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

March 3, 2010

Bishnu Hari Nepal, PhD

Former Ambassador and Freelance Visiting Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies

Dear Bishnu Nepal jee

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

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

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

Dear Ratna Sagar Shresthaji

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

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

Best Regards
Bishnu Hari Nepal, PhD

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

March 1, 2010

Mr Bihari Krishna Shrestha

Dear Bihari Krishnajee

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

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

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

Dear Ratna sansarjee,

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

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

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

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

Mr Radheshyam Adhikari
Member, Constituent Assembly

Dear Radheshyamjee

Upper Karnali Uproar!

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 3, 2010

To: Chiran S Thapa
Cc: Dipak Gyawali
Subject: RE: DipakG on Re: Fw: Your article on Karnali project in "Yo Sata"

Dear Chiranjee

I have one more number for your consideration. Arun III is now expected to cost $ 2,137/kWh only. Please note that there hasn’t been any change in the status of infrastructure (access road and transmission network) needed for the project. At that time the apologists of aborted Arun III used to trot out the excuse of lack of infrastructure to justify the high cost. If you were to check, even Enron offered to build this project at this very level of cost if it was “given” Karnali Chisapani.

In this backdrop it will be justified if you were to ask me why am I still critical of new incarnation of Arun III. Besides, the breach of constitution as Dipakjee has pointed out, it is sheer foolishness to be exporting power from this project when Eastern Development Region is being ravaged by power famine (14 MW to meet existing demand of 250 MW and potential demand of 600 MW by the time this project gets ready).

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

http:www.ratnasansar.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: Dipak Gyawali [mailto:dipakgyawali@ntc.net.np]
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 14:36
To: C.S. Thapa
Cc: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: DipakG on Re: Fw: Your article on Karnali project in "Yo Sata"

Dear Chiran,
Thanks for the reply. Before I comment on other issues, have you seen this
discovery of the new heaviest element, from whose black hole, apparently
10,000 to 25,000 MW of electricity can be generated? News clipped below.

Now on the "practical realities" mentioned by your water worthy (don't tell
me, I'll guess myself, in fact I have engaged with them but, in public, they
keep tucking their tails and run like vanquished curs); I would love to know
what those "practicalities" are. If only these worthies bothered to come
forth publicly with those arguments, it certainly would help the likes of
Ratna Sansar and self get more educated. However, let me re-cap what I think
are their "practicalities" as I currently understand them (in the absence of
anything public from their side):

a) donor-baad: whatever the donors say is right. In fact the Great Mahat (as
opposed to the Lesser Mahat, who recently hired 15 dance bar girls directly
to taha 2 of the Nepal Bidyut Apradhikaran) once challenged Bikash Panday,
Ajaya Dixit and self: Bishwa Bank le raamro bhanisakepachhi Arun-3 naramro
bhanney tapain ko??

b) lampasaar-baad: in front of the Mughlani Sahu. Even violating one's own
constitution and its article 126/156(new interim). When individuals like us
can challenge the Mughlani Sahu or Washingtonian Sahu for that matter, what
prevents these worthies who have a massive army of supporters in their rank
and file to be scared of "academic" arguments and resort to hiding behind
the phariya of "practicalities"? Can't figure out!

c) phatangress-baad: Even when Nepali private sector has ACTUALLY BUILT
hydropower project in the same roadless Arun valley at $1400/kW, to keep
claiming that one that was estimated at $5400/kW was good and would have not
led to load shedding right now is what this "practicality" is all about.
If there is some other definition of practicality, would sure love to know.

Jai Hos!

DipakG

NEW HEAVY METAL DISCOVERY
A major research institution has recently announced the discovery in Sudan
of the heaviest chemical element yet known to science. This new element has
been tentatively named "UNium 312". UNium has one neutron, 12 assistant
neutrons, 75 deputy assistant neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons,
giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by
small forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of
lepton-like particles called peons.

