RatnaSansar Shrestha, FCA रत्न संसार श्रेष्ठ

Politics and sale of surplus power and water

2012-02-07T17:44:00.000-08:00

February 8, 2012

Sugat Ratna Kansakar

Kathmandu

Cc: Dipak Gyawali; Ajaya Dixit; 'paras kharel'; Jagan Nath Shrestha
Subject: RE: FW: Signature campaign

Sugat jee

Good to hear from you.

When I articulate my opinion, I don't need to worry about "minus politics", simply because I am not a politician (politicians, with some rare exceptions, neither have morals nor, and therefore, any qualms selling the motherland for a few sivelrs) and I don’t express my opinion with any political color. Therefore, people reading my writings and listening (in radio or TV) to me should grow up and take off their tinted glasses (virtual) and try to reach the depth I try to depict (most of the time space constraint restricts full elaboration and superficial people miss the forest from trees). For me India-card and China-card is utter nonsense.
To answer your question categorically there is no harm whatsoever "if we sale surplus power and water". People may be surprised to hear that I too am in favor of selling "surplus power and water". The two important words in the sentence you have constructed are "sale" and "surplus" in the context of power and water. Anyone objecting to sale of surplus power and water is an utter fool. But unfortunately, there are a bunch of "intellictutes" who misconstrue what people like me say in this context.

Projects like, export oriented, Arun III project (900 MW in wet season) reflect intellectual bankruptcy. Eastern Development Region, where the project is located, will be requiring around 800 MW in 5 years time (by the time this project will be commissioned) if we are to attain even normal growth (what we have now is suppressed growth and what we should have been aiming for is accelerated growth not just envy the growth rate attained by India – Bihar in particular – and China). Meaning this project doesn’t aim to "sale" "surplus" power but it is going to deprive the Region of the much needed power required for the industrialization of the area to generate employment etc.

Further, one also needs to remember that this projects doesn't "sell" power, it rather "surrenders". Because selling entails getting best price. The intellectual poverty in all this is manifest in the fact that even at the moment we are importing power at close to Rs 11 while this project will "sale" at around Rs 2 only. Therefore, anyone who loves the motherland should be saying that Nepal should sell power only after saturating power need of this country; not just for electrification but to industrialize, to electrify transportation (to displace petroleum product import) and so on so forth. Secondly we should aim at "selling" surplus power not export at rock bottom prices.

The scenario with water is much worse, hence the objection. The regulated water (I trust you are able to distinguish between water of wet season versus stored/regulated water made available in dry season) generated by projects like West Seti, Budhi Gandaki, Naumure, etc. are being planned to be provided to India free of cost. There are no dearth of fools in this country who even go on to say that why try to sell water (as you have correctly opined contrary to this stupidity) which will flow south in any case. These people forget two things. One, Nepal has to bear cost in terms of negative externalities like inundation and displacement (people just look at the financial cost of building the project). Two, if the downstream beneficiary isn't willing to pay for the "surplus" water (as you again have rightly pointed out) the project should be designed with the water need of Nepal in sight which will mean lower dam height, inundation of lesser quantum of precious land and displacement of fewer people.

I trust you will join hands with the people of 21 district of Karnali Basin to exploit Karnali River system of the benefit of the people therefrom and our motherland.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

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

From: sugat.kansakar@ntc.net.np [mailto:sugat.kansakar@ntc.net.np]
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 20:18
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Subject: Re: FW: Signature campaign
Dear Ratna Sansarji,

If a layman ask us "what is the harm, if we sale surplus power and water, thereby earning revenue to nation?", what should be our answer. Better if answer is also in layman language minus politics, and so called India-card and China-card non-senses.

Regards

Sugat Ratna Kansakar

Emulating Karnali Basin model

2012-02-06T17:22:00.000-08:00

February 7, 2012

Dear colleague
Good to hear from you. No question is childish. Actually it is difficult to ask a good question than supply a good answer. Most importantly, it is a child that asks important question; like in Emperor's New Clothe.

I am happy that you are planning to get membership for each of your family members.

1. Upon completion of the membership drive the Society will incorporate a company to own the project which will conduct DPR of the project. As an engineer you should be able to figure out that it takes about 18 months for the purpose. The construction could then take about 60 months. You also are familiar with the fact that the time-line that I am drawing here is just a guesstimate. It could take a little more. Within a year or two of commissioning the project, the shareholders should start receiving dividend. Having been involved with conducting feasibility study, preparing design and supervising construction, etc. of hydropower projects, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to figure out all these.

2. We can generate quite a lot of power "like this". To cite an example, let's just focus on remittance; Nepal receives Rs 300 billion/year and just 10% of that is enough for 300 MW. If 2:1 debt equity ratio is adopted the amount is enough for 900 MW. There are many other sources in this country. Rs 100 is minimum. You too can invest based on your propensity to save. Besides, all of this doesn't preclude FDI.

3. The answer is both "yes" and "no." if Nepali people, especially the intelligentsia, continue to behave the way they have been doing so far, we will never be able to stop “south Gaints” from doing whatever they are doing now. This Society has made a good start and if people support as well as emulate them then “south Gaints” could very easily be stopped.

4. I have already charted out financing potential above in # 2 in short. “Market for all the power” manifests in rampant load shedding, lack of industrialization as well as the areas deprived from access to power. Per capita consumption now is less than 100 kWh and to provide 10,000 kWh per capita in 20 years’ time when Nepal’s population will reach 40 million the installed capacity at 50% plant factor will have to be 92,000 MW. Per capita consumption of affluent countries is more than that.

5. I have already made a detailed analysis on that topic which you can access by following the link below:

http://www.ratnasansar.com/2010/06/federalism-and-water-resources-in-nepal.html

6. Already answered in # 3 above. Basically, we shouldn't be sitting on our hands merely because of "grand-agenda" of anyone. Because that will amount to saying: "if rape is inevitable then one may as well sit back and enjoy." This is not acceptable to me and will never be and shouldn't be acceptable to patriotic people like you too.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

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

Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 15:05
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: Signature campaign

Dear sir,

Nice to know about the campaign. I am ready to sign and pay Rs 100, and even 500 for 5 members in my family. But I have very few childish questions:

1. When Rs 100 can get dividend and how much it can be in year 2069, 2070, 2071... and so on

2. How much power kW, MW, GW can we generate like this

3. Can we stop south Gaints filling pocket of Govt.Officials for holding license for years

4. Can we find financing and market for all the power in Karnali basin like this.

5. Can we dare to stop dividing nation on the name of caste & establish by resources or river basins

6. Can we stop running behiend the grand-agenda of our very good neighbour in south

Regards,

Invest to implement upper Karnali project

2012-02-05T17:30:00.000-08:00

February 6, 2012

Dear colleague

Good to hear from you.
No need to be confused. The proponents of the Society (I am merely a well wisher) are confident that there will be enough opportunity for all to invest. In order to implement upper Karnali project to its full potential as a storage project, 4,180 MW, the investment required will be about Rs 300 billion (ball park figure – which will be finalized after completion of DPR) and if 3:1 debt to equity ratio is adopted, equity required will be Rs 100 billion. Without undermining financial capability of the people from the area, I believe that it will not be possible to raise the required equity from the area only.

Therefore, if you sign up (in the signature campaign) it will strengthen the hands of GoN to convert it from a single purpose project (900 MW) to multipurpose storage project (4,180 MW). You can also become a member by paying Rs 100 (minimum), by doing which you will become an investor too when a project company is eventually incorporated.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 14:35
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Cc: Jwajalapa Yahoogroups

Subject: Re: FW: Signature campaign

Dear Ratna Sansar ju,

It made me confused from the statement "(2) with the investment of the people therefrom to the extent possible which doesn’t preclude investment from other Nepali citizens and even foreign investment.", if this is the fact how it will help by signing the campaign, I mean it should be of specifically people from the Karnali Basin.

Exploitation of Karnali by the local populace

2012-02-04T16:34:00.000-08:00

February 5, 2012

To: 'Kalyan Bhattarai'

Kalyan Dev jee

Good to hear from you.

On behalf of the Karnali Basin Conservation Society (of which I am just a well-wisher, not a proponent), I can try to answer your questions:
• In my considered opinion, people from Karnali Basin (21 districts) not only should be accorded preference in the matter but should have first right. From this perspective it is but natural for the question you posed to arise. In order to implement upper Karnali project to its full potential as a storage project, 4,180 MW, the investment required will be about Rs 300 billion (ball park figure – which will be finalized after completion of DPR) and if 3:1 debt to equity ratio is adopted, equity required will be Rs 100 billion. Without undermining financial capability of the people from the area, I believe that it will not be possible to raise the required from the area. Therefore, there is room for investment by people outside the area too.

• Based on the briefing I have received from the proponents of the Society, investment will not be a problem as NRNs based in Europe too have already wished to invest in the project.

• There is no need to be for and against foreign investment. Looking at the success of hydropower projects like Chilime, Piluwa, et al the people investing in such project stand to receive handsome return upon commissioning of the project. Therefore, people from Nepal should be afforded first opportunity to invest and thereby benefit from future stream of revenue. However, if required equity cannot be mobilized from within the country, there shouldn’t be any predilection against letting foreigners invest.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Kalyan Bhattarai [mailto:kdbhattarai2009@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 10:56
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: Signature campaign

Dear friend

I am not clear on the mentind issue bt interested to invest little for the Karnali project . I will appreciate to know the following.

• Your message says preference is given to the karnali area people as far as possible -in this scenario how the people other than the karnali can be member ?

• Is such priority model will generate the required investment ?

• Yes i am against the GoN policy of allowing foreign investment for any such projects -but doubt that such model will solve the purpose.

• Thanks Kalyan dev Bhattarai

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

Dear Colleague
The citizenry of Karnali Basin have formed Karnali River Basin Conservation Society (comprising 21 districts of Seti, Mahakali and Rapti zones). The main objective of this society is to exploit Karnali river system (1) for the people of the area (2) with the investment of the people therefrom to the extent possible which doesn’t preclude investment from other Nepali citizens and even foreign investment.

Development of Karnali Basin by the people from the area

2012-02-03T17:30:00.000-08:00

February 4, 2012

To: 'Bihari Krishna Shrestha'

Dear Bihari jee

Good to hear from you. Glad to know that you plan to sign up.

Besides, encouraging your family and friends to sign up there is one more thing that you could do to help them. What they have started is sort of social mobilization and you are aware that these things tend to be costly. Therefore, they need some help with finances: as grant or loan which will be repaid after raising fund through the membership drive. Please let me know if you have any idea. At this juncture they are not looking for fund in millions; couple of lakhs will do.
With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Bihari Krishna Shrestha [mailto:bks@wlink.com.np]
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 23:40
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Subject: Re: Signature campaign

Dear Ratna jee,

Great idea. I will definitely sign up. Is there more I can do about it?

Very warm regards

Bihari Krishna Shrestha

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

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: FW: Signature campaign

Karnali River Basin Development by the people to whom it belongs to

2012-02-02T18:18:00.000-08:00

February 3, 2012

To: 'Jagat Bhusal'

Bhusal jee

Good to hear from you. Thanks for your wishes for success of the campaign which doesn’t happen to be that of mine (as you have implied). The campaign has been launched by the people of Karnali River Basin who want to exploit their river primarily for the benefit of the region and secondarily for the benefit of our motherland. Therefore, I am supporting it wholeheartedly and glad that you too are in agreement with me.

In Nepal politicos, bureaucrats, intelligentsia et al come up with harebrained ideas/schemes (they – including the current one – invariably do so and each successive governments, unsurprisingly, don’t fail to do so) which deserve all the criticisms such ideas/schemes attract. But all of them take their turns to become intolerant of any critique (making one of nostalgic of monarchy!) and brand them “negative.”

Then hordes of media (there is always some qualitative exception) come forward to support for some return and brand anybody finding holes in the harebrained idea anti-development.

The people of Karnali Basin have risen up and they have come up with a brilliant idea: both creative and constructive that will help metamorphose not only the area but the country as a whole. Therefore, it is incumbent on all of us to support them.

No need to doubt that people will not listen to me; simply because it is not me who is putting the idea forward. The idea has come from the people to whom the River belongs to and in contrast to people blaming me for being negative; I am supporting the brilliant idea wholeheartedly.

But, this also challenges you to come forward in support of it by not only signing up and becoming a member but also persuading/convincing your family and friends to do so.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Jagat Bhusal [mailto:bhusaljagat@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 10:08
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: Signature campaign

Dear Mr Shrestha

This is the right time to draw attention of the concerned for restructuring Nepal. Nepalese society in the present context is divided by sentiment which smells like some hundred years before smelling.

I wish success of your campaign. But i still doubt who listened to you.

thanks

Jagat K. Bhusal
Chairperson
The Society of Hydrologists and Meteorologists Nepal
Po Box 11444, Kathamndu, Nepal.
Mob. 977 9851139357, Res. 97714491971 (Morning and evening only)
http://www.soham.org.np/

--- On Tue, 1/31/12, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: FW: Signature campaign
To: "Ratna Sansar Shrestha"
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 6:07 PM

Dear Colleague

The citizenry of Karnali Basin have formed Karnali River Basin Conservation Society (comprising 21 districts of Seti, Mahakali and Rapti zones). The main objective of this society is to exploit Karnali river system (1) for the people of the area (2) with the investment of the people therefrom to the extent possible which doesn’t preclude investment from other Nepali citizens and even foreign investment.

Development of Karnali Basin

2012-01-31T18:34:00.001-08:00

Dear Colleague

The citizenry of Karnali Basin have formed Karnali River Basin Conservation Society (comprising 21 districts of Seti, Mahakali and Rapti zones). The main objective of this society is to exploit Karnali river system (1) for the people of the area (2) with the investment of the people therefrom to the extent possible which doesn’t preclude investment from other Nepali citizens and even foreign investment.
The society has initiated a signature campaign to draw GoN’s attention to this. You are aware that GoN (all governments so far, including the current one) policy is focused on export of both water and power, depriving Nepal and Nepali people from these in the process. Therefore, I request you to participate in the signature campaign by not only signing it, but also encouraging your family and friends to sign.
Besides, the Society is also launching a membership drive simultaneously, which entails payment of Rs 100; in this way you will be investing in equity capital of the projects in the pipeline in the Karnali River Basin and after completion of the paperwork you will be issued a share certificate for the amount which eventually will yield dividend to you, after commissioning of the project/s.
You can sign up at following locations during office hours:
1. LEC college, NCIT college and Balkumari
2. Ascol and Sarasoti Campus and Thamel
3. Cosmos college, Satdobato
4. Chabahil
5. Shantibatika Ratnapark
6. Sundhara

RE: [NNSD] Tax on fuels: The cause of high inflation and energy crisis?

2012-01-29T17:34:00.000-08:00

January 28, 2012

Dilli jee

Thank you so much for coming up with an important perspective. Whether handled by public sector or private sector, Nepal cannot be immune from the impact of increasing prices, compounded by appreciating hard currency. On top of this we also shouldn’t forget that use of fossil fuel entails pollution; indoor pollution by LPG (even a number of deaths have been reported due to LPG water heater ascribed to carbon monoxide emitted by it) and outdoor pollution by tail pipe emission which causes respiratory and other diseases (we cannot forget its global warming potential too).

Therefore, the ideal course for Nepal is to liberate itself from fossil fuel dependency by using electricity to displace it as much as is possible for example by electrifying transportation. The government has put so called fast track to Terai at top of its list. However, if electric train is built instead, by one estimate, Nepal’s dependency could be reduced by 120,000 kilo liter/year which is bound to increase every year. This will not only help reduce NOC’s loss, but also reduce balance of trade deficit and balance of payment deficit significantly.

To sum up, we are suffering due to inherent contradictions. On the one hand failing to see beyond the collective noses, the planners think/pretend that we don’t have electricity market and plan to export power from even most cost effective project (like upper Karnali, the only other country to possess this kind of nature’s gift is Columbia) while perpetuating and even increasing our dependency on fossil fuel by building roads even where a train could be feasible.

The tragic contradiction lies in government talking about trains from Kodari to Kathmandu, Kathmandu to Pokhara, Pokhara to Lumbini, in east-west highway, north south highways, et al. But it has left out the sector where the train system would have been most feasible: Kathmandu to Nijagarh.

An important economics that needs to be remembered in this respect is: energy cost of carrying one ton of freight a distance of one kilometer averages 337 kJ for water, 221 kJ for rail and 2,000 kJ for trucks (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/find_ef.php). This means even a country with abundant fossil fuel should opt for train with diesel engine rather than trucks and buses. For a country like Nepal electric train is the best. To oversimplify the economics, if the fuel cost of a travel by bus is Rs 2,000, it will be only Rs 221 by diesel train. As it costs about Rs 30 to generate a unit of electricity by diesel, while only around Rs 7 for hydropower, the fuel cost of electric train will be only about Rs 60. The salubrious impact of this on inflation (rather reduction in transportation cost and its consequential impact on cost of living) should impel us to go for electrification of transportation. But the government is refusing to hear this logic and mindlessly tearing apart the hills (inviting many more Das Dhungas and Krishna Bhirs, etc. and also destroying/wrecking the ecology/environment more than necessary) in the name of opening track (electric train will need only about 11 meters) to perpetuate and increase our dependency on fossil fuel even more.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: NNSD@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NNSD@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dilli Ghimire
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:49
To: NNSD; NNSD@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NNSD] Tax on fuels: The cause of high inflation and energy crisis?

Dear Arjunjee

Thank you for your calculation . It is very nice and based on actual sitation. But the sutions seem for short period . Petroleum is not our product and we cannot control the international price . Why we do not think to cut demand by increasing the supply of electricity. We talk at the time of supply crisis and stop thinking again. The private sector is also not so sincere in our context. Can we count any price cut dicision of private entity except mobile and certain electronic items.

After all I appreciate your collection of facts that was also published some year before. Let us hope the development of electricity and supply of Malamchi water will bring solution in far future not near.

With regards

Dilli Ghimire

--- On We, 25/1/12, Arjun Dhakal wrote:

From: Arjun Dhakal
Subject: [NNSD] Tax on fuels: The cause of high inflation and energy crisis?
To: "NNSD"
Date: Wednesday, 25 January, 2012, 5:57 AM
Dear all,

We are facing serious energy crisis and high inflation rate. Nights are dark and chilled, and days are unproductive and expensive. One of the major issues is—fuel crisis. Nepal Oil Corporation always argues the regular financial loss and lack of capital for purchase due to the under pricing of fuel. But, interestingly, government has been generation heavy revenue since long time (see the facts list below).

Is there any justification or reason to keep continuing taxing on fuel to create this "emergency situation"? This debate opens space for a sustained and argumentative dialogue to systematically but incrementally improving Nepal’s energy market in coming days. I would highly appreciate your observations and comments in this regard.

Please find below some facts, analysis and potential options for the discussion.

Regards,

Arjun

Current fuel crisis: some facts, analysis and potential options

1.

1. 1. Interesting facts and figures (based on NOC data of January 2012)

• Total Government revenue/year: NRs 21 Billion (6.7 billion from Petrol, 11.1 billion from Diesel , 3 billion from LPG and 1.2 billion from other)

• Loss of NOC/year = NRs 10.5 Billion

• Average government tax on fuel= 20 %

• Total payment to IOC by NOC/year= NRs 101 billion [(-)Balance of Payment]

• Without government tax, NOC can sell Petrol (NRs 77.20/L), Diesel (NRs 82.63/L), Kerosene (NRs 80.44/L) and LPG (NRs 1545.74/C) including transportation, management, technical costs and commission to the dealer except interest payment and government tax.

• LPG is still highly subsidized

2. 2.Theoretically, taxes on goods (Indirect tax) are designed on the basis of 3E (equity, efficiency and environment friendly) particularly in luxuries and pollutant goods. However, fossil fuels have become basic goods for all economic groups now and facing serious crisis to fulfill the demand of the population. In the other side, there is no any alternative source available to replace its demand now. Might be, it was a luxury goods and major sources of revenue few decade ago but not now.

3. 3. Impacts of fuel price on other market

•Accelerating the price of necessary food items like rice, vegetable, dal etc. In which, poor and vulnerable households are highly affected due to the increased share of their expenditure in basic goods comparing with high income group people. Simple market observation- if fuel price hikes by 10 percent, market price of necessary goods like rice or vegetable's price go up by 20-25 percent in the name of fuel price increased —it always gives golden opportunity for broker/trader –not the producer and consumer.

•Low impact in price of luxuries goods –motor/car, flat TV, imported whisky, ornaments etc

•Excuse/promotion of black market

4. 4. Potential Measures

• Immediate treatment: Considering fuel as necessary goods, tax/VAT should be removed which creates smooth supply system first  control market price and support economic development

• Short term strategies: Open to private sector in fuel supply to develop competition (no more "Gupta" will be born )

• Long term strategies:

o Maximum production and use of locally produce sustainable energy like hydro

o Change in consumption pattern: Use energy efficient equipments, promote public transportation, low energy consumption house designing etc

o When there will be sufficient alternative energy supply in the market then tax in fossil fuel can be resumed again to control the market and pollution by price

5. 5. Current Actual Price and Market Price in January 2012 (Source: NOC )

Petrol NRs/L Diesel NRs/L Kerosene NRs/L Aviation (Dom) Aviation (international) LPG NRs/C

Actual Buying Price in India in January 69.95 76.86 74.38 69.32 69.32 1301.37

NOC cost* 7.25 5.77 6.06 3.16 3.09 244.37

Possible Selling Price in Jan 2012 77.20 82.63 80.44 72.48 72.41 1545.74

Government Tax/VAT 32.97 14.32 2.04 14.50 0.33 215.29

Actually Selling Price in Kathmandu with profit/loss 115.00 85.00 85.00 105.00 99.63 1500

Gap 37.80 2.37 4.37 32.52 27.22 -45.74

Government Revenue in yearly basis 6.7 billion 11.1 billion 150 million 500 million 275 million 3 billion

* included Transportation, management, technical cost and commission but reduced additional charges for interest payment and government tax.

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

Arjun Dhakal
Environment and Development Economist
Bhaisepati, Lalitpur, Nepal
Email: arjun.dhakal@gmail.com
Telephone: +977-1-5592949 (R)
Mobile: 9841209328

RE: You are obliged to respond...

2012-01-26T15:48:00.000-08:00

January 27, 2012

To: 'paras kharel'

Cc: 'Ratan Bhandari'; 'Keshab Poudel'; 'Dwarika Nath Dhungel'; 'Lila Mani Pokhrel'; 'Ek Raj Bhandari'; 'Kunda Dixit'; 'Ajaya Dixit'; 'Sanjay WECS Dhungel'; 'Dipak Gyawali'; 'Gopal Siwakoti 'Chintan''

Paras jee
I too am amazed that this sort of drivel could come from him. However, I now have no doubt that it could only come from him. As you have recalled his another piece of drivel published in Nagarik, I too remember that where he said:

• Let’s have them first build it, and if it isn’t in our interest we can bring it under our ownership – it has not be possible with Koshi, Gandaki, et al and how will it be possible with new ones?

• The project will come under GoN ownership after license period – he forgets that there is no point in marrying a girl and allow someone else to take her away in the hope that she will be returned in about 25 years (as DipakG has put eloquently several times). Especially as Nepal is starved for power right now as you have correctly pointed out.

• We can buy the power at the price the project is to export at – he seems to be ignorant of an instrument called “power purchase agreement” which is sine qua non for achieving financial closing and once such an instrument is executed the project will be under ironclad arrangement with regards to what is done with the power generated and won’t be able to sell to us even at double price.

• Once the project is built, Nepal will have upper hand – like the way Nepal is having upper hand in Koshi barrage (whose life has already come to an end) which is in effective control of India! He seems to have written that piece too losing sight of the ground reality completely.
I can show to him how off mark he is directly to him. But this will amount to private communication. However, as he brought out the claptrap to the general public, I too want to show him how wrong he is publicly. I am awaiting an opportunity.
This reminds me of another expert who apparently wrote in his book (I have not wasted my hard earned money to buy that book and spent my valuable time to read it) that Nepal’s GDP will equal that of Saudi Arabia if we export power and, unfortunately, he was extensively quoted, including by resident representative of the World Bank. He used to write for NT as well. I finally got an opportunity to write an article in NT mathematically disproving him. I personally forwarded my article to the World Bank RR. But she hasn’t responded as of yet.
All this reminds me of a very dirty (actually obscene) Hindi saying which ends by surmising that “if you look for one you will find thousands of them.” We, unfortunately, seem to have more than thousands of them.
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, January 26, 2012 16:03
To: Dipak Gyawali; Gopal Siwakoti 'Chintan'
Cc: Ratan Bhandari; Ratna Sansar Shrestha; Keshab Poudel; Dwarika Nath Dhungel; Lila Mani Pokhrel; Ek Raj Bhandari; Kunda Dixit; Ajaya Dixit; Sanjay WECS Dhungel

Subject: Re: You are obliged to respond...

Dipak ji,

Thanks for sharing the article. I had not read it earlier.

He does not explain how loadshedding can be reduced by exporting hydropower. Why can't these projects be developed for domestic consumption? He has no answer.

This person had advanced a facile argument in one of his pieces in nagarik -- if we are able to consume the electricity produced by west seti, upper karnali, arun iii et al, then we can revoke the agreement to export electricity from these projects. such a childish argument. This argument means that he thinks that there is oversupply of electricity in Nepal. Or, if he does not think so, then why did he keep quiet when the agreement was signed? That would have a more compelling reason to resign (than the reason he cited for actually doing so in a huff later -- with contradictory statements). [By the way, he was finance secretary when salary and allowance were doled out to "missing" ladakus. Strangely, he saw nothing amiss in it warranting his resignation!].

He does not talk of the low export price of hydropower. If India is starving for electricity -- and it is -- it would surely be able to pay more than a meagre Rs 3 per unit.

He fails to mention that not all hydropower projects are alike (even a non-expert on this issue like myself -- a trade economist by training and profession -- knows as much) -- some generate power very cheap, some generate expensive power. The question is: should we not utilize domestically the cheaply produced power? But he does not consider this aspect.
He fails to mention that West Set was an export-oriented project.

As I said, I am no expert on water resources (you and a few others in this mail are), but it is sickening to note that this guy is ridiculing the argument that downstream benefits exist aplenty and that Nepal must get paid for the same merely on the basis of an unpublished WB report -- without looking at the assumptions that you mentioned are flawed. For a person who had declared upon his resignation that he would not seek any post or benefit and instead would resign to a simple life of teaching in a village school, he seems to be pretty pally with WB. he is privy to an unpublished report; means WB trusts him; may be this is a clever way of WB to influence the ostensibly marxist PM! and he goes on to write an article based on that. A powerful way of manufacturing consent. ordinary joes who read newspapers will believe what is says -- most of them, trust me! because ordinary jantas especially nepalis are -- you know what. they will certainly believe him -- more so when he happens to be a person felicitated by nagarik and republica.
What is the expertise of this guy actually? Water resource expert -- no. Economist -- no. Political scientist -- no. Media expert -- no. Management specialist/accountancy specialist -- no. But he writes as if he is an expert on all these areas and more. He is a Nepali expert -- that is someone who has been made an expert by the media. For an average Nepali, thus, Dipak Gyawali or Ajay Dixit or Ratna Sansar Shrestha are NOT water resource experts. For an average Nepali, R Khanal is -- since he has the forum, plain and simple.

There is a pattern here, in his advocacy -- BIPPA is a must (to attract investment), export-oriented hydropower projects should not be disrupted (so that we will be relieved of loadshedding!), and, now, there are little downstream benefits (worth arguing over).

Jai hos!

best

Paras
________________________________________

From: Dipak Gyawali

To: Gopal Siwakoti 'Chintan'

Cc: Ratan Bhandari ; Ratna Sansar Shrestha ; Keshab Poudel ; Dwarika Nath Dhungel ; Lila Mani Pokhrel ; Ek Raj Bhandari ; paras kharel ; Kunda Dixit ; Ajaya Dixit ; Sanjay WECS Dhungel

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:46 PM

Subject: You are obliged to respond...
Chintanji

Here is a really idiotic piece of senile writing of an incomparable ignoramus that sees “phoren” and “project” as the only manna from heaven. He is merely advocating from the WB’s recent Ganges Basin Strategic Plan of SAWI that has been rejected by Nepali officials in the water ministry (or what remains of it after the parties have balkanized it). He has no idea of the poor assumptions that have gone into its making by SAWI and the geo-politics inherent in it. Amazing that such a person was even a finance secretary and one who sat on the NEA board. No wonder we have 14 hours of power cuts a day! I am not at all surprised.

Given that he is currently the Maoist PM’s advisor, I think it is incumbent upon you in particular to respond, also because the Kali Gandaki episode that he mis-portrays refers to you.

Jai Hos!

DipakG

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=41239&show_comments=true

WATER DEBATE IN NEPAL

Missing the forest

RAMESHORE PRASAD KHANAL

Water debates in Nepal are invariably full of emotional overtones. Unsurprising then that water sharing and associated infrastructure development under Koshi and Gandak agreements have been subjects of heated political discussions. This is the case not just with the big cross-border projects. Smaller drinking water and irrigation projects at the community level too have resulted in bitter rancor in many places.
Whenever a large storage hydropower development is mooted, the first question that comes up for discussion concerns the downstream benefits and how one should monetize such benefits. But large hydro projects meant exclusively for exports have many components besides downstream benefits. One question raised time and again is why our neighbor should benefit from the hydropower that we produce. It is just like Germans asking why Americans should be riding BMWs that their company produces; but the Germans don’t ask such questions.
The ill-fated West-Seti Hydropower Project brought about a similar, though predictable, debate. Even after 14 years of trying, investors were unable to raise money from the financial markets. Eventually, their license was revoked. At one time, West-Seti appeared to be taking off, although there seemed to be little progress on the ground. Project offices were smashed and some officers beaten up.
There was a flurry of NGO activity around the proposed dam site telling people how bad the project was for the area. With West-Seti gone, no one visits the area and Nepali people continue to live in darkness. Now, local leaders and some people living in the area want the Project to be completed by the government, apparently by Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA).
Some 150 kilometers west of the proposed West-Seti dam site, a hydro project about one-thirtieth the size of West-Seti has been under construction for the last six years. Yet it’s nowhere near completion. It might be another year (or two) for the project starts generating electricity. This is the pace of NEA infrastructure projects. Even if the government were to start the project now (assuming that close to US $2 billion of financing is easily available from friendly countries), a person my age will certainly not get to see it generating electricity in our lifetime.
Likewise, Arun III was aborted 18 years ago just when the construction was about to start. As of today, it’s still uncertain when construction work on the project will begin. Those opposing Arun III for various reasons, purportedly for the country’s good, closed their NGO business no sooner than the World Bank headquarters issued a communiqué stating that it is finally withdrawing its aid commitment to Arun.
Kaligandaki would have gone down the same road if community leaders of Sri Krishna Gandaki VDC of Syangja district had not driven away the Kathmandu-based NGO activists. One can only imagine the situation of load-shedding today if Kaligandaki had gone Arun’s way.
Not just hydropower projects, other large-scale endeavors have had to face similar problems. Take the Melamchi Drinking Water Project. After early hiccups, the World Bank, the project’s major co-financier, was the first to drop out, followed hot on the heels by Swedish Development Agency; the Norwegians too opted out. Asian Development Bank (ADB) kept its promise and stayed the course in spite of continued threats in project site and frequent written complaints by Nepali NGOs to Bank’s Accountability Unit.
According to these NGOs, by pursuing Melamchi Project, ADB was doing great injustice to the people of Melamchi area. Now, it has been 12 years since the ADB first approved the loan to Melamchi. The project is still struggling and the costs incurred due to the inordinate delays will ultimately have to be borne by Nepali people.
As a nation we are yet to develop a consensus on the best use of our enormous water potential. Ironically, we seem to prefer spending long hours every day without electricity. While we are still in a state of confusion, a study commissioned by the World Bank challenges—with evidence—most of the long-held beliefs on Himalayan watershed and river systems. The yet to be made public report has been shared in bits and pieces with a few key people in the region. Here are a few of its highlights.

According to the report, one, high dam in any of the river basins does not reduce flood risk downstream. Two, high dam and the resultant regulated water flow do not add much value to irrigation downstream either. Three, high dams do not control sedimentation. Four, hydropower is most significant benefit that any high dam can provide.
The report graphically shows that none of the worst floods in Bihar were the result of increased water flows in Koshi basin. Upstream water storage, no matter how tall a dam, would not prevent the recurring floods in the plains. There has to be an entirely different strategy for flood management through proper drainage systems, land zoning and most important of all proper early warning system to minimize human tragedy. This is where the cooperation of all the countries in the Ganges basin is necessary. To be precise, if we want to minimize human tragedy then Ganges water cannot just be a bilateral issue.
The report concludes that the annual precipitation in the Ganges basin is about 1,200 billion cubic- meter (BCM), of which Ganges runoff is only 500 BCM. Most of the rainwater seeps into the ground making underground water a viable and cheaper option for irrigation-on-demand in the plains.
Interestingly, most of all possible dams in the Ganges river systems (including the 23 large ones) can hold no more than 18 percent of the annual flow. This is paltry compared to what goes into recharging the underground water. All past debates focused on the likely downstream benefits, but new data indicates that maximum benefits are “under-stream”!
If we are to believe the WB report then hydropower development is the only significant benefit that Ganges water can provide. This is the benefit Nepal is losing out on by allowing drainage in the Bay of Bengal even as we continue to debate the upstream-downstream benefits and whether or not Nepal should export power.
rameshorek@gmail.com
Published on 2012-01-26 01:10:36

RE: recommendation of private sector regarding hydropower coopreation with india

2012-01-21T17:19:00.000-08:00

January 22, 2012

To: 'paras kharel'

Cc: 'dipakgyawali@ntc.net.np'; 'Ajaya Dixit'

Paras jee

This is the typical instance of intellectual poverty or even “intellectitute”. What these people have forgotten is the fact that neither Canada nor USA starves its own citizenry of power/energy to export peak or off-peak energy (whatever), which these people are proposing. Should they open their eyes and look beyond their collective noses, it will be difficult for them to miss the fact both of these countries prioritize the domestic need and only the remaining power/energy is exported.

It is amazing to see that they see “win” for Nepal by exporting peak power, while we ourselves are short of peak power. Excellent example of intellectual poverty or “intellectitute".

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, January 19, 2012 12:52
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha; ratna.sansar@gmail.com
Subject: recommendation of private sector regarding hydropower coopreation with india

Dear Ratna Sansar ji,

This might be of interest to you. Below is a section of a report by Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI) -

Confederation Indian Industries (CII) Joint Economic Council (JEC), submitted to GoN ahead of the PM's visit to India in August 2009. The section is on hydropower cooperation, and it talks about Nepal exporting peak power to India and importing off peak power from India. It does not make sense: we are in severe shortage of peak power; that's why even if all the proposed hydropower projects come on stream on time, there will still be load shedding because these are run of the river type, right? But they talk of exporting peak power.
best

Paras

Hydro Power

There is a unique power trade arrangement between Canada and USA. Canada imports energy from USA during daytime to meet its base load, and exports its peak energy to USA. In this way, both countries are in a win-win situation. Canada gets good price for its peak energy. USA also sells its off-peak energy to Canada. Same arrangement can be replicated here in this region of the world. Nepal can import off peak energy from India and export its peak energy to India. India can sell its off peak energy from thermal power plants. Our efforts should be geared towards materializing similar type of arrangement between Nepal and India. The proposed cross border transmission line between Nepal and India, if materialized, will prove to be a glaring example of interdependence between India and Nepal. The beauty of the proposed project is that it will put both countries in a win-win situation. India will sell its day time energy to Nepal (as proposed by PTC India Ltd), and Nepal can sell its peak energy to India.

Your article on Presidental system in yesterday's Kantipur

2012-01-11T02:53:00.000-08:00

January 11, 2012

Mr Binod K. Chaudhary
Chaudhary Group

Binod jee

Your article in yesterday’s Kantipur is very well articulated. Good job! I fully support your perspective.

I agree with you that there has to be full segregation between legislature and executive – MPs shouldn’t become ministers and ministers can’t be MPs.

Actually, in my considered opinion, one can easily find the root of corruption in politicos heavily investing in elections to become MPs with the sole intention of becoming ministers to recover “investment,” many times over. Therefore, I too have been advocating for an “apolitical” cabinet, not only for stability but to root out corruption, since a long time. My article on this vein was published in Nepali Times (#310) on August 11, 2006 and I have uploaded it in my website (www.RatnaSansar.com) which you can peruse by clicking the link below:

http://www.ratnasansar.com/2008/10/clean-up-politics-and-corruption.html

Similarly, Kantipur also published another article of mine on 29th Bhadra 2063 on this very issue which also I have uploaded in my website. You can peruse this article too by clicking following link:

http://www.ratnasansar.com/2009/02/blog-post_11.html

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst

RE: gone case

2011-12-05T18:36:00.000-08:00

December 6, 2011

To: Ajaya Dixit'

Cc: 'Dipak Gyawali'

Ajayajee

I agree with you that the situation is pathetic.
However, the only feeling of mine towards Shaym KC is that of pity. Because, he is merely a journalist - a generalist - who is not supposed to have in-depth knowledge of things as complicated as water resources. However, he is guilty of reading only one sided stuff.

