प्रन्ध्र हजार नेपाल आमाका सन्तानका आत्माले शान्ती पाउने छैन र आगामि पुस्ताबाट पनि यो पुस्ता अभिशप्त पनि हुनेछ । सबैलाई चेतना भया ।

२०६७ पौष १ गतेको कान्तिपुरमा प्रकाशित

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Monday, December 13, 2010

Re: FW: "Fall back" PPA

December 13, 2010
Tore Skeie
Kathmandu University
Dhulikhel

Dear Tore jee

Thanks a lot for asking these questions affording me an opportunity to further shed light on it.

• There will not be anything for GoN as all taxes are exempt during most of the operation period (like no corporate tax on the profit earned by the project company, no income tax on the interest earned by the lenders on the debt provided by the them to the project).

• Out of Rs 3 only about 2% will be spent in Nepal in low level employees/workers. Rest will stay out of Nepal.

• During the construction period too, under the policy adopted by GoN currently, it gets no taxes paid as custom duties and VAT on the imports is exempt.

• GoN has adopted above policy in the name of encouraging hydropower development.

• On the other hand Indian government will be earning INR 2/kWh (Rs 3.20) as import duty on the power imported from Nepal.

• There definitely would be wheeling charge levied for using the Dhalkebar T/L. However, as you know full well, a T/L will not be even able t break even until it is being used at full capacity which doesn’t happen usually.
With best regards,

Sincerely,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

From: Tore Skeie [mailto:trskeie@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 9:56
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: FW: "Fall back" PPA

Dear Ratna ji,

You have highlighted many interesting facts here, most of them related to the political arena, but also raising the question: what should we do to rectify the situation? Is the export to India to be done at 3 rs/kWh with no gain for the Nepalese government (taxes etc)? Is the 3 rs/kWh the full picture or what else is there in the package? Will there be no taxes levied at the use of the Dhalkebar TL for private power exporters?

Regards

Tore S

2010/12/9 Ratna Sansar Shrestha

NEA has signed “fall back” PPAs for Balephi project, 50 MW and Upper Marsyangdi II, 600 MW in Kartik 2067. Kantipur reported about the signing of PPA with former on 19th Marga and it was reported that the tariff is Rs 4.27 per unit. But the media is yet to report about the signing of fall back PPA for the latter.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

RE: {Disarmed} Re: "Fall back" PPA

December 12, 2010
Prof. Dr. Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University


Dear Prof Lohani

Thanks a lot for your sentiments. As a baby owes to her/his mother for the milk she feeds the baby and for taking care of the baby in the process of bringing up the baby, a citizen owes to the motherland for drinking water and eating food off her. I am just doing my best to repay the motherland to whom I am highly indebted; knowing full well that it is not possible to repay a mother for what she has does to the baby, nor is it possible for me to fully repay this motherland, who made me worth my salt. The most I can do is to keep on trying and trying as long as I m alive. I am determined to continue with this and hope that at least a few other citizens who care for the motherland as much, if not more, as I do, will emulate me and strengthen my hands.

I am not angry with foreigners. Whatever they are doing must be in the interest of their motherland. But I fail to understand people in Nepal who are serving foreign interest, at the cost of Nepal and Nepali people. I am surprised that they could stoop this low for a “few silvers.”

In the email below I have expressed my disenchantment with Lord Pashupatinath. But I also know that “God helps those who help themselves.” Therefore, I have taken this up as a crusade.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 5:10
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: "Fall back" PPA

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

Hats off to you for the manner in which yu have been defending the interest of the country by exposing the corrupt elements and some foreign elements who masquerade as more Nepali than Nepali themselves.Even Lord Pashupatinath seems to be helpless before the crooks and cheats who are ruling the roost.

Wishing your mission all success and with regards,

Mohan Lohani

Phoenix,Arizona

Saturday, December 11, 2010

RE: {Disarmed} Re: "Fall back" PPA

December 11, 2010
Paras Kharel
Kathmandu


Parasjee

I do wonder if Lord Pashupatinath is able to help us! If He was willing, able and prepared to help us, then why didn’t he put in some love of the motherland and some honesty as well as integrity in the head and heart of these people! Either he is unable to help or just uninterested to do so!

Naturally, why should NEA even spend a little bit of ink to sign such PPAs for these projects? Interestingly, these documents don’t even try to hide the fact that these PPAs are just a sham; until the transmission line is ready. If the T/L is delayed, Nepal will get some power and once it is ready Nepal will stop receiving any power.

Nepal is also getting cheated in another way due to this arrangement. You are aware that export oriented projects have agreed to provide some free energy (10% west seti, 12% upper karnali and 21.9% arun III). But these projects have not made any such commitment and this arrangement will help them successfully avoid having to provide any such free energy.

NEA is fully involved in building the specific transmission line with money borrowed from World Bank. They know full well that the saying that this network will be used for import of power is a lie. Therefore, they are doing best to arrange power load for this network in order to justify borrowing money and building it; which naturally will result in some profit for them in terms of kickback from contractors.

Triveni group is owned by Sanghais who now claim to be more Nepali than you and me. Like all of these people of Indian origin they arrived here and “succeeded” in getting citizenship here. You are also right about NTDC.

With best regards,

Sincerely,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

From: paras kharel [mailto:kharelparas@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2010 21:07
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: "Fall back" PPA

Dear Ratna Sansar ji,

Yes, only Lord Pashupatinath can help us now.