Since UNium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it
impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of
UNium causes one reaction to take over 4 days to complete when it would
normally take less than a second for other elements. UNium has a normal
half-life of four years; it does not decay but instead it undergoes a
reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy
neutrons exchange places. In fact, UNium's mass will actually increase over
time since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons,
forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some
scientists to speculate that UNium is formed whenever morons reach a certain
quantity in concentration. This hypocritical quantity is referred to as
"Critical Morass." You will know it when you see it.

When catalyzed with money, UNium becomes BUreaucracium 13, an element which
radiates just as much energy since it has half as many peons but twice as
many morons.

When catalyzed with Nepali SPAM, UNium becomes UNMINium sixmonthium, with a
perpetual half-life of six-month units, that is similar to a black hole
sucking in everything and not even giving out any light!



----- Original Message -----
From: "C.S. Thapa"
To: "Dipak Gyawali"
Cc: "Ratna Sansar Shrestha"
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: DipakG on Re: Fw: Your article on Karnali project in "Yo Sata"


Dear Dipak,

I get to read your articles in the Spotlight and have read the latest one.
I have mentioned both your name and Ratna Sansarji's to a person I consider
knowledgeable on water issues and he says that the problem with both of you
is that you are academic in your presentations and don't face up to the
practical realities. He told me this specifically on the Mahakali Treaty.
You probably have guessed who the person is, not anyone that you have
mentioned in your e-mail.

I'll read your books eventhough committing to memory most of Stephen
Hawking's The Theory of Everything is taking some time. I have overextended
myself also on reading or rereading Baburam Acharya's works.

If only we could manage to get gamma ray quanta from primordial black holes
to get ten thousand Megawatts. The black hole would have the mass of a
mountain compressed into the size of the nucleus of an atom. A challenge
for our physicists?

Best,

Chiran





On Mar 1 2010, Dipak Gyawali wrote:

>Dear Chiran,
> I just could not help jumping in on this debate. You seem have
> forgotten the bottom line: thank god for the collapse of Arun-3, because
> Nepal then ended up getting a third more electricity at half the cost,
> half the time!!! Just look at the numbers!! Even the World Bank is
> convinced of that (talk to Richard Stern, their then director of
> infrastructure with whom Bikash Pandey and I had to debate, also at the US
> Treasury in Washington DC in 1994); and please remember that they pulled
> out, not because of environmental issues (on Arun-3, we are on record
> saying there were practically none), but because their bad economics was
> irrefutably proved as outrageous.
> And the good Dr Mahat, with all his "baal hath", continues to mislead
> (as in today's Kathmandu Post) Nepali intellectuals and worse, his party,
> because of which both Deupangressis and Girijangressis ended up becoming
> Phatangressis and antatwogatwa Thangressis. Jai Loktantricksters!!!
> If you are interested in knowing where and how you are as misled by
> Mahatonomics and Bhadronomics, my book Rivers, Technology and Society (Zed
> Books, London, 2003, same earlier by Himal Books and Panos as Water in
> Nepal, 2001), especially its chapter on Arun-3 and the appendices with it,
> should help. Nobody so far has managed to refute what I have written in
> this long decade past, nationally or internationally. Hope you get to see
> my nasty political pieces that I pen for Spotlight once a month. The last
> one (still on the web) did talk of how much of a phatangressi sahuji Nepal
> Sarkar has become. It is going to be a topic of discussion later this week
> at the national conference of some 300 community electricity users across
> the country! Jai Hos! DipakG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha To: Chiran S Thapa Sent: Monday, March 01,
> 2010 9:42 AM
> Subject: RE: Fw: Your article on Karnali project in "Yo Sata"
>
>
> Dear Chiranjee
>
>
> Thanks for your rejoinder.

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

March 1, 2010

Dr Chiran S Thapa

Naxal, Kathmandu

Dear Chiranjee

Thanks for your rejoinder.