My grudge is against those who go about strutting as water recourse "expert" etc. who fail to notice even a fly on their very noses.

On the other hand, the easiest thing to do is to pontificate and most seem to be busy doing that. That is this country's misfortune.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

----Original Message-----

From: Ajaya Dixit [mailto:adbaluwatar@ntc.net.np]
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 8:50
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: gone case

"The set back that this country received in its power planning because of Arun III fiasco is primarily responsible for present power crisis in the country." This is maha bani of Mr Shyam KC in today's "The Kathmandu Post" and writes its column. No redemption for Nepali society whose educated leaders do no read but only superficially pontificate.

ajaya

Subject: RE: one more article on upper karnali

2011-12-03T17:56:00.000-08:00

December 4, 2011

To: Mr Bihari Krishna Shrestha

Cc: 'Dipak'; 'Ajaya Dixit'

Dear Bihari jee

Yes, it definitely looks like as if I am crying in the wilderness. However, I am happy to note that my efforts, to an extent, have succeeded to mobilize a groundswell of support amongst the local people. I have attended a number of interaction programs with them and the result is rather heartwarming. People from 21 districts of Karnali basin have formed Karnali Basin Conservation Society.
A writ petition at Supreme Court on this issue is already under active consideration. I have, in the capacity of a legal practitioner, already attended a number of hearings. (I am, in effect, fighting the war on two fronts: writing articles and also pursuing a PIL at Supreme Court.)
However, I like your idea of “setting up a PIL Alliance for Policy Reform”. Please let me know what the next step is. I am with you all the way.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Bihari Krishna Shrestha [mailto:bks@wlink.com.np]
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 17:58
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: one more article on upper karnali

Dear Ratna jee,

Your pleas seem to be falling in deaf ears all the time. Don't you think that we should make recourse to judicial redressal through PIL. By the way, this is not the only area where such policy redressal is needed. There is rampant corruption at the hands of local politicians because of the default in the Local Self-Governance Act. Similarly, there are such continuing deficiencies and gaps in health and education. Thereforfe, I have been playing with the idea of setting up a PIL Alliance for Policy Reform, to be composed of concerned, independent and widely respected professionals like yourself from different disciplines including law. I have a feeling that since the current leadership of the judiciary seems to be rather quite proactive in the larger interest of the people, the time seems to be quite propitious for a PIL-based approach to reforms in the country The Upper Karnali could be the first test case in this regard. What do you think?

Warm regards

Bihari Krishna Shrestha

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

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 7:51 AM
Subject: FW: one more article on upper karnali

Dear colleague

Here is my new article on upper karnali (again!). You can also peruse it by following the link below:

RE: Reform of NEA and private sector with financial stake

2011-09-19T16:58:00.000-07:00

September 20, 2011

Bihari K Shrestha
Kathmandu

Bihari jee

I fully agree with you that present crop of board members in NEA from the private sector have no financial stake and, hence, aren’t accountable.

However, if one is to look at the board members of banks (and other financial intermediaries) with private sector investment, the situation isn’t that encouraging either. A person having invested, for example, Rs 1 crore sits in the board, but in the meantime using the instrument of margin lending, that person borrows more than the originally invested amount (based on listed price of the shares) and ends up in a situation of having the cake and eating it too. The problem that banking sector is facing now is mainly due to this situation. Private sector people in these banks too behave irresponsibly and lead the institution to insolvency. These people misuse the money belonging to the depositors who are at their mercy. By now there is no shortage of examples.

Therefore, as long as moral hazard remains high, even induction of private sector with financial stake will not improve the situation much.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Bihari Krishna Shrestha [mailto:bks@wlink.com.np]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 23:25
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: Reform of NEA

Dear Ratnajee,

I was mainly suggesting the possible issuance of public offering of NEA stocks by enlisting it in NSE so that the people who represent the private sector in the NEA board would be those who have financiaLstakes (in the form of shares) in the organisation and would be structurally accountable to the larger body of shareholders who elect them to the board. Just appointing individual businessmen in the board would be worse than having civil servants, because the latter at least remain bound by the rules of the government to some extent. To me, this seems to be the lesson emanating from the turnaround that Coal India Limited has apparently achieved in recent times.

Warm regards

Bihari

RE: Reform of NEA

2011-09-15T18:30:00.000-07:00

September 16, 2011

Bihari K Shrestha
Lalitpur

Bihari Krishna jee

I agree with you that we need more specific and strategic agenda for the purpose. I also agree with you that quite a lot of problems could be solved by opening NEA to private sector. But to an extent only.

Because, private sector is already present in NEA board. Four people nominated from the private sector complement the ex-officio members: energy secretary and finance secretary along with MD who is also a government nominee. In this manner the private sector, at the moment is in majority. Earlier when minister used to chair, the ratio was 4:4. Therefore, mere presence of the private sector isn’t the panacea that will solve all the problems.

Actually, most of the private sector representatives in NEA board to-date (there are definitely some exceptions) have used the position (and opportunity) to further their own personal/business interest like cornering/capturing tender business, executing favorable PPAs, using NEA’s excess cash to help personally owned bank, get near and dear ones employed, use NEA property (mainly vehicles) for personal purposes, extract unauthorized facilities (telephone etc.), etc.

However, I agree with you that the bane of the problem is lack of professionalism and political interference. Therefore, what is required is formulation of a policy that will rid it of political interference and lack of professionalism and institutional mechanism that will not tolerate these.
With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Bihari Krishna Shrestha [mailto:bks@wlink.com.np]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 23:05
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: Annapurna Post

Dear Ratna Sansar jee,

You have made valid points in a very strong manner regarding the NEA. However, you have been making saying them for a long time but with little effect. Should not we have a rather more specific and strategic agenda for advocacy. For instance, today, I was reading an Indian business magazine and one of its articles announced that Coal India Ltd replaced Reliance India Limited as the biggest enterprise in India recently. The reason the former - otherwise a chronically sick PSU - could achieve the miracle was due to the professionalisation of its management which was made necessary by the participation of the private sector, although only 10 percent of it, after being listed in the stock exchange. Therefore, shouldn't NEA also be opened for private sector participation which would slowly but steadily discourage politically-motivated mishandling of the enterprise.?
Warm regards

Bihari

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

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 7:07 PM
Subject: FW: Annapurna Post

Dear colleague

Annapurna Post has published a write up based on interview with me which you can peruse by opening of the attachments. You can also access it by following the link below

RE: Article on "license management procedure"

2011-09-14T18:18:00.000-07:00

September 15, 2011

Narayan Prasad Silwal
Kathmandu

Dear Narayan

I also would like to know why did people in GoN issued the license as such. Either, they did so out of ignorance of the site being one of the rarest one in the world and that its full potential is 4,180 MW. Or they simply did so in exchange for “a few silvers”
BTW, the reference here is not to Karnali Chisapani, the capacity of which is 10,800 MW. The project being referred to is known as Upper Karnali, more than 100 km north of Karnali Chisapani site.

The important issue is that building upper Karnali as a run of the rive type is mutually exclusive with its potential as a reservoir project with 4,180 MW. Meaning if the site is developed as a run of the river type with installed capacity of 900 MW, then Nepal will deprived of the opportunity to implement it to its full potential.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Narayan Prasad Silwal [mailto:npsilwal@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:41
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: RE: Article on "license management procedure"

Dear Ratna Sansar,

I read your article. After going through it I am interested to know why Nepal Government awarded survey licensing for

300MW instead of 4180MW in Karnali- Chisapani? How then the Indian firm is preparing DPR of 900MW? Whether after going for 900MW, there would be no chance to construct reservoir type project?
Thanks and regard,

narayan silwal

________________________________________

Subject: FW: Article on "license management procedure"

RE: Article on "license management procedure"

2011-09-07T19:31:00.000-07:00

September 8, 2011

Tek C. Pokharel
Kathmandu

Tek Chandra jee

Thanks a lot for your comments. This is a strange kind of corruption. Nepal is losing Rs 4 billion in a year in just royalties. This can be termed direct cash loss. But the magnitude of other losses is higher by a magnitude. The loss (1) due to lack of industrialization as Nepal is starved for power, (2) the loss due to lack of employment (just imagine how much Nepal’s treasury would have earned by way of income tax if industries would have hired people in Nepal itself, etc. and how much VAT would these people have paid by buying things in Nepal for their consumption) and (4) most importantly the loss due to migration of youth in search of employment which could have significantly contributed to Nepal’s economy if they were working for Nepal instead of being exploited in some foreign countries. But there are absolutely few people thinking about such things. Some people are busy pedaling licenses and some people are busy looking at electricity market in India, failing to notice the market in Nepal which is starved for power.

I like your sentiment with regard to raising this issue in a big way in public. Let’s try to do this. However, you are aware that the business community also deserves to be largely blamed for this. Some business people have hoarded licenses and are busy pedaling licenses in the name of looking for “investors” and others are going about pontificating that Nepal can become rich by exporting power; which my analyses prove to be hogwash and have prove it beyond reasonable doubt (also written several articles on this topic).

However, I, in a convoluted sort of way, don’t blame the business people for the mess. Because it is sort of normal for them to take advantage of (make profit from) legal provisions and even them exploiting loopholes in the body of law is deemed normal business. It only becomes criminal when they go beyond exploiting the loopholes in the law and do things like misappropriating value added tax that they have collected on behalf of government from their customers. The situation obtaining in Nepal is so pathetic that the businesspeople indulging in VAT misappropriation, which is tantamount to daylight robbery, are going about pontificating about honesty, integrity, etc. making one feel bad for being honest and maintaining one’s integrity.
To conclude, it is the responsibility of legislature, executive and judiciary to, respectively, frame law with least minimum loopholes, to administer the body of law such that businesspeople don’t misuse the law (beyond exploiting loopholes in the law) and to see to it that legislature and executive are not overstepping and providing negative incentive to businesspeople to indulge/encourage in corruption. But none of the three arms of governance is doing (mostly) what they should be doing.

The law regarding licenses for hydropower epitomizes the mess we have. This article of mine throws light on the loopholes in this law and recommends what needs to be done to strengthen it such that people hoarding licensees don’t sit on it expecting such licenses to “hatch”. Do please spread this important message around. Thanks.
With best regards,
Sincerely,

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

From: Tek C. Pokharel [mailto:tcpokharel@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 11:44

To: 'Ratna Sansar Shrestha'

Subject: RE: Article on "license management procedure"

Dear Ratna Sansar ji,

Thanks for your very enlightening article on corruption in licensing procedure that is causing the nation loss in billions or trillions of rupees. Why can’t we raise the issue in a big way in public; might be as a day of protest to mobilize public opinion.

Tek C. Pokharel

Dear Colleague
I have written an article on the captioned subject which was published in today’s Kantipur.

जलबिद्युत लाईसेन्सको "ब्यापार"

2011-09-05T19:03:00.000-07:00

रत्न संसार श्रेष्ठ

समग्रमा असफल मानिएको निर्वतमान खनाल सरकारको सांढे छ महिने कार्यकाल मध्ये उर्जा मन्त्रीको ४ महिने कार्यकाल भने सफल मानियो, जनताको मन छुने धेरै प्रशंसनिय कामहरु गरेर जलश्रोत/उर्जा क्षेत्रको इतिहांसमा सुनौलो अक्षरले नाम लेखिने पृष्ठभूमि बनेकोछ । दवाब र प्रभावको उपेक्षा मात्र गरेनन् प्रलोभनबाट पनि मुक्त रहे । छिटो र सजिलोसंग अकूत सम्पत्ति कमाउने प्रलोभनबाट माथि उठ्न आत्मबल/इच्छाशक्तीले मात्र पुग्दैन; पत्नी छोराछोरी बाबुआमा दाजुभाई सालासाली जस्ता पारिवारिक सदस्यहरुको आत्मसंयमको पनि आवश्यकता पर्छ । अधिकांश भ्रष्टहरुले आफ्नो परिवारको समृद्धिको लागि भ्रष्ट्राचार गरेको देखिन्छ, व्यक्तिगत लोभलालचको अलावा ।

बिजुली उत्पादन नगर्ने लाईसेन्स
यसै सन्दर्भमा जलबिद्युत लाईसेन्सको "ब्यापार" भने अत्यधिक हुने तर उत्पादन भने नहुने समस्या निराकणार्थ "जलबिद्युत अनुमतिपत्र व्यवस्थापन आन्तरिक कार्यविधि २०६८" उर्जा मन्त्रालयबाट २०६८।५।५ लागू गरिएको सराहनिय छ । हुन पनि लाईसेन्सको तुलनामा बिद्युत उत्पादन नहुनाले बिद्युत संकट भोग्नु परेको हो ।

उत्पादनको लागि १४ सय ४४ मेगावाट क्षमताको लागि ६३ वटा लाइसेन्स जारी भएकोमा ६ सय ५२ मेगावाट जडित क्षमता भएका आयोजनाहरु मात्र उत्पादनरत छन् भने कूल २० हजार ९ सय ९६ मेगावाट क्षमताको लागि ५ सय २५ वटा सर्बेक्षण लाईसेन्स जारी भएकोमा "आकाशको फल आंखा तरी मर"को स्थिति छ ।

लाईसेन्स पाएका मध्येका धेरैजसो वित्तिय हैसियत नभएका र लगानि परिचालन गर्ने नाममा लाईसेन्स विक्री गरेर शुभलाभ गर्ने अथवा लगानिकर्तालाई लाईसेन्स बुझाएर परियोजना कम्पनीमा निशुल्क शेयर पूंजी प्राप्त गरेर लाईसेन्स भजाउनेहरु छन् । अर्थात लगानि गर्ने क्षमता भएका वास्तविक लगानिकर्ताको पहुंचमा लाईसेन्स छैन र लाईसेन्स हुनेसंग पैसा छैन अनि लगानि खोज्ने नाममा कतिपय लाईसेन्समा ओथारो बसेको अवस्था छ ।

कतिपय लाईसेन्सवालाहरु सर्बेक्षणको लागि समेत लगानि गर्न सक्दैनन् र अन्य आयोजनाहरुको प्रतिबेदनहरुबाट नक्कल गरी टालटुले प्रतिबेदन तैयार गरेर लाईसेन्स जीवित राख्न सफल छन् । हुन त यसरी लाईसेन्स ओगटनेहरु नैं देशमा लगानि मैत्री वातावरणको अभावको राग अलाप्ने गर्दछन् ।

रोयल्टीबाट राज्य बंचित
माथि उल्लिखित क्षमताका लाईसेन्सहरुको आधाले मात्र बिजुली उत्पादन गरेपनि नेपाली जनताले लोडसेिडंगको मार खेप्नुपर्ने थिएन र देशको औद्योगिकरणको लागि मनग्गे बिजुली उत्पादन भएर देश भित्रै रोगजारी श्रृजना भएर नेपाली युवाले बिदेश पलायन भएर आर्थिक, शारीरिक लगायत यौन शोषणमा पर्नुपर्ने थिएन । शोधनान्तर तथा व्यापार घाटाको कारक पेट्रोलियम पदार्थको पैठारी घटेर राज्य लाभान्वित हुनेथियो । साथै राज्यले पनि वार्षिक ४ अर्ब रुपैया भन्दा बढी रोयल्टी स्वरुप राजश्व प्राप्त गर्ने थियो (संचालन अवधिमा आय कर मूल्य अभिबृद्धि कर आदि तथा निर्माणकालमा भंसार महशूल मूल्य अभिबृद्धि कर आदि छूट छ) । तर जारी गरिएको लाईसेन्सको तुलनामा अत्यन्त न्यून मात्र कार्यान्वयन भएकोले नेपालले चौतर्फी नोक्सानी व्यहोरिरहेको छ ।

यस पृष्ठभूमिमा नयां कार्यबिधिको दफा ३ को उपदफा (७) बमोजिम विद्युत विकास विभागमा दर्ता भएका १० मेगावाट भन्दा बढी जडित क्षमताका सर्वेक्षण अनुमतिपत्रको लगि परेको सम्पूर्ण दरखास्तहरु रद्द गरिएको सूचना २०६८ भाद्र ८ मा कान्तिपुरमा प्रकाशित गरेर उर्जा मन्त्रालयले कार्यबिधि कार्यान्वयनमा तदारुकता देखाएको सराहनिय छ । तर समस्या लाईसेन्सको लागि परेका दरखास्तहरुले श्रृजना गरेको नभएर जारी भएका लाईसेन्सहरु कार्यान्वयन गर्ने हैसियत नभएकाहरुको कब्जामा भएकोले हो । अहिले आयोजना कार्यान्वयन गर्ने क्षमता भएकासंग लाईसेन्स नभएको र लाईसेन्स भएकाहरुसंग कार्यान्वयन गर्ने क्षमता नभएको अवस्था छ र यहि कारणले गर्दा बजारमा लाईसेन्स थुपि्रए पनि बिद्युत उत्पादन हुननसकेको कुरा मननीय छ ।

स्वार्थको द्वन्द्व नहुनेलाई लाईसेन्स
कार्यविधिको दफा ४ मा उर्जा क्षेत्रसंग सम्बन्धित सार्वजनिक पदमा बहाल रहेका पदाधिकारी निजको परिवारका सदस्यले लाईसेन्सको लागि दरखास्त दिन वा संस्थापकको रुपमा कुनै कम्पनीमा लगानि गर्न नसक्ने व्यवस्था गरेकोछ जुन प्रशंसनिय छ ।

तर गहिरिएर हेर्ने हो भने कार्यान्वय नभई ओगटिएका लाईसेन्सहरु मध्ये आधा भन्दा बढी उर्जा क्षेत्रसंग सम्बन्धित सार्वजनिक पदमा बहाल रहेका पदाधिकारीको प्रत्यक्ष परोक्ष नियन्त्रणमा छ र यिनैं व्यक्तिहरु लाईसेन्स ब्यापारमा बढी संलग्न हुनेगर्छन् । त्यसकारण यस्ता लाईसेन्सहरु तत्काल खारेज गर्नुपर्छ नत्र लाईसेन्स नपाईसकेका दरखास्तहरु मात्र खारेज गर्दा तात्विक सुधार हुन्न ।

न्युन जडित क्षमतामा निहित धोका
विश्व बैंकको वित्तिय सहयोगमा प्राधिकरणले हिमालयन पावर कन्सल्टाय्न्टसलाई गराएको अध्ययन प्रतिबेदन (१९८९ मा प्रकाशित) अनुसार माथिल्लो कर्णालीको आयोजना-स्थलको उपयुक्त क्षमता ४ हजार १ सय ८० मेगावाट सहित जलाशययुक्त आयोजना हो । उक्त प्रतिबेदनको स्पष्ट ठहर छ कि यो आयोजना-स्थललाई नदीको प्रवाहमा आधारित गरेर न्यून जडित क्षमतामा कार्यान्वय गरिएमा पानीको बहुआयामिक लाभबाट नेपाल बंचित हुनेछ । यसलाई बहुउद्देश्यीय आयोजनाको रुपमा कार्यान्वयन गरिएमा १५ लाख हेक्टरमा सुख्खायाममा सिचाई, खानेपानी, मत्स्यपालन, पशुपालन, औद्योगिक उपयोग आदिको लागि मनग्गे पानी उपलब्ध भएर सुदूर पश्चिमााचल र मध्य पश्चिमााचलको कायाकल्प नैं हुनसक्दछ । साथै दैलेखको पाल्टडा देखि बर्दियाको भजनि सम्म झण्डै २ सय किलोमिटर जलमार्ग निर्माण भएर वैकल्पिक यातायातको विकास मात्र नभएर ढुवानी लागत समेत ९५ प्रतिशतले घटेर त्यस भेगका जनता लाभान्वित हुने अवस्था छ ।

तर जडित क्षमता ३ सय मेगावाट मात्र हुने गरेर नदीको प्रवाहमा आधारित आयोजनाको रुपमा लाईसेन्स जारी गरिएर अहिले ९ सय मेगावाट क्षमता हुने भनिएकोछ । पूर्ण क्षमतामा कार्यान्वयन भएको भए रोयल्टी मात्रै पनि वार्षिक ३ अर्ब ८२ करोड रुपैया नेपालले आर्जन गर्नेमा ९ सय मेगावाट मात्र बनाइंदा रोयल्टी स्वरुप ७५ करोड रुपैया मात्र प्राप्त हुने अवस्था छ ।

जलश्रोतबाट अधिकतम लाभान्वित हुन नेपालको हितमा उच्चतम दोहन सुनिश्चित गर्ने गरेर लाईसेन्स जारी हुनुपर्नेमा मतभेद हुने अवस्था छैन । तर जति क्षमताको लागि दरखास्तवालाले मांग्यो त्यति मात्रैको लाईसेन्स जारी गरिएर आयोजना कार्यान्वयन गर्ने बिद्यमान परिपाटीले गर्दा जलश्रोतको अधिकतम् दोहन गरिएर समुचितरुपमा नेपाल लाभान्वित नहुने अवस्था बनेकोछ । यस्तोमा यो कार्यविधिले कम क्षमता तथा अनुपयुक्त (जलाशययुक्त हुनुपर्नेमा नदीको प्रवाहमा आधारित) आयोजनाको लागि जारी भएका सर्वेक्षण लाईसेन्सहरु नेपालको हितमा सुधार गर्ने अथवा खारेज गर्ने व्यवस्था गर्नुपर्दथ्यो, तर यता पनि दृष्टि पुगेको देखिएन ।

ओझेलमा नेपालको आवश्यकता
माथिल्लो कर्णाली एकदमै कम लागतमा कार्यान्वयन हुने आयोजना हो र यसबाट अधिकतम सुलभ दरमा बिजुली उत्पादन हुनेहुनाले यस्तो आयोजनालाई विश्वमैं दुलर्भ मानिन्छ । यस्तै प्रकृतिको अर्को आयोजना-स्थल दक्षिण अमेरिकि मुलुक कोलम्बियामा मात्र छ । तर यो आयोजनालाई निकासीमूलकको रुपमा अगाडी बढाईंदैछ; सस्तो बिजुली भारतमा अनि संकट निवारण गर्न भन्दै महंगोमा आयात गर्नुपर्ने स्थिति विकास गर्दै । हुन त नेपालमा मनग्गे बिजुली खपत गरेर उच्च स्तरमा औद्योगिकरण, यातायातलाई बिद्युतिकरण, कृषि प्रशोधन लगायत िसंचाई ,भण्डारण आदिमा बिजुलीको सघन उपयोग भईसकेको अवस्थामा बढी बिजुली निकासी नैं गर्ने हो । तर प्राधिकरणद्वारा प्रकाशित तथ्यांक अनुसार ४० प्रतिशत जनताको मात्र बिजुलीमा पहुंच भएको र यसरी पहुंच पुग्नेहरुले वार्षिक प्रति व्यक्ति खपत २ सय ४२ युनिट मात्र भएकोले (समृद्ध देशका नागरिकले १० हजार युनिट भन्दा बढी खपत गर्छन) निकासी निर्विकल्प होइन । यस्तोमा दरखास्तवालाले निकासीमूलक बनाउंछु भनेकोमा नेपालको आवश्यकतालाई उपेक्षा गरेर तद्नुरुप लाईसेन्स जारी गर्ने परिपाटी नेपालको हितमा छैन । त्यसैले कार्यविधिले देशको आन्तरिक खपतलाई प्राथमिकिकरण गरेर बचेउब्रेको बिजुली निकासी गरिने गरेर लाईसेन्स दिनुपर्नेमा बिबेकशून्य तरीकाले लाईसेन्स दिने परिपाटीलाई यस कार्यविधिले सच्याउन सकेको भए यो कार्यविधि नेपालको उच्चतम हितमा बनेको ठहर्ने थियो । तर दुर्भाग्यबस त्यसो हुने सकेन ।

ओगटिएका लाईसेन्सहरु
दरखास्तवालाहरुले नभएर लाईसेन्स ओगट्नेहरुले लाईसेन्सको ब्यापार/चलखेल गरेको गरेको हुनाले बिद्यमान ५ सय २५ वटा लाईसेन्सको अवस्था पुनरावलोकन गरेर कुपात्रको हातमा परेका, न्यून क्षमतामा जारी भएका, उपयुक्त आयोजनाको लागि जारी नभएका (जलाशययुक्त हुनुपर्नेमा नदीको प्रवाहमा आधारित बनाइएका) समेत मुलुकको हितमा जारी नभएका लाईसेन्सहरु तत्काल रद्द गरेर अगाडी बढ्नुपर्नेमा बिबाद हुन सक्दैन । तर यो कार्यविधिमा यस्तो केहि गर्ने लक्ष्य लिइएको छैन, लक्षित गरिएका काम समेत नहुने पृष्ठभूमिमा धेरै अपेक्षा गर्ने अवस्था रहेन ।

असंबैधानिक कार्यवििध
संबिधान, ऐन, नियम, विनियम, कार्यविधि, निर्देशिका आदिलाई अन्तरराष्ट्रियरुपमा नैं समग्रमा कानून भनिन्छ । संबिधान सार्वभौम जनताको तर्फबाट संबिधान सभा जस्तो संयन्त्रले बनाउंछ भने ंसंसदले ऐन बनाउंछ जस अन्तर्गत मन्त्रीपरिषदले नियम जारी गर्छ र मन्त्री स्तरिय निर्णयबाट विनियम, कार्यविधि लागू गरिन्छ । संबिधानसंग बाझिएको हद सम्म ऐन, ऐनसंग बाझिएको हद सम्म नियम, नियमसंग बाझिएको हद सम्म विनियम र त्यस्तै गरेर विनियमसंग बाझिएको हदसम्म कार्यविधि, निर्देशिका आदिलाई असम्बैधानिक मानिन्छ र बाझिएमा कानूनको रुपमा लागू हुनसक्दैन ।

बिद्युत ऐन २०४९ को दफा ४ को उपदफा (२) मा "सर्वेक्षण अनुमतिपत्रको हकमा" दरखास्त परेको मितिले "तीस दिन भित्र" "दरखास्तवालालाई अनुमतिपत्र दिनु पर्नेछ" भन्ने बाध्यात्मक व्यवस्था छ । यो दफा अन्तर्गत आवश्यक कागजात सहित दरखास्त दिएपछि ३० दिन भित्र स्वतः लाईसेन्स दिइनु पर्दछ, अन्यथा गर्न मिल्दैन । सर्वेक्षणको लागि लाईसेन्स प्रतिश्पर्धाको आधारमा प्रदान गर्ने ऐनमा व्यवस्था छैन र दरखास्तवालाले प्रतिश्पर्धामा जानुपर्ने व्यवस्थाको परिकल्पना गरिएको छैन । यस्तो ऐनको व्यवस्थाको प्रतिकूल तथा ऐनसंग बाझिने गरेर यो कार्यविधि जारी भएको हुनाले असम्बैधानिक छ र कार्यान्वयन गर्न मिल्दैन । यस सम्बन्धमा कुनै पनि सरोकारवालाले सर्बोच्च अदालतमा रिट निवेदन दिएमा यो व्यवस्था तत्काल खारेजीमा पर्नेछ ।

प्रतिश्पर्धाको आधारमा सर्वेक्षणको लागि लाईसेन्स प्रदान गर्ने परिपाटी कसै गरेर पनि गलत होइन, यो एउटा सराहनिय कदम हो । यो पंक्तिकारले पनि एक दशक देखि यस्तो प्रावधानको पैरबी गर्दै आएको हो । तर संसदबाट जारी ऐनमा नभएको प्रतिश्पर्धाको प्रावधान मन्त्रालयले लागू गरेको कार्यविधिमा गिरंदा कार्यान्वयनमा अनावश्यक व्यवधान खडा हुनेछ । त्यसकारण बिद्युत ऐनमा नैं संशोधन गरेर प्रतिश्पर्धाको व्यवस्था गरिनुपर्दछ ।

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

२०६८ भाद्र २० गतेको कान्तिपुरमा प्रकाशित

प्ारिवर्तन अपरिहार्य छ, प्ा्रधिकरण सचालक समितिको संरचना

2011-08-15T05:39:00.000-07:00

वार्षिक करिब ७० अर्ब रुपैयाँको पेट्रोलियम पदार्थ आयात हुन्छ । पेट्रोलियम पूरै आयातमा निर्भर रहनू परेकोले निगमको घाटासमेत निरन्तर चुलिइरहेको छ र १० लाखभन्दा बढी गाडी गुड्छन् अहिले सडकमा । यी गाडी विद्युत्बाट चलाउन सकिएको भए मुलुकले कति फाइदा लिन सक्थ्यो होलारु आयल निगमको उच्च घाटाका कारण मुलुकको समग्र व्यपारमै असन्तुलन खडा गरिदिएको छ । पर्याप्त विजुली उत्पादन गरेर विद्युतीय सवारी साधन चलाउने अपार सम्भावना छ हामीसँग । यातायात क्षेत्रमा विद्युतीयकरण गरिनैपर्छ । तर राजनीतिक प्रतिबद्धताको कमी र ऊर्जासम्बन्धी उपयुक्त नीतिको अभावमा यो काम अघि बढाउन सकिएको छैन जलश्रोतविज्ञ रत्न संसार श्रेष्ठ स्पष्ट रुपमा आफ्नो मान्यता अघि सार्छन् । ऊर्जा नीति आन्तरिक उपभोगतर्फ केन्द्रित हुन सकेको छैन । दुई तिहाई जनता अँध्यारोमा बस्नु परिरहेको अवस्थामा आन्तरिक खपत वृद्धि गर्नेतर्फ नीति नबनाइनु विडम्बना हो । विद्युत् निर्यात गरिनु हुँदैन भन्ने मान्यता होइन तर पहिला आन्तरिक खपत बढाउनेतर्फ पाइला चाल्नुपर्छ भन्ने स्पष्ट अडान छ उनीसँग । गलत नीतिकै कारण मुलुकले दैनिक १६ घन्टा लेडसेडिङ खेप्नु परेको हो । ऊर्जा अभावमा औद्योगिकीकरण हुन सकेन । यस्तो अवस्थामा विदेशी लगानी भित्रिने त कल्पनासम्म गर्न सकिँदैन उद्योगधन्दा विकास हुन नसकेका कारण बेरोजगारी समस्या चरमचुलीमा पुग्यो यसका कारण अहिले ३० लाखभन्दा धेरै नेपाली युवाले सस्तो मुल्यमा विदेशी भूमिमा श्रम बेच्नु परिरहेको छ । उपयुक्त श्रमनीतिसहित ऊर्जा उत्पादनमा ग्यारेन्टी गर्न सकिएको भए औद्योगिकीकरणले छलाङ मार्न सक्थ्यो । लगानी वृद्धि हुन नसक्नुमा राजनीतिक अस्थिरतामात्र कारक होइन सबैभन्दा ठूलो समस्या भनेकै ऊर्जा अभाव र टे्रड युनियन हुन् । केही पूर्वमन्त्री र विज्ञ सधैं ऊर्जामा विदेशी लगानीको कुरा मात्रै गरिरहन्छन् । हो विदेशी लगानी भित्राइनुपर्छ यसमा दुई मत छैन । तर विदेशी लगानी गरेपछि सबै विद्युत् विदेश नै पठाइनुपर्छ भन्ने मान्यता लिनु हुदैँन ।

पश्चिम सेती जस्ता आयोजनाले हाम्रो लोडसेडिङ घटाउँदैन । निकासी गर्ने उदेश्यले मात्र यस्ता आयोजना कदापी बनाइननु हुँदैन ठूला आयोजना निर्माणमा विरोध गरेको आरोप लाग्ने गरेको छ म माथि पनि । तर मैले आयोजनाको विरोध गरेको होइन । मुलुकमा अँध्यारो राखेर निर्यात गर्नका लागिमात्र जल विद्युत् आयोजना बन्नु भएन भन्ने मात्र हो मेरो भनाइ । अहिले करिब दुईहजार मेगावाट बिजुलीको आवश्यक छ । यसका लागि करिब ६ हजार मेगावाटको जडित क्षमता चाहिन्छ । किनभने उत्पादन त जडित क्षमताको एक तिहाईमात्र हुने हो । ऊर्जा अभावमा कुनै पनि कलकारखना पूर्ण क्षमतामा साचालन हुन नसकेको यथार्थ हामी सबैमा घामजस्तै छर्लङ्ग छ ।

विद्युत् उत्पादनमा पुँजीको अभाव छ भन्ने गरिएको सुनेको छु । तर यो हुनै सक्दैन । वार्षिक तीन खर्बको हाराहारीमा रेमिटयान्स भित्रिन्छ । यस्को १० प्रतिशत मात्र बिजुली उत्पादनमा लगानी गर्न सके कोही पनि अँध्यारेमा बस्नु पर्दैन यसमा १० प्रतिशत मात्र छुट्टयाँउदा पनि ३० अर्ब हुन आँउछ । बसे्रनि यति रकम विद्युत् उत्पादनमा खर्च गर्ने हो भने मुलुकको मुहार फेरिन बेरै लाग्दैन । आयोजना ठूला बनाउने कि साना भन्नेमा विवाद गरिरहनु पर्दैन । आवश्यकता र क्षमता हनुसार जस्तोसुकै हुन सक्छ । तर मुख्य प्रश्न नीतिको हो । हामीले कस्तो नीति लिएका छौं । अहिलेको नीतिअनुसार विद्युत् आयोजना निर्माण गर्दा लोडसेडिङको समस्या समाधान हुन्छ तरु यसतर्फ ऊर्जाका विज्ञ नीतिनिर्माता सरकार र अर्थविद्हरुले ध्यान दिन जरुरी छ ।

विद्युत् उत्पादनमा मुख्य जिम्मेवारी लिएको नेपाल विद्युत् प्रधिकरणको हालत खराब छ । २८ अर्ब हाराहारीका साचालित घाटा छ यस्को । यो रकम अझैबढ्ने अनुमान छ । सरकारी स्वामित्वको संस्था यसरी टाट पल्टिने अवस्था आउनुमा यस्को संरचना राजनीतिक हस्तक्षेप र भ्रष्टाचार नै मुख्य कारण हुन् । प्रधिकरणको साचालन समिति संरचनामा परिवर्तन अपरिहार्य छ । यहाँको साचालक समिति पनि निजी क्षेत्रको जस्तै जिम्मेवार बनाइनुपर्छ । समितिले गरेको निर्णयले संस्थालाई नोक्सानी पुग्न गएमा साचालकले कुनै पनि हालतमा उन्मुक्ति नपाउने व्यवस्था गरिनुपर्छ । यसो हुन सकेमा मात्र साचालकले गम्भीर भएर निर्णय लिन्छन् । संस्थाको फाइदामा ध्यान दिन सक्छन् । तर अहिले त अवस्था ठीक उल्टो छ । साचालक समितिमा राजनीतिक नियुक्ति हुन्छ । साचालकले छाडेपछि उनीहरुको केही जिम्मेवारी रहदँैन । विगतमा गरिएका निर्णयबाट संस्थालाई घाटा भएमा कारबाहीको प्रावधान छैन । समितिमा ऊर्जासचिव र अर्थसचिव पदेन सदस्य अनि चारजना निजी क्षेत्रका रहने व्यवस्था छ । निजी क्षेत्र भनेको पनि राजनीतिक नियुक्ति नै हो ।

साचालक समितिमा आसीन व्यक्तिका आफ्नै जलविद्युत् आयोजना भएमा त्यस्ता व्यक्तिले निष्पक्ष निर्णय गर्छन् भन्ने विश्वास गर्न सकिदैँन । यसर्थ साचालक समितिमा नियुक्ति हुने व्यक्ति योग्य हुन पर् यो । उर्जा क्षेत्रका बारेमा जानकार हुनैपर्छ र व्यवस्थापनसम्बन्धी ज्ञान उतिकै आवश्यक छ । समितिका पदअधिकारीको दायित्व निर्धारण मुख्य विषय हो । अहिलेको जस्तो दायित्वविहीन अवस्थामा प्राधिकरण कुनै पनि हालतमा माथि जाान सक्दैन ।

प्राधिकरण सुधारका लागि ऊर्जामन्त्री गोकर्ण विष्टले चालेका कदम वास्तवमै प्रशंसनीय र उदाहरणीय छन् । उदारतापूर्वक अध्यक्ष पद छाडे गाडी फिर्ता गरे । पश्चिम सेतीको लाइसेन्स खारेज गरिदिए । यी काम चानचुने थिएनन् । यसर्थ मन्त्रीले सुधारका लागि जुन कदम चालेका छन् यसमा प्रशंसा गर्नका लागि काजुस्याइँ गनुपर्ने आवश्यकता छैन । तर यहीँनेर अर्को गम्भीर प्रश्न उब्जिएको छ । के यो कामले निरन्तरता पाउला त रु मैले त पाउने सम्भावना निकै न्यून देखेको छु । किनभने नीतिगत र कानुनी सुधार भएको छैन । नियम पुरानै छ र यो त व्यक्तिविश्ोषले चालेको कदममात्र हो यसर्थ अब आउने मन्त्रीले पहिलाकै अवस्था देहोर् याउने सम्भावना अधिक छ । प्रधिकरणको ऐनमै अध्यक्ष मन्त्री वा सरकारले तोकेको व्यक्ति हुने प्रवधान छ । मन्त्रीले सचिवलाई दिएका छन् अहिले । यसर्थ यो तजबिजी अधिकार अन्त्य गरिनुपर्छ वरिष्ठ चार्टर्ड एकाउन्टेन्ट उनी स्पष्ट रुपमा भन्छन् ।

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

२०६८ श्रावण ३० गतेको अन्नपूर्ण पोष्टमा प्रकाशित

RE: FW: NEA chairperson

2011-08-14T17:40:00.000-07:00

August 15, 2011

Prof. Dr Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University

Dear Prof. Lohani

At least I have tried to do so on several occasions, including during an interview with Kantipur FM yesterday morning; without any assurance that the minister will get to listen to it. However, happily, minister Bista, while delivering his acceptance speech of hydro excellence award yesterday afternoon, he said that he did listen to that particular interview of mine.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

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

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:49
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: RE: FW: NEA chair

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

I think your apprehensions are justified.But has anybody,including you,drawn the minister's attention to the existing NEA Act which,if not amended,will authorise the next minister to assume chairmanship of NEA Board.? This is crucial and I wonder if the consensus govt to be hopefully formed in a few days from now will honour the commitment and reforms implemented by the present minister.I do appreciate and commend all that you are doing to institutionalise the correct system in the country.

