Monday, November 23, 2015

भारतीय नाकाबन्दी, नेपालको जलश्रोत र संघियता

दशैं, तिहार र छठ जस्ता नेपालीका महत्वपूर्ण चाडहरुको पूर्वसन्ध्यामा भारतले, अघोषित भनिएको, नाकाबन्दी लगाएर नेपाललाई दण्डित गरेकोछ, भुरेटाकुरे मधेशी दलहरुको समर्थनमा । यहि अवस्था कायम रहे इसाइहरुको वडा चाड क्रिष्टमस पनि प्रभावित हुनेछ । नेपाली मतदाताले संविधानसभामा निर्वाचित गरेका ९० प्रतशित भन्दा बढी सभासदले अनुमोदन गरेर संविधान जारी गरेको सजाय स्वरुप भारतले नाकाबन्दी गरेकोछ । मधेशी दलहरुले अघि सारेका प्रमुख मागहरु हुनः जनसंख्याको (भूगोललाई उपेक्षा गरेर) मात्र आधारमा निर्वाचन क्षेत्र हुनुपर्ने, निरपेक्षढंगबाट समानुपातिक प्रतिनिधित्व हुनुपर्ने, अंगिकृत नागरिकले उच्चपदासीन हुन पाउनुपर्ने, उनीहरुले चाहे जस्तो सीमांकन गरिनुपर्ने, निर्वाचन क्षेत्रको हरेक १० वर्षमा पुनःनिर्धारण हुनुपर्ने, इत्यादि ।

नाकाबन्दीले गर्दा अर्थतन्त्रमा ठूलो नकरात्मक प्रभाव परेको छ, जुन बैशाख १२ गते आएको भूकम्प र यहि मंसिर १ गते समेत निरन्तर आइरहेका परकम्पहरुले ध्वस्त बनाएको भौतिक संरचना र जनधनको क्षतिबाट माथि उठ्न नेपाल प्रयासरत रहंदा । नाकाबन्दीले गर्दा सबैतिरको जनजीवन अस्तव्यस्त भयो, पहाडतिर भन्दा बढी तराइमा । कच्चापदार्थ र उर्जाको अभावमा उद्योगधन्दा बन्द भए, निर्वाहमुखी औद्योगिक मजदूर सबभन्दा बढी पीडित भए । तर नाकाबन्दीले दुईधारे तरबारले जस्तै भारतका व्यवसायी पनि अछुतो रहेका छैनन् ।

तराइमा एक प्रदेश
भुरेटाकुरे मधेशी दलहरुको धेरै माँगहरु मध्ये सीमांकनलाई प्रमुख भनिएको छः मधेशीको पहिचानको आधारमा पहाडी भेगसंग नजोडिकन तराइका २२ जिल्लाहरुको एक प्रदेश । तर मधेशी नाम भएको कुनै जातिय समुह ती २२ जिल्लामा छैनन् । यी जिल्लाहरुले नेपालको कूल भूभागको १७ प्रतिशत ओगटेको छ भने कूल जनसंख्याको ५१ प्रतिशतले बसोबास गर्छन्, जसमध्ये मैथिली, भोजपुरी, अवधि, थारु, सन्थाल, राजवंशी आदि समेत २२ प्रतिशतलाई मधेशी भनिएकोछ । यी जातिय समुहका अधिकांश जनता मधेशी कहलिएर एउटै प्रदेश चाहंदैनन्, न चाहन्छन् पहाडसंग छुट्टिएको प्रदेश ।

यो माओवादीले १० वर्षे शसस्त्र बिद्रोह गर्दा उठाइएको जातिय पहिचानमा आधारित राज्यको पुनःसंरचनाको निरन्तरता हो । उक्त दलले यो माँग छाडी सकेकोछ । नेपालमा सय भन्दा बढी जातिय समुहहरु भएकोले पहिचानको आधारमा एउटा सानो मुलुकमा सय भन्दा बढी प्रान्तहरुमा बाँड्न सम्भव छैन ।