On Arun III I agree to disagree with you and urge you to spare some time to read the paper on it by following the link below before you make up your mind as such:

http://www.ratnasansar.com/2009/03/arun-iii-project-nepals-electricity.html

To recap some important points, the magnitude of load shedding now would have been greater than it actually is if Arun III was built. Because, from the financing perspective, Kali Gandaki A, Middle Marshyangdi (MM), Khimti and Bhote Koshi projects wouldn’t have been built if Arun III was built at that time. Moreover, we can also rely on our hydrocrats to incur time overrun in commissioning Arun III (MM was delayed by 4 years) which would have further aggravated the current load shedding problem.

You seem to believe in potential “multiplier effect on the project location and areas much farther away” .. “”from donors as grants or loans at very low interest.” In my considered opinion it would have been negative multiplier effect, rather. Just by looking at what happened with MM should people be able to understand what would have happened in much larger scale; 70 MW vs. 201 MW. KfW gave about Rs 13 billion as grant for MM while their own contractors have already taken back Rs 26 billion and are asking for Rs 10 billion more. Due to the delay of 4 years, it has cost Rs 5 billion in additional interest during construction and Rs 9.4 billion in lost revenue. In total the project has ended up costing us Rs 50.4 billion. It’s almost like KfW giving a bait of Rs 13 billion to make us bleed to the extent of Rs 50 billion. This is bound to have negative multiplier.

Let’s look at it from the perspective of NEA and retail consumers. Based on above numbers, MM has ended up costing US $ 9,523 per kW. The weighed average cost per kW even for NEA for the installed capacity added through till 2005 was $ 2,580 only. Just imagine where NEA will end up once the full cost of MM is capitalized. The upward pressure due to the cost will not be affordable to the consumers. Whereas if NEA doesn’t pass the cost through to its consumers by revising the tariff upwards then it will start hemorrhaging at far greater scale which will amount to subsidizing electricity users by robbing larger section of the populace who don’t have access to electricity. I am not sure if you are aware that the grant from donors is to GoN and the multilaterals require GoN to pass it on to NEA as GoN equity. To aggravate the matter, GoN these days, have been on-lending even the grant to NEA and earning interest on such grants.

From the above computation you should be able to extrapolate what the situation will be like if Arun III was built that was estimated to cost $ 5,300 per kW. You will have to remember one more thing. MM was estimated to cost $ 2476 per kW. But the cost overrun jacked up the cost per kW to US $ 9,523 per kW. If Arun III cost too was to escalate in the same fashion, which is inevitable due to the faulty content and structure of contracts NEA has been and is following, the per kW cost will be close to $ 20,000 kW. This would have ravaged the economy a lot more than the multiplier effect you are imagining.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha


-----Original Message-----
From: C.S. Thapa [mailto:cst21@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of C.S. Thapa
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:35
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: Fw: Your article on Karnali project in "Yo Sata"

Dear RatnaSansarji,

As usual, there is much in your reply to Constituent Assembly member
Adhikari that is original and of much educational value. Even if it isn't
easy to agree with you on some issues, it's difficult not to reassess one's
thinking. There is a potential project on which I disagree with you - the
Arun III, where if you take into account the equipment we were about to
receive, had the project gone through, from donors as grants or loans at
very low interest and the multiplier effect on the project lcation and
areas much farther away, the country would have been much better off.

Best,

Chiran





On Feb 24 2010, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

>Mr Radheshyam Adhikari
>Member, Constituent Assembly
>
>
>
>Dear Radheshyamjee
>

संबिधान सभाले आफ्नो म्याद थप्न सक्दैन

अन्तरिम संबिधानको धारा ६४ मा संबिधान सभाको कार्यकाल यसको "पहिलो बैठक बसेको मितिले दुई वर्ष हुनेछ" भन्ने व्यवस्था गरेको र २०६५ ज्येष्ठ १५ गते पहिलो बैठक बसेको हुनाले यसको कार्यकाल २०६७ ज्येष्ठ १४ गते सकिन्छ । तर संबिधान निर्माणको काम अपेक्षित ढंगबाट अगाडी बढेन । समयमा संबिधान लेखिने सम्भावना कम भएर सबै चिन्तित भएकाछन् । अनि सन्दर्भ गाँसिएकोछ संबिधान सभाको म्याद थप्नु पर्छ थप्न सकिन्छ र थप्नु हुन्न भन्ने बिबादले ।