Regds,

Mohan Lohani

RE: FW: Way forward for west seti project

2011-08-13T17:43:00.000-07:00

August 14, 2011

Lalit Prasad Joshi

Lalitjee

Thanks a lot for sending your comments.

Not all of those who are deemed to be "elite" are against my opinion. I know quite a few amongst the elite who see eye to eye with me.

I too agree with your opinion in this respect.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

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

From: Lalit Prasad Joshi [mailto:lalitpjoshi@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:24
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: Way forward for west seti project

Dear R.S. Shrestha Ji

Your article is quite informative, logical and in favor of nation.

Except the elite nobody is against your opinion. Most of the article related with hydro are forwarded to my colleuges. One points I want to mention here is that since long Reliance power of India has agreed to purchase the west seti hydro license and ready to pay the spent money by west seti company however west seti discarded the offer. One thing in hydro sector I have a opinion that GON should build attractive hydro project at least one in each region. Here in Nepal central region is prefered even in the mind of donor agency. This mentality can only be change by the people like you. Keep it up.

Export oriented hydropower projects

2011-08-12T18:52:00.000-07:00

August 13, 2011

Narayan Prasad Silwal
Kathmandu

Dear Narayan

You have put your finger where it hurts most (speaking from national perspective).

However, it isn’t true that all foreign developers are looking for licenses for export oriented projects. There is Norwegian investment in Khimti, but the power isn’t exported to Norway. Similarly, American investors implemented Bhote Koshi for Nepal’s internal electricity need. Korean’s are investing in Chamelia and the power from there too is for Nepal.

Some Indian investors have come to Nepal with vested interest and politicos and bureaucrats have played hand in glove with them. They haven’t chosen to make the power plant dedicated for export merely because of low tariff. They plan to export at very low rate to India too; like west seti @ US 5 ¢.

I call it “resource colonization abetted by reverse colonialism” on the part of Nepali people.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Narayan Prasad Silwal [mailto:npsilwal@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 16:56
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: querry

Dear Ratna Sansar,

I am curious why most of the foreign power developers are intent for generation licensing destined for export when demand and price of energy in nepal is comparatively better than exporting in India, besides transmission line and payment problems. Similarly,why GON do not exclusively invite developers for catering indigenous demand. Is the price offered in PPA is really below the IRR; or some other factors are there to influence the investment decision.

narayan

RE: FW: NEA chair

2011-08-10T18:57:00.000-07:00

August 11, 2011

Prof. Dr Mohan Lohani

Tribhuvan University

Dear Prof. Lohani

Minister Bista is definitely a different person; unprecedented is the word that comes to my mind. However, I wish the reforms he has undertaken/initiated be long lasting which is doubtful. One example is him stepping down from the position of chair of NEA. NEA Act stipulates that either minster of water resources will be the chair of the board of directors or a person nominated by GoN. Now energy secretary has become the chairperson as a nominee of GoN. Minister Bista should have used his energy, stamina and perseverance to amend this provision while in power. Without getting this provision amended, nothing will stop next minister from assuming the chairpersonship. I am apprehensive that next energy minister will not be different from past ministers which will be unfortunate for NEA and the sector.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

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

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 12:35
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: RE: FW: Way forward for west seti project

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

I am also a supporter of Minister Bista who gives the impression of being a nationalist and takes little interest in his personal benefits.Let us hope if the country has such honest and sincere politicians,its future is bright.

Tks and regds,

Mohan Lohani

RE: Way forward for west seti project

2011-08-08T18:47:00.000-07:00

August 9, 2011

Shyam Mohan Shrestha
Kathmandu

Shyam jee

Good to hear from you. Thanks a lot for taking time to write to me and also for your encouraging words.
I appreciate your offer to pay part of the court cost. I will keep this in mind and contact you when necessary.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: sms [mailto:sms@infoclub.com.np]
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 13:08
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: Way forward for west seti project

Dear Ratna Sansar jee,

I happened to listen to about last half your interview with local FM station on West seti. It was astoundingly brilliant.If you or someone your behalf go to the court to plead , i will one of the Nepalis to pay part of the cost in the name of national interest. Pls keep it up. regards

Shyam

RE: FW: Way forward for west seti project

2011-08-07T17:56:00.001-07:00

August 8, 2011

Dear Colleague

No need for you to be sorry. The article was written under the limitation of a daily paper which constraints one from writing in more detail.

Thanks for your appreciation of my devotion and dedication.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: adarsha tuladhar [mailto:adarsha.tuladhar@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 14:37
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: Way forward for west seti project

Thanx Ratna Sansarju....yuour devotion and dedication must be really appreciated...however, I found your last para 'agadi ko bato' too shallow: it does not offer anything new in terms of ideas...sorry

RE: FW: Way forward for west seti project

2011-08-06T18:16:00.000-07:00

August 7, 2011

Prof. Dr Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University

Dear Prof. Lohani

Thanks for sending comments. So many people became minister of water resources (now called energy ministry) but nobody dared to take this step, except for current minister. Even deposed king Gyanendra failed to take this step in national interest. People believed that only monarchy worked in national interest while people owning allegiance to various political parties never dared to take actions in national interest which could antagonize India. Minister Bista has proved people wrong and I have already congratulated him personally for daring to do so. I can see that he has a good political future and I now am an ardent supporter of his, notwithstanding the fact that I am not a supporter of UML; actually I don’t even believe in any kind of communism - be that Marxism or Leninism or Maoism.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA

Senior Water Resource Analyst

www.RatnaSansar.com

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

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 19:10

To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Subject: Re: FW: Way forward for west seti project

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

Thanks for forwarding your well-written article in which you have advised the govt or concerned authorities to pick up or select the 'right or well-meaning person' who can implement the West Seti project in a transparent way.If implementation of the project after the agreement is delayed,the person who agrees to implement the project should be penalized.For 5 years the license holder did nothing except to enjoy the benefits accruing from the privilege of holding the license.This is outright moral turpitude.

Tks and regds,

Mohan Lohani

पश्चिम सेती आयोजना - सराहनिय काम

2011-08-05T18:36:00.001-07:00

एउटा तप्काले संचार माध्यमलाई धेरै नकारात्मक भएको आरोप लगाउंछन् र बदनाम समेत गर्छन् । यिनले के बिस्रन्छन् भने बिना आलोचना सुधार तथा परिमार्जन सम्भव हुन्न । आलोचनामा निहित सकारात्मकता नदेख्नेले सुधार गर्न सक्दैन र आफू पनि खाल्डोमा जाकिन्छन् र देशलाई पनि भड्खालोमा पुर् याउंछन् । आलोचना प्रति असहिष्णुता भनेकै निरंकूश प्रबृत्ति हो । संचार माध्यममा आउने नकारात्मक टिकाटिप्पणीको प्रमुख भूमिका तथा दायित्व भनेकै, उदाहरणार्थ, सवारी साधनलाई ठीक बाटो पहिल्याउन मद्दत गर्ने स्टेयिरंग र गलत बाटोमा जान लागे रोक्ने ब्रेक जस्तो हो । संचार माध्यमको काम भजन गाउने होइन, कमी, कमजोरी, गल्ती औंल्याएर काम कारवाहिलाई ठकि ठाउंमा राख्न सहयोग गर्ने हो ।

नेपाल बिद्युत प्राधिकरणको कार्यकारी प्रमुखको नियुक्ति अपारदर्शी तथा अप्रतिश्पर्धी तरीकाबाट गर्ने प्रचलनको सम्बन्धमा संचार माध्यममा कटु आलोचना गरिएको पृष्ठभूमिमा इतिहांसमै पहिलो पटक पारदर्शी तथा प्रतिश्पर्धात्मक तरीकाबाट नियुक्ति गरिनाले एमाओबादीको संलग्नतामा एमालेको नेतृत्वमा गठित वर्तमान सरकारका उर्जा मन्त्रीको अग्रसरतामा नयां गोरेटो कोरिएकोछ जुन धेरै सराहनिय छ । स्मरणिय छ, बिगतमा शुभलाभको आधारमा यस्तो नियुक्ति गरिने भन्ने सुनिएकोले यस पटक यस्तो प्रलोभनको पछाडी नलागेर काम भएकोछ । उर्जा मन्त्री, यो सरकार तथा यसमा संलग्न दलहरुलाई साधुवाद दिनैपर्छ र यो कामको आधारशिला बनेको संचार माध्यमबाट गरिने आलोचनाको सकारात्मक भूमिकाको महत्व मनन् गर्ने बेला भएकोछ ।

पश्चिम सेतीको अनुमतिपत्र रद्द
पश्चिम सेती आयोजनाबाट उत्पादन हुने उच्च गुणस्तरको बिजुली सस्तो दरमा र नेपालको भूभाग डुबानमा पारेर तथा स्थानिय बासिन्दा बिस्थापित गरेर संचित हुने वर्षातको पानी सुख्खायाममा भारतलाई निशुल्क उपलब्ध गराउने प्रपाचको संचार माध्यममा (भारतको हितरक्षा गर्न दत्तचित्त भएर लागेको केहि नेपाली उर्जाबिज्ञले बाहेक) तीखो आलोचना हुने गरेकोमा वर्तमान सरकारले अनुमतिपत्र रद्द गर्ने आंट गरेको पनि सराहनिय छ । यस घटनाले पनि संचार माध्यमले प्रेषित गर्ने आलोचनाको महत्व दर्शाएकोछ ।

साथै बिद्युतिय उर्जा संकटले आक्रांत नेपाली जनताको हितमा कार्यान्वयन गर्ने सुनौलो अवसर पनि प्राप्त भएकोछ जसबाट सुख्खायाममा उपलब्ध हुने पानी उपयोग गरेर नेपालमा समयसमयमा आफ्नो बिभत्स अनुहार देखाउने अनिकाललाई इतिहांसको पन्नामा सीमित राखेर खाद्य सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित गर्ने मौका पनि आएकोछ ।

सस्तो लागत
पश्चिम सेती एउटा जलाशययुक्त आयोजना हो भने नदीको बहावमा आधारित आयोजनाको तुलनामा यस्ता आयोजनाको लागत धेरै गुणाले बढी हुन्छ । निजी क्षेत्रबाट निर्मित नदीको बहावमा आधारित आयोजनाहरु मध्ये चिलिमेको प्रति किलोवाट लागत अंदाजी १६ सय डलर पर् यो भने ३३ सय डलर परेको इन्द्रावती आयोजना सबभन्दा महंगो मानिन्छ । हाल संचालनमा रहेका निजी क्षेत्रका आयोजनाहरुको औसत लागत २३ सय डलर हो ।

त्यस्तै मध्य मस्र्याङदी बाहेक प्राधिकरणबाट बिगत डेढ दशकमा निर्मित नदीको बहावमा आधारित आयोजनाहरुको औसत लागत प्रति किलोवाट २५ सय डलर भएकोमा भुक्तानी प्रदान भएको आधारमा मात्रै आकलन गर्दा पनि मध्य मस्र्याङदी आयोजनाको प्रति किलोवाट लागत ५ हजार डलर परेकोले औसत प्रति किलोवाट लागत ३३ सय डलर पुगेकोछ ।

नदीको बहावमा आधारित आयोजनाबाट सापेक्षरुपमा नेपालमा मांग कम हुने याम वर्षातमा धेरै बिजुली उत्पादन हुन्छ भने सुख्खायाममा नदीमा बग्ने पानीको परिमाण धेरै घट्नाले उत्पादन पनि घट्छ जुन समयमा नेपालमा मांग उच्चतम हुन्छ । अर्थात धेरै चाहिने बेलामा कम उत्पादन हुन्छ र थोरै मात्र उपभोग हुने समयमा धेरै उत्पादन हुन्छ । साथै नदीको प्रबाहमा आधारित आयोजनाबाट उपलब्ध पानीको परिमाण अनुरुप बिजुली उत्पादन गरिएन भने बिद्युत उत्पादन क्षमता खेर जान्छ । तर जलाशययुक्त आयोजनाबाट उपभोगको हिसाबले आवश्यक समयमा नैं बिजुली उत्पादन गर्न सकिन्छ र अनावश्यक समयमा उत्पादन नगरे पनि उत्पादन क्षमता खेर जांदैन, संचित भएर बस्छ ।

यस्तोमा जलाशययुक्त आयोजनाको प्रति किलोवाट लागत ५ हजार डलर परेनैं पनि धेरै महंगो मािनंदैन । तर ७ सय ५० मेगावाटको पश्चिम सेती आयोजनाको कूल लागत १ अर्ब ९ करोड डलर हुनाले यसको प्रति किलोवाट लागत १४ सय ६३ डलर मात्र हो । तसर्थ यो धेरै कम लागतमा कार्यान्वयन हुने आयोजना हुनाले पश्चिम सेती नेपालको लागि प्रकृतिको बहुमूल्य उपहार हो । यो आयोजनाको अनुमतिपत्र ओगटेर बस्नेले ४ दशमलव ९ अमेरिकि सेन्ट भन्दा पनि कम दरमा बिजुली भारत निकासी गर्नको लागि समझदारीपत्रमा दस्तखत गरिसकेबाट पनि यो कुरा पुष्टि हुन्छ । प्राधिकरणले नदीको प्रबाहमा आधारित खिम्ती, भोटेकोशी जस्ता आयोजनाको बिजुली १० अमेरिकि सेन्टमा, चिलिमेको बिजुली ९ सेन्टमा, निजी क्षेत्रका अन्य आयोजनाहरुबाट सांढे ६ सेन्ट भन्दा कममा खरिद गरिरहेको परिप्रेक्ष्यमा पश्चिम सेतीको बिजुलीको १० सेन्ट मा खरिद गर्न परे पनि सस्तै मान्नुपर्ने हुन्छ ।

बिदेशी लगानिकर्ताको अरुिच
एउटा तप्काले अनुमतिपत्र रद्द भएको घटनालाई नेपालमा बिदेशी लगानिकर्ताको अरुचि भनेर चित्रण गर्ने दुष्प्रयास गरेकोछ । लगानि जुटाउने भन्दै १६ वर्ष सम्म अनुमतिपत्र ओगटेर पनि लगानि जुटाउन नसकेको हो र लगानिकर्ता खोज्दै िहंड्ने बिचौलियालाई अनुमतिपत्र दिइएको हुनाले अनुमतिपत्र नैं कुपात्रको हातमा परेकोले यस्तो अवस्था आएको हो । अनुमतिपत्र प्रदान गर्दा नैं वित्तिय हैसियत भएको र लगानि गर्ने क्षमताको परिक्षण गरेको भए यस्तो दूरावस्था आउने नैं थिएन ।

सुदूर पश्चिमको विकास चाहना
जलाशयमा संचित पानी सुख्खायाममा थप/नियन्त्रित रुपमा भारतलाई निशुल्क र उच्च गुणस्तरको बिजुली भारतलाई सिन्कीको मोलमा दिएरै नेपालको विकास हुन्छ भनेर भ्रमको खेती गर्नेहरुले यो आयोजनाको अनुमतिपत्र रद्द भएर सुदूर पश्चिमेली जनताको विकास चाहना प्रति प्रहार भयो भनेर भ्रमको खेती गरेकाछन् । स्थिति यसको ठीक बिपरित हो । यो अनुमतिपत्र रद्द नगरिएर कार्यान्वयन गरेको भए ९० प्रतिशत बिजुली भारत निकासी हुन्थ्यो र सुदूर पश्चिममा बत्तिमुनी अंध्यारोको स्थिति हुने थियो । अर्को शब्दमा सुदूर पश्चिमेली जनता समृद्ध भएको हेर्न नचाहनेहरुले यो आयोजनालाई यथास्थितिमा कार्यान्वयन हुनुपर्छ भन्दै थिए जबकी अनुमतिपत्र पाउनेको हैसियत नैं थिएन यो आयोजना कार्यान्वयन गर्ने । अब सुदूर पश्चिमेली जनताको हितमा यो आयोजना कार्यान्वयन गर्ने अवसर आएकोछ जसबाट त्यस भेगका जनतालाई समृद्ध पार्ने गरेर आयोजना कार्यान्वयन गर्ने बाटो खुलेकोछ ।

बिजुली नेपालमा खपत
एमाओबादी सरकारको पालामा १० हजार मेगावाट क्षमताका आयोजना कार्यान्वयन कार्यदलले यो आयोजनाको बिजुली नेपाल भित्रै खपत हुन्छ भन्ने ठहर गरेकोछ, यस पंक्तिकारले धेरै अघि देखि भन्दै आएको कुरालाई पुष्टि गर्दै । घरदैलोमा उज्यालो पार्न तथा रेडियो सुन्न, टेलिभिजन हेर्न मात्र बिजुली उपयोग नगरेर, उदाहरणार्थ चुनढुंगाबाट सिमन्टी उत्पादन गर्ने देखि कच्चा पदार्थ आवश्यक नपर्ने नाइट्रोजन मल उत्पादन गरेर देशको विकास निर्माणको लागि अत्यावश्यक सिमन्टी देखि किसानको लागि अत्यावश्यक मलमा आत्मनिर्भर हुन सकिन्छ । यसो गर्दा नेपालमा औद्योगिकरण भएर रोजगारी श्रृजना समेत हुनाले युवाले बिदेश पलायन हुनुपर्ने बाध्यताबाट मुक्ति पाउनेछन् । साथै त्यस क्षेत्रमा उपलब्ध जडिबुटी प्रशोधन गरेर पनि स्थानिय जनताले मनग्गे कमाउने अवस्था सृजना गर्न सकिन्छ । त्यस्तै बाली भित्र्याउनासाथ सस्तोमा बिचौलियालाई बिक्री गर्ने बाध्यताबाट किसानलाई मुक्त पार्न शीत भण्डार देखि बिद्युतिय भकारीहरुको सेवा उपलब्ध गराएर पनि किसानहरुलाई सम्पन्न र समृद्ध बनाउन सकिन्छ । अनि विशेष गरेर महिलाको स्वास्थ्यमा आन्तरिक प्रदूषणबाट प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पर्ने तथा वनजंगल बिनास हुने गरेर भान्छामा प्रयोग हुने दाउरा अनि भूस, गुइंठाबाट मुक्ति दिलाएर स्वास्थ्यमा प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नपर्दा मात्रै पनि राज्य लाभान्वित हुन्छ, नेपाली जनताको उत्पादकत्वमा अभिबृद्धि भएर । अर्कोतिर निकासीमूलक रुपमा कार्यान्वयन गरेको भए औद्योगिकरण तथा रोजगारी श्रृजना पनि भारतमै हुने हुनाले नेपालीहरु भारतमा दरबान तथा चौकिदारी गर्ने बाध्यताले निरन्तरता पाउनेथियो जसबाट यो सरकारको आंटिलो निर्णयले गर्दा केहि हदसम्म भएपनि मुक्ति पाइने सम्भावना उच्च भएकोछ ।

िसंचाईबाट लाभ
यो जलाशययुक्त आयोजना हुनाले वर्षातमा बाढी पहिरो निम्त्याएर धनजनको क्षति गर्ने गरेर नदीमा उर्लेर बग्ने पानी जलाशयमा संचित भएर बाढी नियन्त्रण हुनाको अलावा सुख्खायाममा थप/नियन्त्रित ९० घन मिटर प्रति सेकेन्ड पानी उपलब्ध हुन्छ, जुन प्रयोग गरेर धान बाहेक पानी फारो हुने खेती गरेमा २ लाख ७० हजार हेक्टर जमिनमा आकाशे खेती बाहेक थप दुई वाली लगाउन सकिन्छ । सम्झन जरुरी छ कि यस्तो पानी निर्माणाधीन जलाशयमा नेपाली भूमि डुबानमा पारेर स्थानिय बासिन्दा बिस्थापित भएर सुख्खायाममा उपलब्ध हुन्छ । अर्थात अहिले यो नदीको तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रमा सुख्खायाममा बग्ने पानी भन्दा धेरै बढी परिमाणमा बगेर उपलब्ध हुने पानी हो । यसरी त्यस भेगका किसान बेरोजगार नपर्ने गरेर सघन खेती बेमौसमी फलफूल तरकारी तथा नगदे बाली लगाउन सक्षम भएपछि पनि रोजगारीको लागि बिदेशमा हण्डर खान जानुनपर्ने भएर यस भेगका किसान पनि धनी हुनेछन् ।

अनुमतिपत्र रद्द भएबापत क्षतिपूर्ति
नेपाल सरकारले अनुमतिपत्र रद्द गरेको हुनाले क्षतिपूर्ति माग्ने हुइंया पनि ब्यापकरुपमा चलाइएको छ । तर संचार माध्यमले संप्रेषण गरेबमोजिम अनुमतिपत्र ओगटेर बस्नेले यत्तिंजेल आफ्नो निजी पैसा खर्च गरेको नभएर अष्ट्रेलिया सरकारको अनुदानको रकम खर्चेको हो र संभाब्यता अध्ययन लगायतका काम गर्ने क्रममा फाइदा उठाईसकेको छ, अनुदानको रकमबाट आफ्नै कर्मचारीलाई तलबभत्ता मात्र नबांडेर मुनाफा पनि आर्जन गरेर ।

बरु अनुमतिपत्र ओगटेर बस्नाले वार्षिक ७५ मेगावाटको दरले कम्तीमा पनि १० वर्षको ७ सय ५० मेगावाट अर्थात ३ अर्ब ६३ करोड युनिट बिजुली नेपाललाई निशुल्क प्राप्त हुनु पर्नेमा प्राप्त भएन । युनिटको ५ रुपैंयाको दरले मात्र हिसाब गरे पनि यो आयोजना अनुमतिपत्रवालाले समयमा कार्यान्वयन नगर्नाले नेपाललाई १८ अर्ब रुपैंया नोक्सान भएकोछ । यस्तै समयमा कार्यान्वयन भएको भए यो अनुमतिपत्रवालासंग भएको सम्झौता अनुसार वार्षिक ३१ करोड रुपैया रोयल्टी तथा निकासी करको रुपमा प्राप्त भएर १० वर्षमा ३ अर्ब रुपैया भन्दा बढी पाउनुपर्ने थियो । तसर्थ रद्द भएको अनुमतिपत्रवालासंग यी दुवै कलम गरेर जम्मा २१ अर्ब रुपैया असूल उपर गरिनुपर्छ ।

अगाडीको बाटो
त्यसैले पारदर्शी तथा प्रतिश्पर्धात्मक तरीकाबाट सबभन्दा छिटो, सबभन्दा कम दरमा राज्यलाई बिजुली आपूर्ति गर्न सक्नेलाई बहुउद्देश्यीय आयोजनाको रुपमा कार्यान्वयन गर्ने जिम्मा दिइनुपर्छ, लागत बढेर तथा ढिलो कार्यान्वयन सम्पन्न भएर हुने नोक्सानी सरकारले व्यहोर्न पर्ने अवस्थामा जानु हुन्न, मध्य मस्र्याङदी आयोजनाबाट शिक्षा लिइनुपर्छ । कार्यान्वयनको जिम्मा लिनेलाई तोकिएको समयमा सम्पन्न गर्न नसकेको, ढिलो भएको अवस्थामा जरिवाना गर्ने समेत व्यवस्था गरेर उपयुक्त सत्पात्रबाट कार्यान्वयन गराइनुपर्छ ।

प्रतिश्पर्धात्मक प्रकृयामा जांदा धेरै समय लाग्ने भन्ने गरिएतापनि कार्यान्वयनको लागि सांढे ५ वर्ष लाग्ने यस्तो आयोजनाको सन्दर्भमा केहि महिना ढिलो गरेर फरक पर्दैन, सत्पात्र पहिचान गरेर मात्र जिम्मा लगाइनुपर्छ जसको लागि कार्यान्वयनको जिम्मा लिनेबाट आयोजना लागतको १० प्रतिशत रकमको बैंक जमानत प्राप्त गरिएमा लाईसेन्स मात्र ओगट्ने काम निरुत्साहित हुन्छ ।

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

२०६८ श्रावण २१ गतेको गोरखापत्रमा प्रकाशित ।

कोशी सन्धी स्वयां अप्पर कर्णाली सम्झौता उपो घातक

2011-07-16T19:31:00.000-07:00

वर्तमान सरकारं असन्तुष्ट स्थानीय जनताया विरोध अवरोध तथा आक्रोशया बावजुद अप्पर कर्णाली आयोजना भारतीय लगानीकर्ता जीएमआरपाखें कार्यान्वयन याकेगु कुतलय् सेना परिचालन यायेगु धाःगु दु । आयोजना निर्माण सम्पन्न जुसा सुख्खायामय् दइगु ३६ मेगावाट निःशुल्क उर्जा किसिया म्हुतुइ जी जुइ अले नेपाःया विद्युत संकट निवारण जुइमखु निकासीमुलक जूगु कारणं । उिकं बिद्युत संकट भारतय् मखु नेपालय् न्हंकेत थुकिया कार्यान्वयन यायेमाः धाइपिन्त विकास विरोधीया छाप तयाः दंक बिजुली भारतयात उपलब्ध याकेगु प्रपंच जुयाच्वंगु दु । थुिकं नेपालय् माक्वः बिजुली उपलब्ध याकाः औद्योगिकरण यानाः रोजगारी दयेकाः विदेश पलायन जुयाच्वंिपं ल्यासे ल्यायम्हतय्त मुलुकय् लित हये चाहेमजूिपं छथ्व मनूत तसकं लय्तया च्वंगु दु । सुदूर पश्चिमााचल व मध्य पश्मिााचलया भाग्यरेखा दयेके फइगु थ्व आयोजना स्थल गुगु प्रकृितंे नेपाःयात बियातःगु ज्वःमदुगु बरदान खः यात गलतरुपं भारतया िभंया िनंितं छ्यलाच्वन । थुिकं थुगु आयोजनाया पृष्ठपोषकतय्सं उगु लागायात मध्ययुगिन अवस्थाय् हे तयातयेगु मनसुवा दयेकाच्वंगु खनेदु ।

संविधान तथा शान्ती सम्झौता उल्लंधन
अन्तरिम संविधानया धारा १४७ से सेना लगायतया सम्बन्धय् "२०६३ साल मङ्सिर ५ गतेया विस्तृत शान्ती सम्झौताय् न्ह्यथना तःकथं जुइ" धका न्ह्यथनातःगु दु अले उगु शान्ती सम्झौताया दफा ४.६ "नेपाली सेना ब्यारेक दुने सीमित जुइ" धयागु खँ न्ह्यथनातःगु कारणं थ्व आयोजनाय् सेना परिचालन यायेगु असंवैधानिक खः । एमाओवादी नापं संलग्न थ्व सरकारं थुजोगु निर्णय यायेगु अजूचायापूगु खँ खः ।

लुमंके मागु खं थ्व दु कि भारतया उर्जा संकट निवारण यायेत नेपाली सेना परिचालन यानाः नागरिकतय्त गोिलं कयेकेगु खँयात छुं नं कथं जायज धायेफइमखु । नेपाःया विद्यमान बिद्युत संकट निवारण यायेत निर्माणाधिन आयोजनय् पंगः तलधाःसा तक सैनिक कारवाहिया औचित्य खंके फइ । थज्याथाय् संविधान नापं उल्लधंन यानाः सुयात लय्तायेकेत सेना परिचालन यायेत्यंगु खः धयागु न्ह्यसः ब्वलनी ।

स्थानीय जनता छाय् छुकथं असन्तुष्ट जुयाच्वन धयागु खँयात कयाः समाधान यायेगु पाखे मवसें सेना परिचालन यायेगु व गोली चलेयायेगु खँ अतीवादी बिचाः खः । लुमंके बहःजु नेपाःमि गोली फयेत नं तयार जुईपं खःधयागु खँ १० वर्ष "जनयुद्ध" क्यने धुंकूगु दु ।

मेखे नेपाःया हितय् दयेकीगु आयोजनाया खँय् नेपाली जनतां थःगु धयागु भावना तइ अले माःकथं ज्या पूवंकेत ग्वहालि जक मखु लगानी तकं यानाः तिवः बिइ धयागु खँ माथिल्लो तामाकोशी आयोजनया विरोध मयागु व अन सेना परिचालन यायेमाःगु अवस्थां पुष्टि यायेधुंकूगु दु ।

कोशी सम्झौता
मनसून नकतिनि शुरु जूगु दु माक्वः वा वःगु मदुनी । औसत बहाव २ लाख क्युसेक स्वयां अप्वःजुइगु कोशी खुसीई वंगु वालय् १ लाख क्युसेक लः बाः मवनीबलय् हे कोशी वेँय् जुल धाल, अले स्थानीय बासिन्दा आक्रान्त व त्रसित जुल । लुमंकेमा कि कोशी वँय्चाःगु मदुनी । सन् १९६८ स ९ लाख क्युसिके स्वयां अप्वः बहाव जुयाः खुसी बाः वःगु कोशीया बहाव १९८० स ८ लाख क्युसेक स्वयां आपालं अप्वः ।

तर थुलि धयां समस्या हे मदुगु मखु । २०६५ भदौया खुसी बहाःया बिभिषिकाय् स्थानीय मनूत जक लाःगु मखुसे बिजुलीया थां नं क्वःदःगु कारणं लोड सेिडंगय् अत्याधिक बृद्धि जुयाः मेमेथासय् च्वंिपं मनूत नं थुिकं प्रभावित जुल । तर उगु इलय् नं लःया बहाव २ लाख क्युसेक मथ्यं धात्थें खुसी बाः वःगु मखु ।

थथे छाय् जुल धकाः उपो कपाः स्याकेमाःगु मदु । मातृका कोईराला नेतृत्वया सरकारया इलय् सरकारपाखें २०११ साल बैशाखय् योजना विकास मन्त्री महावीर सम्शेरं ल्हाःिचं तःगु कोशी सम्झौताया धारा १(क) बमोजिम हनुमाननगर स्वयां च्वये बांध दयेकेगू खः । थ्व सम्झौताया मू आज्जु हे विहारया ख्वबी नां बियातःगु थुगु खुसीया कारणं विहारय् वइगु खुसी बाः पनेगु व विहारय् हे िसंचाई यायेगु खः ।

लुमंके माः कि बांधदयेकुगु कारणं हे बांधं तुं लः साला कयाः वा थुजोगु हे छुं तरीकां खुसी बाः नियन्त्रणय् वइगु मखु । बांधया ज्या खुसी न्ह्यानाच्वंगु लः च्वये तटीय इलाकाय् पनाः/खुनाः क्वयेया तटीय ख्यःयात खुसीबालं बचे यायेगु खः । कोशी नदीया बांध नेपाल भारत सीमाना लिक्क दयेकीगु जूगु कारणं कोशी बहाव अप्वइगु इलय् नेपाः दुनेया भूमिइ लः मुनीगु व बिहार खुसी बाःपाखें बचे जुइगु खः । उिकं बिहारयात खुसी बापाखें बचे यायेत बांधयात नेपाः दुनेया च्वये तटीय क्षेत्र डुबान जुइगु लः मुनीगु खुसी बाः वइगु धयागु गाक्क नया प्वाः जाःगुली अजू चाये थें जुइगु खः ।

सायद थ्व हे खँ थुइकाः मातृका कोईरालां थः सिइगु ई स्वयां खुला न्ह्यःनेपाल टेलिभिजनय् ब्यूगु छगू अन्तर्वाताय् "कोशी सम्झौताय् तःधंगु राष्ट्रघाट जुल" धकाः स्वीकार याःगु जुइमाः ।

कोशीया लखय् नेपाःया सार्वभौमसत्ता
तर हाकूगु सुपाँय् पिने नं तुयूगु चाः दइ धयाथें कोशी सम्झौताय् भारतं कोशीया लखय् नेपाःया सार्वभौमसत्ता स्वीकार याःगु लुमंके बहः जु । धारा ४(क) स कोशी नदीं नेपाल सरकारं िसंचाइ लगायतया फुक्कं कथंया उपभोग्य उपयोगया िनंितं लः लिकयाः छ्यलेफइगु ब्यवस्था दु, अले ल्यंदनीगु लखय् जक भारतया हक लगे जुइगु ब्यवस्था दु । कोशी आयोजना अन्तर्गत दयेकूगु पूर्वी तथा पश्चिमी नहरं सिचाई यायेगु व कटैयाय् बिजुली उत्पादनय् प्रतिकूल प्रभाव मलाइकथं जक नेपालं कोशीया लः छ्यलेफइ धयागु आशयया तक नं गनं पनातःगु मदु ।

थ्व हे प्रावधानं यानाः कोशी व थुकिया फुक्कं सहायक नदीया लखय् नेपाःया सार्वभौम अधिकार सुरक्षित जुयाच्वंगु दु । छुं नं कथंया आयोजना परियोजना दयेकेगु निसें िसंचाई थें जाःगु लःया खपत याइगु प्रयोजनया आयोजना दयेकेत नेपाः स्वतन्त्र दु ।

थुजोगु पृष्ठभूमिइ नेपाःया जमिन लखय् दुनीकथं भारतया खुसी बाः पनेगु िनंितं बांध दयेके ब्यूगु खँय् सम्झौता याःगुिलं मातृका कोइरालायात गुलि कुं खिनेगु ज्या जुल व स्वयां आपालं वय्कःयात च्वछायेमाः कि कोशी नदीया लखय् नेपाःया सार्वभौमसत्ता ल्यंकेत ताःलागु खँय् । वय्कःया आत्मया शान्तीया िनंितं परमेश्वरयात प्रार्थना याये ।

कर्णालीया लखय् नेपाःया सार्वभौमसत्ता
नेपाःया मू नदीत मध्ये गण्डकी नदी नं लगभग कोशीया हे प्रकारं आलोच्य सम्झौता २०१६ माघय् विश्वेश्वर कोइराला सरकारपाखें उपप्रधानमन्त्री सुवर्ण सम्शेरं याःगु खः । थ्व सम्झौतां नं गण्डकीया लखय् नेपाःया सार्वभौमसत्ता सुरक्षित याःगु दु, धारा ९ या थ्व सम्बन्धी प्रावधान अन्र्तगत नेपालं स्वतन्त्रापूर्वक गण्डकीया लः छ्यलेफइ फेब्रुअरी निसें अप्रील तक्क बाहेक । कोशी सम्झौताया तुलनाय् गण्डक सम्झौतां थुकथं सुख्खायामया लःया छ्यलायात कयेकुंका ब्यूगु दु । महाकली सन्धीइ जूगु राष्ट्रघाट पुनरावृति यानाच्वनेगु थन आवश्यक मदुसन, छुं नं सन्धी सम्झौता मजूगु छगू हे जक ल्यं दनीगु कर्णाली नदी व कोशी तथा गण्डक सम्झौतां प्रतिपादन याःगु सिद्धान्तकथं कर्णालीया लखय् नेपाःया सार्वभौमसत्ता अक्ष्ाण्ण दु व अक्ष्ाण्ण यानातयेत सकल नेपाःमितय्सं भरमग्दुर कुतः न्ह्याकेमाः ।

तर अप्पर कर्णाली आयोजना सम्बन्धय् जूगु सम्झदारीपत्रया दफा ३७ स च्वये व क्वये तटीय क्षेत्रय् छुं नं आयोजना दयेकेत पनातःगु दु । उदाहरणार्थ जुम्लाया बासिन्दां तीला नदीया लः छ्यलेत छुं नं कथंया िसंचाई आयोजना न्ह्याकेदइमखु । तसर्थ कोशी व गण्डक सम्झौता स्वयां थ्व आयोजनाया िनंितं जूगु सम्झदारीपत्र नेपाःया भविष्यया िनंितं अतिकं घातक दु । नेपाःया विद्युत संकट निवारणार्थ निर्माण जुइगु आयोजना वा नेपाः दुनेया मेमेिपं जनता लाभान्वित जुइकथं थ्व आयोजना स्थलया च्वयेया व क्वयेया तटीय क्षेत्रया जनतां त्याग यायेगु बंचित जुइगु स्वीकार्य जुइफु, घ्यः थःगु हे भागय् लाःगु ल्याखं । तर भारतयात लाभान्वित जुइकथं थ्व आयोजना थाय्या च्वये व क्वयेया तटीय इलाकाया जनतायात लः व बिजुलीया उपयोग उपभोगं बंचित यायेगु खँ कदापि उचित धाये फइमखु । थज्यागुलि कर्णाली नदीया लखय् नेपाःया सार्वभौम अधिकारय् किचः वइकथं जुइगु सम्झदारीपत्र छुं नं हालतय् नेपाली जनता, विशेष यानाः थ्व खुसीया जलधार क्षेत्रया जनतायात स्वीकार जुइ फइमखु ।

सम्झदारीपत्रया कानूनी मान्यता
सम्झदरीपत्रं कानूनी मान्यता कायेफइमखु धयागु सर्वमान्य सिद्धान्त खः । रितपूर्वकया कानूनी सम्झौता वा करारनामां जक कानूनी मान्यता कायेफइ । तर थ्व सम्झदारीपत्रया मेगु पक्ष जक मखु थ्व गलत आयोजनाया पृष्ठपोषक नेपाःमित नापं थ्व सम्झदारीपत्रय् छुं नं कथंया हेरफेर, परिवर्तन, संशोधन यायेत मानेजुयाच्वंगु मदु । नेपाःया स्वार्थ सम्बद्र्धन यायेकथं नं हेरफेर, परिवर्तन, संशोधन यायेत सुं सुं नेपाःमित हे तयार मजूगु खँ अजू चायेका ब्यूगु दु ।

मेखे थ्व सम्झदारी यात यथास्थितिइ कार्यान्वयन यायेगु खः धयागु खःसा च्वये न्ह्यथना थें िसंगै कर्णाली नदीया लखय् नेपाःया सार्वभौमसत्ता ल्हातं वनीगु अवस्था दु । थज्यागु इलय् नं थ्व सम्झदारीपत्रया सँ छपु नं हिइकेमखु धका धाइपिनिगु बौद्धिकताय् न्ह्यसः अस्वाभिक मखु ।

निपु म्येया खँ
थ्व सम्झारीपत्रयात अपरिवर्तनिय तायकीिपं हे संविधानया धारा १५६ अन्तर्गत संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक मदु धायेगु क्रमय् थुकियात बाध्यात्मक कानूनी करारनामा मजूगु खँ न्ह्यथनेत न्र ल्यूनेमलाः । सम्झदारीपत्रकथं थ्व आयोजनाया क्षमता ३ सय मेगावाट खः । आः ९ सय मेगावाट क्षमता जुइगु खँ सार्वजनिक जूगु दु, गुगु खँ परिवर्तन लिपा सम्झदारीपत्रय् संशोधन मयासें संभव मदु । आः न्ह्यसः ब्बलनी कि भारतयात दंक उच्च गुणस्तरया, अप्वः बिजुली उपलब्ध याकेत थ्व सम्झदारीपत्रय् संशोधन यायेज्यू, तर नेपाःया स्वार्थ सम्बद्र्धन जुइकथं छुं नं परिवर्तन यायेत अनिच्छुक । अर्थात नेपाःया स्वार्थया सम्बन्धय् सम्झदारीपत्र अपरिवर्तनिय, भारतया हित सम्बद्र्धनया िनंितं परिवर्तन यायेफइगु जुयाः निपु म्येया दोधारे खँ जक मखसे थुजोगु खँ नेपाःया हितया िनंितं जुयाच्वंगु खःकि मेपिनिगु निितं धयागु न्ह्यसः सशक्त कथं ब्वलंगु दु । थुजोगु हे बौद्धिक दरिद्रता खिम्ती तथा भोटेकोशी आयोजनाया सन्र्दभय् नं खनेदुगु खः । थुिपं निगुिलं आयोजनाय् बिद्युत खरिद सम्झौता थुकिया लगानीकर्ताया हितय् संशोधन यायेगु ज्या जूगु खःसा थुिपं सम्झौता संशोधन यायेमज्यू धयागु धारणा नेपाली कर्मचारीतन्त्र व राजनीतिकर्मीत पाखें वयेगु यानाच्वंगु दु ।

स्पष्ट दु भारतीय नागरिकं अप्पर कर्णालीया सन्दर्भय् थज्यागु खँ ल्हाइगु इलय् इमीगु थःगु देशभक्ती खनेदु । तर नेपाली नागरिक, नेपाली करदाताया ध्यबां तलबभत्ता नईपं कर्मचारीतन्त्र तथा नीति निर्मातातय्सं, अले नेपाःया हित यायेत कटिबद्ध धयातःिपं राजनीतिककर्मीतय्सं थुजोगु खँ ल्हाइगु इलय् देशभक्ती खनेदइ कि मदइ धयागु न्ह्यसः नं लिसः मदु कथं जुयाच्वंगु दु ।

Published in Layakoo Nepalbhasa Forthnightly on Shrawan 1, 2068

जलश्रोतमा "ज्ञानेन्द्रपथ" किन यति धेरै प्रीय ?