संविधानसभामा मस्यौदा संविधान प्रस्तुत गर्दा ६ वटा प्रान्त समावेश गरिएकोमा पछि संशोधन गरेर ७ वटा प्रान्त सहितको संविधान जारी गरियो, जसमा सप्तरी, सिराहा, धनुषा, महोत्तरी, सर्लाही, रौतहट, बारा र पर्सा रहने प्रदेश नं २ को व्यवस्था छ । अब प्रदेश नं २ मा झापा, मोरंग र सुन्सरी (कोशी नदीको बहाव क्षेत्र) थपिनु पर्ने प्रमुख माँग मधेशी मोर्चाको छ । स्पष्टतः यो माँग कोशी नदीमाथि नियन्त्रण कायम गर्ने अभिष्टले आएकोछ ।

जबरजस्ती करकापले गाभ्ने
यी ३ जिल्लाका बासिन्दा प्रदेश नं २ गाभिन तैयार छैनन् र गाभिनु पर्छ भनेर आन्दोलनमा सहकार्य समेत गरेका छैनन् । न गाभ्नै पर्ने अन्य कारण छन् । बरु यी जिल्लाका बासिन्दा २ नं मा गामिन नपरोस् भनेर अान्दोलित भएकाछन् ।

यी जिल्लाहरुको रहनसहन, संस्कृति आदि समेत २ नम्बर प्रान्तसंग एकरुपता छैन । तर आन्दोलनकारी जबरजस्ती, करकापले भए पनि यो कार्य सम्पन्न गर्न चाहन्छन् । यो अभिष्ट पूरा गर्न भारतको सकृय सहयोगमा बीरगंज नाका बन्द गरेको २ महिना हुन लाग्यो ।

भारतको अभिष्ट पानी
भुरेटाकुरे मधेशी दलको आन्दोलन र भारतको नाकाबन्दी एकै समय परेको आश्चर्यजनक छैन । चुनाव प्रचारको क्रममा भारतीय प्रधानमन्त्री नरेन्द्र मोदीले “नेपालमा बिजुली कारखाना खोलेर” बिहारमा बिद्युतिकरणको आश्वासन दिए । किनभने नेपालका नदीहरु बिहार हुंदै बगे पनि त्यहां बिजुली उत्पादन सम्भव छैन । त्यस्तै गंगा नदीको जलाधार क्षेत्र भारतको अन्न भण्डार भएतापनि बाह्रैमास सघन खेती गरेर खाद्यान्न उत्पादन गर्न सम्भव छैन, सुक्खायाममा पानीको अभावमा । अर्कोतिर विश्वमा सबभन्दा धेरै जनसंख्या भएको देश बन्नलागेको भारतलाई थप पानीले सिंचित क्षेत्र बढाएर, सघन खेती गरेर अन्न उत्पादन बृद्धि गर्नुपर्ने बाध्यता छ । त्यसैले पानी तथा संघियता जानकारहरुले सहिरुपमा निक्र्योल गरेकाछन् कि तराइ प्रदेशलाइ प्रभावमा पार्ने देखि नियन्त्रण गर्ने सम्म भारतको लक्ष्य छ । त्यसैले भारतको नाङ्गो हस्तक्षेपको सहारा लिएर तराइमा एउटै प्रदेश निर्माण गर्न कम्मर कसेका छन्, यी दलहरुले । (तराइलाई नेपालबाट छुट्ट्याएर अलग्गै देश बनाउने भन्ने हुची भने उपेक्षायोग्य छ ।)

तर कोशी नदीको बहाव क्षेत्र सुन्सरी जिल्लालाई प्रदेश नं २ मा गाभ्दैमा कोशी नदी माथि नियन्त्रण कायम हुंदैन, बरु वर्षातमा बाढीको र सुक्खायाममा खडेरीको समस्या मात्र अपुतालिमा प्राप्त हुन्छ । तराइका जिल्ला नियन्त्रण गरेर नेपालका नदीनाला नियन्त्रण गर्ने भन्ने अवधारणा प्राकृतिक जलचक्रको अज्ञानताको जगमा अडेको देखिन्छ ।

पानीमाथि लाभदायक नियन्त्रण
वर्षातमा बाढी नियन्त्रण र सुक्खायाममा थप/नियन्त्रित पानी उत्पादन गर्नको लागि नदीको व्यवस्थापन गर्न मेची देखि महाकाली सम्मका मध्यपहाडी उपत्यकाहरुमा उच्चबाँधहरु निर्माण गरेर (जस्तै बराहक्षेत्र नजिकै सप्तकोशी उच्चबाँध) पानी माथि भौतिकरुपमा नियन्त्रण कायम गर्न सकिन्छ । तराइमा भौतिक हिसाबले जलाशय निर्माण सम्भव भएपनि वित्तिय हिसाबले पोषाउने गरेर सम्भव छैन भने डुबान र बिस्थापन पनि अत्यधिक हुनेहुनाले गर्नु बुद्धिमत्तापूर्ण हुन्न ।