सरकार निर्माणको खेल
निर्वाचन भएको ४ महिना पछि मात्र परिणाम अनुसार माओबादी दलका अध्यक्षको नेतृत्वमा संयुक्त सरकार गठन भएपछि पनि संबिधान लेख्ने काम गम्भिरतापूर्वक हुनसकेन । त्यसपछि कटुवाल काण्डको चपेटामा सरकार ढलेको धेरै समय पछि नयां सरकार गठन भयो । अहिले फेरि सत्ता समिकरण फेर्ने चलखेल भईरहेकोछ । राष्ट्रिय सरकार गठन गर्ने नाममा आफ्नै दलको नेतृत्वको सरकार भएपनि एमाले समेत नयां सरकार गठन गर्ने मोलमोलाईमा व्यस्त छ भने पदबाट हट्न नपरोस भनेर प्रधानमन्त्री भरमग्दूर प्रयासरत । कतिपय सभासद् र गैर सभासद् पनि यो सरकार ढले नयाँमा आफू पनि मन्त्री बन्ने प्रलोभनमा परेर संबिधानमा भन्दा यता ध्यान केन्द्रित गरेकाछन् । संबिधान सरकारले बनाउने नभएर संबिधान सभाले बनाउने र यसको कार्यकाल ३ महिना भन्दा कम बाँकी रहेकोले यो सरकार जतिसुकै अकर्मण्य भएतापनि यसलाई ढालेर नयाँ गठन गर्न तिर लाग्नु हुन्न ।

नागरिक सर्बोच्चता
नागरिक सर्बोच्चताको नाममा व्यवस्थापिका छ महिना भन्दा बढी अवरुद्ध रह्यो । हुन त संबिधान सभा अवरुद्ध नभएतापनि आन्दोलनले संबिधान लेखनको वातावरण बिथोल्यो । नागरिक सर्बोच्चता कम महत्वपूर्ण छैन तर संबिधान लेख्न नेपाली नागरिकद्वारा निर्वाचित संबिधान सभाले समयमा संबिधान निर्माण गरेमा नागरिक सर्बोच्चता झन प्रगाढरुपमा स्थापित एवं कायम हुने कुरा भने ओझेलमा पर् यो । यितंजेल राजाले संबिधान दिने गरेकोमा जननिर्वाचित सर्बोच्च संयन्त्रले जनताको तर्फबाट संबिधान लेखेर जारी गर्दा हासिल हुने उत्कृष्टतम् नागरिक सर्बोच्चतामा ध्यान गएन ।

संबैधानिक समिित
संबैधानिक समितिको सभापति समेत लामो समय रिक्त रहेर संबिधान सभामा माधव नेपालको मनोनयन पछि प्रधानमन्त्री बन्न यो समितिको सभापतित्व परित्याग गरेबाट संबिधानले प्राथमिकता नपाएको प्रष्टिन्छ । पुनः धेरै कसरत पछि सभापति पाइएकोछ । संबिधानको एकिकृत मस्यौदा लेख्न संबिधान सभाले कार्यसूची नदिएकोले संबैधानिक समितिले काम नपाएको र बैठक अनिश्चित कालका लागि स्थगित भएको समाचार यहि फाल्गुण १२ प्रकाशित भएकोले संबिधान लेखनले अझै पनि अपेक्षित गम्भिरता र प्राथमिकता नपाएका कुरा प्रष्टिन्छ ।