2011-07-10T18:40:00.000-07:00

यस पंक्तिकारको "जलश्रोतमा 'ज्ञानेन्द्रपथ'" शिर्षकको लेख २०६८ आषाढ १३ प्रकाशित भएकोमा त्यसको भोलि पल्टै भैंसेपाटी ललितपुरका नवीन पौडलको नाममा कान्तिपुरमा विशेष महत्वकासाथ प्रतिकृया प्रकाशित गरियो । जसमा आधारहीन, असत्य कुराहरु मात्र नसमेटेर मेरो भनाई समेत तोडमरोड गरेको देखियो । यसको प्रतिउत्तर कान्तिपुरमा पठाइएतापनि प्रकाशित भएन ।

उक्त पाठक पत्रमा मैले "आफूलाई जलश्रोत बिज्ञका रुपमा प्रस्तुत गर्छन" भनिएकोछ । यसको ठीक बिपरित विशेष गरेर टेलिभिजन र रेडियोले यस्तो कुनै खिताब पहिर् याइएको अवस्थामा तत्कालै नकार्ने गरेकोछु र आफूले आफैलाई किहं कतै पनि जलश्रोत बिज्ञको रुपमा प्रस्तुत गरेकोछैन । जलश्रोत क्षेत्रको अध्ययन तथा विश्लेषण गर्ने गरेकोले जलश्रोत विश्लेषक भनेर सम्म चिनाउने गरिएकोछ । पौडेलजीलाई अन्यथा प्रमाणित गर्न मेरो चुनौति छ ।

हुनत के कस्ता व्यक्ति जलश्रोत बिज्ञ हुने भन्ने मानक किहं कतै बनेको छैन । डाक्टर इन्जिनियर कानून व्यवसायी चार्टर्ड एकाउन्टेन्ट जस्तो शैक्षिक/प्राज्ञिक/व्यबसायिक योग्यता हासिले गरे जस्तै जलश्रोत बिज्ञ बन्नको लागि न्यूनतम् योग्यता तोकिएको छैन । व्यवस्थापन तथा कानून विषयमा उच्च शिक्षा हासिल गरेर वरिष्ठ चार्टर्ड एकाउन्टेन्ट तथा कानून व्यवसायी बनेको यस पंक्तिकारले जलश्रोत क्षेत्रमा सतहि विश्लेषण गरेर ब्यापकरुपमा भ्रान्ती फैलाउने र नेपालको राष्ट्रिय स्वार्थ बिपरित काम हुने भएकोले कलम चलाउन थालेको हो । लेखको प्रत्येक बुंदाको ठोस रुपमा खण्डन आएमा भ्रमको खेतीमा केहि कम हुने अपेक्षा गर्न सकिन्छ । तर गलत आरोप लगाएर सत्य झुठल्याउन सकिन्न आंखा चिम्लिदैंमा नाकमा बसेको िझंगाको अस्तित्व समाप्त हुन्न ।

नदीमा बगेको पानी लगायत प्राकृतिक श्रोतमा पहिलो अधिकार स्थानिय बासिन्दाको हुने सर्वमान्य सिद्धान्त हो । तर यसको सन्दर्भ समेत बुझ्न जरुरी छ अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सन्दर्भमा नेपाली जनता स्थानिय बासिन्दा मानिन्छन् भने अन्तरदेशिय सन्दर्भमा कर्णालीको पानीबाट उत्पादित पानी तथा बिजुलीमा जलाधार क्षेत्रमा बसेका जनताको पहिलो अधिकार हुन्छ अन्यत्रका बासिन्दाको तुलनामा । अर्को शब्दमा कर्णाली नदीको जलाधार क्षेत्रका जनतालाई अंध्यारोमा र अविकसित राखेर त्यहांको बिजुली देश भित्रै अन्यत्र उपयोग गर्न मिल्दैन भने नेपाली जनतालाई अंध्यारोमा र अविकसित राखेर भारत निकासी गर्न मिल्दैन ।

नवीन पौडेलहरु किन नेपाललाई अंध्यारोमा राखेर सस्तो तथा उच्चगुणस्तरको बिजुली भारत निकासी गर्ने अझ सस्तो बिजुली भारत निकासी गरेर नेपालमा उर्जा संकट निवारणार्थ भन्दै महंगोमा आयात गर्ने गरेर आयोजना निर्माण गर्न उद्यत छन् बुझ्न कठीन छ । माथिल्लो कर्णाली आयोजनालाई जलाशययुक्तरुपमा निर्माण गरेर त्यहांको १५ लाख हेक्टर जमिनमा सुख्खायाममा समेत िसंचाईको लागि पानी उपलब्ध भएर सघन खेती बहुबाली नगदे बाली बेमौसमी फलफूल तरकारी खेती गरेमा सुदूर पश्चिमााचल तथा मध्य पश्चिमााचल विकास क्षेत्रका किसानहरु धेरै लाभान्वित हुने अवस्था छ अनिकाल इतिहाँसमा समेटिएर खाद्य सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित हुने कुरा नवीन पौडेलहरुलाई किन मन पर्दैन भन्ने कुरा बुझ्न कठिन छ । यो एउटै आयोजनाले यस क्षेत्रको सुनौलो भाग्यरेखा कोर्न सक्दछ । यस क्षेत्रबाट ठूलो संख्यामा युवा भारत तथा तेश्रो मुलुक पलायन भएकोमा मातृभूमी फर्कने बाटो खुल्दछ ।

सम्झन के जरुरी छ भने बिगतको यस्तै गलत नीतिले गर्दा यत्ति सानो मुलुकलाई आत्मनिर्णयको अधिकार सहित जातीय आधारमा बिखण्डन गर्नुपर्ने मांग सशक्तरुपमा उठेकोछ र यस्तोमा स्थानिय बासिन्दाको मांग सम्बोधन गर्न ढिलो गर्ने हो भने देशको अस्तित्व नैं समाप्त हुने अवस्थामा चांडै पुगिन्छ ।

म कहिल्यै पनि िहंसाको पक्षमा रहिन र रहने छैन । उक्त लेखमा पनि "बिरोधको नाममा िहंसात्मक तरिका अलवम्बन गर्नु जायज मान्न सकिन्न त्यो निन्दनिय छ" भनेकोछु । तर पौडेलजीले यो वाक्यांशलाई तोडमरोड गरेर "तोडफोड गर्नुलाई नाजायन मान्न सिकंदैन भन्दै छन" भनेर गलत उद्धरण गरेर आफ्नो अभिष्ट स्पष्ट पारेकाछन् । यसबाट "दहीचिउरे" कुरा, वहांको वाक्यांश पैंचो िलंदै, कसले गर्दैछ भन्ने कुरा प्रष्ट हुन्छ ।

आयोजना प्रति स्थानिय बासिन्दाको अपनत्व जगाइएमा सेना परिचालन आवश्यक हुन्न र यस कुराको पुष्टि माथिल्लो तामाकोशीले दिईसकेकोछ । नेपाललाई अंध्यारोमा र अविकसित राखेर भारत बिजुली निकासी गरेकोले हुने बिरोध/आक्रोसको व्यवस्थापन सेना तैनाथ गरेर गर्न सकिन्छ भन्ने सोच नैं बौद्धिक स्खलनको परिचायक हो ।

नेपाल पेट्रोलियम पदार्थको लागि भारतमाथि निर्भर रहे जस्तै भारतलाई नेपालको बिजुलीमा निर्भर गराउने सोच आत्मरती मात्र हो । अझ नवीन पौडेलहरुको यस्तै सोच बारे भारत जानकार हुनाले २०३० को दशकमा चिसापानी कर्णालीमा १० हजार ८ सय मेगावाट निर्माण गर्ने उपक्रम शुरु भएपछि यो आयोजनाको सुरक्षाको जिम्मा भारतले पाउनु पर्ने अवधारणा अघि सारिए पछि कार्यान्वयनको काम रोकिएको जानकारी वहांलाई रहेनछ । भारत माथि नेपाल निर्भर रहंदा नेपालले केहि गर्न सक्दैन तर नेपाललाई कज्याउन भारतले के गर्दो रहेछ भन्ने बुझ्न २०४५/४६ सालमा भारतले लगाएको नाकाबन्दी सम्झे पनि पुग्छ । तसर्थ नेपालको लागि भारत बिरुद्ध जलबिद्युत अस्त्र हुन सक्दैन भने पेट्रोलियम पदार्थको लागि भारत माथिको निर्भरता बेला कुबेलामा नेपाली शासकवर्गलाई घुंडा टेकाउने अचुक अस्त्र धेरै पटक साबित भई सकेकोछ । बरु भारतलाई नेपालको बिजुलीमा निर्भर बनाउने सोम शर्माको कल्पनाले नेपाललाई भुटान/सिक्कीम बनाउने बाटो खुल्दछ । तसर्थ यस पृष्ठभूमिमा बुद्धिमत्ता पूर्ण कार्य के हुन्छ भने सस्तोमा बिजुली भारत निकासी गर्नुको सट्टा यातायातलाई सकेसम्म बिद्युतिकरण गरेर पेट्रोलियम पदार्थको लागि परनिर्भरता घटाउने जसबाट नेपालको ब्यापार घाटा तथा शोधनान्तर घाटा पनि घटाउन सकिन्छ । के पनि स्मरणिय छ भने यातायातलाई बिद्युतिकरण गरिएमा ढुवानी भाडामा पनि ठूलो कमी आएर नेपाली लाभान्वित हुनेछन् ।

भारतलाई बिजुली बेच्नै हुन्न भन्ने पनि होइन तर नेपाललाई अंध्यारोमा राखेर द्रुत गतीमा आर्थिक बृद्धि गर्नको लागि आवश्यक बिजुलीबाट देशलाई बंचित गरेर सस्तोमा निकासी गर्ने अनि नेपालमा लोडसेिडंग निराकरण गर्ने नाममा महंगोमा बिजुली आयात गर्नु मुर्खता हो ।

मैले भारतको बिरोध गरेको नभएर नेपालको स्वार्थ सम्बर्धन गरेको हो र नेपालको हितको लागि काम गर्दा भारतको बिरोध गरेको ठहर्छ भने म भारत बिरोधी कहलिन तैयार छु । तर कुन मुलुकको गोटी बनेर व्यक्तिगत लाभ लिएर वा नलिएरै भारतको बिरोध गरेको हो नवीन पौडेलहरुलाई प्रमाणित गर्न आग्रह छ । तर भारतको पक्षपोषण गर्नेहरुले व्यक्तिगत लाभ लिएर गर्छन् वा नलिएरै गर्दछन् भन्ने जानकारी मलाई भएन । भारतको पक्षपोषण गरेकोको दशांस मात्र पनि नेपालको हितलाई दृष्टिगत गरेर सोच्न र बोल्न सबैलाई अनुरोध छ ।

म निरंकुश राजतन्त्रको पक्षधर कहिल्यै हुनसकिन । पंचायत उत्कर्शमा पुगेको समयमा सबै नेपाली पंच र सबै पंच नेपाली भन्दै पंचायती व्यवस्था पूर्णतः लोकतान्त्रिक मानिएको बेलामा पनि मैले राजतन्त्र निरंकुश हो भन्ने प्रमाणित गरेर २०४० सालमा लेख प्रकाशित गराएको थिएं जुन इन्टरनेटमा पनि उपलब्ध छ (http://www.ratnasansar.com/2009/01/blog-post_21.html) । २०५९ सालमा नेपाल बिद्युत प्राधिकरणमा राजतन्त्रको समर्थन गर्ने शर्तमा संचालक समितिको सदस्य बनेको थिईन । यस्तो कुनै प्रमाण भए प्रस्तुत गर्न हांक दिन्छु । गुण दोषको आधारमा हरेकको कदमको बिबेचना गर्नेगर्दछु । उदाहरणार्थ गोकर्ण बिष्टको राम्रो कदमको सराहना तथा ज्ञानेन्द्र शाहको खराब कदमको आलोचना स्वाभाविक रुपमा गरिन्छ ।

"जलबिद्युतमा तरक्की" भनेको नेपाललाई अंध्यारोमा राख्ने नेपाललाई औद्योगिकरण गर्नको लागि बिजुलीको व्यवस्था नगर्ने पेट्रोलिम पदार्थको लागि अनन्त काल सम्म भारतमाथि निर्भर राख्ने हो भने त्यस्तो "तरक्की" नेपाललाई आवश्यक छैन । यस पृष्ठभूमिमा नवीन पौडेलहरुलाई तीन प्रश्न छन् आशा छ युक्तिसंगत तथा सन्तोषजनक उत्तर प्राप्त हुनेछः

१. नेपालको आवश्यकता पूर्ति गरेर मात्र बिजुली भारत निकासी गराउने अवधारणा प्रति किन असहिष्णु हुनुहुन्छ गोली चलाउने व्यवस्था सहित सेना तैनाथ गरेर भएपछि स्थानिय बासिन्दालाई आयोजनामा लगानि गर्न व्यवस्थापनमा सहभागिता जनाउन र उत्पादित बिजुली उपयोग गर्नबाट स्थानिय बासिन्दालाई बंचित गराउन किन विशेष जोड गिरंदैछ ?

२. नेपाली जनतालाई बंचित गरेर भए पनि बिजुली र पानी भारत निकासी गर्ने नैं भए पनि माथिल्लो कर्णाली आयोजनालाई पूर्ण क्षमतामा कार्यान्वयन गरेर ९ सय मेगावाटबाट प्राप्त हुने रोयल्टीको ४ गुणा रोयल्टी र जलाशयमा संचित वर्षातको पानी सुख्खायाममा भारतलाई उपलब्ध गराएर वार्षिक ५२ अर्ब रुपैया नेपालले आर्जन गर्ने अवसर किन त्याग्न चाहनुहुन्छ अर्थात भारतलाई अनुचित ढंगबाट किन लाभान्वित गराउन चाहनुहुन्छ ?

३. के नेपालको स्वार्थ आत्मसमर्पण गरेरै भए पनि यो आयोजना निर्माण गरिनैपर्छ ?

रत्न संसार श्रेष्ठ

वरिष्ठ चार्टर्ड एकाउन्टेन्ट तथा अधिवक्ता

article by Rameshwhor Khanal in Nagarik

2011-07-07T18:59:00.000-07:00

July 8, 2011

Paras Kharel
Kathmandu

Subject: RE: My article on constituent assembly

Paras jee

Yes, I did read it and am extremely disappointed to learn of his highly superficial views. I have already used that piece to explain how superficially people think to EMBA students of Ace Institute of Management (I was invited to deliver a guest lecture). I have been invited to make a presentation on upper Karnanli project on coming Sunday and there too I will cite this example.
He is way off mark about Nepal’s energy need. Even at the currently obtaining suppressed growth scenario, in five years peak demand will reach 1500 MW, which can only be met with an installed capacity of 4500 MW, if Nepal is to depend on RoR projects only (all sizable storage projects have been dedicated for export). Similarly, if Nepal is to aim to grow at normal growth rate, in five years peak demand will easily reach 3,000 MW and will require installed capacity of 9,000 MW. We need to achieve accelerated growth rate to have Nepali youth who have voted with their feet to return home for which we could easily use a lot more than 10,000 MW in next five years. However, for lack of vision and due to superficial understanding of the sector by these people, Nepal is condemned to languish in backwardness. Very soon people will learn of this and these people will be held accountable by their own family and friends.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: paras kharel [mailto:kharelparas@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 12:56
To: rsansar@mos.com.np; ratna.sansar@gmail.com
Subject: Re: My article on constituent assembly

Ratna Sansar jee,

My reply got bounced back, so I am sending it again. Thanks for the alerts. By the way, did you read an article by Rameshwhor Khanal in Nagarik daily a few weeks ago where he came down against those opposing export-oriented hydropower projects? If yes, then you might have also been struck by a rather simplistic or naive argument that those projects should be allowed to be developed because if Nepal (or NEA) can buy and utilize power from the projects, then the project developers would be more than happy to sell power to Nepal rather than export it to India, and that we are going to get those projects back in 20-25 years in any case! But he does not answer the question why such choice projects were awarded for export purpose in the first place. The underlying suggestion seemed to be that Nepal CANNOT consume the 4,000-odd MW of power.

Pity, many a reader must have been misguided.

Best

Paras

RE: FW: one more article on upper karnali

2011-07-05T19:19:00.000-07:00

July 6, 2011

Milan Bikram Shah
Kathmandu

Milan jee

Good to hear from you.

It the country fails to listen to me soon, then Nepal will become a mulching cow for India due to this approach of colonization of Nepal’s natural resources. While Nepal will be condemned to stay backward forever, which is obvious as India will use the power generated in Nepal to industrialize India which will impel Nepal to continue to export youth, including to India, for lack of employment opportunity here. One needs to remember that foreign employment is becoming modern day slavery, especially due to trading of women overseas for, inter alia flesh trade.

I hope people will wake up to it soon.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Milan Bikram Shah [mailto:rajamilan@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 9:28
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Subject: Re: FW: one more article on upper karnali *

Thanks, Ratna Sansar ji, Keep the good work Country will listen to you one day.

Milan Bk. Shah

On 5 July 2011 07:54, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

Dear colleague

Here is my new article on upper karnali (again!)

माथिल्लो कर्णाली सम्झौता कोशीको भन्दा घातक

2011-07-04T17:51:00.000-07:00

वर्तमान सरकारले असन्तुष्ट स्थानिय जनताको बिरोध, अवरोध तथा आक्रोशको बाबजूद माथिल्लो कर्णाली आयोजना भारतीय लगानिकर्ता जीएमआरबाट कार्यान्वयन गराउने अभिष्टले सेना परिचालन गर्ने भनेकोछ । सम्पन्न भएपछि सुख्खायाममा प्राप्त हुने ३६ मेगावाट निशुल्क उर्जा हात्तिको मुखमा जीरा साबित हुन्छ र नेपालमा बिद्युत संकट निवारण गर्दैन निकासीमूलक हुनाले । तसर्थ बिद्युत संकट भारतमा होइन नेपालमा निरुपणार्थ यसको कार्यान्वयन गरिनुपर्छ भन्नेहरुलाई बिकास बिरोधीको बिल्ला भिराएर सस्तो बिजुली भारतलाई उपलब्ध गराउने प्रपाच रिचंदैछ । यसबाट नेपालमा मनग्गे बिजुली उपलब्ध गराएर, औद्योगिकरण गरेर, रोजगारी सृजना गरेर बिदेश पलायन भएका युवालाई देश फिर्ता गर्न नचाहने तप्कामा विशेष खुशी छाएकोछ । सुदूर पश्चिमांचल तथा मध्य पश्चिमांचलको भाग्य रेखा कोर्न सक्ने यो आयोजना स्थल, जुन प्रकृतिको नेपाललाई अतुलनिय बरदान हो, लाई गलतरुपमा भारतको लागि दोहन गिरंदैछ । जसबाट यो आयोजनाका पृष्ठपोषकहरुले उक्त क्षेत्र मध्ययुगिन अवस्थामा नैं सडिरहोस भन्ने चाहेको देखिन्छ

संबिधान तथा शान्ती सम्झौता उल्लंघन्
अन्तरिम संबिधानको धारा १४७ मा सेना लगायतको सम्बन्धमा "२०६३ साल मङसिर ५ गतेको 'बिस्तृत शान्ती सम्झौता' मा उल्लेख भए बमोजिम हुनेछ" भन्ने उल्लेख छ र उक्त शान्ती सम्झौताको दफा ४.६ मा "नेपाली सेना ब्यारेक भित्र सीमित रहने" कुरा उल्लेख हुनाले यो आयोजनामा सेना परिचालन गर्नु असंबैधानिक हो । एमाओबादीको संलग्न यो सरकारले यस्तो निर्णय गर्नु आश्चर्यजनक कुरा हो ।

स्मरणिय छ भारतको उर्जा संकट निवारण गर्न नेपाली सेना परिचालन गरेर नागरिक माथि गोली चलाउने कुरा कदापि जायज मान्न सकिन्न । नेपालमा बिद्यमान बिद्युत संकट निवारण गर्न निर्मार्णाधीन आयोजनामा अवरोध गर्नेको हकमा सम्म सैनिक कारवाहिको औचित्य देखाउन सकिन्छ । यस्तोमा संबिधान समेत उल्लंघन गरेर कसलाई, किन खुशी तुल्याउन सेना परिचालन गिरंदैछ भन्ने प्रश्न खडा हुन्छ ।

स्थानिय जनता के कति कारणले असन्तुष्ट छन् भन्ने निदान गरेर समस्या समाधान तर्फ नलागेर सेना परिचालन गर्ने र गोली चलाउने कुरा अतीबादी सोच हो । स्मरणिय छ नेपालीहरु गोली थाप्न तैयार हुने खालका छन जसको पुष्ट्यांई १० वर्षे "जनयुद्ध"ले गरिसकेकोछ ।

अर्कोतिर नेपालको हितमा निर्माण हुने आयोजनाको सम्बन्धमा नेपाली जनताले अपनत्वको भावना राख्दछन् र तदारुकताका साथसम्पन्न गर्न योगदान मात्रै गर्दैनन्, लगानि समेत गरेर सघाउंछन् भन्ने कुराको पुष्टि माल्लिो तामाकोशी आयोजनाको बिरोध नभएको र त्यहां सेना परिचालन गर्ने अवस्था नआएकोबाट हुन्छ ।

कोशी सम्झौता
मनसून भर्खर मात्र शुरु भयो, मनग्गे वर्षात भएकै छैन । औसत बहाव २ लाख क्युसेक भन्दा बढी हुने कोशीमा गत साता १ लाख क्युसेक पनि नबग्दै कोशी बहुलायो भनियो र स्थानिय बासिन्दा आक्रांत तथा त्रसित भए । सम्झन जरुरी छ कोशी बहुलाएको छैन । सन् १९६८ मा ९ लाख क्युसेक भन्दा बढी बहाव भएर बाढी आएको कोशीको बहाव १९८० मा ८ लाख क्युसेक भन्दा बढी र १९८४ मा ४ लाख क्युसेक भन्दा धेरै थियो ।

तर यसो भन्दैमा समस्यै नभएको होइन । २०६५ भदौको बाढीको बिभिषिकामा स्थानिय जनता मात्र नपरेर बिजुलीका खम्बाहरु ढलेकोले लोड सेिडंगमा अत्यधिक बृद्धि भएर अन्यत्रका जनता समेत यसको चपेटामा परेका थिए । तर त्यति बेला पनि बहाव २ लाख क्युसेक पुगेको थिएन र सांच्चिकै बाढी आएको थिएन ।

यस्तो किन भयो भनेर धेरै घोत्लिन आवश्यक छैन । मातृका कोइराला नेतृत्वको सरकारको तर्फबाट २०११ साल बैशाखमा योजना विकास मन्त्री महाबीर सम्शेरले दस्तखत गरेको कोशी सम्झौताको धारा १(क) बमोजिम हनुमाननगर भन्दा केहि माथि बांध निर्माण गरिएको हो । यो सम्झौताको प्रमुख उद्देश्य नैं बिहारको आंसु नाम दिइएको यस नदीको कारणले बिहारमा आउने बाढी नियन्त्रण र बिहारमा नैं िसंचाई गर्नु हो ।

सम्झन आवश्यक छ कि निर्मित भएकै कारणले बांधले पानी सोचन गरेर वा यस्तै तरीकाले बाढी नियन्त्रणमा आउने होइन । बांधको काम नदीमा बगेको पानी माथिल्लो तटीय इलाकामा नैं रोकेर/थुनेर तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रलाई बाढीबाट बचाउनु हो । कोशी नदीमा बांध नेपाल भारत सीमाना नजिकै निर्मित हुनाले कोशीमा बहाव बढेको बेलामा नेपाल स्थित भूमिमा पानी थुनिन जान्छ र बिहार बाढीबाट जोगिन्छ । त्यसकारण बिहारलाई बाढीबाट जोगाउन निर्मित बांधको नेपाल स्थित माथिल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रमा डुबान हुनु, जल जमाव हुनु, बाढी आउनु भनेको टन्न खांदा पेट भरिएकोमा छक्क परे जस्तो मात्र हो ।

सायद यहि बुझेपछि मातृका कोइरालाले आफ्नो मृत्यु भन्दा ६ महिना अघि नेपाल टेलिभिजनमा दिएको अन्तर्वातामा "कोशी सम्झौतामा ठूलो राष्ट्रघात भयो" भनेर स्वीकार गरेको हुनुपर्छ ।

कोशीको पानीमा नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता
तर कालो बादलमा हुने चांदीको घेरा झैं कोशी सम्झौतामा भारतले कोशीको पानीमा नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता स्वीकार गरेको स्मरणिय छ । धारा ४(क) मा कोशी नदीबाट नेपाल सरकारले िसंचाई लगायतका सबै किसिमको उपभोग्य उपयोगको लागि पानी झिक्न पाउने व्यवस्था छ र बांकी रहेको पानीमा मात्रै भारतको हक लाग्ने व्यवस्था छ । कोशी आयोजना अन्तर्गत निर्मित पूर्वी तथा पश्चिमी नहरबाट िसंचाई गर्न तथा कटैयामा बिजुली उत्पादनमा प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नपर्ने गरेर मात्र नेपालले कोशीको पानी उपयोग गर्न पाउने भन्ने समेत आशयको कुनै पनि प्रतिबन्ध छैन ।

यहि प्रावधानले गर्दा कोशी तथा यसका सबै सहायक नदीहरुको पानीमा नेपालको सार्वभौम अधिकार सुरक्षित छ । कुनै पनि प्रकारको आयोजना परियोजना निर्माण गर्न देखि िसंचाई जस्तो पानी खपत गर्ने प्रयोजनका आयोजना निर्माण गर्न नेपाल स्वतंत्र छ ।

यस पृष्ठभूमिमा नेपाली जमिन डुबानमा पर्ने गरेर भारतमा बाढी नियन्त्रणार्थ कोशीमा बांध बनाउन दिने सम्झौता गरेकोमा मातृका कोइराला जति आलोच्य छन् त्यस भन्दा धेरै उनको सराहना गरिनुपर्दछ कोशी नदीको पानीमा नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता कायम राख्न सफल भएकामा । उनको आत्माको शान्तीको लागि परमेश्वरसंग प्रार्थना गरौं ।

कर्णालीको पानीमा नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता
नेपालको प्रमुख नदीहरु मध्ये गण्डकी नदीमा पनि लगभग कोशीकै प्रकारले आलोच्य सम्झौता २०१६ माघमा विश्वेश्वर कोइराला सरकारको तर्फबाट उपप्रधानमन्त्री सुवर्ण सम्शेरले गरेकाछन् । यो सम्झौताले पनि गण्डकीको पानीमा नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता सुरक्षित गरेकोछ, धारा ९ को यस सम्बन्धी प्रावधान अन्तर्गत नेपालले स्वतंत्रतापूर्वक गण्डकीको पानी उपयोग गर्न पाउंछ, फेब्रुअरी देखि अपि्रल सम्म बाहेक, कोशी सम्झौताको तुलनामा गण्डक सम्झौताले यसरी सुख्खायामको पानीको उपयोगमा सार्वभौमसत्ता खुम्च्याएको छ । महाकाली सन्धीमा भएको राष्ट्रघातको पुनराबृत्ति गरिरहन यहां आवश्यक छैन भने कुनै पनि सन्धी सम्झौता सम्पन्न नभएको एउटै कर्णाली नदी बांकी छ र कोशी तथा गण्डक सम्झौताहरुले प्रतिपादन गरको सिद्धान्त अनुसार कर्णालीको पानीमा नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता अक्ष्ाण्ण छ र अक्ष्ाण्ण राख्न सबै नेपालीले भरमग्दुर प्रयास गर्नुपर्छ ।

तर माथिल्लो कर्णाली आयोजना सम्बन्धमा भएको समझदारीपत्रको दफा ३७ मा माथिल्लो तथा तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रमा कुनै पनि आयोजना निर्माणमा प्रतिबन्ध लगाएकोछ । उदाहरणार्थ जुम्लाका बासिन्दाले तीला नदीको पानी उपयोग गर्ने गरेर कुनै पनि िसंचाई आयोजना संचालन गर्न पाउने छैनन । तसर्थ कोशी तथा गण्डक सम्झौता भन्दा यो आयोजनको लागि सम्पन्न समझदारीपत्र नेपालको भविष्यको लागि धेरै घातक छ । नेपालमा बिद्युत संकट निवारणार्थ निर्माण हुने आयोजना वा नेपालभित्रैका अन्यत्रका जनता लाभान्वित हुने आयोजनाको सन्दर्भका आयोजनाको स्थलको माथिल्लो तथा तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रका जनताले त्याग गर्ने, बंचित भएर बस्ने स्वीकार्य हुन सक्छ, घिउ आफ्नै भाग पोखिएको हिसाबमा । तर भारतलाई लाभान्वित हुने गरेर यो आयोजना स्थलको माथिल्लो तथा तल्लो तटीय इलाकाका जनतालाई पानी तथा बिजुलीको उपयोग उपभोगबाट बंचित गर्ने कुरा कदापि उचित मान्न सकिन्न । यस्तोमा कर्णाली नदीको पानीमा नेपालको सार्वभौम अधिकारमा आंच आउने गरेर सम्पन्न समझदारीपत्र कुनै पनि हालतमा नेपाली जनता, विशेष गरेर यो नदीको जलाधार क्षेत्रका जनतालाई स्वीकार्य हुन सक्दैन ।

समझदारीपत्रको कानूनी मान्यता
समझदारीपत्रले कानूनी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्न सक्दैन भने सर्वमान्य सिद्धान्त हो । रितपूर्वकको कानूनी सम्झौता वा करारनामाले मात्र कानूनी मान्यता प्राप्त गर्दछ । तर यो समझदारीपत्रको अर्को पक्ष मात्र होइन यो गलत आयोजनाको पृष्ठपोषक नेपालीहरु समेत यो समझदारीपत्रमा कुैन पनि हेरफर, परिवर्तन, संशोधन गर्न मान्दैनन् । नेपालको स्वार्थ सम्बद्र्धन गर्ने गरेर पनि हेरफर, परिवर्तन, संशोधन गर्न कतिपय नेपाली नैं तैयार नभएकोले अचम्भित पार्दछ ।

अर्कोतिर यो समझदारीलाई यथास्थितिमा कार्यान्वयन गर्ने हो भने माथि उल्लेख गरिए झैं िसंगै कर्णाली नदीको पानीमा नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता गुम्ने अवस्था छ । यस्तोमा पनि यो समझदारीपत्रको एउटा रौं पनि उखेल्न हुन्न भन्नेहरुको बौद्धिकता माथि प्रश्न उठ्नु अस्वाभाविक हुन्न ।

दुई जिब्रे कुरा
यो समझदारीपत्रलाई अपरिवर्तनिय मान्नेहरु नैं संबिधानको धारा १५६ अन्तर्गत संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक छैन भन्ने क्रममा यसलाई बाध्यात्मक कानूनी करारनामा नभएको कुरा दर्शाउन पनि पछि पर्दैनन् ।

समझदारीपत्र अनुसार यो आयोजनाको क्षमता ३ सय मेगावाट हो । अहिले ९ सय मेगावाट क्षमता हुने सार्वजनिक भएकोछ जुन परिवर्तन पनि समझदारीपत्रमा संशोधन नगरिकन सम्भव छैन । अब प्रश्न उठ्छ, भारतलाई सस्तोमा उच्च गुणस्तरको बढी बिजुली उपलब्ध गर्न यो समझदारीपत्रमा संशोधन गर्नहुने तर नेपालको स्वार्थ सम्बर्धन हुने गरेर कुनै पनि परिवर्तन गर्न अनिच्छुक छन् । अर्थात नेपालको स्वार्थको सम्बन्धमा समझदारीपत्र अपरिवर्तनिय, भारतको हित सम्बद्र्धनको लागि परिवर्तन गर्न मिल्ने भनाई दोधारे कुरा मात्र नभएर यस्तो कुरा नेपालको हितमा हुंदैछ कि कसको भन्ने प्रश्न सशक्तरुपमा खडा हुन्छ । यस्तै खाले बौद्धिक दरिद्रता खिम्ती तथा भोटेकोशी आयोजनाहरुको सन्दर्भमा पनि प्रदर्शन भएका थिए । यी दुवै आयोजनाको बिद्युत खरिद सम्झौताहरु तीनका लगानिकर्ताको हितमा संशोधन गरिएको थियो भने नेपाल बिद्युत प्राधिकरणलाई यी आयोजनाहरुबाट प्रतिकूल प्रभाव परेकोलाई निरुपण गर्ने सम्बन्धमा भने ती सम्झौता संशोधन गर्न नमिल्ने धारणा नेपाली कर्मचारीतन्त्र तथा राजनीतिकर्मीहरुबाट आउने गरेकोछ ।

स्पष्ट छ भारतीय नागरिकले माथिल्लो कर्णालीको सन्दर्भमा यस्तो कुरा गर्दा तिनको आफ्नो देशभक्ती झल्कन्छ । तर नेपाली नागरिक, नेपाली करदाताको पैसाले तलबभत्ता पाउने कर्मचारीतन्त्र तथा नीति निर्माताहरु, अनि नेपालको हित गर्न कटिबद्ध भनिएका राजनीतिकर्मीहरुले यस्तो कुरा गर्दा देशभक्ती झल्कन्छ कि झल्कंदैन भन्ने प्रश्न अनुत्तरित रहन्छ ।

२०६८ आषाढ २१ गतेको गोरखापत्रमा प्रकाशित

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

RE: FW: Our opposition is only against colonization of Nepal's natural resources

2011-07-02T19:39:00.000-07:00

July 3, 2011

Kishor Uprety

Kishor jee

Actually I did understand it the very first time. However, I was just playing with the word in the lighter vein.
However, the situation on the ground with regards to natural resource of Nepal is really “interesting” in the sort of Chinese way typified by what is happening to the people living near Koshi. The average flow of Koshi is over 200,000 cusec and any flow more than it could be deemed a flood. However, the flow this year is yet to reach 150,000 cusec but people are already clamoring “flood” and blaming Koshi River without understanding what has caused the flooding. Koshi barrage (dam) was basically built to control flood and also to divert water for irrigation in the areas downstream of this barrage. It was built so close to Nepal-India border that Nepal doesn’t benefit at all while she has too internalize the negative externalities, mainly inundation and involuntary displacement. Conversely, if the barrage is to be taken out, there will neither be flood nor displacement in the areas upstream of this barrage. People are forgetting that what is happening is the manifestation of adverse impact of Koshi treaty, hence colonialistic exploitation of Koshi River.
With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Kuprety@worldbank.org [mailto:Kuprety@worldbank.org]
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2011 17:39
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Subject: RE: FW: Our opposition is only against colonization of Nepal's natural resources

Dear Ratna Sansar jee

No, actually, I really find it interesting (not in a Chinese way). "Interesting" meaning "real good" but I wanted to avoid being judgemental.

regards

RE: FW: Our opposition is only against colonization of Nepal's natural resources

2011-07-01T17:35:00.000-07:00

July 2, 2011

Prof. Dr Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University
Dear Prof. Lohani

A person grows up after being breast fed by her/his mother. But children can never repay the mother. The least a child could do is feel grateful towards the mother.

Similarly, a person also feeds on the motherland (eat food that grows on the land, drinks water flowing in her rivers, and so forth) and in return at least needs to feel obligated to her and be faithful to her, although nobody will be able to repay the motherland. Otherwise, it will amount to ungratefulness on the part people who don’t have nationalistic feelings.

Unfortunately, we have many people who don’t feel grateful towards the motherland. Moreover, strangely, there are many people in Nepal who are faithful towards other countries, instead of Nepal. no wonder, Nepal is languishing in such a state.

Thank you very much for your kind words.

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: Friday, July 1, 2011 5:00
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: Our opposition is only against colonization of Nepal's natural resources
Dear Ratna Sansarji,

Thanks for forwarding your interview published in weekly Telegraph which approaches prominent people with 5 Questions .A few years ago,immediately after the April movement of 2006,I had also answered 5 questions of this weekly.One common denominator in all your 5 answers is your strong nationalistic feeling .You have reiterated your stand that power can be exported to India only after we make sure that our own requirement has been met.You have rightly said that our own people should not be deprived of 'water and electricity' in our frantic bid to export power and electricity to the southern neighbor.

Congrats and wishing you all the best,

Mohan Lohani

Our opposition is only against colonization of Nepal’s natural resources

2011-06-28T17:56:00.000-07:00

Interview taken by Telegraph Nepal and published on June 29, 2011

TGQ1: We have been listening of the 83,000MW (megawatts) rhetoric for decades and decades. Neither can we manage enough financial resources to exploit enormous Hydro-Power potential that we have, nor do we allow foreigners more so the interested Southern neighbor, India, to invest here. Is there any logic behind opposition to the Indian investment in Hydro-Power Sector?

Mr. Shrestha: I think it has to be understood in its proper perspective. The opposition as such is not against Indian investment; neither is it against any particular country. Investment from within Nepal or without Nepal need not be opposed. Of course, in terms of benefitting from return on investment, domestic investment deserves priority, which is rather obvious and desirable. But, when investment from Nepal is inadequate for infrastructure building, then one should be open to foreign direct investment (FDI). As far as I am concerned, I have never opposed investment from any county whatsoever. Actually I was instrumental in bringing Norwegian investment in Khimti project, which now is much maligned though.

My opposition has been and will be against investments from any part of the world for projects that will export water and electricity to India while depriving people in Nepal from using water and electricity. This is an important distinction that people fail to make and some people with ulterior motive deliberately try to obfuscate. The opposition is only against the colonization of our natural resources. Nepal is suffering from energy crisis. And that too for suppressed growth; there is paucity of energy even to meet demand under suppressed growth scenario. Nepal not only should aim to achieve normal economic growth (a level higher than currently obtaining suppressed economic growth) but we should be working towards attaining accelerated economic growth.

Matter of fact is: Nepal is not even a developing country. It is rather an under-industrialized backward country. Therefore, many people are migrating overseas for lack of employment opportunity. And why is there lack of employment? Because, there is lack of industrialization. And, why don’t we have industrialization? Because, we lack necessary power for the purpose. Therefore, what I am saying is that adequate power for our own country’s industrialization should be prioritized in order to generate necessary employment opportunities such that conducive environment could be created for our youth to return to the motherland after stemming the outflow of the youth in search of employment.

Look at the current situation. We are undergoing severe load shedding even under suppressed economic growth scenario. Our industries are not operating at full capacity. And, new industries aren’t coming up for lack of power. So our first target is to mitigate load shedding even under suppressed growth scenario. Second level is to make ample power available to meet the demand for normal growth and move on to accelerated economic growth by generating power for internal consumption in ever increasing necessary quantum.

Let us take a look at numbers. Nepal Electricity Authority has projected peak demand for this year to be more than 950MW which is based on suppressed growth rate. At this point in time, to meet the demand for normal growth we will need at least 2,000MW. I can give you some details in this respect. We have three industrial corridors (Morang-Sunsari, Bara-Parsa and Rupandehi-Nawalparasi). Each of these industrial corridors needs additional 200MW for the industries there to operate at full capacity and enable new factories to be set up. Altogether, we need additional 600MW just for these industrial corridors at this very point in time. And we always talk of Balance of Trade Deficit and Balance of Payment deficit, and the prime reason for this is our over dependence on imported fossil fuel. For example, look at cooking Gas (LPG). One study has concluded that we need at least 640MW electricity to displace LPG consumed just in Kathmandu valley as of today. Therefore, just to attain normal growth level, Nepal need more than 2,000MW as of today itself. If we were to assume the energy demand growth rate to be 10% per year, then Nepal will need 3,000MW after 5 years in order to maintain normal growth. We should also be aware that the run of the river (ROR) type projects generate 1/3rd of the installed capacity in the dry season. That implies to meet the demand projected by NEA after 5 years of 1,510 MW under suppressed growth scenario, the installed capacity will have to be 4,500 MW. Similarly, to meet future demand of 3,000MW after 5 years under normal growth scenario we will need to have installed capacity of 9,000MW. If Nepal is to aim to attain economic growth level commensurate to our immediate neighbors then we will need to achieve accelerated growth for which even 15,000 MW in 5 years time will not be adequate.

Let’s now talk about Upper Karnali project. What we have been saying is that the electricity generated by this project should be used to meet Nepal’s internal demand, instead of exporting it and condemning Nepal to continue to stay in dark and also unindustrialized. We are not opposing GMR for the sake of opposing only. I don’t care whatever company comes and invests in Nepal. But, the point is Nepal needs that electricity as I explained earlier. We are not saying GMR should not be allowed to invest. On the other hand, what should be the interest of GMR? It should be nothing more than a fair return on their investment and security of the investment. We don’t have any problem with that. But, if they insist on exporting power to India thus depriving Nepal from much needed power then I oppose that idea but not the investor. It is in this backdrop, not only GMR in Upper Karnali, I am in opposition to the modalities of several other projects, such as Arun-III, Tama Koshi-III, Likhu, Balefi, West Seti, lower Arun and other projects that are dedicated for export. And, let me further clarify: I am also not against export per se. But, I am against exporting power by ignoring the need of power for our own economic growth, even the suppressed growth; forget accelerated growth, even normal growth.

My objection is against those foreign investors that come with hidden agenda. Nepal should intensively use its own power to attain accelerated growth and then whatever is left is for export. We can’t store electricity right? So we must export the surplus. But the foolishness lies is keeping Nepal in dark and pushing the nation back to the medieval ages while exporting power. Let us look into these projects from financial perspectives. These projects will be exporting power to India at around NRs 2.00 per unit. And I am sure you are aware that in the name of mitigating load shedding currently we are importing electricity at NRs. 10.72 per unit. Don’t you think this is sheer foolishness? I am against this foolishness as it is highly illogical. If this project and others are implemented as dedicated for export then in a very near future Nepal will have these “investors” exporting power at around Rs 2 and we will be importing the same power to meet our ever increasing power need at exorbitant rate. I simply cannot stand the prospect of such a scenario; most stupid thing to be doing. Let us have projects implemented, let us also invite foreign investment for the purpose but let us also keep the nation’s priority first and foremost.

Do we have the funds needed to invest in our projects? If we have then where is it?

People always say that there is no money in Nepal. That is only partly true. Such statements come from visionless people. Let me once again stress that I am not against foreign investment but firmly believe that people in Nepal should be afforded opportunity to invest in hydropower projects first and benefit therefrom. Let me try to give you one example of where the fund is. Nepal receives remittance to the tune of NRs. 300 Billion each year. Just 10% of it (Rs. 30 billion) is adequate to construct 300MW project. In ten years, we can easily construct 900MW just by using 10% of the remittance each year. But, if we were to leverage the money, we can use this Rs. 30 billion as equity (one third) and borrow Rs 60 billion (two-third). With Rs. 90 billion we can implement 900MW. Thus from 10% of remittance received each year, we can construct 9,000MW in a decade. Who says Nepal doesn’t have money? These people say so with their eyes firmly closed; failing to see possibilities right in front of their collective noses. One needs to remember that remittance that is flowing into Nepal now is being invested in unproductive sectors, for example real estate.

TGQ2: You have been quite often saying during your public interaction that Upper Karnali has the total capacity of over 4000MW. However, the GMR was initially granted the right to construct 300MW project. And now plans are to construct 900MW project. What is it all about?

Mr. Shrestha: Upper Karnali is called a “Jewel in the Crown.” It is the biggest gift of Mother Nature to our country. If you look at the map you will notice that Karnali River flows from North to South. At a particular point it turns east and makes an about turn after 50 km just to come back to almost the same point and heads south. Therefore, by constructing a tunnel of just 2 Kilometers at that point this project can be constructed cost effectively. You need to remember that longer the tunnel higher the cost. And, higher the cost of the project higher will be the generation cost. There is no other site comparable to this. And, this is an ideal site for 4,180MW storage project. By implementing it as multipurpose project, it will not only generate 4,180MW but also irrigate 1.5 million ha during the dry season.

Of the total cultivable land in Nepal of 4 Million hectares, only 12% has access to irrigation and that too during the rainy season only. Only, 0.5% has access to irritation during dry season. But, if Upper Karnali is constructed as a storage project, it will generate regulated flow of 500 cubic meters per second of water which can irrigate 1.5 million hectares of land in the dry season. We can increase cropping intensity, have multiple cropping (cash crop, off season fruits, vegetables etc.) by implementing it as storage project. The fate of far western and mid-western development region of the country could be dramatically and drastically changed by implementing it as such. Even farmers from those areas are going overseas, why? Simply for lack of employment. Currently, the region can plant only one crop a year, being dependent on rain. If the region has adequate water for irrigating their fertile land, as stated, they can harvest three or more crops per year. That will provide impetus to the Nepali diaspora to come back home.

The capacity of 4,180 MW was arrived at by Himalayan Power Consultants under a study commissioned by Nepal Electric Authority with financing of the World Bank. This project should be constructed as a multi-purpose storage type; which will afford us an opportunity to exploit multidimensional use of water. Unfortunately, it was given away as a 300MW project and these people are saying it can be optimized as a 900MW project. But Nepal will be deprived from the opportunity to irrigate the land and electricity needs. Just imagine the amount of royalty Nepal would get by exporting all 4180 MW of electricity. We will receive 4 times less royalty by fixing the capacity at 900MW. This is a sheer idiocy.

TGQ3: It is also being talked that India is more interested in irrigating their lands from Nepali water by converting Nepal into a reservoir than investing in generating electricity? Also tell us something on India’s River Linking project?

Mr. Shrestha: If you look at the map of India, it is broad in the northern Gangetic plains and it narrows down in the South. If you look at the topography and soil of the Deccan plateau, only the coastal areas have some fertile lands. Otherwise, it is all rocky and hard hills compared to soft hills of Nepal. But if you look at the Gangetic plains, there is very good fertile land, which, therefore, is called the granary of India. But it lacks water for irrigation during dry season. Nepal’s rivers contribute about 40% of the water to Ganga River during the wet season. However, during dry season Nepal contributes about 70%. It is, thus, evident that water flowing from Nepal is very important to India. Again let us comeback to our Upper Karnali discussion, if it is constructed as a multipurpose project and Nepal uses its waters for irrigation and other consumptive purposes, the Indians, falsely, perceive that the quantum of water flowing down to India will be reduced. Therefore, the Indians and those Nepalese that are more faithful to Indian interests than Nepal’s national interest don’t want it to be constructed as storage project. As you have rightly pointed out, India is keen on exploiting Nepal’s water, not electricity. People here talk about industrialization of India and say that they need our power to grow, which is totally untrue. Most of the Indians hide this fact. There are also very few honest people in India. The former water resource minister Saifuddin Soz had clearly stated, while talking to a BBC, that Indian priority from Nepal is flood control and irrigation, electricity is just a byproduct. But, unfortunately people in Nepal, whom I call hydrocrats fail to understand this or they are more faithful to Indian interest in Nepal’s water than their own motherland. They talk of potential electricity market in India and scheme to keep Nepal in dark and keep it always unindustrialized.

If you look at their River Linking project closely, they talk about linking rivers of whole India and also generating 34,000MW of power. But, out of which they plan to generate 32,000 MW from rivers within Nepal which suffices to show importance of water flowing in Nepal to India.

So they want to convert Nepal into a reservoir of water?

One example is the Koshi River. There was the news about 87 thousand Cusec water flowing down the river a few days back creating havoc. It is because of the Barrage there. The Barrage was constructed to control the natural flow of water to control flood in India and so as to irrigate land. Which land to irrigate? Of course India! By constructing the barrage, it has controlled flood in India, irrigated its lands while inundating our cultivable land and involuntarily displacing huge number of local inhabitants. That is their basic aim.

TGQ4: There are also discussions on constructing South Asian Grid of 100,000MW capacity? Considering that neighbors around perceive India as a bully neighbor. Is it possible?

Mr. Shrestha: Of course it is possible. Take it for granted that the hydrocrats in Nepal will bend head over their collective heels to ensure it. But have we ever analyzed whether the project will benefit Nepal? Look closely, in this so-called grid there is India which is starved for power. There is Pakistan, which is also starving for power. There is Bangladesh without any prospect of hydropower. So there are only two countries perceived to have surplus power, Nepal and Bhutan. People present this as mutually beneficial, but it will primarily be used to export electricity to India from Nepal and Bhutan. When our power demand gets saturated we can use the grid to export electricity but not before that.

TGQ5: Let us change the topic now. The Indian media is ballooning recent report by a so-called “prestigious” Foreign Policy Magazine which claims in its annual ranking that India’s immediate neighbors, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka are in the list of “most failed states”. Don’t you think that since India shares its borders with all these independent nations and thus it has a role to play in the abnormal situation that these countries are undergoing currently?

Mr. Shrestha: The reason is quite simple. It is India’s hegemonic attitude that is the prime cause of instability in the neighboring countries and its overriding ambition to colonize Nepal’s natural resources. They do not want strong neighbors around them. Look at Nepal’s problems, who is creating them? I don’t know if you are aware or not, the Maoists, during insurgency, were, reportedly trained in Chakrata of Himanchal Pradhesh by the Indian government. They did exactly the same in Bangladesh. They are doing the same thing in Pakistan. Who created LTTE in Sri Lanka? India has imperialistic ambitions.

Why don’t they even think setting neighbors ablaze will burn them finally?

You remember that Indira Gandhi was killed by her own Sikh guard to avenge the death of Bhinderwale who was initially trained by the Indian Army. Rajeev Gandhi was killed by a Tamil who had links with LTTE, which was trained and armed by Indians themselves. So, people while in power do stupid things. They come up with grandiose plans, but they fail to see future ramifications of their decisions.

People always think that I am anti-India that is very far from the truth. I am pro-Nepal. The Kurtha set that I am wearing now is highly popular Indian dress and was purchased in New Delhi. I feel comfortable in it and I have several pairs of it. I own a Maruti Gypsy jeep and an Indian motorbike. Even my refrigerator is of Indian make. People often come to me seeking advice as to where should they source for their equipment etc. I always tell them if you can purchase in Nepal that’s fine, else buy it from India as far as is possible without compromising quality. It is quite cost effective and spares and maintenance is less problematic.

जलश्रोतमा "ज्ञानेन्द्रपथ"

2011-06-26T19:46:00.001-07:00

गोकर्ण बिष्ट उर्जा मन्त्री नियुक्त हुंदा बिगतका उर्जा वा जलश्रोत मन्त्रीहरुको तुलनामा तिनबाट विशेष केहि अपेक्षा गरिएन । तर काम थाले पछि तिनको अपरम्पराबादी सोच सार्वजनिक भएर केहि आशान्वित भएकाछन् । उदाहरणार्थ यत्तिंजेलका मन्त्रीहरुले गर्दै आएझैं आफ्ना आसेपासेलाई, अथवा गोप्य तर सबैलाई ज्ञात भएको व्यवस्था अनुसार शुभलाभको आधारमा, नेपाल बिद्युत प्राधिकरणको कार्यकारी प्रमुख नियुक्ति नगरेर पारदर्शी एवम् प्रतिश्पर्धात्मक तरिकाले नियुक्ति गर्ने घोषणा गरेबाट धेरै हौसिएका छन् ।

हुन त छनौट प्रकृया कत्तिको स्वच्छ हुन्छ, छनौट समितिले समर्पण भावले बिद्युत उपभोक्ता, प्राधिकरण तथा देशको हितमा काम गर्न कटिबद्ध सुयोग्य तथा सक्षम व्यक्ति छनौट गर्न सफल हुन्छ कि हुन्न हेर्न बांकी नैं छ । कतै कर्मकाण्डी प्रकारले छनौट प्रकृया पूरा गरेर मन्त्रीको आफ्नो वा आफ्नो दलको वा वर्तमान सरकार निकट व्यक्ति नियुक्त गर्छन् कि भन्ने आशंका पनि छ । किनभने प्रतिश्पर्धात्मक रुपमा बोलपत्रद्वारा (टेण्डर) गरिएको खरिददारीमा पनि अनियमितता तथा भ्रष्टाचार भएको उदाहरणहरुको अभाव बिद्युत क्षेत्रमा छैन । तथापि यस पहललाई अहिले सकारात्मकरुपमा लिइनु पर्छ ।

जलबिद्युत आयोजनामा सेना
स्थानिय बासिन्दा तथा अन्यत्र बस्ने यस पंक्तिकार लगायत जलश्रोतमा विशेष चासो राख्नेले केहि जलबिद्युत आयोजनाहरुको बिरोध गर्ने देखि न्यापालिका गुहार्ने सम्मका काम गर्दै आएका छन् । तर माथिल्लो कर्णाली आयोजनाबाट असन्तुष्ट स्थानिय जनताद्वारा आक्रोस व्यक्त गर्ने क्रममा उक्त आयोजनाको दैलेख स्थित कार्यालयमा यहि ज्येष्ठ ८ गते तोडफोड आगजनी गरिएको समाचार सम्प्रेषित भयो ।

नदीमा बगेको पानीमाथि पहिलो अधिकार स्थानिय बासिन्दाको हुन्छ भन्ने अन्तर्राष्ट्रियरुपमा सर्वमान्य सिद्धान्त हो । जलबिद्युतको सन्दर्भमा स्थानिय बासिन्दाको पहिलो अधिकार भनेको आयोजनामा लगानि गर्ने देखि व्यवस्थापनमा संलग्न हुने सम्मका कार्यान्वयन प्रकृयामा सहकार्य र उत्पादित बिजुलीबाट लाभान्वित हुने मौका हो । तर यी अधिकारहरुबाट बंचित गर्ने प्रपाच रचिएको अवस्थामा आक्रोसित हुनु अस्वाभाविक मान्न नसकिए पनि बिरोधको नाममा िहंसात्मक तरिका अलवम्बन गर्नु जायज मान्न सकिन्न निन्दनिय छ ।

यस्तो घटनाको प्रतिरोध गर्ने नाममा मन्त्री बिष्टले उक्त आयोजनामा सेना तैनाथ गरेर सुरक्षा दिने घोषणा गरेकाछन् । यसबाट नेपालमा तीन चौथाई जनतालाई अंध्यारोमा राखेर र बांकी एक चौथाईलाई १४ घण्टा लोडसेिडंगको मारमा (आगामि वर्षहरुमा जुन बढेर २०/२२ घण्टा सम्म पुग्ने आकलन गरिएकोछ) पारेर नेपालीहरुलाई मध्ययुगिन अवस्थामा बांच्न बाध्य पारेर भएपनि भारतमा बिजुली निकासी गर्नुपर्छ भन्नेहरुमा विशेष खुशी छाएकोछ ।

तर यो अतीबादी सोच हो र यसले मन्त्री बिष्ट प्रति जनमानसमा उदाएको उत्साहमा तुषारापात गरेकोछ । किनभने देशको सेना भनेको मुलुक माथि बाह्ँ आक्रमण भएको अवस्थ्ाामा प्रतिरक्षा गर्नको लागि व्यवस्था गरिएको हुन्छ र नेपाली सेनाको भूमिका र औचित्य पनि यहि नैं हो । तर जायज गुनासो, समस्याको कारणले आक्रोसित स्थानिय बासिन्दालाई तह लगाउन सेनाको परिचालन कसै गरेर पनि उचित मान्न सकिन्न ।

सायद काकताली परेरै होला प्रस्तावित "बिद्युत उर्जा संकट निवारण ऐन २०६७" को दफा २६६ मा उक्त ऐन कार्यान्वयनमा "बाधा बिरोध गरेमा प्रचलित कानून जुनसुकै कुरा लेखिएको भएतापनि" "गोली चलाउने" व्यवस्था गरिएकोछ । यसरी वर्तमान सरकारले जायज गुनासो लिएर आउने नेपाली दाजुभाई दिदीबहिनीमाथि नेपाली सेनाले गोली वर्षाउनु पर्ने स्थिति सृजना गरेकोछ ।

स्मरणिय छ नेपालबाट मृत्यु दण्ड उन्मूलन भई सक्यो अर्थात न्यायपालिकाले कानून बमोजिम पूर्पक्ष गरेर समेत मृत्यु दण्ड दिन पाइन्न । तर बिद्युत उर्जा संकट निवारणको नाममा आरोपितको अपराधको न्यायिक निरुपण बिना, आरोपितलाई आफू निर्दोष रहेको सिद्ध गर्ने मौका समेत नदिई मृत्युको मुखमा पुर् याउने स्थिति वर्तमान सरकारले सृजना गरेकोछ ।

"ज्ञानेन्द्रपथ"
२०५२ साल देखि चलेको माओबादी "जनयुद्ध" र आफैले २०५९ आश्विनमा संसद बिघटन गरे पछि मूलप्रवाहका राजनैतिक दलहरुले गरेको आन्दोलनलाई दबाउन अपदस्थ राजा ज्ञानेन्द्रले आफ्ना पिता महेन्द्रको २०१७ सालको कदमको सिको गरेर २०६१ माघ १९ गते देशमा प्रत्यक्ष शासन लादेका थिए, पत्रपत्रिका, रेडियो, टेलिभिजन लगायतका संचार माध्यममा समेत सेना परिचालन गरेर गरेका थिए । वर्तमान सरकारले जलबिद्युत आयोजनाहरुमा सेना तैनाथ गर्ने र गोली चलाउने अख्तियारी दिने भनेको ज्ञानेन्द्रपथको अवलम्बन गर्नु हो ।

तर ज्ञानेन्द्र असफल मात्र भएनन्, तिनको कृयाकलापले गर्दा नेपालबाट राजतन्त्र नैं उन्मूलन भयो । यसबाट वर्तमान सरकारले पाठ सिक्नु, शिक्षा लिनुको सट्टा जलबिद्युत आयोजनाको सुरक्षा गर्ने नाममा जलश्रोतमा ज्ञानेन्द्रपथ लागू उद्यत भएकोछ र गोली चलाउने जस्तो अमानविय व्यवस्था राखेर ऐन निर्माण गर्दैछ । विश्वका धेरै मुलुकहरुमा ज्ञानेन्द्रपथमा लागेका तानाशाहरुको पतनबाट वर्तमान सरकारले केहि सिक्नुपर्नेमा उल्टो बाटो पहल्यिाएकोछ । अहिल्यै पनि धेरै अरब मुलुकहरुका तानाशाहहरुले आआफ्नो मुलुकबाट पलायन हुन परेको र मिश्रका होस्नी मुबारकको जेल यात्राबाट शिक्षा लिने आशा छ ।

बिरोध, अवरोध र आक्रोस
किन र के कति जायज कारणबस बिरोध भएकोछ र बिरोधमा सीमित नभएर अवरोध नैं किन गर्छन र अझ तोडफोडमैं उत्रने गरेर किन आक्रोसित भएकाछन् भन्ने विश्लेषण चिन्तन् गरिनुपर्छ र जायज कारणबस् यस्ता कृयाकलापमा संलग्न भएको भए बिरोध, अवरोध र आक्रोसको कारणहरु गहनतापूर्वक पहिल्याएर समस्याको गांठो फुकाउनु पर्छ सेना परिचालन गर्नु तथा गोली चलाउनुको सट्टा ।

अधिकांश बिदेशी लगानिका आयोजनाहरुमा जलश्रोतमा पहिलो हक हुने स्थानिय बासिन्दालाई निरपेक्ष ढंगबाट आयोजनामा लगानि गर्ने अवसरबाट बंचित गर्ने ,व्यवस्थापनमा सहभागिता जनाउने मौका नदिने र उत्पादित बिजुली उपभोग गर्न पनि नपाउने अवस्थामा आक्रोसित हुनु अस्वाभाविक मान्न सकिन्न, तर बिरोधको नाममा िहंसात्मक तरिका अलवम्बन गर्नु जायज मान्न सकिन्न ।

तसर्थ स्थानिय बासिन्दाको जायज गुनासो, समस्या पहिल्याएर समाधान तर्फ नलागेर सेना परिचालन गरेरै भए पनि आयोजना कार्यान्वयन गर्ने हठ लिनु मन्त्री बिष्टको सरकारलाई सुहांउदो काम होइन । नेपाली जनताको गुनासो र समस्या बुझेर तिनले गरेको बिरोध, अवरोधलाई जायज देखेर सेनाका जवानहरुले आफ्ना दाजुभाई दिदीबहिनी माथि गोली चलाउने आदेशको अवज्ञा गरेको अवस्थामा के कस्तो दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण अवस्था सृजना हुन्छ भन्ने तर्फ ध्यान गएको देखिएन । अझ जायज गुनासोहरु सम्बोधन नगरेको अवस्थामा छातीमा गोली थाप्न स्थानिय जनता तैयार भएमा कस्तो परिस्थिति निर्माण हुन्छ भन्ने तर्फ पनि ध्यान गएको देखिन्न । स्मरणिय छ नेपाली जनता अन्याय सहेर बस्नु भन्दा गोली थाप्न छाती खोल्न पछि नहट्ने खालका छन् । अर्कोतिर स्थानिय बासिन्दामा जलबिद्युत आयोजना प्रति अपनत्व जगाउन सकिएमा अधिकांश जनताले आयोजनाको सफल कार्यान्वयनमा योगदान गर्ने मात्र नभएर आयोजनाको कार्यान्वयनमा अवरोध पुर् याउनेहरुलाई जनस्तरबाटै निरुत्साहित पार्नेछन् । तसर्थ आयोजना कार्यान्वयनको क्रममा लगानि तथा व्यवस्थापनमा सहभागिता जनाउने मौका दिएर उत्पादित बिजुली खपत गरेर आफ्नो क्षेत्रको औद्योगिकरण गरी रोजगारी श्रृजना गर्ने अवसर प्रदान गरेर आयोजना प्रति अपनत्वको भावना जगाउने काम गरिनुपर्छ ।

माथिल्लो कर्णाली आयोजना
३ सय मेगावाटको लागि अनुमतिपत्र दिइएको माथिल्लो कर्णाली आयोजना ९ सय मेगावाट जडित क्षमताको बनाईने भनिएको छ । तर प्राधिकरणले नैं सम्पन्न गराएको अध्ययन/अन्वेशनबाट यो आयोजनालाई ४ हजार १ सय ८० मेगावाट जडित क्षमताको जलाशययुक्त बनाइएमा नेपालको सर्बोत्तम हितमा अत्यधिक दोहन हुने ठहर् याएकोछ, जसबाट उच्च गुणस्तरको बिजुली ११ अर्ब युनिट अत्यधिक सुपथ लागतमा उत्पादन हुन्छ भने प्रस्तावित ९ सय मेगावाट क्षमताबाट तल्लो गुणस्तरको ३ अर्ब १५ करोड युनिट मात्र उत्पादन हुन्छ । निशुल्क बिजुलीमा निर्भर हुने नीति अवलम्बन गरेपनि पूर्ण क्षमतामा निर्माण गरिएमा ५०१ मेगावाटबाट १ अर्ब ३२ करोड युनिट बिजुली निशुल्क प्राप्त हुन्छ भने कम क्षमतामा निर्माण गरिएमा १ सय ८ मेगावाटबाट ३७ करोड युनिट मात्र प्राप्त हुन्छ । त्यस्तै पूर्ण क्षमतामा निमार्ण भएमा वार्षिक ४ अर्ब २८ करोड रुपैंया नेपालले रोयल्टीबाट राजश्व स्वरुप प्राप्त गर्छ भने ९ सय मेगावाट क्षमताबाट रोयल्टी स्वरुप ८३ करोड ३० लाख रुपंैया मात्र प्राप्त हुन्छ । यस्तोमा पूर्ण क्षमतामा निर्माण नगर्न लागेकोमा बिरोध गर्दा सेना परिचालित गरेर गोली चलाउने कुरा गर्नु मुख्र्याई ठहर्छ ।

साथै पूर्ण क्षमतामा निर्माण गरिएमा प्रति सेकेन्ड ५ सय घन मिटर पानी सुख्खायाममा उपलब्ध हुन्छ जसको उपयोग गरेर पानी फारो हुने खेती गरेमा १५ लाख हेक्टर जमिन िसंचित हुनसक्छ । नेपालमा सामान्यतया आकाशे खेती गरिन्छ र िसंचाईको व्यवस्था भएपनि धेरै जसो वर्षातमा मात्र िसंचाईको लागि पानी उपलब्ध हुन्छ । तर जलाशययुक्त आयोजनाबाट सुख्खायाममा समेत िसंचाईको लागि पानी उपलब्ध भएर सघन खेती बहुबाली, नगदे बाली, बेमौसमी फलफूल तरकारी खेती गरेमा सुदूर पश्चिमााचल तथा मध्य पश्चिमााचल विकास क्षेत्रका किसानहरु धेरै लाभान्वित हुने अवस्था छ, अनिकाल इतिहाँसमा समेटिएर खाद्य सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित हुनेछ । यो एउटै आयोजनाले यस क्षेत्रको सुनौलो भाग्यरेखा कोर्न सक्दछ । यस क्षेत्रबाट ठूलो संख्यामा युवा भारत तथा तेश्रो मुलुक पलायन भएकोमा मातृभूमी फर्कने बाटो खुल्दछ । अझ जलाशययुक्त बनाइएतापनि संचित पानी नेपालमा सुख्खायाममा िसंचाईको लागि उपयोग नगर्ने हो भने दक्षिण अपि्रुकाबाट लेसोथोले प्राप्त गरेको दरमा नेपालले वार्षिक ५२ अर्ब रुपैया आर्जन गर्न सक्छ, जुन उपयोग गरेर यो क्षेत्रको छोटो समयमा नैं कायाकल्प गर्न सकिन्छ ।

यस्तोमा यो आयोजनालाई नेपाल र नेपालीको सर्वोत्तम हित हुने गरेर पूर्ण क्षमतामा निर्माण गरिनुपर्छ भन्नेहरुलाई र यस्तो अवधारणालाई उपेक्षा गरेकोमा बिरोध गर्नेहरुलाई सेना परिचालित गरेर तह लगाउने सोच दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण हो ।

भारतीय लगानिको अवांछित बिरोध
आगजनी तथा तोडफोडको घटनामा एमाओबादी लगायतका केहि राजनैतिक दलहरु सम्बद्ध व्यक्तिहरु पनि संलग्न थिए भन्ने अपुष्ट समाचार संप्रेषण भएकोछ । हुनपनि एमाओबादीले भारतीय लगानिको बिरोध गर्ने गरेकोछ, जुन दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण कुरा हो । उदाहरणको लागि माथिल्लो कर्णाली आयोजनालाई यसको पूर्ण क्षमतामा नेपाल र नेपालीको सर्बोत्तम हितको लागि निर्माण हुन्छ भने लगानिकर्ता कुन मुलुकको हो भन्ने कुरा गौण हुन्छ । अवश्य पनि यस्ता आयोजनामा लगानि गर्ने प्राथमिकता नेपाली बचतकर्ताले पाउनुपर्छ तर ४ हजार मेगावाटको आयोजनाको लागि आन्तरिक श्रोत परिचालन गरेर मात्र पुग्दैन । त्यसकारण भारतको लगानि प्रति पूर्वाग्रह राख्नु नेपालकै हितमा छैन ।

तर जलबिद्युत विकासको नाममा नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्तामा आंच आउने गरेर नेपाललाई भुटानिकरण (प्रतिरक्षा र बिदेश मामिलाको जिम्मा भारतलाई सुम्पेर) गर्ने, नेपाललाई अंध्यारोमा राखेर सस्तो तथा उच्चगुणस्तरको बिजुली भारत निकासी गर्ने, अझ सस्तो बिजुली भारत निकासी गरेर नेपालमा उर्जा संकट निवारणार्थ भन्दै महंगोमा आयात गर्ने गरेर आयोजना निर्माण गर्न खोजिएमा बिरोध अवश्य पनि हुनेछ । गोली हान्ने धम्की र कानूनी प्रावधानले बिरोध रोकिनेछैन । स्मरणिय छ बेलायतको उपनिवेश रहंदा भारतीय देशभक्तहरु माथि गोली हान्नेहरु भारतीय नैं थिए ।

२०६८ आषाढ १३ गतेको कान्तिपुरमा प्रकाशित

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Review of Supreme Court verdict

2011-06-22T19:28:00.000-07:00

June 23, 201

Dear colleague

I disagree with you on three counts:

(a) Verdicts of Supreme Court requires to be “judged” (to use your own word) if it is double meaning. Otherwise no justice will be meted out. The very justification behind the existence of judiciary is rendering justice. Double meaning verdict don’t mete out justice.

(b) These also need to be judged if Supreme Court fails to do justice. There are many Supreme Court decisions that need contestation. By the way, Supreme Court had no role in the reinstatement of parliament.

(c) It is also untrue that review of SC judgment by another bench is happening only now and has not happened in the past. Judgment of division bench (two judge bench) is subject to revision by full bench (bench comprising more than 2 judges) and there have been times when full bench verdicts have been upturned by teams of judges comprising more than 3 judges. The particular verdict we are discussing is an example. A lot of SC judgments have been overturned and lot many cases have been submitted for review which don’t get overturned.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From:
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 18:11
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: FW: My article on constituent assembly

Ratna Sansarju,
Let us not judge the judgments of the Supreme Court because they are always double-meaning.

Remember the judgment on the dissolution of parliament by GPK and Manmohan Adhikari which have changed the course of our political history?

Also do you remember the reinstatement of Parliament 4 yrs after formal expiry of life?

Remember its judgment on the President's move of reinstating the then CoAS?

Rightly or wrongly we are witnessing the review of the SC's judgments by another bench...that has not happened in the past.

Thanks for your compliments

2011-06-21T17:54:00.000-07:00

June 22, 2011

Dirgha Raj Prasai
Kathmandu

Dirgha Raj jee

I take it your words below are meant to be compliments. I thank you for the compliments.

Yes, it is definite that I don't support people who are committing high treason (rashtra droha) against our motherland. I write with the single purpose of trying to warn them against doing so if they are doing these in ignorance. If they are committing high treason knowingly, then god only can help them.

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: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:18
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: My article on constituent assembly

Dear Ratna Sansar Shrestha jee !

It is my suggestion only. I think, you are a energetic porsonality. You are also anxious seeing the danger position of Nepal. I am feeling, now, you are not supporting the traitors' regime of Nepal. So, it is my request, you should command them with your writting. We citizens of Nepal should be cautious for building and saving the country as every one loves their respective nation. Changes are natural everywhere but these changes should be materialized to meet the aspirations of the people. The CA Members of Nepal have no knowledge, visions, national character.You should realize that if the CA change the negative side the nation will be disintegrated. Then, at that time, it will be our duty to fight against these traitors. Because, now,the foreigners are obsurbing to disintigrate our unity.So, for the sake of our nationality, we, you and I should capable to secure our identities. That is all.

See you.

Best wishess

D.R. Prasai

RE: FW: My article on constituent assembly

2011-06-20T17:59:00.000-07:00

June 21, 2011

Dirgha Raj Prasai
Kathmandu

Dirgha Raj jee

You have said that "If you realize my suggestions, you will be a nationalist and people's leader." Do you mean that I will become a nationalist only if I realize your suggestion? The insinuation is I am not a nationalist now! If that is what you are implying then I resent it. Because it will mean that nobody can become a nationalist if that person is to differ with you. Nobody can be in agreement with another person in all respects.

In the second part of the sentence you have said that I will also become "people's leader" if I were to realize your suggestions. I have no aspiration of becoming a "leader" if you are referring to being a political leader. Hence, I have no plan to go about "realizing" your suggestions for the purpose. Besides, it will entail changing my considered views/opinions related to, for example, monarchy to become people's leader. Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer to stay the way I am and have no plan to become "people's leader".

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

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

From: Dirgha Raj Prasai [mailto:dirgharajprasai@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 9:08
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: My article on constituent assembly

Dear Mr. Ratna jee !

Best wishess !

Actually, you are avery good man as a strong nationalist. You have written about Pancheshore which is very praiseworthy. But, in politics and ETC you should study as a great national messanger. If you realize my suggestions, you will be a nationalist and people's leader. You knpw- in the present context- I am a keen reader and analyst.

RE: Your article on Constituent Assembly

2011-06-19T18:43:00.000-07:00

June 20, 2011

Prof. Dr Mohan Lohani
Tribhuvan University

Dear Prof. Lohani

Thanks a lot for reverting back.

It was a mistake to elect such a big CA with very few members well versed in constitution, constitutionality and constitutional law. Therefore, past 3 years were spent on things other than constitution building. Besides, the constitution building exercise was relegated to second place and these people's first priority has been "government" building instead.

I think it rather natural for royalists to try to revive 1990 constitution. However, they need to realize that deposed monarchy is very unpopular now and necessary groundswell of support for the purpose will not be forthcoming from the people. Therefore, they also need to learn the ground reality and not do anything that will further destabilize the country.
With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

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

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 19:05
To: rsansar@mos.com.np
Subject: Your article on Constituent Assembly

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

> Thanks for forwarding your timely article which should inject some sense and sanity into our CA members who,as you have rightly pointed out,have given little importance to the constitution making process.I agree with you that some NC and UML members too are in favor of dissolving the CA,leaving out the Royalists whos are damn busy reviving the 1990 constitution.Your plea for an all party national govt.is the only sensible approach if we are serious in drafting a new constitution.The Maoists being the largest party in the CA have to bear a major responsibility in accomplishing the twin tasks,namely,the completion of the peace process and drafting a new Loktantric constituion.

> Wishing yu all the best and with regards,

> Mohan Lohani

RE: FW: My article on constituent assembly

2011-06-18T19:42:00.000-07:00

June 19, 2011

Dirgha Raj Prasai
Kathmandu

Dirgha Raj jee

It is indeed strange that you deem my article "controvercial" (sic) merely because my opinion doesn't match with your own. It manifests intolerance towards divergent views. In a democracy each individual has right to hold her/his own view; manifest in basic human right of freedom of thought. Only in absolute panchayati "democracy" all Nepali people had to be panchas and think like panchas and only panchas were deemed to be Nepali. People who held views different from official view were even imprisoned. We are now in a democracy and each person is entitled to the liberty to think differently from all and any other person. I am a type of person who dared to make my divergent views public even in the hay days of panchayat; even about the monarchy and concluding that it was an absolute monarchy (due to autocratic elements in it) and not a democratic one as most of the panchas at that time went about saying. You can read that particular article published almost 28 year ago by clicking the link below:

http://www.ratnasansar.com/2009/01/blog-post_21.html

You have also gone on to say that I have written the article "without study the reality of Nepalese context". Nothing could be further from truth. I have studied and been studying the Nepalese context at least as much as you have done, if not more. I trust you are not claiming that only you have studied and not anyone else.

You have written quite a lot about "failed present state of affairs" and ascribed it to many people and parties. You need to appreciate that this particular article of mine does not deal with that particular issue. Therefore, you comment in this respect isn't relevant in the context. Being a student of economics I too have my own views about this matter and I will be making it public in articles that I plan to write in near future.

You have also written about a number of "betrayals" and infringement of human rights. The ambit of my article that you are commenting on also doesn't deal with this issue. Therefore, there is no point in raving and ranting about these in the context of this particular article of mine.
Dipak Gyawali is a close friend of mine and we hold similar views with respect of Nepal's water resources. But we hold differing view in the matter of 1990 constitution and we respect each other's views. People are free to disagree with me. But I am against reviving that particular constitution and I have already made that view of mine public. You can access that article by following the link below:

http://www.ratnasansar.com/2010/03/blog-post_30.html

In that article I have opined that 1990 constitution is neither a democratic one nor is it the best constitution of the world as many people (including people from Nepali Congress and UML) have been going about claiming.

However, I am happy to note here that there are many issues on which we agree with each other.

In view of the above I will not be able to entertain further comments from you on this topic. But I welcome your comments on other topics.

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: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:01
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: My article on constituent assembly

Dear Ratna Sansar Shrestha jee !

Good Morning !

I have read your controvercial already. You have written without study the reality of Nepalese context.

You shoud know the facts-

The failed present state of affairs should be blamed on the government led by (2006-2011) late Girija Prasad (Nepali Congress), Pracanda (Maoist), Madhab nepal (UML). After the fall of the Maoist led government Madhav Nepal became the Prime Minister with the backing of India. Madhav Nepal could not do any creative works. The inflation, shortages, corruption, murder, terror, insecurity and anarchy were institutionalized. The UML's Jhalanath Khanal (supporter of Maoist) has elected the PM post- 10th Feb. 2011, with simple majority.

Including Congress and UML, Maoist parties are puzzled and they got fizzle out. They can't find the new horizons to write the new constitution. One thing is clear that the peaceful situation can't create in Nepal under his leadership because there is no possibility to return of the Maoist seized property and solution of the Maoist army and its weapons. Now, there will be no any democratic consensus. Because, the intention of Jalanath Khanal UML's Chairman and Maoist is very suspicious and they are bargaining to deceive the country. This result is not good for Nepal, democratic world including India also. After 2006, Nepali Congress, CPN (UML) and Maoists, in the name of nationality and democracy, kept everyone under illusion and through threat and intimidation forced them to take part in the uprising. The leaders of the so-called big parties have done nothing except treason.

Since the 12-point agreement reached in November 2005, at the direction of Indian investigative organization 'RAW', NC, UML and Maoists have risked Nepal's nationality and democracy. The issues of secularism, republic and federalism incorporated in the 12-point agreement are not their agendas rather a mission of CIA, RAW, European nations and Christians. The Brahmin traitors who are the prominent leaders of NC, UML and Maoist (including various NGOs and INGOs) have with support of foreign tools and resources become active and betrayed this holy land under the direction of foreigners. They have being funded and supported by foreign money, INGO's and foreigners.

Former representative of human rights from Govt. a scholar Dibakar Pant writes- it's has been really unfortunate to Nepalese to have all these so called human rights activists who have made the genuine issue of human rights a ladder to earn name, fame and money for the causes they are interpretations human rights violation as per their needs and interest. So, its almost clear that until Nepal has such certified looters who are working as promoter of human rights and politicians, the chances of making nation a fully democratic nation based on human rights to its citizen-rule of law and stability, is very slim or almost zero. It's now term of people and intellectuals, who are truly loyal to nation and democracy, need to be united and come forward to expose these looters of nation. The first betrayal was after the agitation in 2006, the contending had the internal support of NC, UML and Maoists who sought the king as the alternative for crisis. Five years ago, on 24 April 2006 an agreement was reached to revive the abolished parliament by them. Although the monarch did not posses any right to revive the parliament it was done so on the basis of agitation's mandate. Nepali Congress leader late Girija Prasad Koirala was appointed to the Prime Minister. The PM's oath taking was carried at the royal palace by the King. Gradually Prime Minister Girija broke the confidence over the 1990 Constitution and the agreement reached with the king. This is the cause of the current grave situation.

The second betrayal was against the sentiments of the people, whose constitution was treading upon through use of force. Without informing the monarch, on 18 May 2006, in the name of parliamentary declaration - the nation was declared a secular state. Under the straightforward direction of the foreigners, attacks were carried out on the sensitive conventions of the state. Then after, on 15 January 2007, an interim constitution was formulated and he became the head of state as he had desired.

The Maoist army was allowed under Maoist responsibility thereby creating two armies in the nation. After the Constituent Assembly, the election was declared unconstitutional. A caveat was conveyed to the monarchy through the Indian ambassador, that bombs may drop and the responsibility for his security could not be taken if he did not vacate Narayanhiti (which he, of course, did). The 12-point agreement to disrupt communal harmony by raising the issue of ethnic autonomy and entrapping the nation under the stratagems of Maoist army, has worked.

The third betrayal was on 18 May 2006. An interim constitution (through the NC, UML and Maoist declaration paper) was proclaimed without keeping a connection with the monarchy. Other than the people's representatives elected through the 1990 Constitution, 83 lawmakers of the Maoist party and activists of other political parties were made the parliamentarians - acting upon self-will. When the royal institution was still present, the Prime Minister was humorously declared as the head of state, and the House Speaker granted him the right to put the red seal on laws and ordinances. The anti-nationalist interim constitution was amended time and again narrowing it further. The rights of Nepalese citizenship as well as the rivers of Nepal were handed over to India.

The fourth betrayal-as a preliminary preparation to disintegrate the nation by giving support to the notion of One Madhes One State, 4 million Indian nationals were bestowed with Nepalese citizenship certificates, unscrupulously and in an artificial manner. Traitors such as Krishna Sitoula were made the Home Minister and the Nepalese citizenship was distributed to foreigners in extreme haste. At the Nepal's Tarai zone (Southern side), Indian criminal gangs-murderers, abductors. Extorters are sheltered in India for criminal and looting in Nepal.

After this, efforts were directed to declare federalism to segregate the nation into ethnic lines. It is revealing now that the UNMIN which represented the US, Britain and European nations, along with Maoists, led the effort to supplant the nation's Hindu status, Bikram Sambat, and Nepalese language with English language, A.D and Christianity. The Maoist leader Prachanda, who opposes imperialist character, amidst a mass meeting of Christians at the Open Theater on 20 April 2010, said 'Those who oppose secularism will be kidnapped' (Rajdhani, 21 April 2010). Clapping will not even be heard from the Christians in such an assemblage, unless profits are made by Maoists and foreigners.

Indian conspiracy is not the only one holding blame for the retrogression of Nepal, but to accept the decisive role of UN-UNMIN was another big betrayal. The US and UN (UNMIN) is pushing Nepal towards a dark future. The chief concern of the US and UNMIN is to make Nepal a springboard against China in the name of Free-Tibet. UN Human Rights representatives are spending money openly in Nepal and they do not want to inform the government of this. It has been made public that nongovernmental organizations of Nepal, and specifically by these nations, are spending Rs.10 to 15 billion every year Annapurna Post 11 March, 2010). This is how the Brahmins of civil society came to be working as employees of the CIA.

The fifth betrayal was an unholy alliance between UNMIN (that manages the Maoist PLA) and the state's army, which allowed it to be confined to barracks while the Maoist army (with weapons) was handed over the Maoist party's responsibility. There was also a condition that Girija Prasad and Madhav Nepals will be protected by the Maoist army rather than the national army. The Maoist army was taken care of and with their weapons; two armies were created in the nation. This is a betrayal of the nation. One year ago Maoist's Baburam Bhattarai said the Maoist party could revolt any time as it had its PLA and weapons intact. This is the cause of this tremendously grave situation.

The sixth betrayal are those who oppose, call general strikes, rape, kill, plunder and become the slaves of foreign forces, a trend which is set by addressing the demands of such and such which are made by people in power. It is in this manner that the rulers after 2006 worked to bring the nation into the condition it became - a failed state.

The Nepalese people are subject to murder, abduction, insecurity, shortage, inflation and more. In pragmatic terms, it is a notorious game that makes us slaves of foreign forces. If that weren't enough, then the Supreme Court gave a new verdict. 'The parliament may carry out amendments of any articles other than revert to one government system from federalism and royal institution from republican setup'.

In essence, a Nepali scholar, Ratna Sansar Shrestha, writes'The Supreme Court gave a verdict that the amendment cannot be carried out in regard to the royal institution and one government system. Its using power that it does not possess to strangle the right of Constituent Assembly'-(26 April 2010 Gorkhapatra).
After 2006 foreign brokers have taken over Nepal government. What will happen if the Supreme Court chooses the same path? It is mentioned in the constitution that the lifespan of Constituent Assembly will not be more than 2 years. The 25 February, 2011 edition of Gorkhapatra (Nepalese Govt. Newspaper) has reported that the Supreme Court, after the constitution was not drafted in the stipulated timeframe of 2 years, went on to change the definition by itself and gave a verdict, which was against constitutionalism and theory of natural justice, that the period of the Constituent Assembly would remain until the promulgation of the new constitution. Many constitutional and law experts have branded this a grave defect. Constitutional expert and advocate Bhimarjun Acharya writes-'Supreme Court verdict is against the mandate of people. If an organization formed under the guidance of people’s mandate is to continue for eternity then it will bring anarchy. This is against the people’s right to vote.' This proves that the SC is trying to make irresponsible broker CA members immortal.

Although, that verdict may be decided by some party oriented corrupt judges but it will be precedent. This is another betrayal. Are the culprit leaders of so-called big three parties doing well? They have no right to extend the time of CA. We, know, Supreme Court is one of the guardian of Nepalese people's fundamental rights. Then, why SC is supporting, again-again, such unconstitutional agenda?

The seventh betrayal is to not make efforts to draft the new constitution in time, which was stipulated and mandated by the people, while pilfering continues of billions of state properties. To extend the term after failing to draft the constitution in the stipulated

time is another IMMENSE betrayal. As the agreement of 24 April 2006 reached with the monarchy has been broken, all the works pertaining to interim constitution, interim parliament and constituent assembly after 24 April has become unsuccessful. The Nepalese people should not be betrayed to systematically erase the existence of Nepal. 'Guilty mind is always suspicious'-'the defeated mind of the defeated leaders of Congress, UML, Maoist- lead defunct-government has been showing its defeated mentality. It seems that conspiracy has been hatched in order to create bumper to stop monarch from growing popularity. Actually, no one has right to stop anyone to demoralize the Nepalese identities.

It's a mockery to nationality and democracy and universally accepted basic right of democratic The state must inflict strict retribution to traitors working in political parties and non government organizations. The new Constitution cannot be made through traitors. Even if it is drafted, it cannot be supported. Let us not indulge in the vain effort to draft a new constitution. Unfortunately, a few vision-impaired culprit leaders of so-called big three parties made the constitution a captive and tried to impose their dictated principles in the name of new Nepal. No clear ways are seen to bring the situation back to rule of law and true democratic process. The only way to get the nation back on track is to revive the constitution of 1990.

A Nepalese scholar Dipak Gyawali expressed-' The agenda of restoring the 1990 constitution and holding immediate elections under it, both for the national government and the district bodies, will let the rest of the Nepali people get on with their lives while bringing forth needed changes democratically through parliamentary majorities and referendums. At a minimum, this non-left political agenda will force the 2006 adventuress to answer how any new constitution could be realistically better than that of 1990.'-Sportlight, 16 May 2011. Interim constitution could not be termed as full-fledged people's mandated constitution and it could never take the place of people's endorsed constitution by replacing the same. Thane's why, it would be better, valid, democratic and beneficial to all to think about the revival of fully democratic constitution of 1990 accepted by all political forces including ultra leftist and endorsed by people. The challenge and demand that the country has bound to face at this very time could also be appropriately and constitutionally addressed through the periodical amendments the same.

From a legal point of view, the interim constitution cannot be validated as a full-fledged constitution and the 1990 charter is strong enough charter to withstand updating to meet current challenges. An inclusive cabinet should be formed for the purpose of its modification. It should be done by maintaining coordination and balance between Nepal's nationality, royal institution and its democracy on the basis of the reinstatement the Constitution 1990 with the monarch. If the Nepalese are successful in their efforts to revive constitution of 1990, the democratic future of people and separate identity of nation as a sovereign state could be intacted and flourished otherwise great question and threat to the same. So, it is the best answer for a happy future for the Nepalese people to Restore 1990 Constitution with Monarchy and Hindu Kingdom.There is no other alternative.

OK ?
The best exemple- your moter has sinked and then don't hegitate to back your moter to reach the right destination. That is- restotation of 1990 constitution to capture the right way of the country.

Thank you.

Dirgha Raj Prasai
Email: dirgharajprasai@gmail.com

On 6/14/11, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

> Dear Colleague

> Gorkhapatra has published my article, attached, today. I am sending it to you in case you have yet to come across it. you can also peruse it by following the link below:

RE: FW: My article on constituent assembly

2011-06-17T18:51:00.000-07:00

June 18, 2011

L B Thapa
Kathmandu

LB jee

Good to hear from you and glad that you agree with me.

You have come up with a good suggestion. But my concern is: how will this team be different from all the committees, subcommittees and task forces that exist in multitude under CA!

In any case these people need to focus hard and get on with the work and complete the assignment given to them. In doing so they need to remember that they cannot procrastinate forever hoping to keep on extending the term of the CA as long as they like; thus creating employment for themselves in perpetuity.

Glad that Supreme Court has corrected the mistake it committed earlier wherein they implied that CA can continue to exist almost forever till the CA members get their act together and complete the “assignment.”

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Lal Bahadur Thapa [mailto:apasmalb@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:54
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: My article on constituent assembly *

I agree cent percent to your expression. So called party leaders do not forget to scold some bi and multilateral donor agencies and so called developed countries too for their failure of grasping the ground reality.

माथिल्लो कर्णाली आयोजना र देशको सार्वभौमसत्ता

2011-06-16T18:56:00.000-07:00

३ सय मेगावाट जडित क्षमताको माथिल्लो कर्णाली आयोजनामा प्रति सेकेन्ड २ सय ३६ घन मिटर पानी १ सय ४१ मिटर उंचाईबाट खसालेर वार्षिक १ अर्ब ९१ करोड युनिट बिजुली निकाल्ने अवधारणा सहित डिजायन तैयार गर्ने लगायतका कागजी काम हुंदैगर्दा यसलाई ९ सय मेगावाट क्षमतामा कार्यान्वयन गर्ने भिनंदैछ जुन सम्बन्धमा आवश्यक बिबरण सार्वजनिक गरिएका छ्रैनन् ।

बिद्यमान उर्जा संकट निराकणमा यो आयोजनाको भूमिका
निकासीमूलक रुपमा प्रबद्र्धकलाई दिइएकोमा यस आयोजना समझदारीपत्र अनुसार बाह्र प्रतिशत बिजुली नेपालले निशुल्क पाउनेछ । हाल बिद्यमान उर्जा संकट निराकणको लागि नैं ३६ मेगावाट जसबाट सुख्खायाममा १२ मेगावाट मात्र उत्पादन हुन्छ भनेको हात्तिको मुखमा जिराको आहान जस्तै हो भने पांच वर्षमा तयार भएमा यो परिमाणको बिजुलीले नेपालमा लोडसेिडंग घटाउन कुनै भूमिका खेल्दैन । तसर्थ यो आयोजना नबनेर लोड सेिडंग नघट्ने वा बढ्ने भन्ने कुरा अतिशयोक्ति मात्र हो यथार्थ होइन । ल्हासा जान कताको बाटो भने जस्तो मात्र हो । ९ सय मेगावाट बनाइएमा नैं १ सय ८ मेगावाट निशुल्क प्राप्त हुन्छ जसबाट सुख्खायाममा ३६ मेगावाट मात्र उत्पादन हुन्छ ।

निकासीमूलक बनाउनु अघि यो आयोजना नेपाललाई आवश्यक छ कि छैन भन्ने बिचार गर्नुपर्नेमा गरिएन । अहिले बिद्युत संकट उत्कर्षमा पुगेको बेलामा २०१३/१४ सम्ममा लोड सेिडंग इतिहाँसको पन्नामा सीमित हुने ठोकुवा गरिएकोछ जुन भनाइ पुष्टी हुन सक्दैन । नेपाल बिद्युत प्राधिकरणले २०१३/१४ मा १२ सय ७१ मेगावाट बिजुली मांग हुने प्रक्षेपण गरेकोछ । अर्को तिर प्राधिकरणले ४ सय ५६ मेगावाटको माथिल्लो तामाकोशी, ३० मेगावाटको चमेलिया, १४ मेगावाटको कुलेखानी तेश्रो, ३० मेगावाटको राहुघाट, ६० मेगावाटको माथिल्लो त्रिशुली ३ए, ४० मेगावाटको माथिल्लो त्रिशुली ३बी, र ४२ मेगावाटको माथिल्लो मोदी ए समेत गरेर ६ सय ७२ मेगावाट जडित क्षमता थप्ने भनेकोछ । साथै निजी क्षेत्रबाट ११ मेगावाटको माथिल्लो सान्जेन, ३५ मेगावाटको सान्जेन, ८० मेगावाटको भोटेकोशी, ७५ मेगावाटको रसुवागढी, ३० मेगावाटको काबेली ए र ५० मेगावाटको माथिल्लो मस्यार्ंदी समेत गरेर २८१ मेगावाट थप हुने अपेक्षित छ । अनि यस आयोजनाबाट ३६ मेगावाट, पश्चिम सेतीबाट ७५ मेगावाट र अरुण तेश्रोबाट ८८ मेगावाट समेतबाट जम्मा १ सय ९९ मेगावाट निशुल्क उर्जा प्राप्त हुनेछ । यसरी अहिले भएको ६ सय ८९ मेगावाटमा ११ सय ५२ मेगावाट थपिएर जम्मा १८ सय ४१ मेगावाट जडित क्षमता पुग्नेछ । सतहिरुपमा हेर्दा प्रक्षेपित मांग १२ सय ७१ मेगावाट भन्दा जडित क्षमता केहि बढी हुने हुनाले संकटबाट सांच्चिकै मुक्ति पाइने भ्रम हुन्छ । तर जडित क्षमता जम्मा १८ सय ४१ मेगावाट भएमा बिद्युत उत्पादन ९ सय मेगावाट भन्दा कम मात्र भएर सुख्खायाममा लोडसेिडंगले निरन्तरता पाउनेछ खाली अवधि मात्र केहि कम हुनेछ । तर यी आयोजनाहरु समयमा सम्पन्न भएन भने त समस्याले विकराल रुप लिन्छ नैं । तसर्थ अहिलेको दूरगामि सोचपूर्ण अवधारणा (vision) को अभाव तथा बिद्यमान नीति तथा कार्यनीतिले निरन्तरता पाउन्जेल नेपालले उर्जा संकटबाट निकट भविष्यमा मुक्ती पाउनेदेिखंदैन यो आयोजना बने पनि ।

यस पृष्ठभूमिमा अधिकांश बिजुली भारत निकासी गरेर चरम उर्जा संकटबाट नेपालले उन्मुक्ति पाउने अपेक्षा गर्नु सुन्निएकोलाई मोटाएको ठान्नु जत्तिकै हो । तसर्थ बिद्यमान आयोजनाको नेपालको संकट समाधानसंग कुनै सम्बन्ध छैन र हालको बिरोध÷अवरोधले नेपालको चरम उर्जा संकट समाधानमा व्यवधान ल्याउंदैन ।

कतिले यो आयोजनाको बिजुली नेपालमा खपत हुन्न भन्दै यसलाई निकासीमूलक बनाउनुको पृष्ठपोषण गर्छन् जुन सांचो होइन । सुदूर पश्चिमााचल र मध्य पश्चिमााचलमा पाइने उदाहरणार्थ चुन ढुंगा खानीहरुमा आधारित गरेर सिमन्टी उद्योगहरु स्थापना गरेमा यसको अधिकांश उत्पादन त्यिहं खपत हुन्छ र देशमा औद्योगिकरण मात्र नभएर रोजगारी पनि श्रृजना हुन्छ । विकास निर्माणको लागि आवश्यक सिमन्टी पनि देश भित्रै यथेष्टरुपमा उपलब्ध भएर देश आत्मनिर्भताको बाटोमा लाग्छ र उक्त क्षेत्र समृद्धशाली बन्नेछ । खपत नभएर उब्रेको बिजुली राजधानी लगायत पूर्वी भेगमा आपूर्ति गर्न सकिन्छ । कतिपय प्राविधिकले यो सम्भव छैन भन्छन् जुन पनि सत्य होइन । ४ सय किलोभोल्टको प्रशारण प्रणाली निर्माण गरे उक्त क्षेत्रमा खपत नभएको बिजुली अन्यत्र पुर् याउन सकिन्छ भुटानबाट भारत पुर् याए जस्तै ।

अझ गहिरिएर हेरिएमा प्राधिकरणको मांग-प्रक्षेपण नैं यथार्थपरक छैन । किनभने प्राधिकरणले यो वर्षको उच्चतम मांग ९ सय ६७ मेगावाट प्रक्षेपण गरेको छ तर यथार्थमा अहिलेकै मांग यो भन्दा धेरै बढी छ । मोरङ्ग-सुन्सरी मकवानपुर-बारा-पसा्र नवलपरासी-रुपन्देही लगायतका जिल्लाहरुमा अवस्थित उद्योगहरुलाई यथेष्ट बिजुली उपलब्ध नभएर पूर्ण क्षमतामा उत्पादन नभएको मात्र होइन कतिपय उद्योगहरु बन्द छन् जसको लागि तत्काल ६ सय मेगावाट थप आवश्यक छ । डा। अमृत नकर्मीको विष्लेशनमा काठमाडौं उपत्यकामा मात्रै खाना पकाउने ग्यांस बिस्थापित गर्न ६ सय ४८ मेगावाट चाहिन्छ । यसरी नेपालको तत्कालको मांग नैं २१ सय मेगावाट भन्दा बढी छ । यसै आधारमा प्राधिकरणले प्रयोग गर्दै आएको बृद्धि दरमा मांग-प्रक्षेपण गरेमा ५ वर्ष पछि नेपालको उच्चतम मांग ३ हजार मेगावाट भन्दा बढी हुन्छ । बिजुली बढी खपत हुने उद्योग स्थापना गरेमा र यातायातलाई बिद्युतिकरण गरिएमा अझ बढी खपत हुने अवस्था छ । बिजुली खपत हुने अन्य प्रमुख क्षेत्रहरुमा कृषि कृषिजन्य उद्योग आदि हुन । यस्तोमा आन्तरिक खपतको लागि १६ सय मेगावाट मात्र उपलब्ध हुंदा अकल्पनिय परिमाणमा लोड सेिडंग।गर्नुपर्नेछ ।

तर दुर्भाग्य के हो भने भारतमा बिजुली निकासी गरेर नेपालको विकास हुन्छ भनेर धेरैले विश्वास गर्छन् । बिजुली प्रयोग गरेर औद्योगिकरण रोजगारी श्रृजना भारतमा हुन्छ अनि विकास नेपालमा हुन्छ भन्ठान्नु छिमेकीले खाएर आफ्नो पेट भरिने जस्तो कुरा हो । नेपाल भित्रैबाट लगानि परिचालन गरेर यो आयोजना बनाएको भए यो आयोजनाबाट प्राप्त हुने मुनाफा सम्म नेपाल भित्रै रहन्थ्यो । तर अवस्था त्यो पनि छैन । तसर्थ यो आयोजना बनेर नेपालको बिकास हुन्छ भनेर सोझा सीधा नेपालीलाई झुक्याउन कोशिस भईरहेको स्पष्ट छ ।

बिस्मातको कुरा के हो भने यो आयोजना बनेपछि नेपालको लोडसेिडंग घट्छ भन्ने कुप्रचार यति सफलतापूर्वक गरिएको रहेछ कि सुशिक्षित जनसाधारणले पनि यो कुराले भ्रमित भएकाछन् । यो तप्का नैं यसरी भ्रमित छ भने शिक्षाको अवसर नपाएका बहुसंख्यक नेपालीको धारणा के होला भन्ने बुझ्न धेरै कल्पना गर्नुपर्दैन । तसर्थ यो आयोजनाको बिरोधले गर्दा यथार्थमा नेपाल र नेपालीको समुचित हितको लागि यो आयोजनाको पुनःसंरचना हुनसकेमा अधिकांश नेपाली आभारी हुने अवस्था छ ।

जनसाधारणलाई जानकारी हुन पर् यो कि यो आयोजना बनेतापनि नेपाली घरमा लोडसेिडंग घट्दैन भारतीय घरमा घट्छ । यो आयोजनाबाट सस्तोमा भारतमा बिजुली आपूर्ति हुन्छ र नेपाल सरकारले भारतीय सरकारलाई खुशी पारेमा नेपाली घरमा भारतबाट आयातित महंगो बिजुली आउनेछ ।

शोधनान्तर घाटा र बिजुली निर्यात
नेपालको शोधनान्तर घाटा उत्तरोत्तररुपमा बढेकोछ र बिगत देखि नैं बिजुली निर्यात गरेर यो घाटा घटाउन सकिने दाबी नेपालका स्वनाम धनी अर्थशास्त्रीहरुले गर्दै आएकाछन् । सायद यसैलाई इंगित गर्दै यो आयोजना सम्पन्न भए नेपालका ूआर्थिक सामाजिक लगायत विभिन्न संकट निवारणू हुने सपना बांडिने गरेकोछ । ३ सय मेगावाट मध्ये ८८ प्रतिशतबाट उत्पादति बिजुली प्रति युनिट रु २ मा निकासी भएमा वार्षिक ३ अर्ब ३६ करोड रुपैया यो आयोजनाका प्रबद्र्धकले पाउनेछ र यति रकमले नैं नेपालको शोधनान्तर घाटा घट्ने निष्कर्श अर्थशास्त्रीहरुको छ । यो सांचो होइन । नेपाल सरकारलाई तिर्नु पर्ने रोयल्टी ३५ करोड ७८ लाख रुपैया र २० प्रतिशत लाभांश घोषणा भएमा प्राधिकरणले प्राप्त गर्ने रु २५ करोड मात्र नेपाल प्रवेश गर्छ । बांकी रकम संचालन मर्मत सम्भार खर्च ऋणको सांवा ब्याज तिर्न र भारतीय लगानिकर्ताको भागको लाभांश स्वरुप बिदेशिन्छ नेपालमा अड्दैन । भारतसंग व्यापार÷परिवहन सन्धी गर्ने बेलामा व्यापारीहरुले चर्कोरुपमा मांग गरे अनुरुप चीनबाट आयात गरेर भारत निकासी गर्दा शोधनान्तर घाटा घट्छ भन्ने दरिद्र सोच जत्तिकै हो यो भनाई पनि ।

उर्जा संकट समाधानको लागि भारतबाट आयात
माथिको छलफलबाट स्पष्ट भईसकेकोछ कि बिद्यमान दूरगामि सोचपूर्ण अवधारणाको अभाव अहिलेको त्रुटिपूर्ण नीति तथा कार्यनीतिले निरन्तरता पाएमा आगामि पुस्ताहरुले पनि उर्जा संकट भोग्न पर्ने निश्चित छ । यस्तोमा अहिलेको उर्जा संकटबाट मुक्तीको लागि भनेर भारतीय मुद्रा ६ रुपैया ७० पैसामा ३० मेगावाट बिजुली पैठारी गरिएकोछ जुन सीमानामैं १० रुपैंया ७२ पैसा पर्छ जसले भारतमाथिको निर्भरता अझ अरु बढ्छ । निर्भरता आफैमा खराब होइन तर बिजुलीलाई सामरिक वस्तु मान्ने नीति भारतले लिएको पृष्ठभूमिमा यो राष्ट्रिय स्वाधीनताको दृष्टिकोणले खतरनाक हुनसक्छ । २०६६ बैशाखमा कटुवालकाण्ड उत्कर्षमा पुग्दा ३० मेगावाट नेपाललाई उपलब्ध गराउन अरु सबै सहमत भएपनि बिदेश मामला मन्त्रालयले अन्तिम क्षणमा असहमति जनाएको लगत्तै प्रचण्ड सरकार ढलेको स्मरणिय छ । अझ २०४५÷४६ सालमा भारतले नाकाबन्दी गरेर नेपालीलाई आक्रांत पारेबाट पनि परनिर्भरताको कारणले आईलाग्ने समस्या प्रति जागरुक हुन जरुरी छ र आत्मनिर्भरतामा राष्ट्रिय स्वाधीनता निहित हुन्छ भन्ने पनि बुझ्नु जरुरी छ ।

४०० किलोभोल्टको प्रशारण प्रणाली
आफ्नो देश भित्रै प्रचुर श्रोत हुंदाहुंदै पनि भारत माथिको निर्भरता अस्थायी समेत होइन भन्ने कुरा बिजुली पैठारी गर्नकै लागि भनेर ढल्केबर-मुजफ्फरपुर ४०० किलोभोल्टको प्रशारण प्रणाली निर्माणाधीन रहेबाट प्रमाणित हुन्छ । तर नेपाली नेतृत्व र कर्मचारीतन्त्रले के भुलेको देखियो भने बिहार पनि उर्जा संकटको मारमा छ र प्रशारण प्रणाली बनें पनि बिहार आफु अंध्यारोमा बसेर नेपाललाई सरलतापूर्वक बिजुली उपलब्ध गराउने मुर्खता गर्ने अपेक्षा गर्नु नेपालकै मुर्खता हुनेछ; नेपालले जस्तै आफु अंध्यारोमा बसेर पनि बिजुली भारतलाई निर्यात गर्ने आयोजना निर्माण गर्न दिने जस्तो अल्पबुद्धिको काम भारतले गर्ने छैन ।

यदि भारतबाट सांच्चिकै बिद्युत आयात गर्नेभए पश्चिम बंगालको सिलगुरी सबस्टेशनमा आबद्ध गर्ने गरेर बनाउनु पथ्र्यो जहां मनग्गे बिजुली उपलब्ध छ । भारतले यो नचाहनु आश्चर्यको कुरा नभएपनि नेपालीले यो नबुझ्नु चािहं निश्चय पनि दुखको कुरा हो । नेपाललाई यो प्रणालीमा लगानि गर्न लगाउनुको अभिष्ट स्पष्ट छ जुन नेपालको नेतृत्व र कर्मचारीतन्त्रलाई प्रष्ट नभएको देखियो । अरुण तेश्रो तामाकोशी तेश्रो लिखु लगायतका आयोजनाबाट बिजुली भारत पुर् याउन यो प्रशारण प्रणाली आवश्यक छ । सामान्यतया बिजुली पैठारी गर्नेले वा निकासीमूलक आयोजना निर्माण गर्नेले लागत व्यहोर्ने गरेर प्रशारण प्रणाली बनाइन्छ तर नेपाल भने यसको ठीक बिपरित वस्तुतः बिजुली निकासीमा उपयोग हुने प्रशारण प्रणालीमा नेपालले लगानि गर्दैछ बिजुली आयात गर्न पाइन्छ भन्ने भ्रममा ।