सुक्खायाममा उपलब्ध हुने थप/नियन्त्रित पानी पिउन र सरसफाइ लगायत सिंचाइ, मत्स्यपालन, जलपरिवहन आदि उपयोगको लागि आवश्यक छ । तर यो सिक्काको अर्को पाटो पनि छ । यस्ता जलाशय निर्माण गर्दा खेतीयोग्य जमिन, वनजंगल आदि डुबानमा पर्छ भने स्थानिय बासिन्दा बिस्थापनमा पर्छन् ।

राज्य पुनःसंरचना पछि माथिल्लो तटीय प्रान्तले आफु डुबान र बिस्थापनमा परेर तल्लो तटीय प्रान्तलाई बाढी नियन्त्रण र सुक्खायाममा थप पानी उपलब्ध गराउन असहमत भएको अन्तरराष्ट्रिय अनुभव छ र यसको लागि माथिल्लो र तल्लो तटीय प्रदेश बीच सहमति, सहयोग, सहकार्य अनिवार्य हुन्छ । यस्तो परिप्रेक्ष्यमा अर्को देशको लागि यीनै त्याग गर्न सम्भव हुन्न । यस पृष्ठभूमिमा प्रदेश नं २ लाई भारतले प्रभावित वा नियन्त्रण गरेर नेपालको पानीमाथि कब्जा जमाउन सम्भव छैन ।

जलश्रोत सम्बन्धी संवैधानिक व्यवस्था
नयां संविधानको अनुसूचि ५ मा संघिय सरकारले मात्र बिदेशी सरकारसंग सम्झौता गर्न सक्ने व्यवस्था हुनाले जलश्रोत सम्बन्धमा पनि यहि लागू हुन्छ । त्यसैले तराइको प्रान्तिय सकारले भारतसंग सम्झौता गरेर नेपालको जलश्रोत भारतको कब्जामा पु¥याउन सक्दैन । यस्तै सप्तकोशी उच्च बाँध जस्ता आयोजना बहुउद्देश्यीय हुने र यस्ता आयोजना पनि संघिय सरकारको कार्यक्षेत्रमा पर्दछ । स्मरणिय छ, संविधानका यी व्यवस्था संशोधन हुनुपर्ने माँग आन्दोलनरत दलहरुको छैन । यस परिवेशमा पनि प्रान्त नं २ लाई प्रभावित गरेर पानीमा नियन्त्रण सम्भव छैन ।

अस्वीकार्य पुरानो मोडेल
५० को दशकमा निर्माण प्रारम्भ भएका कोशी र गण्डकी आयोजनाहरु भारतले लगानि गरेर निर्माण गर्दा नेपालको भूभाग डुबानमा परेर बासिन्दा बिस्थापित भए, तर बाढी नियन्त्रण तथा सिंचाइको लाभ जति भारतले एकलौटी पा¥यो । आजको समय र अवस्थामा यो मोडेलमा नेपालको जलश्रोत दोहन सम्भव छैन । नेपालले आवश्यक लगानि गर्नुपर्छ भने नेपालले भोगेको डुबान र बिस्थापनको लागत समानुपातिक हिसाबले भारतले नेपाललाई क्षतिपूर्ति दिनुपर्छ । यसै गरेर भारतले प्राप्त गर्ने तल्लो तटीय लाभबापत पनि नेपाललाई मूल्य चुक्ता गर्नु आवश्यक हुन्छ, अन्तरराष्ट्रिय परिपाटी, चलन, अनुभव आदिको आधारमा ।

तर भारत नयां मोडेलमा आयोजना कार्यान्वयन गर्न चाहंदैन । बरु नेपाल भित्रका प्रान्तिय सरकारलाई प्रभावित पारेर नेपाललाई डुबान र बिस्थापन भोगाएर, लाभ जति एकलौटी पार्न चाहन्छ, आयोजना निर्माणमा केहि खर्च गरेर । स्मरणिय छ, आयोजनाको लागत भनेको तल्लो तटीय भूभागले दीर्घकाल सम्म प्राप्त गर्ने लाभको एउटा सानो अंश मात्र हुन्छ ।

कोहि पनि पराजित नहुने उपाय
त्यसैले नेपाल भारत दुबै लाभान्वित हुने गरेर नेपालको जलश्रोत दोहन गर्ने गरेर आयोजना निर्माण गरिनुपर्दछ । यस्तो निर्माण तराइका जिल्लाहरुमात्र रहेका प्रान्तमा सम्भव हुन्न । नाकाबन्दी गरेर, नेपाली जनता चिढ्याएर यो सम्भव हुन्न । पारस्परिक सद्भाव, सौहार्दताकासाथ सहयोग र सहकार्य गरेर मात्र नेपाल भारत दुबै लाभान्वित हुने गरेर नेपालमा आयोजना निर्माण सम्भव हुन्छ ।

भारतले तुजुक देखाउने हो भने नेपालले आफ्नो आवश्यकता मात्र पूर्ति हुने गरेर जलाशययुक्त आयोजना निर्माण गरेमा भारत हिस्स पर्ने हुन्छ । जस्तै ३ हजार ३ सय मेगावाट जडित क्षमता हुने २ सय ६९ मिटर उचाइको सप्तकोशी उच्चबाँधको सट्टा नेपालले आफूलाई सुक्खायाममा सिंचाइ गर्न मात्र पुग्ने गरेर पानी उत्पादन हुनेगरी कोशी नदीमा कम उचाइको बाँध बनाउन सक्नेछ । यस्तो भएमा भारतमा वर्षातमा बाढी र सुक्खायाममा खडेरीले निरन्तरता पाउने अवस्था हुन्छ । यसो गर्दा नेपालको कम भूभाग मात्र डुबानमा पर्छ र बिस्थापन पनि कम मात्र हुन्छ ।

तर यसरी नेपालले जित्ने र भारतले हार्ने गरेर आयोजना निर्माण गर्ने अवस्था आउनु हुन्न । नेपालको जलश्रोतको दोहन गरेर नेपाल र भारत मात्र होइन बंगलादेश पनि लाभान्वित होस् आकांक्षा नेपाली जनताको छ ।

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

२०७२ मंसिर ७ गतेको अन्नपूर्ण पोष्टमा प्रकाशित

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Memorandum submitted to Hon. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli for the management of the crisis resulting from Indian blockade

Honorable Prime Minister,

India's extended blockade against Nepal, now running into third month, has caused much hardship for the people. But the people of Nepal have lived with them patiently in the belief that the government would take necessary measures to mitigate them even as it would continue to protect country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We are pleased to submit to you that the whole country has been very appreciative of your prompt move to seek China's support for mitigating our problems as soon as it became clear that it would take longer time to resolve the differences with India regarding the provisions of our Constitution. We note with satisfaction that our close neighbor to the north has been so very kind and forthcoming in helping Nepal at this hour of national crisis. However, the overall situation in the country is worsening by the day, mainly for want of sufficient quantities of petroleum products, and the dwindling availability of medicines and other essential supplies. Therefore, we the undersigned submit to you the following recommendations for your consideration, some for immediate implementation and the rest for priority action.

1. Immediate term measures

1.1 Supply of petroleum products and medicines
The government must redouble its efforts to ease the situation in these two areas on priority basis. Firstly, special efforts should be made through all possible diplomatic channels with India to work out the easing of the blockade by India. Secondly, as a viable alternative to it, Nepal should make special request to China to significantly increase the supply of petroleum products to Nepal through all possible channels. Regarding medical supplies in particular which are running calamitously short in the country, the government should request China for emergency air delivery of some basic medicines to Kathmandu and arrange for its airborne supplies also from our south Asian neighbor, Bangladesh.

1.2 Suspend federalization provision until the people have been consulted
The root cause for most of the current problems of the country has been the federalization provision of the new constitution. In this regard, we would like to submit to you the following.
Firstly, federalization of the country has never been the demand of the people, and it has been imposed by the Maoists in 2063 and reluctantly accepted by the two major parties NC and UML.
Secondly, we particularly note that, according to democratic tradition, all major changes in polity are done only after they are approved in a referendum. But the decision to federalize the country has never been referred to the people. We further note that in the consultation meetings held across the country before the adoption of the new constitution, the people had reportedly overwhelmingly opined against federalizing the country. But unfortunately, that was not taken into account.