प्राथमिकता - कुम्लो ठिमीतिर
प्रधानमन्त्री लगायत अधिकांश मन्त्रीहरु उद्घाट्न शिलान्यास सभा समारोह आदिमै व्यस्त छन्, हेलिकप्टरमा उडेको उडेकै छन् । कामै नपाएझैं एउटै पुल उद्घाट्न गर्न आधा दर्जन मन्त्रीहरु पुग्छन् । सभासद् लगायत व्यस्त छन् आफन्त र अघिल्लो सरकारले गरेको नियुक्तिहरु बदर गर्दै आसेपासेलाई "राम्रा" पदहरुमा नियुक्ति दिलाउन, जसको कारणले मुद्दा मामिला पनि अचाक्ली बढेको छ । संबैधानिक निकायहरुको नियुक्तिमा भागबण्डा नमिलेकोले बिबाद चुलिएर सम्पूर्ण प्रशासन संयन्त्र पक्षाघातग्रस्त छ । बिदेश शयरले प्राथमिकता पाएको छ, प्रधानमन्त्री, मन्त्रीहरु, सभासद्हरुको । अनि जायज नाजायज सुविधा प्राप्त गर्न, यस्ता सुविधाको औचित्य पुष्ट्याउन पनि धेरै समय लगानि भईरहेकोछ । आफ्ना नातागोता कार्यकर्तालाई राम्रा ठेक्कापट्टा दिलाउने काम भईरहेकोछ ।

कतिपय सभासदहरुको प्राथमिकता आआफ्ना निर्वाचन क्षेत्रमा विकास निर्माणको लागि बजेट तथा कार्यक्रमको लागि पैरबी गर्नमा केन्द्रित रह्यो, सायद आगामि निर्वाचनलाई दृष्टिगत गरेर । बिभिन्न दलहरुका शिर्ष नेताहरु संबिधान सभा तथा यसका विभिन्न समितिहरुका बैठकमा अनुपस्थित रहेबाट पनि संबिधान लेखन प्रतिको उदासिनता झल्कन्छ । मुलुकको सम्पूर्ण ध्यान संबिधान निर्माणको सट्टा उच्च स्तरिय राजनैतिक संयत्रमा केन्द्रित भएबाट पनि प्राथमिकता केले पाएकोछ स्पष्ट हुन्छ ।

सबै वातावरण बिज्ञ"असम्भाव्य चिन्ता" नभएतापनि जलवायू परिवर्तन र हिमाल पग्लिने सम्भावनालाई कम आंक्न मिल्दैन । सन् २०३५ मा हिमाल पग्लेर सिद्धिने भनाई असंगत भएको पुष्टि भईसकेकोछ र यो निकट भविष्य वा आगामि दसौं पुस्ताको समस्या नभएर ३ सय वर्ष पछिको सम्भाव्य समस्या हो (सन् २३०० मा यसो हुनसक्ने सम्भावनाको, त्यो पनि आशंका मात्र व्यक्त भएको हो यकिनका साथ कसैले भन्न सकेको छैन) । केहि महिनामा संबिधान लेखेपछि यता लागेमा हिमाल धेरै पग्लेर सिद्धिने र तत्काल लाग्दैमा कम पग्लिने नभएतापनि यो विषयले सापेक्षरुपमा बढी प्राथमिकता पायो संबिधानले भन्दा ।

हरितगृह वायू बढी उत्सर्जन भएर ब्रम्हाण्डको तापक्रम बढ्नाले हिमाल पग्लिने सत्य हो । तर ११ हजार किलोग्राम हरितगृह वायू पृथ्वीमा अनावश्यक रुपमा थपिने गरी २ सय जनाको भीड कालापत्थर लगेर मन्त्रीपरिषदको बैठक गरेर विश्वको ध्यान आकृष्ट गरेको गर्व गंर्दा के बिस्मृतिमा पर् यो भने हरेक थोपा हरितगृह वायू उत्सर्जन हुंदा हिमाल अरु बढी पग्लिन्छ । यतिले नपुगेर ६ सय जनाको लर्को कोपेनहागेन पुग्दा ९ लाख ७२ हजार किलोग्राम थप हरितगृह वायू उत्सर्जन गरियो । उपलब्धी भने कतिपय सहभागीले यूरोपमा मनाएको वैधानिक वा अवैधानिक सुहागरातमा मात्र सीमित रह्यो । सम्मेलन पछि प्रकाशित समाचार अनुसार यसबाट कुनै उपलब्धी भएन । हात लाग्यो शुन्यको स्थिति रह्यो नेपाललाई र पूरै विश्वलाई । वातावरण मन्त्रीले सम्म उपस्थिति जनाउनु औचित्यपूर्ण हुनेमा असम्बन्धित मन्त्रीहरुको भीडले संबिधान लेखन प्रतिको सरकारको उदासिनता छर्लङ्ग्याइयो ।

अहिले त झन वन मन्त्री अर्थ मन्त्री र हुंदाहुंदै संबिधान सभाका अध्यक्ष समेत वातावरण बिज्ञको अवतार धारण गरेर जलवायू परिवर्तन, हरितगृह वायू उत्सर्जन सम्बन्धी विषयमा व्याख्यान गर्दैिहंडेको भेिटंदा संबिधान निर्माणले भन्दा जलवायू परिवर्तनले बढी प्राथमिकता पाएको देखिन्छ ।

सोम शर्माको चिन्तन
भारतमा लोडसेिडंग घटाउने उद्देश्यले निर्माण हुने माथिल्लो कर्णाली, अरुण तेश्रो जस्ता जलबिद्युत आयोजना पनि सरकारको प्राथमिकतामा परेकोछ संबिधान लेखन भन्दा । नेपाली जनतालाई आक्रांत पारेको उर्जा संकट सम्बोधन गर्ने आयोजनाले प्राथमिकतामा पाएको भए केहि सन्तुष्टि हुन्थ्यो । अझ नेपाली भूभाग डुबानमा पार्ने तथा जनतालाई बिस्थापित गरेर भारतमा सुख्खायाममा िसंचाईको लागि पानी, त्यो पनि सित्तैमा उपलब्ध गराउने पश्चिम सेती, पंचेश्वर जस्ता आयोजनाहरु अगाडी बढाउन सरकारले कम्मर कसेकोछ, भारतमा सिन्कीको भाउमा बिजुली बेचेर देश धनी बनाउने सोम शर्माको चिन्तनमा ।

शान्ती सुरक्षा, कानूनी राज
देशमा संक्रमणकाल छ, अस्थीरता छ । शान्ती, सुरक्षा, कानूनी राज छैन । राजधानीकै सबभन्दा सुरक्षित मानिएको ठाउंमा मध्य दिनमा गोली ठोकिएर मानिस मर्छ । चन्दा आतंक व्यापक छ । तर सरकार भने भारतमा उर्जा संकट निवारण गर्ने माथिल्लो कर्णाली, अरुण तेश्रो जस्ता आयोजनाहरु अनि भारतलाई सुख्खायाममा िसंचाईको लागि थप पानी निशुल्क उपलब्ध गराउने पंचेश्वर, पश्चिम सेती जस्ता आयोजनाको सुरक्षाको प्रत्याभूति गर्दोछ । देशको शान्ती सुरक्षामा ध्यान छैन, नागरिकको सुरक्षा कसरी हुन्छ भन्ने चासो छैन । आफू सुरक्षाकर्मीहरुले घेरिएर िहंडछन् । अनि संबिधान कसरी बन्छ ?

राजनैतिक दलको आन्तरिक बिबादसाइत जुराए जस्तै अधिकांश सबै ठूला दलहरु यत्तिबेलै आन्तरिक कलहमा हुनुले आश्चर्यचकित पार्छ । धेरै सभासद्हरु बिबाद समाधानार्थ आआफ्ना दलका बैठकहरुमा मेहनत गर्दै भेटिन्छन्, संबिधान सभा वा यस अन्तर्गतका समितिका बैठकहरुमा भन्दा । अचम्मै लाग्छ कसरी एउटै समयमा सबै दलहरुमा यस्तो बिबाद चुलियो होला ! यी बिबाद सांच्चिकै हुन् कि संबिधान नबनोस् भनेर चर्काईएका हुन्, बुझ्न कठीन भएकोछ ।

संबिधान सभाको कार्यकाल बढाउने
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 । तर कतिपयले धारा ६४ को व्यवस्था प्रयोग गरेर कार्यकाल बढाउन सकिन्छ भन्ठानेकाछन् । तर यस धारामा "मुलुकमा संकटकालीन स्थितिको घोषणा भएको कारणले संबिधान निर्माण गर्ने काम पूरा हुन नसकेमा संबिधान सभाले प्रस्ताव पारित गरी संबिधान सभाको कार्यकाल छ महिनासम्म बढाउन सक्नेछ" भन्ने सम्म प्रतिबन्धात्मक व्यवस्था छ । तर धारा १४३(१) अनुसार "नेपाल राज्यको सार्वभौमसत्ता अखण्डता वा कुनै भागको सुरक्षामा युद्ध वाह्य आक्रमण सशस्त्र बिद्रोह वा चरम आर्थिक विश्रृङ्खलताको कारणले गम्भिर संकट उत्पन्न भएमा" मात्र संकटकालीन अवस्थाको घोषणा हुनसक्छ । जतिसुकै अस्थिरता व्याप्त भएपनि, शान्ती, सुरक्षा नभएपनि संकटकाल घोषणा गर्नैपर्ने बाध्यकारी अवस्थामा देश पुगेको छैन । आशा गरौं राजनीतिकर्मीहरुले देशलाई यसतर्फ धकेल्ने छैनन् । साथै संकटकालमा धारा १४३(७) अनुसार मौलिक हक अधिकारहरु निलम्बित भएर सामान्य नागरिक तथा सभासद्हरुले स्वतंत्रतापूर्वक आफ्नो धारणा अभिव्यक्तिमा अवरोध हुने हुनाले संबिधान लेखन कार्य हुनसक्दैन । तसर्थ संकटकालीन स्थितिको घोषणा गराएर छ महिना म्याद थपाएर संबिधान निर्माण सम्पन्न गर्ने सोच पूर्णतः गलत हो ।

आफैले आफ्नो निरन्तरता दिने
संबिधान निर्माणार्थ चुनिएको यो सभाले अन्तरिम संबिधान संशोधन गर्न सक्छ र चौंथो देखि सातौं सम्म संशोधन यहि सभाले गरिसकेकोछ । तर अन्य कुराको संशोधन र आफ्नो कार्यकाल बढाउन गरिने संशोधन फरक हुन्छ । यो संबिधान सभा २ वर्षको लागि निर्वाचित हो र यसले आफ्नो कार्यकाल बढाउनु लोकतन्त्रको मूल्य मान्यता विपरित हुन्छ । यसलाई आफ्नो कार्यकाल बढाउने अधिकार भएको मानिएमा यसले अनन्त कालसम्म आफ्नो निरन्तरता दिनमिल्छ भन्ने धारणा विकास हुनसक्छ । एक दिन पनि म्याद थप्न मिल्दैन । एक दिन थप्न मिल्ने भए एक वर्ष किन नमिल्ने र यहि तर्क अगाडी सारेर दस/बीस वर्ष थप्न किन नमिल्ने भन्ने तर्क हुनसक्छ । यसबाट निर्वाचित तर म्याद सकिएको संयन्त्रको अधिनायकबाद हाबी हुन्छ । तसर्थ कार्यकाल बढाउन सकिन्न, हुन्न र बढाउने उद्देश्यले संबिधान संशोधन गर्न कदापी मिल्दैन । साथै संबिधान निर्माण सम्पन्न नभएसम्म अहिले व्याप्त संक्रमणकाल तथा अस्थिरताले समेत निरन्तरता पाउने हुनाले पनि कार्यकाल बढाउन हुन्न ।

बेलायती नजीर
बेलायतमा सन् १६४९ मा राजा चाल्स्र प्रथमको शिरच्छेदन पछि राजतन्त्रको अवसानोपरान्त संसदले आफ्नो कार्यकाल बढाएकोमा ओलिभर क्रमवेल १६५३ अपि्रलमा यस्तो गर्न नपाउने धारणा व्यक्त गर्दै सांसदहरुलाई संसदबाट भगाएका थिए । नेपालमा भने सन् २००१ मा बिरेन्द्रको बंशनाश भएपनि राजतन्त्र औपचारिकरुपमा सन् २००८ ज्ञानेन्द्रको पालामा मात्र अन्त्य भयो । तर अहिले संबिधान सभाको म्याद थप्ने कुरा चल्नाले हामी कतै बेलायती परिदृष्य तर्फ त लम्कंदै छैनौं भन्ने आशंका जन्मेको छ । नेपाल र नेपालीको लागि यो बाटो हितकर हुन्न ।

बांकी समयमा संबिधान लेख्न सकिन्छ ?
त्यसो भए लगभग ९० दिनको बाँकी समयमा लेखिन्छ त भन्ने प्रश्न उपस्थित हुन्छ । कटिबद्ध भएर लागे ९० दिनको समय यथेष्ट हो । सरकारले दैनिक प्रशासनमा मात्र ध्यान केन्द्रित गर्ने, उद्घाट्न शिलान्यासमा समय नखर्चे सम्भव छ । सभासद्हरुले पनि एकलब्यले जस्तै सम्पूर्ण ध्यान संबिधान निर्माणमा केन्द्रित गरेर अन्य झिनामसीना काममा नलागे सकिन्छ । व्यवस्थापिकाको अधिवेशन अन्त्य भईसकेकोले सभासद्हरुको यता समय लाग्दैन । संबिधानले प्राथमिकता पाउनुपर्ने हुनाले व्यवस्थापिका तर्फका समितिहरुले पनि आफ्ना कृयाकलाप ३ महिनालाई मुल्तबी राख्नुपर्छ । त्यस्तै दलहरुको आन्तरिक बिबाद पनि ३ महिनालाई थाँती राखेर संबिधान निर्माणको एकबद्धरुपमा लाग्नुपर्छ । संबैधानिक निकायहरु यितंजेल रिक्त रहेर पनि काम चलेको हुनाले अब ३ महिना नियुक्ति नभएमा केहि फरक पर्दैन ।

संबिधान नबनी संबिधान सभाको कार्यकाल सकिएको अवस्थामा देशमा सृजना हुने अनपेक्षित असहजता र अस्थिरतालाई दृष्टिगत गरेर सबै सभासद्हरुले संबिधान लेखनको लागि दिनको १२ घण्टा दिए असम्भव छैन । बिदेश शयर गर्ने लोभ त्यागेर कम्मर कसे सकिन्छ । नेपाली जनताबाट निर्वाचित सभासद्हरुबाट नेपाली जनताले यत्ति अपेक्षा राख्नु अस्वाभाविक हुन्न ।

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

२०६६ फाल्गुण १८ गतेको गोरखापत्रमा प्रकाशित

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

February 25, 2010

Alok K. Bohara, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Economics
University of New Mexico

Dear Mr Bohara

Thanks for reverting back. I am glad that we are speaking from the same page.

If we are let these “people” continue with “business as usual” we not will lose our water but they will even surrender our sovereignty. These people are not only prepared to accept Indian security on Nepali soil but also justify it.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

http:www.ratnasansar.com/


-----Original Message-----
From: Alok K Bohara, PhD [mailto:bohara@unm.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 21:37
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: Your article on Karnali project in "Yo Sata"

Dear Mr. Shrestha:

Very interesting analysis. These days, I am more worried about our
country's sovereignty and the penetration of foreign powers into our
"socio-politico" lives. With the central authority gone, and with the
rise of ethno-centric politics and a feeble elite chattering class
acting like a pendulum, we are now more vulnerable to short-term
temptations and gains. I am more worried about protecting our water
rather than electricity. Thanks...


Best,
Alok Bohara
Professor
UNM