यस्तोमा उक्त प्रणालीको शिलान्यास गर्दै २ वर्ष भित्र लोडसेिडंडबाट मुक्ती पाइने दाबी सुन्दा ब्यंग हो कि कटाक्ष हो भनेर छुट्याउन कठीन भएकोछ । त्यसमा पनि निर्माणको काम समयमा सम्पन्न भएमा केहि बिजुली प्राप्त हुने हो लोडसेिडंग नैं निवारण गर्नको लागि हैन । अचम्म त के हुने छैन भने यो प्रणाली त्यति बेला मात्र तैयार हुनेछ जतिबेला माथि उल्लिखित निकासीमूलक आयोजनाहरुबाट बिजुली उत्पादन प्रारम्भ हुनेछ ।
बजारको अभावमा विकल्परहित निकासी
यस पंक्तिकारलाई विशेष गरेर उद्वेलित पार्ने नेपाली नेतृत्व र कर्मचारीतन्त्रको भनाई के हो भने नेपालमा बिजुलीको बजार छैन र भारत निकासी गर्नु नैं नेपालको आर्थिक सम्भाव्य भनिएको ४३ हजार मेगावाट क्षमताको सदुपयोग हो । यो भनाई बिलकुलै सत्य होइन । कुन मुलुकले के कति बिद्युतिय उर्जा खपत गर्छ भन्ने जानकारी राखिएको नेशनमाष्टरडटकम ९लबतष्यलुबकतभच।अयु० नामक इन्टरनेट साइटमा उपलब्ध आंकडा अनुसार सन् २००६ मा नेपालमा प्रति व्यक्ति बिजुली खपत ७० किलोवाट/घण्टा युनिट को हाराहारीमा थियो भने सबभन्दा धेरै खपत गर्ने मुलुक आइसलाय्ण्डमां प्रति व्यक्ति खपत ३१ हजार युनिट भन्दा बढी थियो । नेपालको हालको जनसंख्यालाई प्रति व्यक्ति खपत १० हजार युनिट विश्वको उच्चतम खपतको एक तिहाई मात्र पुर् याउन पनि ६३ हजार मेगावाट जडित क्षमता आवश्यक हुन्छ जुन आर्थिक रुपमा सम्भाव्य भनिएको भन्दा धेरै बढी हो ।
नेपालले अधिकतम् लाभ लिने
राज्यले अधिकतम लाभ लिने गरेर आयोजना प्रबद्र्धन गर्नदिइएको भन्ने नेपाल सरकारको भनाईलाई पनि कसीमा घोट्ने बेला भएकोछ । ६० मेगावाट क्षमताको खिम्तीको लागि १३ किलोमिटर सुरुंग खनियो र प्रति किलोवाट लागत २३ सय डलर परेको सूचना छ भने ६ किलोमिटर सुरुंग भएको कालीगण्डी १४४ मेगावाटको लागत २७ सय डलर पर् यो भनिन्छ । त्यस्तै ४ किलोमिटर भन्दा कम सुरुंग भएको ३६ मेगावाटको भोटेकोशीको लागत २ हजार डलर हो भने ३ किलोमिटर भन्दा केहि कम सुरुंग भएको २० मेगावाटको चिलिमेको लागत १५ सय डलर । यसबाट सुरुंगको लम्बाई आयोजनाको क्षमता र प्रति किलोवाट लागत बीच गहिरो अन्तरसम्बन्ध भएको देखिन्छ ।

यो आयोजना नेपालको लागि प्रकृतिको अतुल्य वरदान हो जुन बहुमूल्य छ । यसको लागि अढाई किलोमिटर मात्र सुरुंग खन्नु पर्छ र प्रति किलोवाट निर्माण लागत ८ सय ३३ डलर मात्र लाग्ने आकलन छ जुन कारणले उत्पादित बिजुलीको लागत अत्यधिक कम हुन्छ । प्रति किलोवाट १४ सय ६३ डलर लागत पर्ने पश्चिम सेती आयोजनाको बिजुली भारतमा रु ४ भन्दा कममा निकासी गर्ने बन्दोबस्त भएको परिप्रेक्ष्यमा यो आयोजनाको बिजुली रु २ भन्दा कममा निकासी हुने निश्चित छ ।

बितेको दशकमा प्राधिकरणले निर्माण गरेको १ सय ६५ मेगावाटको प्रति किलोवाट औसत लागत २५ सय ८० डलर परेको पृष्ठभूमिमा उपभोक्तालाई बिक्री गरेको बिजुलीको लागत झण्डै रु ९ को हाराहारीमा पर्छ । अनि नेपाल सरकारले सगर्व बताएकोछ कि भारतीय मुद्रा ६ रुपैया ७० पैसामा ३० मेगावाट बिजुली पैठारी गरिएकोछ जुन प्राधिकरणलाई सीमानामैं १० रुपैंया ७२ पैसा पर्न आउंछ । भारतबाट बिद्युत आदान-प्रदान सस्तो दरमा हुन्छ भनिएतापनि यसको पनि प्रति युनिट भारतीय मुद्रा ४ रुपैया ८८ पैसा पर्छ जुन ७ रुपैया ८१ पैसा हुन्ंछ ।

माथिको पृष्ठभूमिबाट के स्पष्ट हुन आउंछ भने नेपाली महंगा आयोजनाबाट उत्पादित र महंगैमा आयातित बिजुली त्यो पनि अपुग परिमाणमा उपभोग गर्न बाध्य छन् भने अती सस्तो दरमा उपलब्ध हुने उच्च गुणस्तरको बिजुली भारतमा आपूर्ति गर्ने तारतम्य रहस्यमयरुपमा मिलाइएकोछ । यस्तोमा राज्यले अधिकतम लाभ कसरी हासिल गर्छ बुझ्न कठीन छ । निम्न पंक्तिमा छलफल गरिएका अन्य कारणलाई उपेक्षा गर्दा पनि नेपाली जनताले यो आयोजनाको बिरोध गर्नुपर्छ । यहि ढर्राले निरन्तरता पाएमा त्यो समय टाढा छैन जति बेला नेपालबाट सस्तोमा बिजुली भारत निकासी हुनेछ र संकट टार्ने नाममा महँगोमा भारतबाट त्यहि बिजुली पैठारी गरिनेछ । यस्तो सम्भावनालाई निर्मुल पार्न पनि यो आयोजनाको बिरोध हुनुपर्छ ।

कम जडित क्षमतामा निहित धोका
हिमालयन पावर कन्सल्टाय्न्टसलाई प्राधिकरणले गराएकै संभाव्यता अध्ययन जसको प्रतिबेदन डिसेम्बर १९८९ मा उपलब्ध गराइएकोछ अनुसार यो आयोजनाको पूर्ण क्षमता जलाशययुक्त ४ हजार १ सय ८० मेगावाट हो जसको लागि २ सय ६० मिटर उचाईको बाँध निर्माण गर्नुपर्छ । तैपनि थोरै क्षमताको अनुमतिपत्र मांगॆको तथा दिएको अवस्था छ । यसरी आयोजना कार्यान्वयन भएमा आगामि दिनमा नेपालले यो आयोजना स्थलमा पूर्ण क्षमताको आयोजना बनाउनबाट बंचित हुनेछ र यसले गर्दा नेपाल धेरै हिसाबले ठगिने निश्चित छ ।

बिद्यमान बिद्युत ऐनमा प्रति किलोवाट सय रुपैयाले क्षमता रोयल्टी र कूल बिजुली बिक्रीको २ प्रतिशत उर्जा रोयल्टी लिने व्यवस्था भएतापनि यो आयोजना निकासीमूलक हुनाले सम्पन्न समझौतामा क्रमसः प्रति किलोवाट ४ सय रुपैया र कूल बिजुली बिक्री आम्दानीको साँढे ७ प्रतिशत लिने व्यवस्था छ जुन जलबिद्युत विकास नीति २०५८ अनुसार हो । ३०० मेगावाट क्षमताको निर्माण भएर २ सय ६४ मेगावाटको १ अर्ब ६८ करोड युनिट निकासी हुंदा नेपाल सरकारले कूल रोयल्टी वार्षिक रु ३५ करोड ७८ लाख रुपैया पाउने देखिन्छ यदि प्रति युनिट बिजुली २ रुपैयामा निकासी गरिएमा ।

तर यो आयोजनालाई यसको पूर्ण क्षमता ४ हजार १ सय ८० मेगावाटमा निर्माण गरेर हाल भएकै समझदारी अनुरुप १२ प्रतिशत बिजुली नेपाललाई निशुल्क दिइएमा ३ हजार ६ सय ७८ मेगावाटबाट १० अर्ब युनिट बिजुली उत्पादन तथा निकासी हुन्छ । माथि उल्लिखित नीति बमोजिम जलाशययुक्त निकासीमूलक आयोजनाको सम्बन्धमा क्रमसः रु ५ सय प्रति किलोवाट र बिक्रीको १० प्रतिशतको हिसाबले नेपाल सरकारले कूल रोयल्टी वार्षिक रु ३ अर्ब ७७ करोड रुपैया पाउने देखिन्छ । यसरी रोयल्टी मात्रै झण्डै वार्षिक झण्डै ३ अर्ब रुपैया ठगिने अवस्थामा नेपाल पुग्छ र यस्तो चक्रब्यूहमा नेपाल नफँसोस भनेर बिरोध गरिएको हो भने त्यसलाई अन्यथा मान्नु बुद्धिमानि हुन्न ।

निशुल्क उर्जामा निहित मगन्ते नीित
निशुल्क उर्जा प्राप्त गर्ने नीतिलाई यस पंक्तिकार मगन्ते नीति मान्छ । यस पंक्तिकारको धारणामा त्यस्तो नीति नेपालको हितमा हुनेथियो जस अन्तर्गत यस्ता उत्कृष्ट आयोजनाहरुबाट सबभन्दा छिटो बिजुली उत्पादन गर्न सक्षमलाई निर्माण गर्नदिएर सम्पूर्ण उर्जा नेपालले सबभन्दा कमदरमा खरिद गरेर आफ्ना जनतालाई सर्वसुलभ तरीकाबाट सुपथ मूल्यमा मनग्गे उपलब्ध गराएर बांकी बचेउब्रेको भारतमा प्रतिश्पद्र्धात्मक दरमा निकासी गरिन्छ । यस्तो नीति अवलम्बन गरेमा देशमा औद्योगिकरण तथा रोजगारी श्रृजना हुनाको साथै उर्जा संकट नहुने मात्र नभएर समुचित दरमा बांकी बिजुली निकासीबाट सरकारको कोष पनि भरिपूर्ण हुने अवस्था हुन्छ । तर यो कुरा नेतृत्व तथा कर्मचारीतन्त्रलाई बुझाउन सकिएन र हाल सम्मका सरकारहरु निशुल्क उर्जाका पछाडी लिगलिगे दौडमा निरन्तर लागे ।

यस सम्बन्धमा केहि थप प्रकाश पार्नु सान्दर्भिक छ । ११ सय डलर प्रति किलोवाट लागत पर्ने ४ सय २ मेगावाटको अरुण तेश्रो आयोजनाबाट २१ दशमलव ९ प्रतिशत निशुल्क उर्जा प्राप्त गर्ने बन्दोबस्त भएकोमा ८ सय ३३ डलर मात्र लाग्ने आयोजनाबाट १२ प्रतिशत मात्र निशुल्क उर्जा प्राप्त गर्नु पनि नेपालको हितमा छ भनेर मान्न सकिन्न उल्टो िहंड्नुको पराकाष्ठा हो । लागत कम भएको अनुपातमा निशुल्क उर्जा समानुपातिकरुपमा बढी लिनेगरेर निशुल्क उर्जा लिने मगन्ते नीतिमा परिमार्जन गर्ने राम्रै गुाजायस देखिन्छ ।

स्मरणिय के छ भने गलत नीति नैं भए पनि यो आयोजना यसको पूर्ण क्षमतामा निमार्ण भएमा ५ सय १ मेगावाटबाट १ अर्ब ३२ करोड युनिट बिजुली निशुल्क प्राप्त हुने थियो । तर कम क्षमतामा अनुमतिपत्र िदंदा ३६ मेगावाटको २३ करोड युनिट मात्र निशुल्क प्राप्त हुने अवस्था छ ।

हालको बिरोध अवरोधको सन्दर्भमा प्रबद्र्धकले यो आयोजना नेपालकै पनि भनेर व्यापक प्रचार गरेकोछ । यो पनि मगन्ते नीति अन्तर्गतै भएको जानकारी अधिकांश पाठकलाई नहुनसक्छ । आलोच्य नीति भएतापनि नेपालले अधिकतम निशुल्क बिजुली प्राप्त गर्ने तर्फ नलागेर २७ प्रतिशत निशुल्क शेयर पूंजी प्राधिरकणले पाउने पनि व्यवस्था छ । यसबाट नेपालको फाईदा १२ र २७ जोडेर ३९ प्रतिशत हो भनेर पनि भ्रमित पार्न खोजिएकोछ जुन सत्य होइन । माथि उल्लिखित दरमा १२ प्रतिशत उर्जाको मूल्य झण्डै ४६ करोड रुपैया हुन्छ र ३९ प्रतिशत निशुल्क उर्जा पाएको भए १ अर्ब ५० करोड मूल्यको उर्जा प्राप्त हुनुपथ्र्यो । तर शेयर पूंजीमा मुनाफामा भएमा मात्र प्रतिफल प्राप्त हुन्छ भन्ने कुरासंग धेरै नेपाली अभ्यस्त छन् । आयोजना कुशलतापूवर्क संचालित भएर २० प्रतिशत लाभांश बांडिएमा प्राधिकरणले पाउने २५ करोड रुपैया मात्र हो । तर मुनाफा नदेखाउने अवस्था विकास हुने÷गर्ने सम्भावना प्रबल हुनाले २७ प्रतिशत शेयर पूंजीबाट लाभ भनेको प्राधिकरणका पदाधिकारी प्रबद्र्धक कम्पनीको संचालक समितिको बैठकमा सहभागिता जनाए बापत पाउने बैठक भत्ता तथा दैनिक भ्रमण भत्तामा सीमित हुनेछ ।

अझ बेस्वादिलो के छ भने यस्तो निशुल्क पूंजी प्रबद्र्धकले नेपालको तर्फबाट नगद लगानि गरेर शेयर प्रमाणपत्र दिने होइन भन्ने कुरा नबुझेको देख्दा । आयोजनाको लागत २५ करोड डलर हुनाले प्रति डलर रु ७५ को हिसाबले कूल लागत पौने १९ अर्बको रुपैयांको ७५ प्रतिशत वित्तिय संस्थाबाट ऋण लिइएमा ४ अर्ब ६८ करोड रुपैया कूल शेयर पूंजीको नेपालले पाउने भनेको २७ प्रतिशत निशूल्क पूंजी बापत १ अर्ब २६ करोड रुपंया प्रबद्र्धकले हालिदिने होइन । यति रकम कागजी खर्च देखाइएर आयोजनाको लागत बृद्धि गरेर शेयर प्रमाणपत्र उपलब्ध गराइनेछ र यो कारणले समेत आयोजनाले नेपाललाई दिने प्रतिफलमा ह्रास हुनेछ ।

भारतीय कम्पनीले भारतमा नेपालबाट सस्तोमा बिजुली निकासी गरेबापत अन्य व्यवस्था भएमा आश्चर्य मान्नु पर्दैन । अझ विषेश गरेर उत्पादन तथा निकासी एउटै कम्पनीले गर्ने हुनाले कति उत्पादन भयो र कति निकासी गरियो भन्ने सम्बन्धमा पारदर्शिता हुन्न । अन्य सरसामान निकासी गर्दा भंसारमा चेकजांच गरेर यति नैं परिमाण निकासी भएको हो र नेपाललाई यत्ति नैं राजश्व प्राप्त हुन्छ भन्ने यकिन हिसाब हुन्छ । तर यो आयोजनाको हकमा यस्तो नहुने हुनाले ठूलै चलखेल हुने बाटो पनि खुल्दछ ।
सुख्खायाममा िसंचाईको लािग पानी
पूर्ण क्षमतामा जलाशययुक्त आयोजनाको रुपमा विकास गरेको भए सुख्खायाममा यो आयोजनाको जलाशयबाट प्रति सेकेन्ड ५ सय घन मिटर पानी तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रमा उपलब्ध हुन्छ जुन पानीले कैलाली बर्दिया बांके लगायतका जिल्लाहरुमा सघन खेती गर्नसकिन्छ वर्षमा कमसेकम ३ वाली लगाइएर यो क्षेत्रको कायाकल्प नैं हुनेछ । तर नदीको वहावमा आधारित ३०० मेगावाट क्षमताको मात्र बनाउंदा त्यस भेगका जनता यो लाभबाट बंचित हुने अवस्था आएकोछ ।

प्रति सेकेन्ड ५ सय घन मिटर पानीले धान वाहेकका पानी फारो हुने खेती गरेमा १५ लाख हेक्टर सम्म िसंचाई हुन्छ भनिन्छ । नेपालमा सामान्यतया आकाशे खेती गरिन्छ र िसंचाईको व्यवस्था भएपनि धेरै जसो वर्षातमा मात्र िसंचाईको लागि पानी उपलब्ध हुन्छ । तर जलाशययुक्त आयोजनाबाट सुख्खायाममा समेत िसंचाईको लागि पानी उपलब्ध भएर सघन खेती बहुबाली नगदे बाली बेमौसमी फलफूल तरकारी खेती गरेमा सुदूर पश्चिमााचल तथा मध्य पश्चिमााचल विकास क्षेत्रका किसानहरु धेरै लाभान्वित हुने अवस्था छ अनिकाल इतिहाँसमा समेटिएर खाद्य सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित हुनेछ । यो एउटै आयोजनाले यस क्षेत्रको सुनौलो भाग्यरेखा कोर्न सक्दछ । यस क्षेत्रबाट ठूलो संख्यामा युवा भारत तथा तेश्रो मुलुक पलायन भएकोमा मातृभूमी फर्कने बाटो खुल्दछ । अझ जलाशययुक्त बनाइएतापनि संचित पानी नेपालमा सुख्खायाममा िसंचाईको लागि उपयोग नगर्ने हो भने दक्षिण अपि्रुकाबाट लेसोथोले प्राप्त गरेको दरमा नेपालले वार्षिक ५२ अर्ब रुपैया आर्जन गर्न सक्छ र यति पैसाले सुदूर पश्चिम र मध्य पश्चिममा विकास निर्माणका थुप्रै काम गर्न सकिन्छ । तर नेपालका नेतृत्व तथा कर्मचारीतन्त्रमा दूरदृष्टिपूर्ण सोचको अभावले यो अवसरबाट त्यस भेगका जनता बंचित हुने भएकाछन् ।

यसबाट के बुझ्न सजिलो हुन्छ भने गलतरुपमा यो आयोजना प्रबद्र्धन गर्न दिनेहरु सुदूर पश्चिम र मध्य पश्चिमका जनता समृद्धशाली हुन भन्ने चाहंदैनन् । उनीहरु यो भेगलाई अहिलेकै स्थितिमा जकडेर राख्न चाहन्छन् । तसर्थ उक्त भेगका जनतालाई अन्यत्रका जनताले साथ दिनुपर्छ किनभने उक्त भेग विकास भए समग्र देशले समृद्धशाली हुने बाटो अवलम्बन गर्छ तर भारतमा बिजुली निकासी गर्दा न उक्त भेगले केहि पाउंछ न अन्यत्रका जनताले ।

भंसार, मूल्य अभिबृद्धि कर आयकर छूटको औचित्य
यो आयोजना निमार्णको लागि आयात गरिने निर्माण सामग्री यन्त्र-उपकरण मेशिनरी औजार आदिमा लाग्ने भंसार महशूल मूल्य अभिबृद्धि कर जस्ता पैठारी महशूल छूट हुने व्यवस्था छ । अंदाजी २ अर्ब रुपैया जति हुने यस्तो छूट दिनाले निर्माण लागत घट्छ र बिजुलीको उत्पादन लागत पनि कम हुन्छ । यसरी छूट दिनाले राज्यको कोषले कर राजश्व गुमाउंछ र भारतीय उपभोक्ताले सस्तो बिजुली उपभोग गर्ने अवसर पाउंछ । यस्तै आयकर पनि छूट हुने व्यवस्था छ जसको कारणले पनि व्यावसायिकरुपमा पोषाउने गरेर आयोजना संचालनार्थ आवश्यक हुने बिद्युत महशूल दर कम भएपनि पुग्ने हुन्छ ।

यसरी छूट िदंदा नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रले एकातिर भंसार महशूल मूल्य अभिबृद्धि कर आयकर आदिबाट प्राप्त हुने राजश्व गुमाउंदछ भने नेपाली उपभोक्ता पनि यस्ता सस्ता आयोजनाबाट उत्पादित सस्तो बिजुली उपयोग गर्ने अवसरबाट बंचित हुन्छन् र साथै सस्तो बिजुली खपत गर्ने मौकाबाट बंचित भएर औद्योगिकरण हुन नसक्नाले द्रुत गतिमा रोजगारी श्रृजना भएर अर्थतन्त्रमा आर्थिक कृयाकलापमा अभिबृद्धि भइ लाभान्वित हुने अवसरबाट पनि मुलुक बंचित हुन्छ । अर्थात यस्तो आयोजनाको हकमा देशले कर राजश्व र बिजुली प्रयोगबाट आर्थिक कृयाकलापमा अभिबृद्धि गर्ने अवसर दुवैबाट बंचित भएर नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रले दोहरै गुमाउंने हुनाले यस्तो छूटको औचित्य छैन । यस पृष्ठभूमिमा पनि राज्यले अधिकतम लाभ लिने गरेर आयोजना प्रबद्र्धन गर्न दिईएको भन्ने भनाई पुष्टि हुन्न ।

अर्कोतर्फ भारत सरकारले नेपालबाट बिजुली पैठारी गर्दा प्रति युनिट भारु २ रु ३।६० भंसार महसूल स्वरुप उठाउने निर्णय गरिसकेको छ । नेपालले जलबिद्युत विकासको नाममा भंसार महसूल कर आदि केहि नलिएर संस्तो बिजुली उपभोग गर्नबाट नेपालीलाई बंचित गर्ने अनि भारतले सस्तो बिजुली पैठारी गरेर ३०० मेगावाटबाटै वाािर्षक ६ अर्ब ८८ करोड राजश्व कमाउने स्थिति बनाउने षडयन्त्र हुंदैछ ।
संक्रमणकालमा चलखेल
प्रबद्र्धकले नेपालमा उच्च राजनैतिक जोखिम मोलेर लगानिकर्ता आकृष्ट हुंदैनन् भनेर धम्कीपूर्ण भाषा प्रयोग गरेको संचार माध्यममा आएकोछ । राजनैतिक जोखिमको अवस्थामा लगानिकर्ता आकृष्ट नुहुने कुरामा असहमत हुने ठांउ छैन । तर यो आयोजना सम्बन्धमा धरातलिय यथार्थ भने बेग्लै छ । क्रान्तीले बिस्थापन गर्न लागेका मोहन सम्शेरलाई १९५० को सन्धीमा दस्तखत गराएपछि उनलाई बहिर्गमनको मार्ग प्रशस्त भारतले नैं गर् यो । अनि कोइराला दाजुभाईको झगडाले अस्थीरता व्याप्त भएको बेलामा मातृका सरकारले २०११ सालमा कोशी सन्धी गर् यो र लगत्तै मातृकाले पद गुमाए भने तत्कालिन राजा र प्रधानमन्त्री बीच असमझदारी बढेको बेलामा २०१६ सालमा गण्डक सन्धी भयो र २०१७ सालको कदममा राजालाई भारतले साथ पनि दियो । समझदारी नाम दिइएको टनकपुर सन्धी पनि यस्तै समयमा अर्का कोइरालाको कार्यकालमा २०४९ सालमा भयो जसको कारण एमालेको प्याकेज डीलमा २०५२ सालमा राष्ट्रघाती महाकाली सन्धी सम्पन्न गराएर लाभान्वित हुने मौका भारतले पायो । यहि प्रबृत्तिको पुराबृत्ति पश्चिम सेती अरुण तेश्रो अनि माथिल्लो कर्णालीमा भएकोछ ।

यसबाट के देखिन्छ भने जलश्रोतमा नेपालले गुमाउने गरेर सम्झौताहरु अस्थीरताका समयमै भएकाछन् । अर्थात नेपाल कुनै प्रकारको संक्रमणकालमा रहंदा अस्थीरता व्याप्त हुंदा नैं राष्ट्रिय स्वार्थ सम्बर्धन नहुने राष्ट्रघाती प्रबृत्तिका सन्धी सम्झौता भएकाछन् । अर्को किसिमले हेर्ने हो भने जतिसुकै आलोच्य भएपनि निरंकुश राजतन्त्रमा यो प्रबृत्तिका काम भएकाछैनन् मुख्यतया स्थीरताले गर्दा । अर्थात नेपालमा राजनैतिक स्थीरता कायम भएको बेलामा राष्ट्रिय स्वार्थ सम्बर्धन नहुने राष्ट्रघाती प्रबृत्तिका सन्धी सम्झौता भएकाछैनन् । अहिले सक्रमणकाल छ अस्थीरता ब्याप्त छ अनि यो आयोजना पनि यस्तै समयमा अगाडी बढेबढाईएको छ ।
इलेक्टोनको व्यापार
बिजुली निकासी भनेको इलेक्ट्रोनको ब्यापार हो र अन्य व्यापार जस्तै बिजुली निकासीको सम्बन्धमा संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक छैन भन्ने एक तप्काको धारणा छ । तर यो आयोजनाको हकमा नेपालले बिजुली निकासी गर्ने नभएर नेपाल राज्यले आयोजना निर्माण स्थल एउटा भारतीय कम्पनीलाई जिम्मा लगाएको छ र उक्त कम्पनीले भारतीय सरकारको सम्पूर्ण स्वामित्व भएको दलाल कम्पनीलाई बिजुली बिक्री गर्ने हो नेपाल राज्यले निकासी गर्ने होइन । बरु उत्पादक कम्पनीलाई नैं निकासी गर्ने समेत अनुमतिपत्र दिएको हुनाले कति उत्पादन गरेर निकासी गर् यो भन्ने हिसाब किताब पारदर्शीरुपमा रहंदैन । अन्य सरसामान निकासी गर्दा भंसारमा अभिलेख मात्र नरहेर नियन्त्रण समेत हुन्छ तर यस सम्बन्धमा यस्तो कुनै व्यवस्था छैन । त्यसकारण यो आयोजनाको सन्दर्भमा नेपालले निकासी गर्ने होइन आयोजना भारतीय कम्पनीलाई सुम्पेको मात्र हो ।

नागरिक सर्बोच्चता उल्लंघन - संसदीय अनुमोदन
अन्तरिम सम्बिधानको धारा १५६ मा प्राकृतिक श्रोतको उपयोग र सोको बांडफांट सम्बन्धमा संसदीय अनुमोदनको व्यवस्था छ र अनुमोदन ूतत्काल कायम रहेका सम्पूर्ण सदस्यहरुको दुई तिहाई बहुमतले गर्नुपर्नेू व्यवस्था छ । तर ूराष्ट्रलाई व्यापक गम्भीर वा दीर्घकालिन असर नपर्ने साधारण प्रकृतिका सन्धी सम्झौताू भने बहुमतले पारित गर्न सकिन्छ । संसदीय अनुमोदन भनेको नेपाली नागरिकको सार्वभौमसत्ता प्रतिबिम्बित हुने संस्था संसदले अनुमोदन गर्ने हुनाले यो कार्य नागरिक सर्बोच्चताको प्रतिक हो । तर यो आयोजनको सन्दर्भमा नागरिक सर्बोच्चताको उल्लंघन भएकोछ ।

यो आयोजना एउटा निकासीमूलक हो र नेपालको प्राकृतिक श्रोत जलश्रोत को उपयोग गरेर उत्पादित बिजुली भारत निकासी गर्दा जलश्रोतको उपयोगको बांडफांट हुनछ । त्यसकारण यस सम्बन्धी सम्झौतामा संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक छ । नेपालबाट भारतमा बिजुली निकासी गर्न दुई राष्ट्र बीच सन्धी भएमा संसदीय अनुमोदनको झमेला हुने भएकोले होला यो आयोजनाको सम्बन्धमा निजी क्षेत्रलाई अघि सारेर सम्झौता भएकोछ । नेपाल सरकार र भारत सरकार बीच भारतमा बिजुली आपूर्ति गर्ने सन्धी गर्नुको सट्टा एउटा बिचौलिया संस्था खडा गरेर संसदीय अनुमोदनको व्यवस्था छल्न खोजेको हो ।

यो आयोजना सम्बन्धी सम्झौता संसदबाट अनुमोदित हुनुपर्छ भन्ने रिट निबेदन सर्बोच्च अदालतमा परेको थियो र यस पंक्तिकार लगायतले बहस गरेका थिए । यस सम्बन्धमा फैसला हुन बांकी नैं रहंदा अदालतको समेत अपहेलना गरेर आयोजना अगाडी बढाउन उद्यत रहेको देखिन्छ ।
आयोजनामा भारतीय सुरक्षाकर्मी
कोशी आयोजना अन्तर्गत निर्मित कोशी नदीमा निर्मित बाँध÷पुल नेपालमा अवस्थित छ तर सुरक्षाको जिम्मा भारतले लिएको छ र गण्डक आयोजनाको अवस्था पनि यस्तै छ । अहिले नैं पनि काठमाडौंको अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय बिमानस्थलमा भारतीय सुरक्षाकर्मी राख्ने सम्बन्धमा धेरै जोरजुलुम भईरहेको सबैलाई थाहा छ । तर धेरैलाई थाहा नभएको कुरा के हो भने १० हजार ८ सय मेगावाटको चिसापानी कर्णाली निर्माणार्थ धेरै नेपाली बिद्यार्थीहरु भारतको रुडकीमा अध्ययनार्थ पठाईसकेपछि आयोजनाको सुरक्षाको जिम्मा भारतीयलाई दिइनुपर्ने भनाई अगाडी सारिएपछि तत्कालिन नेपाल सरकारले आयोजनामा रुचि लिन छोडेकोले आयोजना अगाडी बढेन । यो कुरा इमान्दारितापूर्वक भारतका तत्कालिन बिदेश मामिला सचिव जगत मेहताले आफ्नो सन् २००४ मा प्रकाशित "इन्डिया-नेपाल रिलेसन्स - च्यालेन्जेज अहेड" नामक पुस्तकमा उल्लेख गरेकाछन् र यसबाट नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्तामा प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पर्ने चर्चा चलेको पनि उल्लेख गरेकाछन् ।

कोशी आयोजनाको पानीबाट भारतको कटैयामा ६ दशमलव ८ मेगावाट उत्पादन हुन्छ भने गण्डकमा १५ मेगावाट । तर यी आयोजनाको संरचनाको सुरक्षाको जिम्मा भारतले नेपाललाई पत्याएको अवस्था छैन । यस्तोमा ३ सय मेगावाट उत्पादन भएर बिजुली भारत जाने र नेपालमा अवस्थित यो आयोजनामा भारत निर्भर हुने अवस्थामा यसको सुरक्षाको जिम्मा पनि भारतले लिन चाहने सम्भावना प्रबल छ । सम्पन्न कागजातमा यस्तो नहुने नगर्ने कुनै प्रत्याभूति समेत नभएको अवस्थामा नेपाल भित्र भारतीय सुरक्षाकर्मी भित्रिन सक्ने सम्भावनालाई समेत दृष्टिगत गरेर यसलाई निकासीमूलक बनाउन हुन्न । नत्र नेपालको सार्वभौमसत्ता र राष्ट्रिय स्वाधीनता खतरामा पर्ने सम्भावना हुन्छ ।

तर अहिलेको बिरोधलाई निहुं बनाएर ूभारतले आफना लगानि सुरक्षित गर्न आवश्यक सुरक्षा आफैले गर्नुपर्ने प्रस्ताव पेश गर्नसक्छ । शक्ती राष्ट्रहरुद्वारा यस्ता प्रस्ताव राख्नुलाई अस्वाभाविक भन्ने गिरंदैनू भन्ने धारणा नेपाली कांग्रेसका सभासद राधेश्याम अधिकारीले जनवरी ५-११ मा प्रकाशित ूयो साताू नामक पत्रिकाबाट सार्बजनिक गरेकाछन् । यसबाट भारतले सेना राख्न माँगेमा पनि मानेर आयोजना बनाउनदिने भन्ने धारणा राखिएको व्याख्या हुनसक्छ । यसो हो भने यो खेदजनक छ । तसर्थ पनि यो आयोजना बनाउन दिन नहुने अन्य कारणको अलावा यहि कारणले पनि बन्न दिनु हुन्न र बनाउन दिनै पर्ने बाध्यतात्मक परिस्थिति सृजना भएमा लिखित रुपमा भारतीय सुरक्षाकर्मी नराख्ने प्रत्याभूति नभएसम्म आयोजना कार्यान्वनमा जानदिन हुन्न ।
बिरोधको लागि उचित समय
कतिपयले बिरोधको लागि यो समय उचित होइन भन्छन् । जनतालाई समुचित रुपमा सुसूचित नगरी अनुमतिपत्र दिएको र माथि उल्लिखित महत्वपूण पक्षहरु उपेक्षा गरेर आयोजना जिम्मा लगाएकोले व्यापक छलफल गरेर यो आयोजना नेपालको हितमा छ कि छैन भनेर निक्र्योल गर्ने उचित समय अहिले नैं हो । निर्माण प्रारम्भ भएको छैन बिस्तृत इन्जिनियिरंग प्रतिबेदन बन्दै गरेको हुनाले यो आयोजनाबाट नेपाल र नेपाली लाभान्वित हुने गरेर कसरी समुचित दोहन गर्न सकिन्छ भन्ने सम्बन्धमा छलफल बहस गर्ने उचित समय अहिले नैं हो । निमार्ण शुरु भए पछि परिवर्तन वा परिमार्जन असम्भव हुन्छ ।
भारतीय लगानिको बिरोध होइन
एक तप्का भारतीय लगानिको बिरोध भएको ठान्छन् र यस्तो भएमा लगानि कसरी आउंछ भन्ने प्रश्न गर्छन् । माथिको छलफलबाट स्पष्ट भएको छ कि सस्तो बिजुली भारत निकासी गर्न लागेकोले नेपालमा उर्जा सकट भएको र भईरहनेमा पनि बिजुली निकासी गर्ने प्रबन्ध मिलाएकोले पश्चिमी भेगका नेपाली बिजलीको सघन उपयोग गरेर औद्योगिकरण गरेर रोजगारी श्रृजना गर्ने अवसरबाट बंचित हुने हुनाले जलाशययुक्त बहुउद्देश्यीय आयोजना निर्माण गरेर नेपालले बहुआयामिक लाभ लिने मौकाबाट बंचित हुन लागेकोले १३ गुणा भन्दा बढी रोयल्टी आर्जन गर्ने मौका गुम्न जाने हुनाले १५ लाख हेक्टरमा सुख्खायाममा खेती गर्ने मौकाबाट गुम्ने हुनाले जुन नियन्त्रित पानीको बहावलाई वैकल्पिकरुपमा भारतलाई उपलब्ध गराएर वर्षको ५२ अर्ब रुपैंया नेपालले आर्जन गर्न पनि सकिन्थ्यो भारत यस आयोजनामाथि निर्भर हुनाले भारतीय सुरक्षाकर्मी राख्नुपर्ने मांग आउने सम्भावना भएकोले यो आयोजनाको बिरोध गर्नु परेको हो । सरकारले बिज्ञापन गरे जस्तो यो आयोजनाबाट राज्यलाई अत्यधिक लाभ नहुने हुनाले पनि बिरोधको औचित्य छ भने स्वतंत्र उर्जा उत्पादकहरुको भनाई अनुसार यो आयोजना र नेपालको चरम उर्जा संकटको कुनै नाता नभएकोले पनि बिरोध जायज छ ।

यो आयोजनालाई नेपालको समुचित हित हुने गरेर निर्माण गरेमा कसैले बिरोध गर्ने छैन र यो बिरोध भारतीय लगानिप्रति केन्द्रित छैन । अहिलेका मन्त्री देखि अधिकांश कर्मचारीतन्त्र बिजुली भारत निकासी गर्न नदिए लगानि कसरी आउंछ भन्ने हास्यास्पद प्रश्न गर्छन । नर्वेले नेपालको जलबिद्युतमा लगानि गरेर बिजुली नर्वे लगेको छैन न त अमेरिकी लगानि भएको आयोजनाको बिजुली अमेरिका लगिएकोछ । त्यस्तै चीन रुस कोरिया तथा अन्य देशको संलग्नतामा पनि आयोजनाहरु बनेका छन् तर बिजुली ती देशमा लगिएको छैन । तसर्थ नेपालले खोज्नु पर्ने भनेको लगानि हो अनि लगानिकर्ताले खोज्ने लगानिमा प्रतिफल हो जुन कुनै पनि बजारमा बिजुली बिक्री गरेर हुन्छ । कुनै लगानिकर्ता भारतमा निर्यात गरेमा मात्र लगानि गर्ने उद्देश्यले आउंछ भने यस्तो पूर्वाग्रह नभएको लगानिकर्ता खोज्न सकिन्छ त्यस्ता लगानिकर्ताको कमी छैन भन्ने कुरा हालै कतारबाट समेत लगानि गर्ने अभिरुची देखाइएबाट सजिलै आकलन गर्न सकिन्छ ।

पूर्व अर्थ सचिव रामेश्वर खनालले यो जस्ता आयोजना कार्यान्वनको बिरोध नगर्न सुझाव िदंदै २०६८ ज्येष्ठ २५ गतेको नागरिक दैनिकमा प्रकाशित ूबिदेशी कम्पनी प्रति बितृष्णाू शिर्षकको आफ्नो लेखमा भनेका छन् ूआयोजना बनेपछि त कम्पनी भन्दा हाम्रो अर्थात नेपालकै हात माथि पर्छू । साथै ूपहिला बनाउन दिउं त्यसपछि हाम्रो स्वार्थ बमोजिम नभए बिरोध गरेर हाम्रो स्वामित्वमा ल्याउन सकिहाल्छौंू पनि भनेको छन् । अनि थप्छन् ूत्यो पनि सकिएन भने अनुमतिपत्रको अवधि सकिएपछि पूरै आयोजना नेपाल सरकारको स्वामित्वमा आउंछू । ूभारतमा निर्यात गर्न खोजेको मूल्यमा हामीले नैं किन्न खोज्यौं भने उसले नेपालमा बेच्न आनाकानी पक्कै गर्द्रैनू भन्ने विश्वास पनि व्यक्त गर्नपुग्छन् ।

धरातलिय यथार्थ भन्दा धेरै परको यस्तै धारणाले गर्दा नेपाल पटक पटक ठगिएको छ । सम्झौता नेपालको हितमा बनेको अवस्थामा पनि व्याख्या गलत गरेर नेपाल ठगिने अथवा कार्यान्वयनमा कमजोरी भएर नेपाल ठगिने अवस्था भएका असंख्य उदाहरण भएकोमा सम्झौतामा नैं कमजोरी भएपछि नेपालको हात माथि पर्ने अपेक्षा गर्नु बालसुलभता मात्र हो । सम्झौता नैं नेपालको स्वार्थ बमोजिम नभएर बिरोध गर्दा सम्झौता सम्म संशोधन गर्न भारतीयहरु मात्र होइन नेपाली नैं मान्दैनन् भने आयोजना निर्माण सम्पन्न भए पछि बिरोध गर्दैमा केहि नहुने स्पष्ट छ । यस कुराको ज्वलन्त उदाहरण खिम्ती तथा भोटेकोशी आयोजनाहरु हुन् । प्राधिकरणलाई धेरै नोक्सानी भयो भनेर सरकारी तवरबाट चर्चा परिचर्चा बिरोध हुंदा पनि केहि परिवर्तन गरिएनन् र गरिने छांट छैन बिदेशी लगानि भड्किन्छ भनेर । यस आयोजनाको सम्बन्धमा कार्यान्वयन गर्न बाध्यकारी कानूनी करार भएको नभएर सामान्य समझदारी मात्र भएको हो र यस्तो समझदारी त नेपालको हित नहुनाले अपरिवर्तनिय मानिएको अवस्थामा बनीसकेपछि नेपालको हात माथि पर्ने भन्ने मृगमरिचिका मात्र हो ।

यहि पृष्ठभूमिमा नेपालको स्वार्थ बमोजिम नभए आयोजना कार्यान्वयन भईसकेपछि बिरोध गरेर हाम्रो स्वामित्वमा ल्याउने कुरा पनि फलामको च्युरा चपाउनु जत्तिकै सजिलो हुने स्पष्ट छ । यस सम्बन्धमा पनि उदाहरण खिम्ती र भोटेकोशी कै यथेष्ट छ । बिरोध नगर्न जोड िदंदै अनुमतिपत्रको अवधि पछि पूरै आयोजना नेपाल सरकारको स्वामित्वमा आउने सम्बन्धमा पनि थोत्रो अनि आयु पूरा भएको आयोजना नेपाल सरकारको स्वामित्वमा आईहाल्छ भनेर नेपाली जनतालाई अहिले अंध्यारो तथा मध्ययुगिन अवस्थामा राख्नु कुनै पनि हिसाबले जायज होइन ।

ूभारतमा निर्यात गर्न खोजेको मूल्यमा हामीले नैं किन्न खोज्यौं भने उसले नेपालमा बेच्न आनाकानी पक्कै गर्द्रैनू भन्ने उनको धारणाले जलबिद्युत आयोजनाको वित्तिय व्यवस्थापन सम्बन्धी ज्ञानको अभाव प्रदर्शन गर्छ । आयोजना कार्यान्वयन गर्दा निकासीमूलक रुपमा गरिएको पृष्ठभूमिमा आयोजनाको प्रबद्र्धकले बिजुली आयातकर्तासंग बिद्युत आयात सम्झौता सम्पन्न नगरेसम्म पूंजी तथा लगानि परिचालन गर्न सकिन्न र एक पटक बिद्युत आयात सम्झौता सम्पन्न भएर वित्तिय व्यवस्था भएपछि यस्तो सम्झौता तोडेर ूनेपालमा बेच्न आनाकानी पक्कै गर्द्रैनू भन्ठान्नु धरातलिय यथार्थ भन्दा धेरै टाढाको कल्पना मात्र हो ।
बिरोध नेपालीले मात्र गरेको होइन
अमेरिकि संस्था बेक्टेल इन्टरनेशनलका प्रमुख सल्लाहकार श्री पाउल टेरेल पनि यो आयोजनाको बिपक्षमा छन् । उनी विश्व बैंकको वित्तिय सहयोगमा यो आयोजनाको अध्ययनमा सलग्न थिए । तिनको यस सम्बन्धी लेख जुन १९९१ को ूहिमालू नामक जर्नलमा प्रकाशित भएको छ ।

निष्कर्श
यो आयोजना आलोच्य छ नेपाललाई वास्तविक लाभ हानी बुझ्ने क्षमता नेपालीले विकास गर्न अबेर भई सक्यो र आलोचना गर्ने सचेतना पनि बिकास गर्नुपर्छ । यस्ता गलत आयोजना मात्रै नभएर नेतृत्व तथा कर्मचारीतन्त्रको गलत प्रबृत्ति अनि जनमानसमा भ्रान्ती छर्ने कृयाकलापको सबल रुपमा बिरोध गर्नुपर्छ । बेला छंदै बिरोध नगरेर मौन बस्दा आफू मात्र नभएर आगामि पुस्ताले समेत उज्यालोमा बस्न नपाउने मात्र नभएर देशको औद्योगिकरण गरेर देश भित्रै रोजगारी श्रृजना गर्ने अवसरबाट पनि बंचित हुनेछ । कुरा बिजुलीको मात्र नभएर पानीकॊ पनि हो भन्ने जनसाधरणले बुझ्न ढिलो भईसक्यो । नेपाल भित्र १५ लाख हेक्टर िसंचाईबाट सघन खेती गरेर खाद्य सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित गर्ने र उक्त क्षेत्रलाई समुन्नत बनाउने अवसरबाट समेत बंचित भइनेछ । अझ उक्त क्षेत्रमात्र समुन्नत हुने नभएर कृषि उत्पादन बढ्नाले अन्यत्रका नेपालीले पनि सुपथ मूल्यमा सुलभरुपमा खाद्यान्न किन्न पाएर हाल नेपालीलाई आक्रांत पारेको अनिकाललाई इतिहांसको पन्नाहरुमा सीमित गर्न सकिने अवसर गुम्नेछ ।
यक्ष प्रश्नहरु
यस सम्बन्धमा निम्न केहि यक्ष प्रश्नहरु अनुत्तरित छन्ः

१. प्रतिश्पर्धाबाट ३०० मेगावाट निर्माण गर्न दिइएकोलाई ९०० मेगावाट बनाउन बिना प्रतिश्पर्धा दिन मिल्छ वित्तिय प्राविधिक क्षमता परिक्षण गर्नु पदैै्रन ?

२. ३०० मेगावाटबाट १२ प्र।श। निशुल्क उर्जा र २७ प्र।श। निशुल्क शेयर दिइने भएकोमा ९०० मेगावाटमा पनि त्यति मात्रै किन ?

३. ९०० मेगावाट निर्माण गरेर १०८ मेगावाट नेपाललाई निशुल्क दिएर ७९२ मेगावाट निकासी गर्दा नेपालले आर्जन गर्ने रोयल्टी ७३ करोड हो भने भारतले पैठारी महसूलबाट ३१ अर्ब आर्जन गर्ने गरेर नेपाललाई किन अंध्यारोमा राख्ने ?
४. यो आयोजना निर्माणोपरान्त जुम्लामा तीला नदीको पानी उपभोग्य उपयोग (consumptive use) प्रतिबन्धित हुन्छ भारतको बिद्युतिकरणको लागि नेपाली किन बंचित हुने ?

५. समझदारीपत्र भनेको बाध्यात्मक हुन्न तर पनि कुनै हेरफेर गर्न नेपाली नैं तयार छैनन किन बिदेशी रिसांउछ भनेर ?

६. संबिधान उल्लंघन गरेर संसदको अधिकार हनन् गरेर आत्मसमर्पण किन ?

७. झीना मसिना कारणमा संसद अवरुद्ध गरिन्छ तर यस्तो राष्ट्रिय स्वार्थ बिपरित काम भएतापनि रहस्यमय मौन किन ?

८. नेपाल र नेपालीको हितमा बोल्न किन नसकेको अथवा किन नचाहेको आँट नभएर ?

९. देशको सार्वभौमसत्तामा आँच आउने गरेर नव उपनिवेशबादी प्राकृतिक श्रोत दोहन नीति किन पि्रय छ ?

१०. राष्ट्रघात (अमूर्त वा भावनात्मक मात्र होइन) किन यति पि्रय छ ?
नेपाल क्रान्किारी बिद्यार्थी संघले २०६८ आषाढ ३ गते आयोजित गोष्ठीमा प्रस्तुत कार्यपत्र

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

RE: FW: My article on constituent assembly

2011-06-15T17:57:00.000-07:00

June 16, 2011

Dear colleague

The previous verdict of Supreme Court was given in contravention of the constitution. The new verdict has correct the previous mistake.

I had written about it last year itself, before the first verdict. The new verdict has vindicated my stance.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 15:20
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: My article on constituent assembly

Ratna Sansarju,

Had the chance to go through your article. I do agree that we had no choice but to extend the CA tenure.

The SC verdicts by previous bench and the current bench are somewhat contradictory.

Kind greetings

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

Dear Colleague
Gorkhapatra has published my article, attached, today. I am sending it to you in case you have yet to come across it. you can also peruse it by following the link below:

संबिधान सभाको संबैधानिकता

2011-06-13T17:54:00.000-07:00

लोकतन्त्रमा नागरिकहरुको प्रतिनिधित्व गर्दै सरकार (कार्यपालिका) गठन गर्न, कानून तर्जुमा गर्न, मुलुकको आयव्यय व्यवस्था गर्न. सरकारको कृयाकलाप अनुगमन, नियमन तथा नियन्त्रण गर्न एउटा निर्वाचित संयन्त्र रहन्छ, जसलाई संसद, व्यवस्थापिका अथवा यस्तै अन्य नाम दिइएको हुन्छ । यस्तो संयन्त्र निश्चित कार्यकालको लागि निर्वाचित हुन्छ र कार्यकाल समाप्त भएपछि यसको अस्तित्व स्वयेमव समाप्त हुन्छ अथवा संबैधानिकता अन्त्य हुन्छ, कसैले बिघटन गरिरहनु पर्दैन । आगामि कार्यकालको लागि निर्वाचनद्वारा नयां गठन हुन्छ । लोकतन्त्रमा निरन्तर चल्ने यो एउटा नियमित प्रकृया हो ।

नागरिकहरुले आफुमा निहित सार्वभौमसत्ता उपयोग गर्दै संबिधान निर्माण गरेर जारी गर्न पनि विशेष संयन्त्र निर्वाचन गरिन्छ, जसलाई संबिधान सभा भनिन्छ । संसद वा संबिधान सभाको कार्यकाल संबिधानद्वारा तोकिएको हुन्छ र संबिधान संशोधन गर्ने अधिकार पनि यिनै संयन्त्रमा निहित राखिन्छ । यान्त्रिक रुपमा हेर्ने हो भने संबिधानको अन्य प्रावधान संशोधन गर्ने प्रकृयाबाट परिवर्तन गरे झैं कार्यकाल सम्बन्धी धारा पनि परिवर्तन गरेर कार्यकाल बढाउन मिल्ने देखिन्छ । तर यस्तो काम लोकतन्त्रमा स्वीकार्य हुन्न । किनभनॆ निश्चित अवधिको लागि निर्वाचित संयन्त्रले आफूखुशी कार्यकाल बढाउनु लोकतान्त्रिक परिपाटी तथा मूल्य मान्यता भित्र पर्दैन, संबिधान संशोधन गर्दै कार्यकाल बढाउंदै लैजाने अधिनायबादी चरित्र तथा सोचको काम हो र यसमा अनन्त कालसम्म कार्यकाल बढाउंदै लैजान मिल्ने अपब्याख्याको गुाजायस हुन्छ ।

आफ्नो कार्यकाल आफैले बढाउंदै जान मिल्ने भयो भने एक पटक निर्वाचत प्रतिनिधिहरु आजीवनको उक्त पदमा कायम रहने मिल्ने अवस्था सृजना हुनेछ र नागरिकहरुले एक पटक निर्वाचित प्रतिनिधिहरुको कृयाकलाप अध्ययन गरेर अर्को पटक कसैलाई चुन्ने कि नचुन्ने भन्ने नागरिक अधिकार कुंठित हुन जान्छ ।

सर्बोच्च अदालतको फैसला
नेपालको संबिधान सभाको सन्दर्भमा पनि २०६८ ज्येष्ठ ११ गते गरेको फैसलामा सर्बोच्च अदालतले "निर्वाचन हुनु पूर्व कार्यकाल निश्चित गरिएबाट र तद्नुरुप जनताबाट अनुमोदित भै निर्वाचन समेतबाट गठन भएको संबिधान सभाले बाध्यात्मक रुपमा सो निश्चित गरिएको आफ्नो दुई वर्षको कार्यकाल भित्र संबिधान निर्माणको कार्य पूरा गर्नु पर्ने अन्तरिम संबिधानले स्पष्ट व्यवस्था गरेको देखिन्छ" भन्ने ठहर गरेकोछ । धारा १४८ अन्तर्गत संबिधान संशोधन गर्ने अधिकार भएकोले यान्त्रिकरुपमा धारा ६४ पनि संशोधन गर्न सकिने र यसरी संबिधान सभाको कार्यकाल बढाउन सकिने भन्ने धारणालाई सर्बोच्च अदालतले खारेज गरेको छ ।

यसले गर्दा गत वर्ष थपिएको कार्यकाल सर्बोच्च अदालतले असम्बैधानिक मानेकोछ, तर यो कुरा प्रष्टसंग भनेको छैन । यो कुरा त्यस अदालतको बाध्यता पनि हो, जुन मौनरुपमा स्वीकार्दै फैसलामा भनिएको छ "संबिधान सभाले हालसम्म गरेको काम कारवाहि प्रभावित हुने र सार्थक परिणाम नदिने समेत" भन्दै असम्बैधानिक भनेर किटानी गरेन । यस पंक्तिकारले २०६६ फाल्गुण १८ गतेको गोरखापत्रमा प्रकाशित लेखमा नैं भनेका थिए "अन्तरिम संबिधानमा किहंकतै पनि संबिधान निर्माण सम्पन्न नभएको कारण दर्शाएर संबिधान सभाको म्याद थप्ने व्यवस्था छैन । तसर्थ काम सकिएन भनेर आफैले आफ्नो कार्यकाल बढाउन सिकंदैन मिल्दैन" । १ वर्ष भन्दा पहिले यस पंक्तिकारले व्यक्त गरेका उक्त धारणालाई अहिले आएर सर्बोच्च अदालतले सहि ठहर् याएको छ ।

यत्तिंजेल कतिपय सभासद्हरुले कार्यकाल बढाउंदै जानसकिन्छ भन्ने दम्भ प्रदर्शन गरेका थिए जसमा सर्बोच्च अदालतको स्वीकृति पनि थियो, २०६७ कार्तिक १८ गतेको फैसलामा संबिधान निर्माण सम्पन्न नभएसम्म संबिधान सभा कायम रहन्छ भन्ने फैसला गरेकोले । यो गम्भिर त्रुटीलाई हालको फैसलाले सच्याएको छ र २ वर्षे कार्यकालको लागि निर्वाचित भएकोमा संबिधान निर्माण कार्य सम्पन्न नभएको बहानामा अनन्त कालसम्म कार्यकाल लम्ब्याउंदै लैजाने बाटो पनि बन्द भएको छ ।

विशेष परिस्थितिवस् संबिधान निर्माणको काम सम्पन्न नभएको सन्दर्भलाई दृष्टिगत गर्दै सर्बोच्च अदालतले धारा ६४ को प्रतिबंधात्मक वाक्यांशको आधारमा "आवश्यकताको सिद्धान्त (Doctrine of Necessity) अनुरुप अपरिहार्य आवश्यकता र अवस्था पर्न" गएकोले ६ महिना सम्म कार्यकाल बढाउने सकिने महत्वपूर्ण निर्णय गरेकोछ र वर्तमान सरकारले १ वर्ष कार्यकाल थप्ने गरी विधेयक पेश गरिसकेकोमा ३ महिना मात्र कार्यकाल थपिएको छ र कसै गरेर पनि अर्को ३ महिना (मार्ग १४) भित्र संबिधान निमार्णको काम सम्पन्न गर्न अपरिहार्य भएकोछ । यसले गर्दा कतिपय सभासद् खिन्न भएका हुनसक्छन्, राजधानीमा ३ वर्ष सुखसयलपूर्वक बिताईसकेर "पुनःमुसिको भवः"को अवस्थामा के गर्ने भनेर । तर अन्यथा गर्दा पौने तीन करोड नेपाली माथि अनावश्यक वित्तिय भार मात्र नपेरेर संक्रमणकालको अस्थिरता धेरै समय लम्बिएर अन्यायमा पर्ने थिए । जे भएको छ रामै्रको लागि भएको छ । तर चुनौती धेरै बांकी छन् ।

६ महिनामा पनि काम सम्पन्न नभए
अर्कोतिर मार्ग १४ भित्र संबिधान निर्माण गरेर जारी गर्न नसकिएमा संबिधान सभाको संबैधानिकताको अन्त्य भएर संबैधानिक अस्तित्व स्वयेमय समाप्त हुनेछ । यसबाट देश संबैधानिक शून्यताको भासमा फंस्नेछ । यहि अवस्थाबाट फाइदा उठाउन एउटा तप्का २०४७ सालको संबिधान ब्युंताउनुपर्ने मांग गर्दाछन् । साथै एमाओबादी बाहेक धेरै लोकतन्त्रको दुहाई दिने दलहरु उक्त संबिधान उत्कृष्ट भएको लाजै नमानी दाबी गर्छन् । यो तप्काले बिसे्रको कुरा के हो भने तत्कालिन राजामा अन्तर्निहित भनिएको "संबैधानिक तथा राजकीय सत्ता र विशेषाधिकार प्रयोग गरी" उक्त संबिधान जारी गरिएको थियो । त्यस्तै राजाबाट "प्रयोग भईआएको राजकीय सत्ताको प्रयोग गरी बक्सी" संबिधान लागू गरिएको दम्भमा अपदस्थ राजा ज्ञानेन्द्रले २०६१ म्ाघ १९ गते संबिधानले व्यवस्था नैं नगरेको पदहरु सृजना गरेर आफू खुशी राज्य संचालन गरेको कुरा पनि बिस्मृतिमा परेको देखिन्छ । त्यसकारण पनि न त्यो संबिधान उत्कृष्ट थियो न यसलाई ब्युंताउंदा देशको भलो हुन्छ । यस अतिरिक्त त्यसलाई ब्युंताउनु भनेको राजतन्त्र पनि ब्युंताउनु हुन्छ जुन नेपाली जनता तथा शहिदहरुको अपमानपूर्ण कार्य हुनेछ । किनभने अधिकांश नेपाली राजतन्त्रको पुनरागमन चाहंदैनन् ।

अर्को विकल्प नयां जनादेश लिने हुनसक्छ, जुन मांग एउटा राजाबादी दलले गरेको पनि छ । तर दशौं अर्ब खर्च गरेर निर्वाचित संबिधानसभाले काम पूरा नगरेकोले भनेर अर्को निर्वाचनमा फेरि दशौं अर्ब खर्च गर्नु अनिकालले समेत गांजेका, विकास निर्माणमा पहुंच नपुगेका बिपन्न नेपालीहरुमाथि अन्याय हुनेछ ।

संबिधान लेखनको नाममा राज्यको कोषबाट थप दश अर्ब खर्च भईसकेकोछ । तर नयां निर्वाचनबाट अहिले सभासद् रहेका मध्ये धेरै नचुनिन सक्ने हुनाले नयां संबिधानसभाको समिकरण तथा चरित्र सारभूतरुपमा फरक पर्नजान्छ र पुरानोले गरेको कामलाई नयांले मान्यता नदिएर संबिधान निर्माणको सम्पूर्ण काम नयां शिरा देखि शुरु गर्ने हुनाले थप अनावश्यक खर्च हुने देखिन्छ ।

जनता आफैले संबिधान लेख्ने अवसर
जहाँनिया राणा शासनबाट नेपालीले 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 ज्येष्ठ २५ गते राजा महेन्द्रले संशोधन गरेर धारा ६८ को उक्त वाक्यांशको सट्टा "नेपालको निम्ति संसदको" निर्वाचन गर्ने लेखिएर आफैले संबिधान लेखेर जारी गर्ने अवसरबाट नेपाली जनता बंचित भएका हुन् । राजनैतिक दलहरुको सत्तारुढ हुने चरम होडबाजीमा यस्तो संशोधन स्वीकार गरेर संसदको निर्वाचनमा भागलिएकोले सार्वभौम जनताले आफ्नो लागि आफैले संबिधान निर्माण गरेर जारी गर्ने अधिकार नेताहरुले त्यतिबेला राजालाई बुझाएकाहुन् ।

हुन त त्रिभुवनको यहि घोषणाको आधारमा हरेक फाल्गुण ७ मा प्रजातन्त्र दिवस मनाइन्छ । तर गहिरिएर हेरिएमा यो दिनमा जहाँनिया राजतन्त्र पुनःस्थापना भएको थियो, जहाँनिया राणातन्त्रलाई बिस्थापित गरेर । यस्तै अन्यौलको बीचमा के पनि बिसर्िन्छ भने राजाबादी दलहरु बाहेक नेपाली कांगे्रस र एमाले जस्ता दलहरु पनि संबिधान सभाको पक्षमा थिएनन् । एमाओबादीसंग पटक पटक भएका शान्तीवार्ताहरुमा यी दलहरुले एमाओबादीको संबिधान सभाको मांग कहिल्यै स्वीकारेनन् । एमाओबादीले लत्तो छाडेको भए नेपाली जनताले आफ्नो लागि संबिधान आफैले निर्माण गरेर जारी गर्ने मौका कहिल्यै पाउने थिएनन् भन्ने स्पष्ट छ ।

एमाओबादीको दायित्व
यस पृष्ठभूमिमा एमाओबादीको संबिधान सभा प्रति विशेष दायित्व छ र नागरिकहरुले आफ्नो लागि आफैले संबिधान लेखेर जारी गर्ने अधिकार प्रति विशेष संबेदनशील हुनुपर्दछ । एमाओबादीको अडानको कारणले मात्रै संबिधान निर्माणको ऐतिहांसिक उपलब्धी भएकोलाई मनन् गरिनुपर्छ ।

अहिले तथाकथित चकि्रय प्रणालीको नाममा आलोपालो गरेर सरकार चलाउने भनिएकोछ र नेपाली कांग्रेसले आफ्नो पालो खोजेको छ । तर यसले धेरै अस्थिरता निम्त्याउंछ, लगभग ३/३ महिनामा सरकार परिवर्तन भएर । बांकी सांढे ५ महिनामा (मार्ग १४ भित्र) संबिधान निर्माण हुनुपर्छ र आगामि गृष्म ऋतुमा (२०६८ चैत्र वा २०६९ बैशाखमा) संसदको लागि आम निर्वाचन गर्नुपर्ने हुनाले आलापालो गरिबस्ने समय छैन । त्यसैले अहिलेको आवश्यकता भनेको सर्वदलीय राष्ट्रिय सरकारको हो । संबिधान सभामा सबभन्दा ठूलो दल भएको नाताले एमाओबादीको नेतृत्वमा सर्वदलीय सरकार गठन गरेर संबिधान निर्माण तथा आम चुनाव सम्पन्न गरेर देशलाई संक्रमणकालबाट मुक्ति दिलाइनु पर्दछ ।

किन संबिधान निर्माण सम्पन्न भएन
यस प्रसंगमा संबिधानमा २ वर्षे कार्यकाल तोकिएकोमा ३ वर्षमा पनि किन संबिधान निर्माणको काम सम्पन्न नभएबाट शिक्षा लिनु जरुरी छ । कुरा नचपाईकन गर्ने हो भने अधिकांश सभासद्हरुमा संबिधान र संबैधानिकताको विषयको ज्ञानको अभाव थियो र संबैधानिक कानूनसंग परिचित थिएनन् । यी विषय लगायत अंग्रजी भाषा सिक्ने जस्ता काममा धेरै सभासद व्यस्त हुनाले संबिधान सभाप्रतिको दायित्वबाट बिमुख रहे । तीन वर्षमा झण्डै ११ सय दिन हुन्छन् तर संबिधानसभाको बैठक १ सय १० दिन (दश प्रतिशत) पनि बसेन । यस्तो लाग्छ संबिधान निर्माण प्राथमिकतामा नैं परेन । हुन पनि धेरै जसो सभासद्हरुको बिदेश भ्रमणको मोहले गर्दा समेत मूल काम ओझेलमा परेको हो ।

तसर्थ अब तिथि मिति सहितको कार्यतालिका तोकेर काम अघि गरिनुपर्छ र समयमा संबिधान निर्माण सम्पन्न नभएमा यी सभासद्हरु आगामि कुनै पनि निर्वाचनमा भाग लिन नपाउने गरेर कालोसूचीमा पंजिकृत गरिनुपर्छ । हुन त औपचारिक रुपमा कुनै कालोसूची खडा नगरिए पनि संबिधान निर्माणको काम आगामि मार्ग १४ भित्र सकिएन र देश अझ गहिरो संक्रमणकालको भूमरीमा फंस्यो भने यी सभासदहरुले नेपाली जनताको सामना गर्नसक्ने छैनन् र आगामि दिनमा कुनै पनि सार्वजनिक जिम्मेवारी पाउने सम्भावना नहुने मात्र होइन समाजले नै बहिष्कृत गर्ने सम्भावना उच्च छ ।

राजाबादी दलहरुको संबिधानसभाप्रति निष्ठा नहुनु आश्चर्यजनक नभए पनि नेका र एमाले लगायतका दलहरु पनि यस प्रति गम्भिर नभएको अवस्थामा एमाओबादी माथि गुरुत्तर जिम्मेवारी छ, जनताबाट निर्वाचित संबिधानसभाबाट संबिधान निर्माण गरेर जारी गराउनुमा । त्यसैले अन्य दलहरुले एमाओबादीलाई झिना मसिना कुराहरुमा अल्मल्याउन गरेको प्रयास बुझेर संबिधान निर्माण कार्य सम्पन्न गर्न केहि त्याग गर्न एमाओबादीले पछि पर्न हुन्न ।

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

२०६८ ज्येष्ठ ३१ को गोरखापत्रमा प्रकाशित

Re: Energy Minister's Speech to Public Accounts Committee on 5th June 2011

2011-06-10T18:50:00.000-07:00

June 11, 2011

Basanta Raj Nepal

Basanta jee

With the advantage of hindsight, looks like those who twisted the news around may have been right. Because Gokarna Bista has now gone back on his own statement; perhaps under intense pressure from those who want to mitigate load shedding problem in India (not in Nepal), his own party and those who have mortgaged their patriotism to India. Till 1990 there were people who use to chant that there is no alternative to Panchayati system. Now he is saying the same with regard to export of power which is absolutely untrue. My own assessment shows that in order for Nepal to attain accelerated growth (contrasted with present suppressed growth and merely normal growth), which is required in order for Nepal to reach the same economic plane as India/China, Nepal needs use 10,000 MW for internal consumption within a decade.

Looked at it from another perspective, Nepal needs an installed capacity of 92,000 MW (a lot more than the “famed” economic potential of 43,000 MW) in order for people in Nepal to be consuming 10,000 kWh per capita which is quite low compared to what economically prosperous countries consume (for example Iceland consumes 31,000 kWh per capita – the highest in the world).

This doesn’t mean that Nepal shouldn’t export power at all. But exporting power to India while keeping Nepal in the dark and medieval age (unindustrialized such that youth is forced to migrate) is sheer foolishness and those advocating export of power are suffering from poverty of intellectuality. This attitude forces us into an unenviable situation of exporting power at around Rs 2/kWh and importing power to mitigate load shedding at Rs 10.72/kWh.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Basanta [mailto:basantaraj@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 4:44
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: Energy Minister's Speech to Public Accounts Committee on 5th June 2011

Dear Ratna Sir,

Thank you for you response and view.

Yes, Nepalese journalism has never been professional and this seems very far in future too. Even the news stories published in so called big newspapers confuses us rather than making things clear. As you heard the first account view on minister Bista's speech, and how the fact has been twisted. Another news published today on the same newspaper proves this. It has published a story based on minister Bista's speech again where he has tried to clarify the confusion created by the front page story run by the same daily a day earlier.

"बिजुली निकासीको बिकल्प छैन"

http://www.karobardaily.com/news/7997
But I am often amused why politicians always sell the idea of enormous hydro-power potential but never act to generate few megawatts. The development of Nepal has failed to build any infrastructure and the leadership lacks vision. If we consider the same with energy sector, they always forecast the future electricity demand based on today's load which has suffered by ineffective management and inadequate generation. As there is no integrated energy plan this forecast is very low in my view. If rapid industrialization is considered and electricity can be used for other energy uses like cooking, transportation, etc. we cannot forecast exact electricity use in numbers. It would be too soon and immature to say that maximum electricity demand in Nepal would be 5000 MW or some other numbers.

With Best Regards.

Sincerely,

Basanta Nepal

"बिजुली निकासीमा प्रतिबन्धको तयारी"

2011-06-08T05:33:00.000-07:00

June 8, 2011

Basanta Nepal

Subject: RE: Energy Minister's Speech to Public Accounts Committee on 5th June 2011

Basanta jee

I too did hear about it and also got it confirmed by Dr Prakash Chandra Lohani (member of PAC) during a telephonic discussion with him yesterday. This is an appropriate move in the interest of Nepal and Nepali people. Basically minister Bista meant to prioritize internal consumption of power in Nepal; meaning projects can export power only after Nepal’s own need is met. At the moment there are licenses floating around for close to 4,000 MW in an advanced stage, ready for implementation, dedicated for export. If these projects were to be implemented in this fashion, Nepal will be exporting power while we will be languishing in darkness (not just in terms of lighting, but also lacking in industrialization for being starved of power, resulting in mass exodus of Nepali youth). Additionally, it would have been foolish to continue the present practice of importing power from India at exorbitant rates in the name of mitigating load shedding problem. Actually, Nepal will end up importing same power from India (at over Rs 10/kWh) that she herself would be exported at around Rs 2/kWh.

However, the Karobar daily’s attempt at twisting the news out of context is regrettable. Nepal isn’t going to prohibit export of power; rather Nepal is, as I mentioned above, correctly, prioritize Nepal’s own need prior to exporting power. This twist does amply demonstrate the allegiance of that particular paper; whether it is with Nepal or not.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From: Basanta [mailto:basantaraj@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2011 15:41
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Subject: Energy Minister's Speech to Public Accounts Committee on 5th June 2011

Dear Ratna Sir,

Today I read the following news on Karobar Daily's online edition. If this news is true and this provision does not end of like some other sweet promises made among the lawmakers, it is good move from the government. But how this provision is implemented legally and how it can solve the past agreements is yet to be seen. Lets hope it does not end like some sweet speeches made in the parliament which were never implemented or acted upon. The recent example can be seen by Bharat Mohan Adhikary's speech to the parliament where he promised to promulgate new law within a week but it has been many months and we have not heard a single step forward.

"बिजुली निकासीमा प्रतिबन्धको तयारी"

http://www.karobardaily.com/news/7885

Regards,

Basanta Nepal

संबिधान सभाको थपिएको १ वर्षे कार्यकाल असम्बैधानिक

2011-05-27T21:32:00.001-07:00

२०६८ ज्येष्ठ ११ गतेको फैसलामा सर्बोच्च अदालतले "निर्वाचन हुनु पूर्व कार्यकाल निश्चित गरिएबाट र तद्नुरुप जनताबाट अनुमोदित भै निर्वाचन समेतबाट गठन भएको संविधान सभाले बाध्यात्मक रुपमा सो निश्चित गरिएको आफ्नो दुई वर्षको कार्यकाल भित्र संविधान निर्माणको कार्य पूरा गर्नु पर्ने अन्तरिम संविधानले स्पष्ट व्यवस्था गरेको देखिन्छ" भन्ने ठहर गरेकोछ । धारा १४८ ले संबिधान संशोधन गर्ने अधिकार व्यवस्थापिका संसदमा निहित गरेकोले यान्त्रिकरुपमा धारा ६४ पनि संशोधन गर्न सकिने र यसरी संबिधान सभाको कार्यावधि बढाउन सकिने भन्ने धारणालाई सर्बोच्च अदालतले खारेज गरेकोछ । यसले गर्दा गत वर्ष धारा ६४ संशोधन गरेर थपिएको कार्यावधि सर्बोच्च अदालतले असम्बैधानिक मानेको स्पष्ट छ तर यो कुरा प्रष्टसंग नभनेर सर्बोच्च अदालतले कुरा चपाएर फैसला गरेकोछ जसमा त्यस अदालतको बाध्यता पनि छ । जुन कुरा मौनरुपमा स्वीकृत गर्दै भनिएको छ "संविधान सभाले हालसम्म गरेको काम कारबाही प्रभावित हुने र सार्थक परिणाम नदिने समेत" भन्दै असम्बैधानिक भनेर बोलेको छैन ।

यस पंक्तिकारले २०६६ फाल्गुण १८ गतेको गोरखापत्रमा प्रकाशित लेखमा नैं भनेका थिए "अन्तरिम संबिधानमा किहंकतै पनि संबिधान निर्माण नभएको कारण दर्शाएर संबिधान सभाको म्याद थप्ने व्यवस्था छैन । तसर्थ काम सकिएन भनेर आफैले आफ्नो कार्यकाल बढाउन सकिन्न मिल्दैन ।" १ वर्ष भन्दा पहिले यस पंक्तिकारले व्यक्त गरेको धारणालाई अहिले आएर सर्बोच्च अदालतले सहि ठहर् याएकोछ ।

Re: FW: Hydrocratic dreams

2011-05-22T17:36:00.000-07:00

May 22, 2011

Dear colleague
I have a vision as to how should Nepal’s water resources be exploited in the interest of Nepal and her people and ideas to implement the vision. But data collection is something that takes quite a lot of time, energy and resources beyond my means.

Private sector cannot be depended upon entirely for arranging energy for industrialization. You are right. However, it can very well complement if appropriate policies are formulated based upon a vision that will serve Nepal’s national interest. In eight decades from 1911 Nepal had built 238 MW. But in two decades from 1992 405 MW was added to the system of which 166.8 MW was added by the private sector.
With best regards,

Sincerely,

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

From:
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 16:43
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: FW: Hydrocratic dreams

Ratna Sansarju,
Thanks for your response. I was asking you because I thought you had all the necessary data.

I have my own reason for asking that because some of the energy needs can be easily fulfilled by private sector whereas demand for industrialization etc. cannot be fulfilled by them as seen with our reliance on private developers.

Anyway, if you feel it is not needed then I have nothing more to say.

Cheers