Thirdly, and most importantly, Nepal's variegated geography would help Nepal become a prosperous state only if used as an integrated whole. For instance, the 750 MW West Seti Hydropower Project would submerge some 2000 ha of land in four hill districts in far west region and displace some 16,000 people but would irrigate 360,000 ha of land in the Tharu heartland of Bardia, Kailali and Kanchanpur districts, and would power industrial and agricultural development of the country that is bound to take place mostly in the Tarai region. Given the fact that the landlessness of the farmers is most pronounced in the Tarai region, poverty in the Tarai can be mitigated only by promoting accelerated and expanded agro-industrial development in the region. Besides, the West Seti Project is estimated to yield 15 billion rupees in annual revenue that would significantly contribute to national development, including in the far west hill districts where the project is to be built. The same is true of Upper Karnali, Arun-3 and many other such projects. We are afraid that if the country were to be broken up into different autonomous provinces, this project and many similar projects in the hill regions that hold out so much promise for development all over the country probably would never be built, assuring continued pauperization of the people of Nepal. Furthermore, in regard to the present proposal to demarcate the entire Tarai belt as one province, we further add that due to excessive extraction of ground water in adjacent India, the water level in the Tarai is rapidly depleting, so that Tarai's water needs can be met only by training the rivers in the hill regions in the north. For all these reasons, we believe that the present demand for the demarcation of the Tarai as one province is devoid of any logical rationale and therefore, is totally ill-intentioned. Therefore, we strongly urge that necessary steps be taken to suspend the federalization process and subject it to a dispassionate scientific investigation as to its potential benefits and drawbacks for the country as a whole.
1.3. Inform international agencies and engage with leaders of powerful nations

Since the Indian blockade violates all international norms and covenants that assure a landlocked country's right to unrestricted passage to the sea, we strongly urge that the government should inform all related international agencies like the UNO, WTO, ILO, and so on and invite their missions for on-site examination of the problem and take measures to remove the blockade as soon as possible. Since India as an emerging power in the world is also in constant contact with all major nations in the world -- whose support would be crucial for India to pursue her ambition to become a permanent member of the UN Security Counci l-- Nepal should also inform the leaders of all major powers and seek their good offices to pile pressure on India on behalf of this landlocked country.

1.4. Engage with India to continue to discuss the shifting bottom lines
Given our geographical position, Nepal has to remain engaged with India for all times to come, culturally, economically and so on. Therefore, continuing to engage with her constitutes an essential condition for restoring good relations with Indian government. This should be done through both formal and informal contacts even as Nepal continues to make other arrangements for diversifying our links to the international markets.

2. Protection of sovereignty, territorial integrity and governance
We further observe that India, our neighbor to the south, has been consistently creating hurdles for landlocked Nepal, including clamping of embargo at regular intervals. We are convinced that Nepal must seek other external support to countervail India when our own sovereignty and territorial integrity is at stake. To that end we make the following recommendations:
2.1. Sign a strong friendship pact with China

Since Nepal has all along been seen as a "yam between two boulders" and has entered into a very strong peace and friendship treaty with India, it is only logical that Nepal also sign similar far-reaching treaty with China, so that in times of crisis, Nepal has recourse to two neighbors to the north and to the south. We believe that such an arrangement would go a long way towards securing our sovereignty, territorial integrity and state of peace in the country.

2.2. Deepen relationship with China in a multi-faceted manner
Since the emerging super power to our north, the People Republic of China, has been kind, generous and supportive of our national aspirations historically, we further recommend that the government go for further deepening of cultural and economies ties with China in a multifaceted manner. This should include opening up of many transport and communication links with that country along the entire range of our northern border.

2.3. Set up citizenship investigation commission
We believe the current turmoil in the Tarai has much to do with the fact that citizenship certificates have been indiscriminately distributed in the region in the past with the result that many bonafide citizens of India have also obtained Nepali citizenship certificate, and some of the holders of such certificates have been known to misuse it for criminal purposes detrimental to both Nepal and India. Therefore, in order to nullify the citizen certificates obtained by ineligible people and also to grant such certificates to those who have not received it despite being legally eligible, the government should set up a high powered commission composed of known experts to go into the matter on priority basis.

2.4. Regulate southern border
We further note that the open border between Nepal and India has often been problematical for Nepal with criminal elements moving to and fro across the border without any difficulty. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the government consider regulating the border in such a way that the border crossing does not become too problematical for the local people, even as the government has the information base about the movement of the people between the two countries.

2.4. Take lawful action against law breakers
While the overall governance situation of the country has left much to be desired over the years, in recent months the people have been witness to even graver violations of law and order in some sections of Tarai in the name of protests and blockade, with the culprits getting away with them with impunity. Therefore, in order to assure the countrymen of their personal safety and the proper conduct of society, the government must swing into action and take appropriate legal actions against those law breakers as a matter of urgency.

3. Streamlining development priorities and strategies
Much of the problems today also have their roots in lack of effective development over the decades in the country. This has made easy for the ethnic leaders to attract following among various ethnic groups by alleging discrimination being inflicted by the state or various privileged groups. Therefore, we recommend that the following measures be implemented with high priority.
3.1. Hydropower projects to meet Nepal's power needs first

While Nepal remains a chronically and acutely power deficit country, there have been recent decisions to award power project to foreign developers for export rather than helping ameliorate Nepal’s chronic loadshedding. We consider this absolutely wrong morally as well as a development priority. Since power is an absolutely necessary condition for country's development, we strongly urge the government to commit itself to a policy that all hydropower projects would be installed exclusively for the purpose of meeting Nepal's own ever expending power needs first and considering export only after Nepal’s needs have been met.

3.2. Institute participatory development at the grassroots to enable all communities to preside over their own destiny

One of the reasons for ethnicity-based demands has been that most people in the country have been unable to experience improvements in their living standards all these years. They have only been witness to the continued prosperity of a handful of feudal elites in their own communities as well as nationally both in the hills and in the Tarai. Therefore, in order to end this development-deficit condition in the country once and for all, we ask that a widely participatory process of development be instituted so that all individuals in the country get to participate in the development process leading to sustained and equitable improvements in the living conditions of all the people in the country. In this regard, we find it necessary to draw the attention of the government to the internationally-applauded success of several sets of participatory organizations at the grassroots, the forest user groups, community electricity users’ group, the mothers' groups as well as other community managed natural resource systems. While the first has dramatically restored Nepal's once totally depleted forests, the second has reduced theft to zero where implemented besides promoting local industry, the third have put Nepal at the top of international ranking in achieving MDGs in child survival and maternal mortality reduction. Nepal has enough success stories it can draw on for its own rapid development if only the political leadership turns its eyes towards Nepal’s inherent strengths rather than look only for international donations.
Yours truly,

1. Marshal Julum Shakya
2. Hiranya Lall Shrestha
3. Dipak Gyawali
4. Prof. Dr. Surendra K.C
5. Prof. Bhupa Prasad Tripathi
6. Bharat Basnet
7. Ratna Sansar Shrestha
8. Ratan Bhandari
9. Sadhya Bahadur Bhandari
10. Mani Thapa
11. Tanka Nath Paudel
12. Achyut Gyawali
13. Ananda Ram Paudel
14. Babu Ram Singh Thapa
15. Aditya Man Shrestha
16. Bihari Krishna Shrestha
17. Leela Mani Paudel
18. Sheetal Babu Regmi
19. Buddhi Narayan Shrestha
20. Jagat Bhusal
21. Dwarika Nath Dhungel
22. Dr Surya Raj Acharya
23. Punya Gautam ‘Bishwas’
24. Govinda Upadhyaya


November 21, 2015 submitted on the auspices of Rastriya Jagaran Parishad-Nepal

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Re: India's vested interest in Nepal's water & federalism

Dear Shah

The viciousness of your attack (unethical writing!) has convinced me that I have hit the bull’s eye and that my assessment is correct.

Yes, many a people have tagged me anti-India, which I am not; I am merely pro-Nepal, while some people today wouldn’t like to be called pro-Nepal or seen writing or talking as such. Besides, it is better to be called anti-India than pro-India. Your email has been eye-opener for me in recognizing people.

Yes, many a “pro-India” planners consider me ‑ “a barrier to hydropower development in Nepal.” I am against “development” which would leave Nepal with negative externalities (the term used by environmentalists) and have India hog all positive externalities. I am for hydropower development, which would ensure win-win for both neighbors, even Bangladesh.

My article doesn’t have anything to do with Madheshi or Khas Bahun-Chetri or for that matter RED (I don’t believe in any kind of communism); incidentally you need to note that I too am an indigenous nationality inhabiting Kathmandu valley since several generations, who too have suffered under Khas Bahun-Chetri.

After attacking with such viciousness, you are asking me to “take it with good sense”; almost exactly like India telling Nepal people that she hasn’t blockaded Nepal.

Wishing all the best in your endeavor related to water.

Reply to email from Shree Govind Shah

Dear Ratna Sansar,

Thanks for sending me your article which I found very much “insensible and unethical writing” from a well-known person like you. Well! You have been recognised as “anti-India” and all the time you opposed “Investment from India on hydropower development”. Many water resources Nepali planners consider you “a barrier to hydropower development in Nepal”. We have been together in many seminars and I remember on many occasions hydropower people made joke of you. But you are brave; never tired of writing “anti-India” articles!!! BRAVO

But this time you have crossed the border and have attacked the sensitiveness of Nepalese Madheshi like the ruling Khas Bahun-chhetris did. Did you write so to please the RED government? I have attached your article with my comments and suggestions. I think you will take it with good sense.

Best regards,
Dr. Shree Govind Shah
Ecologist, Environment Planning and Policy Analyst

Friday, November 6, 2015

India’s Vested Interest in Nepal’s Water and Federalism

India has meted out punishment to Nepal and Nepali people in the form of blockade/embargo (tagged “unofficial”) on the eve of series of important festivals of Dashain, Tihar and Chhath in support of Madhesi parties’ demand: electoral constituency based on population without regard to geography, absolute proportional representation, no restriction on naturalized citizens ascending to high posts, demarcation of boundaries as they wished, 10 yearly delineation of electoral constituency (instead of 20 years), etc.

The blockade has resulted in overwhelming adverse impact on the economy that was tottering in the wake of devastation caused by the great earthquake of 25th April and number of aftershocks. Life of common people became paralyzed and put out of gear; more so in Tarai than in hills. Industrial production has come to a grinding halt for lack of fuel and raw materials; subsistence level factory workers suffering the most. The impact was like a double-edged sword, not sparing Indian business community dependent on business with Nepal.

Single state in southern plains
The agitating parties’ main demand is creation of single province based on identity of Madhesi people comprising 22 districts in Southern plains bordering India. Unfortunately for the agitating parties, no single coherent and homogenous ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious and casteist (ethnocentric) community of Madhesi exists anywhere in Nepal, lest in Tarai, which occupies 17% of total area of Nepal inhabited by 51% of national population of which only 22% are deemed to be Madhesi; a conglomerate of Maithili, Rajbangsi, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Tharu, Santhal, etc. Besides most of 22% do not favour province for Tarai separated from hills.

This demand stems for concept of creating provinces on the basis of identities of various communities (ethnocentric federalism) advocated by Maoists during 10-year long armed insurgency. As there are over 100 ethnocentric communities in a small country like Nepal, she could end up with over 100 provinces, if provinces are created on the basis identities; an unfeasible and untenable proposition. It will not bode well for nascent federalism as it could result in unravelling of national identity and fostering of centrifugal tendencies.

Draft constitution had provision for 6 provinces; the constitution that was finally promulgated after an amendment increased it to 7, including province number 2 comprising Saptari, Siraha, Dhanusha, Mahottari, Sarlahi, Rautahat, Bara and Parsa districts. Failing to ensure single province in Tarai, Madhesi parties are reconciled to the idea of more than one province, but are insisting on inclusion of Sunsari, Morang and Jhapa districts in this province (Koshi floodplain) in province # 2. This demand of theirs is obviously centred on exercising control over Koshi River.

Forced “union”
Inhabitants of these 3 districts, however, don’t wish to be included in province # 2; the farce is the endeavour to have these included in province # 2 by force: against “federal” government (although, government in Kathmandu is not a federal government yet, since federalism has not been implemented) and against the wishes of people of concerned districts. Conversely, there is no clamour in these districts to be included in province # 2; rather it is highly likely that there would be strong protest/agitation if these districts were merged forcefully with province # 2.

Vested interest in Nepal’s water resources
Coincidence of agitation by Madhesi parties and Indian blockade is strange. Delivering speeches in Bihar recently during election campaign, Indian premier Narendra Modi promised voters electricity from Nepal. Although water from rivers of Nepal do flow through India, it is not possible to generate hydropower in the plains. Similarly, although Ganga basin is Indian food granary, year-round cultivation of land is not possible for lack of irrigation during 8 months of dry season: limiting food-crop production required to meet burgeoning population growth. In this backdrop, pundits of federalism/water resource have rightly opined that India has vested interest in Nepal’s water resources and expects to be able to keep single Tarai based province under her influence and control Nepal’s rivers. Therefore, it is important from Indian perspective to create this particular province; hence, the clamour of Madhesi parties with covert Indian support. [However, the report about Indian support for secession of Tarai from rest of Nepal deserves to be ignored.]

What seems to have been lost sight of is the fact that control over rivers of Nepal, specifically Koshi River by bringing Koshi flood plain under province # 2, will result in having to continue to deal with rainy season flood and inundation—with resultant involuntary displacement—and drought or similar situation rest of the year. The premise of control over Koshi water in this manner, for example, is apparently based on ignorance of hydrological cycle.

Beneficial control over water
Physically and from the perspective of management of water, control over Nepal’s rivers can be exercised by building a string of high dam storage projects in mid-hills (for example Sapta Koshi High Dam on Koshi River near Barahakshetra), resulting in creation of a number of reservoirs from Mechi through Mahakali, with appurtenant benefit of flood control and lean season augmented flow (exemplified by present Koshi barrage from which Indian state of Bihar benefits from both flood control and irrigation in miniscule quantum during wet season only). Such reservoirs can control rainy season flood in downstream areas of Nepal and UP, Bihar and Bengal in India and even in Bangladesh. Further, these can “produce” lean season augmented flow, which would avail valuable/precious fresh water during dry season both in Nepal and northern India and Bangladesh; benefitting from temporal/seasonal transfer of water for drinking and sanitation, irrigation, fisheries and animal husbandry, navigation, etc.

A win-win scenario as such for both Nepal and India cannot be achieved by creating a separate province in Tarai, where it is almost impossible to build storage projects. Theoretically, however, it is possible in Tarai too but the cost, in terms of money, land and most importantly displacement, would be exorbitantly high compared to meagre benefit that would accrue.

Even within Nepal, after implementation of federalism it would be difficult to build reservoir projects due to conflict potential between upstream and downstream riparian provinces. Why would upstream province agree to suffer from negative externalities of inundation and involuntary displacement in order to have downstream province benefit from positive externalities of flood control and lean season augmented flow? Hence, it is shortsighted to dream of controlling, for example Koshi river water, by controlling province number 2.

Constitutional provision re water resources
In accordance with Schedule 5 of the new Constitution, treaties with foreign governments fall under federal government, which implies that if a treaty needs to be executed to tame rivers in Nepal, it is beyond the jurisdiction of any provincial government. Similarly, multipurpose projects (Sapta Koshi High Dam is an example) too are under the purview of federal government. Therefore, nothing will be achieved by being able to control province # 2.

Win-win scenario
A win-win scenario can be achieved by building high dam projects in Nepal not only to generate high value peak energy but also to produce water in dry season. But this scenario would be precluded if a separate province in southern plain is created where no multipurpose project could be built for temporal/seasonal transfer of water and generation of high value clean/renewable energy. Furthermore, antagonizing people of Nepal by imposing blockade also will not help achieve the win-win scenario.

Conversely, if India continues to be haughty and endeavours to “control” Nepal’s rivers covertly, she will end up in a no-win scenario. Because Nepal can go ahead with building storage projects tailored to meet her own need of lean season augmented flow with India continuing to suffer from the vagaries of flood-drought syndrome. For example, instead of building 269-meter high dam generating 3,300 MW of power on Koshi River, Nepal can build dam with lower height to generate only about 600 MW. It will result in reduced negative externalities for Nepal (lesser quantum of inundation and displacement), but generate lean season augmented flow adequate to cater for Nepal’s own requirement. If something as unfortunate is to take place, India will be deprived from benefits of flood control and lean season augmented flow for several generations to come, besides losing an age-old friend who helped India through thick and thin.

This is a win-lose scenario (Nepal benefitting but India deprived) and this is not the denouement that people of Nepal, irrespective of whether living in Tarai or hills, wish for. People in Nepal are looking forward to harnessing Nepal’s water resources in the ways that would benefit both the neighbours, even Bangladesh in the downstream.

Published in People’s Review of November 6, 2015