Am I right in understanding that since these projects are export oriented, NEA has no business to enter into PPA with their promoters. Or is it because the NEA has a stake in trasmission lines (for exports) being constructed, it has to sign PPA with these companies? Can you shed light on it?

By the way, isn't the Triveni group run by Indians? This group has got hold of Nepal's prime tea estates in the mad privatization drive that among others saw the privatization of the Nepal Tea Development Corporation (famous brands such as soktim, tokla, etc).


Best

Paras

________________________________________

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha rsansar@mos.com.np
Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 8:53:21 PM
Subject: FW: "Fall back" PPA

Friday, December 10, 2010

RE: "Fall back" PPA

December 10, 2010
Mr Leela Mani Paudyal
Secretary
PMO, Government of Nepal

Yes, Leela Manijee

The government of which you are a secretary and I am a tax payer has taken “loan to build transmission lines just to facilitate power supply out at throw away price and remain ourselves in dark”.

And, also unfortunately, you are right that successive governments of Nepal have been ignoring “lower riparian benefits of augmented flow of water, water rights, control over reservoirs, flood control.” Even Supreme Court has sanctioned all this! At times when I get very frustrated and highly angered what I say, begging your pardon for using rather strong words, is that the governments are raping Nepal’s law and Nepal’s resources in the service of foreigners and Supreme Court has actively helped governments to do so.

Thanks a lot for echoing my question with implicit agreement: “who can be more fool then we Nepalese are in the earth!”

I am outside the government and you are inside it. Both of us are in agreement about these issues. I hope the likes of us will be able to do something; starting with “educating” people except for those who stand to benefit from establishing ourselves as fools.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

From: LeelaMani Paudyal [mailto:lppaudyal@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2010 22:56
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: {Disarmed} FW: "Fall back" PPA
we took loan to build transmission lines just to facilitate power supply out at throw away price and remain ourselves in dark, forget about lower riparian benefits of augmented flow of water, water rights, control over reservoirs, flood control. who can be more fool then we Nepalese are in the earth?


--- On Thu, 9/12/10, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: FW: "Fall back" PPA
To: "Ratna Sansar Shrestha"
Received: Thursday, 9 December, 2010, 10:07 AM

NEA has signed “fall back” PPAs for Balephi project, 50 MW and Upper Marsyangdi II, 600 MW in Kartik 2067. Kantipur reported about the signing of PPA with former on 19th Marga and it was reported that the tariff is Rs 4.27 per unit. But the media is yet to report about the signing of fall back PPA for the latter.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

"Fall back" PPA

NEA has signed “fall back” PPAs for Balephi project, 50 MW and Upper Marsyangdi II, 600 MW in Kartik 2067. Kantipur reported about the signing of PPA with former on 19th Marga and it was reported that the tariff is Rs 4.27 per unit. But the media is yet to report about the signing of fall back PPA for the latter.

The “fall back PPA” for Balephi project was signed between NEA and Bhilwara group of India (fronted by Tribeni group owned by Sanghais of Nepal) and for Upper Marsyangdi II with GMR. These agreements are to stay in force till Dhalkebar-Mujaffpur 400 kV Transmission Line (T/L) becomes operational. This evidences the following:
• These agreements were signed to befuddle/fool people clamoring for parliamentary ratification of the agreement signed by GoN with the proponents of these projects under Article 156 as these are export oriented projects.

• In other words, although these projects are export-oriented projects, with the signing of these PPAs, people could now be led to believe that the electricity generated by these projects are for domestic consumption.

• It now becomes obvious, contrary to the claims being made by MoE officials including the minister, that 400 kV Dhalkebar-Mujaffpur T/L is not being built to import power from India to mitigate load shedding problem in Nepal. One needs to remember that the proponents of Arun III, Tamakoshi III, Likhu projects too are planning to use this very T/L to export power.

• Besides, Bihar itself is suffering from power deficit problem and people there cannot be expected to be fools like us who would plan to export power when we ourselves are looking at serious power deficit problem for “decades” to come.

• Further, if Bihar had power to spare, they wouldn’t be planning to import from Nepal.

• Moreover, it is foolhardy on our part to have these projects export power at less than Rs 3 while we are importing at the rate between Rs 7.88 and Rs 10.72. It proves the Indians right who say that people in Nepal are nice, but dumb!

• However, this also proves that people in India are smart as they are planning to import power at less than Rs 3 while exporting at the rate between Rs 7.88 and Rs 10.72 to Nepal. Very neatly creative financing! They will be exporting, literally, our own power at a margin between Rs 4.88 to Rs 7.72. And it is surprising (actually not surprising at all, knowing the people that are involved) that we in Nepal are falling for such a deal.

• In this backdrop another foolhardy thing that we are doing is borrowing from multilateral financial institutions to build this T/L which will mitigate load shedding problem in India, rather than Nepal.

• Furthermore, even if we in Nepal want to foolishly import at a rate between Rs 7.88 and Rs 10.72 from India in the name of mitigating load shedding problem, while exporting at around Rs 3, we should have invested to build T/L to an area which is power surplus (not power deficit), like Silguri.

• Dr Jivendra Jha, executive director of NEA is right in expressing his inability to sign new PPA for lack of transmission infrastructure. Nepal should “beg, borrow or steal” to build necessary T/L. (I am sure people won’t run around to steal upon my exhorting as such. I am just repeating an oft repeated quote to stress Dr Jha’s point with which I too agree with).

I pray Lord God to help this country!

With best regards,
Sincerely,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA