Hydropower Policy – A Critique

In 1992 government of Nepal (GoN) formulated Hydropower Development Policy and also promulgated Electricity Act and Water Resources Act. The following four reasons were cited as the rationale for the formulation of the Policy:

1. “It is necessary to make alternative arrangement to meet the interim demand of the country till the above projects come into operation”. In this excerpt, the words “above projects” were used in reference to Arun-III (402 MW ) and Kali Gandaki (100 MW) , which were expected to “be executed within a period of 7-12 years.”

2. “It is also necessary to construct new small hydroelectric projects to meet the demand of those hilly and remote Himalayan regions where the national electricity system has not been extended or would not be extended in the near future.”

3. “It is utmost necessary to extend proper distribution system in the rural areas where electrification has not been done, and

4. In order “to develop hydropower of the country by motivating national and foreign private investors in the electricity sector.”

The first two rationales, basically, focused on making alternative arrangements to meet the interim demand while Arun-III and Kali Gandaki A projects were under construction, by ensuring construction of small projects to serve hilly and remote Himalayan areas. However, the enabling law, the Electricity Act, 1992, does not suffer from such limitation; it was not intended to address just the interim requirement. Under this legal environment Khimti, Upper Bhote Koshi, and Indrawati III (totaling 112.5 MW) were constructed with foreign investment while a number of other projects have been built with local finance.
It is heartwarming to note that the policy heralding private investment in the power sector in Nepal have had a successful trial. However, it needs improvement in a stratified manner so that each improvement reinforces the policy for the betterment. The policy works as a fulcrum in attracting private investments in the sector. Nepal is facing power shortage herself, and the huge power deficit in the neighboring India also affords a market for the excess hydropower generated in Nepal. In order to ensure that the planned capacity addition is realized to enable NEA to meet ever-increasing demand for electricity domestically as well as in the neighborhood, the policy needs to be rationalized and also made more responsive to the needs of potential private investors from Nepal and abroad.

Changes based on Lessons Learnt
In 2001 a new policy (Hydropower Development Policy, 2001) was formulated to revise and improve the hydropower policy based on the (a) experience gained in the course of implementing the principles followed by the original policy, (b) emerging concepts in the international market and their impacts, (c) technological development, (d) possibility of export of hydropower, (e) possibility of foreign investment, and (f) commitment to environmental protection with a view to making it clear, transparent, practical, and investment-friendly. It was formulated to achieve following objectives :

1. “To generate electricity at low cost by utilizing the water resources available in the country.

2. To extend reliable and qualitative electric services throughout the Kingdom of Nepal at a reasonable price.

3. To tie-up electrification with the economic activities.

4. To render support to the development of rural economy by extending the rural electrification.

5. To develop hydropower as an exportable commodity.”

1. Salient Features
The new policy concept lays down strategies for its implementation. It has made provisions concerning the environment, water rights, investment in generation, transmission, and distribution, power purchase, etc. to attract investments from within and outside Nepal. It stipulates mandatory release of at least 10% of the minimum monthly downstream discharge of the river or stream by a project as environmental flow. In case its environmental impact assessment (EIA) study report calls for higher quantum as environmental flow, then the project is obliged to release that quantum of. There is also provision for acquiring necessary private and public land for implementation of the project, and the government is obliged to assist developers in this respect. A developer is made responsible for the rehabilitation and resettlement of any family that is displaced in the course of construction of power plant, transmission and distribution network, as specified by the GoN, at the cost of the project proponent.

The policy has also made provision for preventing adverse impact on the availability of water or water rights of the project for which license has been obtained or license is not required. It envisages issuing licenses for study or survey as well as implementation of projects for generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, including captive generation. The policy stipulates specific timeframe within which license are to be issued. The survey license is for a period of five years while generation license will have a term of 30 to 35 years. Similarly, the term of the electricity transmission and distribution license is to be 25 years. The policy has waived the license requirement for projects of up to 1 MW.

There is provision for providing 50% of the royalty obtained by GoN from hydropower projects to the VDCs and districts that are directly affected by the power projects. The policy also envisages handing over responsibility of operation and management of small hydropower plants in mountainous rural areas outside the national power system to community groups.

2. Build, Own, Operate, and Transfer
The policy’s fulcrum is the provision related to build, own, operate, and transfer (BOOT) concept, making it mandatory for the transfer of the project to GoN in good running condition after expiry of license period without any compensation. Under the policy, a hydropower site has been treated in parallel to a concession and owner’s title right over the power plant devolves to GoN upon completion of the term of the license. In order to ensure “good running” condition of such assets, the regulatory body (yet to be constituted) has been empowered to prescribe guidelines for repair and maintenance of main electric equipment and structure. The policy has also made provision for the involvement of GoN in the operation two years before the handover of the project.

Except in the case of captive plant, and where the plant owner directly uses the electricity, the policy has made it mandatory to execute a PPA to sell energy. By doing so the policy has failed to recognize that private sector investors also do implement merchant plant which will not sign PPA in advance; rather such plants are operated during the times of high tariff and are not operated when the tariff affords marginal return. The policy also has stipulated that the PPA shall be transparent.

In order to encourage foreign investments in the sector, provision has been made for granting non-tourist visa and work permit to investors, their representatives, experts, skilled personnel, and their families. Besides, the policy encourages hydropower projects to use Nepali labor, skills, means, and resources to the maximum extent possible in order to ensure that the benefit accruing from the backward linkage does percolate into the economy. Similarly it also guarantees against the nationalization of power plants and against revocation of a license in contravention of the terms of the license.

3. Fiscal Provisions
The policy provides for two-tier capacity and energy royalty with annual escalation of the latter by 5%. The rate regime is different for up to 15 years and after 15 years. Unlike the previous policy, it prescribes different rates for projects of different sizes, like 1 to 10 MW, 10 to 100 MW, above 100 MW, captive use project, export-oriented project, storage project etc. In India, an IPP is required to pay nominal water use charges and, additionally, has to provide 12% free power to the host State. However, an IPP in Nepal has to pay only a combined capacity and energy royalty and no free power is required to be provided. Compared to the nominal rates in Nepal, what an IPP has to pay in cash and kind in India is exorbitantly high, which has far-reaching implications for the economy—from high development costs to high prices that consumers have to ultimately pay for electricity or the macro economy has to internalize.

The policy has made provision to charge only a nominal 1% custom duty on the import of plant, machinery, equipment and spares for the construction or erection of the project. It has also made provision for the exemption of VAT on the import of these items.

According to the policy, custom duty and VAT facilities are also available for upgrading the capacity of a plant or for its necessary repair and maintenance because of exigency or natural calamity. It also guarantees that no tax, duty or governmental revenue in any form or title other than those levied in accordance with the agreement executed at the time of issue of license will be levied.

Moreover, the policy has made provision for exemption of income tax (also included in previous policy also). However, it was withdrawn by Income Tax Act, 2001 only to be reinstated with some modification by Finance Act, 2009 under which projects commissioned by April 13, 2019 are entitled to income tax holiday for first 7 years and a reduction by 50% for next 3 years.

4. Repatriation
Under this policy, GoN makes firm commitment to assure repatriation for debt servicing (payment of interest and repayment of principal) and as return on equity, and the proceeds from the sale of such equity in the case of foreign investment.

5. Institutional Mechanism
The policy envisages developing the Electricity Tariff Fixation Commission (ETFC) into a regulatory body to regulate the sector and also fix electricity tariffs and wheeling charges . Under the policy, the private sector is entitled to use the national grid on payment of a fee (wheeling charge). Similarly, it has reposed the responsibility of study and promotion to Department of Electricity Development (DoED), which is also a licensing authority. Water and Energy Commission Secretariat is to prepare a national load forecast, carry out system planning study, conduct preliminary identification of hydropower projects, conduct various policy research, etc. Electric Energy Management Research Institute is also to be set up.

Incidentally, Electricity Act 1992, promulgated to implement previous policy, has not been updated/changed to make it compatible with new policy.

Critique of Policy
There are a number of areas in the policy that warrant improvement. This paper tries to deal with some important ones in the following sections.

1. Enforceability of the Policy
The Electricity Act, 1992 was promulgated to make previous policy enforceable. In other words, the Act “implements” the vision enshrined in the Policy. In October 2001, GoN promulgated new policy, which supplanted the earlier policy. However, GoN is yet to effect changes in relevant legislation, including in the Electricity Act, 1992, thereby rendering the new policy (of 2001) unenforceable.

There are contradictions between the new Policy and the existing Act. This is sowing a lot of confusion in the private investors, and, therefore, inhibiting it from playing a significant role in hydropower sector. The new policy has made several changes to the existing policy, but when it comes to implementation, it is still the Electricity Act of 1992 that gets implemented. As an example, we can take the case of royalty. The new policy stipulates that energy royalty of 1.75% and 1.85% respectively to be charged to projects from 1 to 10 MW and from 10 to 100 MW sizes for first 15 years. But GoN is still charging 2% energy royalty to projects of all sizes in accordance with Electricity Act, 1992. Such a state of affairs discourages private investors.

2. Lack of stability and predictability in policy
Section 12(3) of the Electricity Act, 1992 stipulates “hydro electricity generation, transmission and distribution shall be exempted from income tax for fifteen years from the date of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity for commercial purposes.” A number of projects have been built, being attracted by this exemption, and they are already enjoying the “income tax holiday.” But this facility was withdrawn in March 2001.

Income tax is a tax that is paid only if there is some income: no income, no income tax. Therefore, revenue officials have been doing their best to downplay the impact of the withdrawal of such exemption. Except for some marginal sites, the impact of having to pay income tax at the rate of 20% (a concessional rate against the corporate rate of 25%) may not be that substantial. But the issue is that of stability and predictability of the policy, and the issue of income tax is just an example. Investors all over the world look out for stability and predictability in the policy under which they have to operate. This holds true more so in the case of infrastructure projects that are capital-intensive with relatively long gestation (construction) period and are long-term investments (recovery of investment with return possible only over a long time). Therefore, this particular step has been discouraging potential investors.

3. Lack of Vision for Energy Security
Electricity is one of the sources of energy and other non-renewable and unclean sources of energy are also used in Nepal, besides other renewable sources like sun, wind, biogas/biomass, etc. Traditional sources like firewood, agricultural residue, animal residue, etc. constituted 55% in FY 2015/16 and 40% of energy requirement is met by modern but unclean sources like coal and petroleum product. Electricity and renewables constitutes only 5%.

The nature has endowed Nepal with water resource aplenty but “forgot” to provide any fossil fuel like coal, gas, etc. Therefore, this policy should have focused on achieving energy security by harnessing water resource for most need, including displacement of fossil fuel and firewood; not only for lighting but also for industrialization, electrification of transportation and electric cooking
But sadly the policy has failed badly in this respect.

4. Failure to capture positive externalities
Hydropower development does not mean building only run of the river projects; reservoir projects play much important role in meeting dry season demand (generates high value electricity). Such projects also generate positive externalities like lean season augmented flow in the downstream areas availing much needed water for human consumption, irrigation, fisheries etc. besides controlling flood during wet season. But the policy has completely ignored this facet of water use, which is criminal as there is no alternative to fresh water for water security and food security while there are both clean and unclean alternative for energy generation.

5. Faulty licensing policy
By November 30, 2016 GoN has already issued 276 licenses for an assortment of projects of various sizes in total for about 5,914 MW as detailed below:

Status of Survey Licenses Issued

Capacity range Number of projects Total Installed capacity
Up to 1 MW 172 121.98
1 to 25 MW 75 626.03
25 to 100 MW 16 933.61
Above 100 MW 13 4,232.7
Total 276 5,914.32

And 117 Generation Licenses were issued for total installed capacity of 3,340.95 MW. However, so far only 50 projects with total installed capacity of 324.446 MW have been commissioned, while the country is facing load shedding problem caused by demand and supply mismatch. While only 91 projects with total installed capacity of 1,721.53 is under constriction. A sad show compared to licenses issued for almost 400 projects with installed capacity totaling over 7,500 MW.

This is one of the main problems in the licensing policy. The current policy is to issue license for hydropower projects, irrespective of whether for domestic consumption or export, on “first come first serve” basis. People approaching GoN for license for any particular site can walk away with one if they are able to satisfy certain requirements.

There is not much to show for the huge number of licenses that have been issued. One meets people ranging from wanting to sell a license for a “price” to looking for a partner while the license holder is not able to mobilize even 10% of the required equity (even under the 75:25 debt equity ratio) on their own. On the other hand those who have financial strength to build hydropower projects have no access to licenses.

This phenomenon exists due to the fact that the policy is bereft of a mechanism to ensure that the applicant has access to necessary resources to implement the project. This problem has deprived genuine investors of potential sites and blocked the generation of electricity and thus the development of power sector thereby exacerbating power crisis. Similarly, such rent-seeking attitude of the license holders without financial strength is also additionally depriving the national treasury of the royalty revenue, which would have started flowing in had the policy made better provision to screen the applicants’ financial capabilities to implement a project.

6. Hindrances to dispute settlement
The Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Act (FITTA), 1992 had no provision for the selection of foreign governing law for dispute settlement. For the proponents of the Khimti project, pioneer foreign investors, it was a sine qua non; they were unwilling to invest in Nepal unless they were allowed to choose foreign law to govern various contracts. Therefore, Subsection (4) was added to Section 7 of FITTA in January 1996, in order to afford foreign investors an opportunity to choose foreign jurisdiction for dispute settlement. As Nepal has already signed the New York Convention on Arbitration, an arbitral award made in any country is enforceable in Nepal as long as the arbitration is conducted under the laws of the country where the venue of arbitration is located. This is one of the effective modes of dispute settlement. But the same cannot be said of other modes of dispute settlement.

Although, such a foreign investor is entitled to choose laws of any country, the decision of the foreign court is not enforceable in Nepal. The point can be illustrated with an example of a foreign investor, having exercised the right to choose English law, will have to go to a court in England to settle dispute if s/he opts for the judicial settlement of dispute instead of arbitration. If the English court were to hand down a verdict in her/his favor, s/he would need the assistance of a Nepali court to enforce the verdict of English court in Nepal. However, the verdict of the English court, for that matter any foreign court, is not enforceable in Nepal.

Similarly, the liberty to choose foreign law implies that the investor exercising such choice will be entitled to adjudication under the law of that country even in the host country, too, where the project is located. But it is not even worth imagining that a court of Nepal will apply, for example Norwegian laws in the settlement of disputes; most in Nepal don’t even understand Norwegian language. In view of this, the liberty to choose foreign jurisdiction becomes ineffective.

Once foreign jurisdiction for the settlement of disputes under a contract has been chosen, a court in Nepal will not adjudicate a dispute under such contract even under Nepal law, as the governing law of the contract, freely chosen by the contracting parties, is the law of a country other than Nepal.

7. Import duty facility at the cost of the economy
Pursuant to Clause 6.14.2 of the HDP 2001, no VAT is levied on the machinery, equipment, and spares thereof imported for a hydropower project. Similarly, Clause 6.14.3 of the policy waives customs duty on the import of machinery, equipment, and spares (except for the nominal 1%). This is a welcome provision in as much as attracting private investment is concerned. But due to such waiver, imported machinery, equipment, and spares become cheaper compared to domestic production because of which, Nepal fails to take advantage of the backward economic linkage. The investments made in the hydropower project will not percolate into Nepal’s economy by way of backward linkage.

8. Sovereign guarantee and PPA
It is well known that government guarantee is met with disapproval from multilateral FIs in general. However, in order to perfect the security for hydropower projects, like Khimti and Upper Bhote Koshi, GoN had to provide counter guarantee, without which these projects would not have been implemented (these were financed by multi-laterals like International Finance Corporation, Asian Development Bank, etc. who themselves generally frown upon GoN issuing sovereign guarantee). In providing the sovereign guarantee as such, GoN has unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed that NEA shall perform all of its obligations in time under the PPA to the proponents of these projects. If NEA is to fail, GoN is committed to pay the IPP the dues owed by NEA to the extent that GoN even foregoes its right of immunity as a sovereign government, citing the reason that the transaction contemplated by the PPA is of commercial nature.
However, such guarantee has not, generally, been available to domestic investors. It shows lack of a level playing field, as well.

9. Autonomy of NEA
Pursuant to Section 4(1) of the Nepal Electricity Authority Act, 1984, NEA is an autonomous corporate entity. But, in practice, NEA does not get to exercise such autonomy most of the time. As the entire ownership of NEA vests with GoN, it is logical for it to receive policy directions from GoN through the board of directors (either ex officio representative of GoN or nominees of GoN) from time to time. But, NEA receiving executive instructions (non policy related) at times from GoN functionaries, oral or otherwise, amounts to the impairment of its autonomy.

The total installed capacity in NEA system is 855.886 MW , of which it owns hydropower plants with total installed capacity of 531.44 MW making it responsible for operation of these power plants totaling while it needs to take care of the transmission and distribution of the total installed capacity in the system. In view of this, its 10,000-strong workforce is a case of over-staffing. With the change of every government, a number of people are invariably hired (with a few exceptions). When Rajiv Gandhi, late prime minister of India, declared, “These are not Electricity Boards, but Employment Boards,” he could very much have been referring to NEA.

Even the appointment of NEA’s board members is done by MoE in a non-transparent and non-competitive manner without regard to academic qualification, experience and exposure. Furthermore, the Board has no say in the appointment of chief executive. All these are manifestations of encroachment on the autonomy of NEA, and it reflects poorly on the sector.

10. One-Window policy
It is a common practice to set up a “one-window” institution to develop a particular sector. In Nepal, too, the policy envisages setting up such a window and designates DoED as the one-window for hydropower projects. However, investors need to secure permits and approvals from many other agencies under the GoN, and DoED just works as a conduit for a developer to approach various other agencies within the government system. This has resulted in cumbersome processes, taking unduly long time, which has disenchanted/discouraged the existing IPPs as well as potential investors.

11. Regulatory Body
Regulatory body is the pivot of implementation of hydropower development policy. It simply doesn’t exist, nor has legislation for it been promulgated. Electricity Tariff Fixation Commission regulates just the tariff.

Recommendation

1. In order to eliminate existing anomaly, obviously, new law conforming to HPD 2001 needs to be promulgated forthwith.

2. The new policy assures that no change that will adversely impact the investors will be effected. But for want of legislation, this welcome piece of policy is not enforceable yet. The legislation which will make the policy that has this clause enforceable should be passed forthwith.

3. The policy needs to “shift gear” to achieve energy security in Nepal rather than excessive focus on export. Obviously, energy security doesn’t just mean no load shedding not only in the case of people with access to electricity but also to those without. It should focus on displacement of fossil fuel in the transport sector and kitchen including fire wood.

4. License for hydropower projects should not be issued to anyone and everyone walking in with an application. GoN needs to develop a mechanism whereby license is issued to only those who can show proof of their ability to invest a substantial portion of the estimated cost of the project. This can be implemented by requiring, for example, bank guarantee covering 10% of the estimated project cost. Such bank guarantee should be forfeited if the applicant doesn’t implement the project, which could be tantamount to recovery of royalty revenue to GoN, that it is deprived from by the failure of the licensee to implement the project.

Moreover, project licenses should be awarded on the competitive basis such that project is commissioned sooner and better revenue to GoN is assured.

5. In order to make the liberty to choose foreign jurisdiction for the settlement of disputes effective, GoN should make arrangements to allow the private sector investors to avail of all avenues of dispute settlement by, for example, allowing courts in Nepal to implement the verdicts of foreign courts.

6. In order to enable the economy to absorb the investments in capital-intensive projects, thereby reaping the benefits of backward linkage, GoN needs to provide import duty facility to only those items that cannot be manufactured or produced in Nepal in a cost-effective manner and of required quality in necessary quantum and when needed.

7. As GoN furnishing sovereign guarantee causes distortions and also because the instrument does not belong to the age of economic liberalization, it should not be provided at all. If GoN thinks that sovereign guarantee needs to be provided to accelerate the development of the power sector, then it should be provided only for a limited fixed duration and ensuring level playing field.

8. In order to ensure that NEA actually enjoys the autonomy guaranteed to it by legislation, political interference of any type should be prohibited in the NEA. GoN should constitute a professional board comprising members with requisite education, experience and exposure for a fixed term. The board should be allowed to manage NEA professionally and also should be held accountable.
e
One reason behind the high level of political interference in NEA is that a minister chairs the board. Both the chairperson and other members, as well as the executive director, should be chosen through a transparent and competitive process with provision for public hearings.

9. It makes no sense to make provision fora “one-window” agency when such an agency is actually not able to function as one. In order to ensure that the power sector projects move on a real fast track, the one-window system should be implemented in the real sense. The turf wars between various agencies of the government can be eliminated by letting all departments concerned delegate necessary authority to DoED at the time of issuing license itself.

10. Legislation for regulatory body needs to be promulgated forthwith and such a body needs to be formed with further delay.
Conclusion

It goes without saying that having a policy that cannot be implemented does not make sense. Besides, as Nepal is not endowed with mineral resource while nature has bestowed her with ample water resource, Nepal should strive to achieve energy security by harnessing water at the optimum level.

Published in Hydro Nepal Journal of January 2017

Parliamentary Ratification of PDAs

SAARC Power Trade Agreement (PTA), signed on November 27, 2014, was ratified by Nepal’s parliament on August 29, 2016 under Article 279 of Nepal’s Constitution, which paved path for SAARC member countries to sell and purchase electricity amongst them.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
Sub Article (1) of Article 279 makes provision for ratification of treaties or agreement to which the State of Nepal or the Government of Nepal is a party. Sub Article 2 stipulates that treaties or agreements dealing with (a) peace and friendship, (b) security and strategic alliance, (c) the boundaries of Nepal and (d) sharing of (i) natural resources or (ii) their uses. It also specifies that treaties/agreements with far-reaching, grave or long-term impact shall be ratified by two third majority of the total members of the parliament; otherwise will have to be ratified by simple majority.

Therefore, treaties/agreements signed by state/government of Nepal related to sharing of natural resource or sharing of uses of natural resources are required to be ratified by the parliament. With regard to water resource, sharing of it signifies assigning one particular river to one party and another river to another party. While sharing of uses of water resources connote sharing of, for example electricity generated by using water resource. Electricity trading is tantamount to sharing of natural resources and for this very reason SAARC PTA required parliamentary approval. Since there is no provision as such in Indian constitution, India didn’t need to ratify SAARC PTA.

Parliamentary Ratification of PDAs
However, project development agreements (PDAs) for export oriented projects like Arun III, Upper Karnali, etc. have not been ratified by the parliament yet. Superficially, these agreements do not deal with export of power – sharing of use of natural resource. But these PDAs are to implement export-oriented projects and the developer would export power from these projects upon completion; use natural resource, water, to generate power and export electricity (sharing of use of natural resource) in the same way as under SAARC PTA. Therefore, these PDAs need ratification by the parliament.

Failure as such has not only resulted in breach of constitution but also resulted in infringement of authority of parliament, thus undermining it. Parliamentarians are known to raise ruckus when they do not like food served in the canteen in the parliament premises. But they kept resoundingly silent in the matter of parliamentary ratification of PDAs. Trust legislature is not performing the function of an accomplice of executive in this aberration.

History of Parliamentary Ratification
In all constitutions promulgated prior to 1990, there was no provision for parliamentary ratification. Perhaps it was due to the fact that sovereignty and state authority was vested in the King and agreements with his blessing did not require parliamentary ratification. Various institutional mechanisms under those constitutions, called by different names, were not sovereign.
For the first time, the provision for parliamentary ratification for treaties/agreements dealing with specific subjects was incorporated in the constitution of 1990 in Article 126. It is clear that drafters of this constitution did not wish to vest such authority to the executive arm of the government and made provision for ratification by parliament. This provision was replicated in Interim Constitution in Article 156 and present constitution in Article 279.

Judiciary
A writ petition was filed in Supreme Court as agreement for export-oriented West Seti project was not ratified by the parliament and this scribe too had appeared in the hearing on behalf of the petitioner before a division bench comprising justices Anup Raj Sharma and Kalyan Shrestha. In handing down a verdict (number 8059) the court ruled that parliamentary ratification is not necessary as the agreement was not contractual agreement for division of natural resources between two countries or a number of countries. It implies that parliamentary ratification is only necessary if such agreements are executed between two states/governments or number of states/governments.

Under this interpretation PDA for Arun 3 will require parliamentary ratification as it was signed by the government of Nepal with Sutlej Jal Vidyut Nigam (SJVN), which is owned jointly by Indian federal government and a state government. Effectively, it constitutes an agreement between governments of Nepal and India. A writ petition filed against the agreement for Arun 3 is under consideration at Supreme Court and it is hoped that the Court will not rule that ratification would be required only if agreement is signed by government of Nepal with Indian government, not with a company owned by Indian government.

1990 Constitution
Drafters of 1990 Constitution were clear about their intention and had constructed Article 126 very wisely. This article stipulates that agreement signed by Nepal state or government on the subjects specified in Article 126(2) require parliamentary ratification. It doesn’t say that only agreements signed between Nepal state/government and another state/government or a number of states requires ratification.

Therefore, treaties/agreements related to subjects specified in Article 126(2) [Article 279(2) of current constitution] whether signed between Nepal state/government and another state/government or a number of states or by Nepal state/government with any party (whether foreign state/government or public/private company, institute, agency etc.) has to be ratified by the parliament.

Confusion between treaty and agreement
Generally agreements concluded between two states/governments are called treaty, which is covered by Article 2(a) of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. While agreements signed between non-government institutions and between government and other non-government institutions are called agreement; such agreements are not referred to as treaties.

With this in view, the constitution drafters have used both words: treaty and agreement. In an important document like constitution, an extra word would not have been inserted unnecessarily if it were not absolutely essential. The constitution would not have mentioned the word “agreement” if the intention was just to cover inter-government treaties or treaties between a numbers of nations. Only one word, treaty would have been sufficed.

Power Trade Agreement
Nepal government has signed Power Trade Agreement with India in 1997 and although it constituted a treaty, it was called an agreement and it required parliamentary ratification; for the failure to get it ratified by the parliament the agreement became defunct. Nepal signed another Power Trade Agreement in 2014. It becomes clear from this that although treaties are signed between government-to-government; these are at times also called agreements. Moreover, not only treaties come under purview of Article 279 but also agreements come under it. Further, merely because a document is called an agreement, it doesn’t become exempt from parliamentary ratification if it comes under the purview of article related to parliamentary ratification.

PTA signed in 2014 is an agreement subject to parliamentary ratification in accordance with precedent set by Supreme Court; it has yet to be ratified by the parliament. Seemingly, GoN is not getting it ratified by the parliament by interpreting that since it is an “agreement,” it doesn’t need parliamentary ratification. This not only constitutes transgression of constitutional provision but also infringement of authority of the parliament. Further, it also amounts to breach of precedent set by Supreme Court in West Seti case. It is hoped that Supreme Court would take sou moto notice of the matter and direct GoN to get PTA with India ratified by the parliament.

Transfer of Project to GoN under BOOT
Supreme Court, in handing down the verdict in West Seti case, also contented that the Project would be returned back to GoN after completion of specific period, e.g. 25 years and inferred that, therefore, the project doesn’t have long-term adverse impact. What has been lost sight of is the fact that, although civil structures like dam, canal etc. have life of about 50 years, but plant, equipment like turbine, generator etc. have limited life and when the project is handed over, these would be in almost dilapidated condition. It can be compared with the practice of girls being put under bondage called Kamlari in Nepali, wherein a girl is given away till her parents are able to repay money borrowed by which time her reproductive age would be over. This adversely impacts more than imagined; Nepal will be deprived of electricity when the project is in robust condition (while Nepal is not able to meet demand, including latent demand) and returned after it is not in optimum condition will again deprive Nepal from reaping benefit from the project.

At the risk of being charged with contempt of court, this scribe has to state that judiciary has become silent witness to unconstitutional acts of GoN. An important question arises: does it imply that if an agreement is signed with private sector no parliamentary ratification is required? Then all agreements related to Article 279(2) would be signed with private sector thus avoiding botheration of getting ratified by parliament. In any case even intergovernmental agreement like PTA has not been subjected to parliamentary ratification, committing contempt of Supreme Court and infringing power of parliament.

If agreements signed by GoN with private sector is not subject to parliamentary ratification, how about similar agreements related to (1) peace and friendship (2) security and strategic alliance and (3) the boundaries of Nepal signed by GoN with private sector? Would these too be exempt from parliamentary ratification? If so, what will happen if an agreement is signed with a private sector modeled after East India Company handing over certain territory of Nepal?

There could be another logic that agreement signed by GoN with private sector related to (1) peace and friendship (2) security and strategic alliance and (3) the boundaries of Nepal is subject to parliamentary ratification and only agreements with private sector related to natural resource is exempt from parliamentary ratification. This would be a very irrational logic.
As Nepal is a sovereign country any agreement on subjects specified in Article 279(2) requires parliamentary ratification whether signed between Nepal state/government and foreign state/government or any other institution, agency, private sector or amongst number of states/governments.
Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Published in Peoples Review on December 15, 2016

जलश्रोत सम्बन्धी सम्झौताको संसदीय अनुमोदन

नभेम्बर २७, २०१४ मा दस्तखत भएको सार्क बिद्युत व्यापार सम्झौता (सार्क पीटीए) अगष्ट २९, २०१६ मा नेपालको संविधानको धारा २७९ बमोजिम संसदबाट अनुमोदन गरियो । यो सम्झौता सम्पन्न भएपछि सार्कका सदस्य राष्ट्रहरु बीच बिद्युत व्यापार (आयात–निर्यात) गर्ने बाटो खुलेकोछ ।

संवैधानिक व्यवस्था
संविधानको धारा २७९ को उपधारा (१) मा “नेपाल राज्य वा नेपाल सरकार पक्ष हुने सन्धी वा सम्झौताको अनुमोदन” इत्यादि गर्ने व्यवस्था छ र उपधारा (२) मा (क) शान्ति र मैत्री, (ख) सुरक्षा एवं सामरिक सम्बन्ध, (ग) नेपाल राज्यको सीमाना र (घ) प्राकृतकि श्रोत तथा त्यसको उपयोगको बाँडफाँडका विषयहरुमा भएको सन्धी सम्झौता संसदबाट अनुमोदन गरिनुपर्ने भनिएकोछ । “राष्ट्रलाई व्यापक, गम्भीर वा दीर्घकालिन असर पर्ने भएमा तत्काल कायम रहेका सम्पूर्ण सदस्य संख्याको दुई तिहाइ बहुमतले गर्नुपर्ने”, नत्र साधारण बहुमतबाट गरिने व्यवस्था छ ।

तसर्थ नेपाल राज्य/सरकारले (१) प्राकृतिक श्रोतको बाँडफाँड वा (२) प्राकृतिक श्रोतको उपयोगको बाँडफाँड गर्ने प्रयोजनले गरिने सन्धी/सम्झौता संसदबाट अनुमोदन गरिनुपर्दछ । जलश्रोतको सन्दर्भमा प्राकृतिक श्रोतको बाँडफाँड भन्नाले (१) एउटा खास नदीको पानी यसलाई र अर्को नदीको उसलाई अथवा (२) नदी विशेषको पानीको यो यति परिमाण यसलाई र उति परिमाण उसलाई भनेर बाँड्ने हो । प्राकृतिक श्रोतको उपयोगको बाँडफाँड भन्नाले पानी, जुन प्राकृतिक श्रोत हो, उपयोग गरेर उत्पादन हुने उपज—जलबिद्युत—को बाँडफाँड गर्नु हो र जलबिद्युत व्यापार गर्नु भनेको प्राकृतिक श्रोतको उपयोगको बाँडफाँड हो । यसैकारण सार्क पीटीए संसदबाट अनुमोदन गर्नुपरेको हो । भारतीय संविधानमा यस्तो व्यवस्था नभएकोले भारत सरकारबाट गरिएका सन्धी सम्झौता संसदबाट अनुमोदन गराईदैन ।

पीडीएको संसदीय अुमोदन
तर निजि क्षेत्रसंग सम्पन्न निकासीमूलक माथिल्लो कर्णाली, अरुण ३ जस्ता आयोजनाहरुका प्रबद्र्धकहरुसंग गरिएका आयोजना विकास सम्झौताहरु, जसलाई अंग्रेजीमा प्रोजेक्ट डेभलेप्मेन्ट अग्रिमेन्ट (पीडीए) भनिन्छ, संसदबाट अनुमोदन गराईएका छैनन् । सतहिरुपमा हेर्दा यी सम्झौताहरु बिद्युत व्यापार (सम्झौता हैनन्, आयोजना कार्यान्वयन सम्झौता हुन् । तर निकासीमूलक आयोजना निर्माण गर्न पीडीए गरिएको र उत्पादित बिजुली निकासी गरिने हुनाले प्राकृतिक श्रोत, पानी, उपयोग गरी जलबिद्युत उत्पादन गरेर उत्पादित उपज (जलबिद्युत) निकासी गरिने हुनाले प्राकृतिक श्रोतको उपयोगको बाँडफाँड हुनजान्छ, सार्क पीटीएबाट जस्तै । तसर्थ यी सम्झौताहरुको पनि संसदीय अनुमोदन अपरिहार्य छ ।
यसबाट संसदीय अनुमोदन सम्बन्धी संवैधानिक व्यवस्थाको उल्लंघन भएकोछ भने संसदबाट अनुमोदन नगराइनाले संसदको हक हनन् भएको छ, अवमूल्यन पनि । सांसदहरुले खाजा मिठो नहुंदा पनि विरोध/अवरोध गर्छन भने यस सम्बन्धमा मौन रहनु रहस्यमय छ, संविधान उल्लंघन मात्र भएको नभएर संसदको अधिकार समेत कुंण्ठित भएकोछ । कार्यपालिका र व्यवस्थापिका दुधको साक्षी बिरालो बसेको त हैन होला !

संसदीय अनुमोदनको इतिहाँस
नेपालको संवैधानिक इतिहाँस केलाउंदा २०४७ सालअघिका संविधानमा संसदीय अनुमोदनको व्यवस्था थिएन । शायद, ती व्यवस्थाहरुमा देशको सार्वभौमसत्ता र राजकिय सत्ता राजामा निहित भएकोले उनले अनुमोदन गरेपछि संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक ठानिंदैनथ्यो । किनभने त्यस बखतका बिभिन्न नामकरण गरिएका संसद जस्तो देखिने निकायहरु सार्वभौम थिएनन् ।

नेपालमा पहिलो पटक २०४७ सालको संविधानमा धारा १२६ मा यस्तो व्यवस्था गरियो भने अन्तरिम संविधानको धारा १५६ मा र वर्तमान संविधानको धारा २७९ मा पनि सोहि व्यवस्था छ । स्पष्ट छ, २०४७ सालको संविधान निर्माताहरुले यस सम्बन्धमा कार्यपालिकालाई पूर्ण अधिकारसम्पन्न बनाउन चाहेन र निश्चित विषयहरुमा भएका सम्झौता/सन्धी संसदबाट अनुमोदन गर्नैपर्ने बाध्यात्मक व्यवस्था ग¥यो, जुन वर्तमान संविधानले पनि निरन्तरता दिएकोछ ।

न्यायपालिका
निकासीमूलक पश्चिम सेती आयोजनाको सम्झौता सम्बन्धमा सर्बोच्च अदालतमा रिट निवेदन परेर यस पंक्तिकार समेतले बहस गरेको मुद्दाको २०६५ भदौ २४ मा न्यायाधीश अनूपराज शर्मा र कल्याण श्रेष्ठको संयुक्त इजलासले संसदीय अनुमोदन अनावश्यक ठह¥यायो (निर्णय नं. ८०५९) । फैसलामा उक्त “करारीय सम्झौता दुई देश बीचको वा बहुराष्ट्रिय प्रकृतिको प्राकृतिक श्रोत बाँडफाँडसम्बन्धी सम्झौता नभएको” भनिएकोले यस्ता सम्झौता दुई देश बीचको वा बहुराष्ट्रिय प्रकृतिका भए मात्र संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक हुने नत्र नहुने व्याख्या देखियो ।

यो व्याख्याले अरुण ३ आयोजना सम्बन्धमा सतलज जलबिद्युत निगमसंग सरकारले गरेको सम्झौताको संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक हुन्छ । किनभने यो सम्झौता भारतको संघिय सरकार तथा एक प्रान्तिय सरकारको स्वामित्वमा खडा गरिएको कम्पनि र नेपाल सरकार बीच भएको हुनाले वस्तुत नेपाल सरकार र भारत सरकार बीच नैं सम्झौता भएकोछ । यस सम्बन्धमा सर्बोच्च अदालतमा परेको रिट निवेदन हाल बिचाराधीन छ । आशा गरौं, सर्बोच्च अदालतबाट भारत सरकारसंगै सम्झौता भएको भएमात्र संसदीय अनुमोदन अनिवार्य हुने र भारत सरकारको स्वामित्व भएको कम्पनिसंग गरिएको सम्झौता हुनाले संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक नहुने व्याख्या हुनेछैन ।

२०४७ सालको संविधान
२०४७ सालको संविधान निर्माताहरुको मनसाय स्पष्ट थियो र यो धारा बुद्धिमत्तापूर्ण तवरले निर्माण गरिएकोछ । उक्त धारामा “नेपाल राज्य वा सरकार पक्ष हुने” मात्र भनिएकोछ । एक पक्ष नेपाल राज्य/सरकार र अर्को पक्ष अर्को राज्य/सरकार भनिएको छैन । यसबाट अर्को राष्ट्र/सरकारसंग भएका सन्धी/सम्झौता मात्रमा संसदीय अनुमोदन गर्नुपर्ने र निजि क्षेत्रसंग गरिएको सन्धी/सम्झौता संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक नहुने भन्ने देखिंदैन । तसर्थ धारा २७९(२) का विषयहरुमा (१) नेपाल राज्य/सरकार र अर्को राज्य/सरकार बीच सन्धी/सम्झौता भएमा वा (२) नेपाल राज्य/सरकार एक पक्ष र कुनै स्वदेशी वा बिदेशी व्यक्ति, संघसंस्था, निकाय वा निजि क्षेत्र अर्को पक्ष रहेर सम्झौता भएमा पनि संसदीय अनुमोदन अपरिहार्य हुन्छ । समग्रमा नेपाल राज्य/सरकार एक पक्ष भएर यी विषयमा सन्धी सम्झौता भएमा संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक हुन्छ, अर्को पक्ष अर्को राज्य÷सरकार होस्, बहुराष्ट्र होस् वा कुनै कुनै स्वदेशी वा बिदेशी व्यक्ति, संघसंस्था, निकाय वा निजि क्षेत्र होस् ।

सन्धी र सम्झौताको शब्दहरुका अन्यौल
सामान्यतया राज्य/सरकारहरु बीच हुने सम्झौतालाई सन्धी (अंग्रेजीमा ट्रिटी) भन्ने चलन छ र यो विषय भियना कन्भेन्सन अन द लः अफ ट्रिटीजको धारा २ को (क)ले समेट्छ । अनि गैर सरकारी स्तरमा गरिने सम्झौतालाई सामान्यतया सन्धी भनिंदैन । यहि कुरालाई हृदयंगम गरेर संविधान निर्माताहरुले सन्धी र सम्झौता दुबै शब्दहरु यो धारामा प्रयुक्त गरेका हुन । अवश्य पनि संविधान जस्तो महत्वपूण दस्तावेजमा नेपाल राज्य/सरकार र अन्य राज्य/सरकार बीच भएका सन्धीको सन्दर्भमा मात्र लागू हुने भए दुबै शब्दहरु प्रयोग गरिंदैनथ्यो, सन्धी शब्द मात्र प्रयोग गरिन्थ्यो ।

बिद्युत व्यापार सम्झौता
सरकारले १९९७ मा भारतसंग गरेको बिद्युत व्यापार सम्झौतालाई सन्धी नामकरण गरेको नभएतापनि संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक थियो र संसदीय अनुमोदन हुन नसकेकैले उक्त सन्धी मृत भयो । २०१४ मा फेरि अर्को बिद्युत व्यापार सम्झौता गरियो । यसबाट के प्रष्टिन्छ भने नेपाल राज्य/सरकारले अर्को राज्य/सरकारसंग गरेका सबै सम्झौतालाई सन्धी नामकण गरिंदैन र धारा २७९ को मनसाय सन्धी मात्र संसदीय अनुमोदनको अधिकार क्षेत्र भित्र पर्ने र सम्झौता नामकरण गरिएकोले संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक नपर्ने हैन ।

तर भारतसंग २०१४ मा भएको बिद्युत व्यापार सम्झौता, जुन सर्बोच्च अदालतकै व्याख्या अनुसार सन्धी हो (सार्क पीटीए जस्तै), अहिलेसम्म संसदबाट अनुमोदन गरिएको छैन र अनुमोदन गराउन नपर्ने मनगढन्ते व्याख्या गरेर सरकार ढुक्क बसेकोछ । यसबाट पनि संविधान उल्लंघन मात्र हैन संसदको हक समेत हनन् भएकोछ । सर्बोच्च अदालतको पश्चिम सेतीको नजीरलाई समेत सरकारले उपेक्षा गरेकोले सर्बोच्च अदालतको अपहेलना भएकोछ । आशा गरौं, सर्बोच्च अदालतबाट आफ्नै अग्रसरतामा यस सम्बन्धमा जानकारी (suo moto notice) लिएर परमादेश वा अरु कुनै उपयुक्त आदेश जारी गरेर संसदीय अनुमोदन सुनिश्चित गरिनेछ ।

जलबिद्युत आयोजनाको कमलरिकरण
सर्बोच्च अदालतले यो समझौता खास अवधिसम्मको लागि भएको र उक्त अवधि पछि सरकारले आयोजना फिर्ता पाउने हुनाले पनि दीर्घकालीन प्रतिकूल असरयुक्त नभएको ठह¥याएकोछ । ओझेलमा के परेको छ भने सिमन्टी छडले बनेको बाँध, कुलो जस्ता संरचनाको आयू ५० वर्ष जति भएतापनि टर्बाई जेनरेटर जस्ता उपकरणको आयू २५/३० वर्ष मात्र हुने हुनाले नेपाल सरकारले २५/३० वर्षमा आयोजना फिर्ता पाउंदा कवाडी अवस्थामा हुन्छ । यो व्यवस्था त हुर्केकी छोरी (आयोजना)लाई निश्चित अवधिलाई कम्लरी बनाउने (बिजुली निकासी गर्नदिने) र २५/३० वर्षपछि, सन्तानोपादन गर्ने क्षमता सकिएपछि, घर फर्काएर ल्याउने (नेपालको हुने) भने जस्तै हो । यसबाट नेपाललाई सोचिए भन्दा बढी गम्भीर दीर्घकालिन प्रतिकूल असर पर्छ । दोहन गर्न मिलेसम्म गर्ने, नमिल्ने भएपछि फर्काउने, जुन औपनिबेशिक दोहन हो, यसो गरिंदा हात लाग्यो शुन्यको अवस्थामा पुगिन्छ, जसको मतियार नेपाल सरकार बनेको छ । देशमा कमलरी राख्ने चलन गैरकानूनी भैसक्यो तर जलश्रोतलाई कमलरिकरण गर्न सरकार उद्यत छ । यसमा व्यवस्थापिकाको मौन सहमति देखियो भने न्यायपालिकाले असंवैधानिक ठह¥याएन ।

यस पंक्तिकारले सर्बोच्च अदालतको अवहेलनामा कारवाहि भोग्न तयार भएरै पनि भन्न पर्ने हुन्छ —सरकारको यस्तो असंवैधानिक काममा उक्त अदालत साक्षी बसेको देखियो । के निजी क्षेत्रले हात हाल्दैमा जलश्रोत सम्बन्धी सम्झौताले संसदीय अनुमोदनबाट उन्मुक्ति पाउंछ ? उल्टोबाट हेर्दा प्राकृतिक श्रोत सम्बन्धमा निजी क्षेत्रसंग गरिएका सम्झौताको संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक नठहर्ने हो भने यो धाराको प्रयोजनै रहन्न । प्राकृतिक श्रोत सम्बन्धी सबै सम्झौता निजी क्षेत्र (बिदेशी सरकारको स्वामित्वमा रहेपनि) संग गरे पछि संसदीय अनुमोदनको आवश्यकै नपर्ने हुन्छ ?

यदि निजी क्षेत्रसंग करारीय सम्झौता गरे संसदको अनुमोदन लिनु नपर्ने हो भने सरकारले निजी क्षेत्रसंग (१) शान्ति र मैत्री, (२) सुरक्षा एवं सामरिक सम्बन्ध र/वा (३) नेपाल राज्यको सीमाना सम्बन्धमा पनि करारीय सम्झौता गरे संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक हुन्न । त्यसो भए कसैले ईष्ट इन्डिया कम्पनिको मोडेलमा बिदेशी सरकारको स्वामित्व रहेको वा नरहेको सरकारी वा निजी स्वदेशी बिदेशी कम्पनि खडा गरेर (१) शान्ति र मैत्री, (२) सुरक्षा एवं सामरिक सम्बन्ध र/वा (३) नेपाल राज्यको सीमाना सम्बन्धमा सम्झौता गरेमा संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक ठहर्दैन । यसो भए नेपालको भविष्य के हुन्छ ? सरकारले कुनै निजी क्षेत्रलाई नेपालको पूरै वा केहि भूभाग ठेक्कामा दिएपनि संसदीय अनुमोदन अनावश्यक नहुने भयो ।

यो पनि तर्क हुन सक्छ कि (१) शान्ति र मैत्री, (२) सुरक्षा एवं सामरिक सम्बन्ध र/वा (३) नेपाल राज्यको सीमाना सम्बन्धमा जोसंग सम्झौता भएतापनि संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक पर्ने तर प्राकृतिक श्रोतको सम्बन्धमा भएका सम्झौता मात्र अनुमोदन आवश्यक नहुने । के यो युक्तिसंगत तर्क हो ? नेपाल एक सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न मुलुक हुनाले निजी क्षेत्रसंग भएको करारीय सम्झौता होस् वा अर्को राष्ट्र वा बहुराष्ट्रहरुसंग भएको सन्धी, धारा २७९ को विषयको सन्धी÷सम्झौता संविधानले संसदीय अनुमोदन आवश्यक छ भने पछि यसलाई छल्न मिल्दैन ।

Ratna Sansar Shrestha
२०७३ कार्तिक २५ गतेको नागरिकमा प्रकाशित

Following Up on the Open Letter to the Prime Ministers of Nepal and India

Rt. Hon. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Prime Minister of Nepal
His Excellency Narendra Damodardas Modi, Prime Minister of India

This is a follow up to the Open Letter that was submitted to the Prime Ministers of Nepal and India on 22nd November 2014 (attached). Since then, some interesting developments have taken place which, while re-confirming the veracity of our concerns have reinforced the arguments put for the in that Open Letter. The Project Development Agreement (PDA), which was kept secret (from the public as well as Parliament and the Supreme Court) by the authorities in the Investment Board on the pretext that it was a “commercial agreement” – a clear violation of the provisions for parliamentary hearing and approval in the constitution of Nepal both old and new – has been forced open into the public domain by activists who filed a case to this effect with the National Information Commission. Its reading confirms our worst fears that the PDA does not serve the interests of either the government or of the peoples of both Nepal and India, but only that of an (unduly) profit making body. Few burning issues can be summarized as follows:

• PDA preempts harnessing of full potential of the site (4,180 MW) as multipurpose project, which will deprive both Nepal and India from lean season augmented flow and flood control.

• 900 MW RoR (in violation of the tender provision for 300 MW wherein precluded parties might have made a better offer for the bigger version) project would also deprive both Nepal and India from dependable quality electricity, with downstream flood and erosion consequences for Nepal.

• With the provision for export of even 12% free energy under clause 11.15.4, this project will not help mitigate load shedding in Nepal.

• Provision for financial/fiscal facilities under clause 9(2) amounts to Nepali subsidizing India. Sum total of subsidy is Rs 76.5 billion, which is more than half of the inflated project cost of Rs 140 billion.

It has also become clear that the developer GMR is anything but: it does not have any credible financing plan that co-investors and funders can trust, only shenanigans of spuriously raising the costs to recover profits ultimately from the taxpayers and the unsuspecting co-investors. There are many other mischiefs indulged in by this spurious development enterprise which have been highlighted in our Open Letter of 22nd November to which we draw your collective attentions anew.

Nepal’s chronic load shedding has reached a stage near fatal to her commerce and industries. Furthermore, water shortage in Nepal and India’s North Ganga plains has reached levels of severe stress. Neither of these ills can be alleviated without storage of monsoon water in the Nepal hills and their release in the dry season, which is exactly what an optimal development of Upper Karnali as a 4000MW+ multipurpose storage project will do and which the current PDA with GMR will NOT do. Thus we put forth the case before Your Excellencies: not annulling the PDA with GMR forthwith will cast an unfortunate shadow of mistrust and suspicion on the officials and leaders of both countries.

We will seek redress in the courts, including the court of public opinion, nationally and internationally. We are writing this "reminder" because of the impending visits to New Delhi and to Kathmandu subsequently of the two Prime Ministers. We hope this matter will be taken up with due seriousness. We certainly will through Nepali, Indian and international academia, media and civic movements.

Kathmandu
27 August 2016

Cc: Energy Minister of Nepal
Investment Board of Nepal
HE the Ambassador of India to Nepal

Civil Society Alliance for Rational Water Resources Development in Nepal

1. Prof. Dr. Hari P. Pandit, Institute of Engineering, TU 

2. Mr. Bihari Krishna Shrestha, anthropologist/former Additional Secretary 

3. Dr. Prakash Chandra Lohani, former Minister of Finance/Foreign Affairs 

4. Dr. Ananda B Thapa, former Executive Secretary, WECS 

5. Dr. Dwarika Nath Dhungel, former Secretary Ministry of Water Resources 

6. Mr. Dipak Gyawali, Academician, NAST, former Minister of Water Resources 

7. Prof. Dr. Mohan P Lohani, former Ambassador 

8. Mr. Bharat Basnet, The Explore Nepal 

9. Mr Ajit Narayan Singh Thapa, former MD, NEA 

10. Mr. Lok B Rawat, Chair, KARBACOS 

11. Mr. Ratna Sansar Shrestha, former member, NEA board of directors 

12. Mr Lila Mani Pokhrel, UCPN (Maoist)
13. Mr Amar Narayan Mali, Tourism Enpreneur, Kathmandu
14. Mr Tek Bdr Bishowkarma, SS Nepal
15. Mr Bharat Bdr Shahi, Dailekh
16. Mr Deependra Bdr Kshetry, former Governor of NRB
17. Mr Bakhat Bdr Nepali, Dailekh
18. Er Saroj Shahi, Dailekh
19. Mr Govind Singh Thapa, Kathmandu
20. Mr Jagat Pd Regmi, Dailekh
21. Prof. Dr Surendra KC, Tribhuvan University
22. Dr Gopal Siwakoti Chintan, Tribhuvan University
23. Dr Mangal Bishowkarma
24. Mr Bhairaja Rai, Advocate
25. Mr Purna Bdr Kunwar
26. Mr Tek Bdr Bishowkarma
27. Ms Khuma Subedi
28. Mr Hari Sharan Lamichhane, Journalist
29. Mr Jagat Prasad
30. Mr Chitra Bdr KC, Chair, Rashtriya Jana Morcha

भारते मुद्रा (भारू) को प्रचलन बन्द गरिनु पर्छ

पानी पर्न छाड्यो । चर्को गर्मी हुन पनि कम भयो । ऋतुको हिसाबले न धेरै गरम न विशेष जाडो हुने याम शरद ऋतु शुरू आयो । केटाकेटीले औंला भाची हिसाब लगाए दशैं आयो, खाउला पिउँला. . . . आदि । स्कूल, कलेज, सरकारी कार्यालय आदि लामो समयसम्म वर्षको एकपटक बन्द पनि यही बेला बडा दशैंको नाममा बिदा हुन्छ ।
यसका साथसाथै धेरै योजनाहरू बन्न थाल्छन । कसैको घर गर्इ दशैं मनाउने वा टिका थापी फर्कने वा कसैले यो लामो बिदाको फाइदा उठाउन देशान्तर भ्रमण गर्ने । पछिल्लो वर्गमा प्रबुद्धवर्ग पर्छन् । यो देशान्तरमा पनि छिमेकी मित्रराष्ट्र भारतको भ्रमण गर्न रूचाउँछ । त्यसमा पनि घुम्न जाने भन्ना साथ विशेषतः दार्जिलिंगको नाम नै सबभन्दा अगाडि मुखमा आउँछ । नआओस पनि कसरी ? आफ्नै देशको कुनै भागमा घुमेको जस्तो लाग्छ । जता हेर्यो सबै आफ्नै जस्तै, आफ्नै भाषा बोल्ने, आफ्नै संस्कृति मिल्ने ।
तर दार्जिलिङ्ग जाने भन्यो कि दुइटा समस्या भने अघिल्तिर तेर्सिरहन्छ । पहिलो त भारू को जुन वास्तवमा समस्या नै होइन । अर्को भारतीय दूतावासबाट १५ दिन अगाडिदेखि दरखास्त हाली वरी─इजाजत लिने । यो भने ठूलै झन्झटको काम हुन्छ । बिदाको मूडमा बनाउने कार्यक्रम कहाबाट अग्रिम निश्चित हुनु र समयमै दरखास्त हाल्नु । परेन फसाद । हुन त १९५० को नेपाल भारत शान्ति तथा मैत्री सन्धी हेर्ने हो भने त नेपाल र भारतका नागरिक एक अर्कालार्इ परस्पर नागरिकहरूले पाएको सम्पूर्ण हक अधिकार हुन्छ भनिएको छ । तर कुन्नि हो कसरि दार्जिलिङ्ग जस्ता क्षेत्रलार्इ निषेधित क्षत्र घोषित गर्दा १९५० को सन्धी लत्याइन पुगेछ । होस्, भो यो कुरा यहाँ कोट्यार्इ नबसु ल ।
बरू यो कलमचीलार्इ पाठकले एउटा संसोधन गर्ने मौका भने दिनै पर्यो । ज्यू, दार्जिलिङ्गमा नेपालीलार्इ मुग्लान पसे नस्तो पटक्कै लाग्दैन तर एउटा खल्लो भने भारू कै हुने रहेछ । आफ्नै दार्इ भार्इ जस्तो लागे पनि नेपाली रूपिँया देख्दा नाक खुम्च्याएको हेर्न पर्दा भने रनक्कै रिस उठी हाल्दो पो र छ । जति आफूलार्इ सम्झाए पनि नहुने । हुन पनि रक्सौल, नौतन्वा, जोगवनी जस्ता ठाउमा चल्ने नोट नेपाली भाषा बोल्नेहरू चै लिन्न भनेको कता कता नसुहाएको जस्तो लाग्ने ।
तर एउटा देशको नोट अर्को देशमा नचल्नु कुनै अचम्म मान्नु पर्ने कुरा भने होइन नै । त्यसैले लिएन । तै पनि नयाँ सडक र विशाल बजारका ठूला ठूला बडेमाका दोकानहरूमा भने कुकुरले गुहु हसुरे झै गरेर भारते नोट लिएर लुकाएको, अझ खुल्लम खुल्ला लेनदेन गरेको देख्दा भने के अनुभूति हुन्छ पाठकले नै अनुमान पारौं । अझ कतिपय यस्ता दोकान पनि भर्इ सके जहाँ हाकाहाकी भारू माग्ने पनि भर्इ सके । हुन पनि कहिले काहिँ काठमाको मुटु भनिने त्यस ठाउँमा पुग्दा त नेपालमा नै छु कि मुग्लान पो भासियोकि भन्ने दोधारमा पुगिन्छ । लेनदेन हुन्छ भारू । बोलिन्छ हिन्दी । दार्जिलिङ्गमा नेपाली नोट चल्दो हो त काठमाण्डौको मुटु भन्दा बढि नेपाल त त्यही हिलस्टेसन देखिने थियो । तर के गर्नु हुन त भारत के एक् अंग नै हो र चल्छ पनि भारू नै ।
अब एक पटक बाँकी कुरामा फर्कौ । अर्थात पैसाको कुरामा । भारतको सीमावर्ति बजारहरूमा बाहेक भारतको कुनै पनि भागमा नेपाली नोट चल्दैन । अहँ, आशै गर्न पर्दैन । बैंक नै भए पनि आश नगरे हुन्छ । त्यँहा त लाखौंमा भएपनि नेपाली नोटले एक छाक पनि व्यवस्था हुन्न । बरू "साब भोक लागेका है" भनेर हात पछारेको खण्डमा भने कोही दयालु भेटिएमा "ले लो" भनेर दश नयाँ पैसा फ्याँक्ला, एक कप चिया खान पुग्ने भनौ ।
यसको ठीक उल्टो नेपालमा भारू हुनु र नेरू हुनुमा केही विशेष फरक हुन्न । बैंक नैं पनि खोजी हिड्नु पर्दैन । अझ बरू भारू हुनु त सुन चाँदी नै हुनु जति कैं हुन्छ । नेपालको कुनै पनि कुना काप्चा भए पनि भोकै मर्ने चिन्ता हुन्न । यो कस्तो बिचित्रता तथा विडम्बना ! आफ्ना प्रबुद्ध अर्थ─शास्त्री मित्रहरूले एउटा "थियोरी" व्याख्या गरेर यस स्थितिको ब्याख्या गर्लान । तर अाफ्नो बुद्धिले भने भारतमा नेपाली नोट नचले पछि नेपालमा भारतीय नोट नेपालमा पनि चल्नु हुन्न । बस् ।
नेपाल एउटा सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न स्वतन्त्र मुलुक हो । नेपाली मुद्राको खुल्ला प्रचलन भारतमा नभएपछि भारते मुद्रा नेपालमा खुल्ला प्रचलन गर्न दिनु हुन्न । नत्र विदेशी विनियम (नियमित गर्ने) ऐन, २०१३ को के काम? ...........लार्इ अर्थ─शास्त्रलार्इ अघि ...... ....... बलियो मुद्रा र .............. मुद्राको प्रश्न उत्तर उठाउँछ भने पनि ..... स्थिति छैन । किनभने त्यस्तो त डलर, स्टर्लिङ, पाउन्ड आदि पनि खुल्ला ...............।
राष्ट्रिय कारोबार नै बन्द हुने छैन । ............. ढाका र ...............रूपियाँ ........... ......... ........... ............... नै व्यवहार गरिन्छ त्यही गर्नै पर्यो र भारते रूपियाँलार्इ पनि । ......................

नेपाल-भारत सुसम्बन्धमा शान्तिक्षेत्र प्रस्ताव पनि तगारो ?

श्री ५ महाराजधिराजबाट २०३७ सालमा भएको तेस्रो संसोधनले नेपालको संविधानको पञ्चायत प्रणालीका निर्देशक सिध्दान्त सम्बन्धमा व्यवस्था गर्ने भाग ४ को धारा १६ मा "संयुत्त राष्ट्र संघको मूलभूत मान्यता तथा असंलग्नताको सिदान्तलार्इ अवलम्बन गरी नेपाललार्इ शान्तिक्षेत्र बनाउने प्रयास गर्नु पञ्चायत प्रणालीको परराष्ट्र नीतिको लक्ष्य हुनेछ" भन्ने उपधारा ९६० थपिएको छ ।

नेपाललार्इ शान्तिक्षेत्र घोषित गरियोस् भनी शुभ─राज्यभिषेकको उपलक्ष्यमा भेला भएका विभिन्न मित्रराष्ट्रहरूका प्रतिनिधिहरूलार्इ संबोधन गर्दै २०३१ फागुन १३ सबभन्दा पहिलो पटक श्री ५ महाराजधिराज सरकारबाट प्रस्तावित गरिबक्सेको थियो । जसको लगत्तै पछिबाट शुरू हुदैँ हाल सम्ममा जम्मा ३०२(?) राष्ट्रहरूले यस प्रस्तावको समर्थन गरिसकेको छ ।

नेपालको राष्ट्रिय आकांक्षा प्रतिबिम्बित भएको यस प्रस्तावलार्इ अहिले सम्ममा सबभन्दा पहिलो समर्थन फ्रान्सबाट प्राप्त भएको छ भने छिमेकी मित्रराष्ट्र भारतले यस प्रस्ताव प्रति त्यति रूचि राखेको देखिएन । वास्तवमा फ्रान्सेली राष्ट्रपतिको नेपालमा राजकीय भ्रमणको समयमा यस प्रस्ताव सम्बन्धमा त्यस मुलुकको स्पष्ट समर्थन प्राप्त नहुदाँ कतिपय भारते पत्र─पत्रिकाले नेपालको प्रस्ताव प्रति भारत तथा फ्रान्सको एउटै धारणा रहेको कुरा सम्म पनि सहर्ष छापेका थिए ─ सायद फ्रान्सले समर्थन गर्दैन भन्ने पक्का विश्वास भएर ।

भारत सरकारको नेपालको यस प्रस्ताव प्रति सकारात्मक धारणा छ छैन भन्ने कुरा ठोकुवा गरेर अहिले भन्न सकिन्न । तर पनि धेरै जस्तो भारतमुखी नेपाली पत्र─पत्रिका तथा केही भारते पत्र─पत्रिकाले नेपाललार्इ शान्तिक्षेत्र घोषित गर्ने परम्परागत नेपाल─भारत सुसम्बन्धमा तगारो मानेको पाइन्छ ।

त्यस समुदायको विचारमा १९५० को नेपाल भारत मैंत्री तथा शान्ति सन्धी अनुसार यी दुर्इ मुलुकहरू बीच एउटा "विशेष सम्बन्ध" छ । नेपालले चीनसँग दौत्य सम्बन्धहरु बढाउंदा भारत र चीनलाई समकक्षमा राखियो भन्ने गुनासो पनि त्यही विशेष सम्बन्धको पृष्ठभूमि गरिएको देखा परेको छ ।

राणा शासनको रूपमा सयौं वर्षदेखि चल्दै आएको जहानिया शासनको अन्त्यष्ठी आफ्नो हुने आशंकाले ग्रस्त श्री ३ मोहन शम्सेरले त्रसित भर्इ भारत सरकारलार्इ जे गरेर भएपनि रीझाउने उदेश्यले त्यस १९५० को नेपाल─भारत सन्धीमा हस्ताक्षर गरेका हुन् । तैपनि विचरो मोहन शम्सेरको केही लागेन र उनले यसरी घूँडा नै टेकेतापनि श्री ५ महाराजधिराजको नेतृत्वमा नेपालमा प्रजातन्त्रको उदय भयो जुनले भारतको सम्पूर्ण सहमति प्राप्त गर्यो ।

एक दृष्टिकोणले त आफ्नो शासनकालको अन्तिम घडिमा एउटा अप्रजातन्त्रिक सरकारले आफ्नो सत्ता बचाउन सकिन्छ कि भनेर गरेका सन्धि त्यस्तो राणाशाहीलार्इ जनताले क्रान्ति गरेर हटाएपछि कायम नरहनु पर्ने हो । तर यस्तो दृष्टिकोण काम लाग्ने होइन । आज बिसौँ वर्षदेखि कायम रहेको उक्त सन्धी सोही अनुरूप दुर्इ मध्ये एक राष्ट्रले एक वर्षको सूचना अर्को राष्ट्रलार्इ दिएर मात्र टुट्न सक्छ ।

तर बुझ्न मुस्किल त के कुरा भएको छ भने नेपाल र भारतबीच यस्तो विशेष सम्बन्ध रहिआएको परिप्रेक्ष्यमा नेपाललार्इ शान्तिक्षेत्र घोषणा गर्नमा भारतलार्इ किन गार्हो परेको ? त्यस सन्धीले पनि नेपालको शान्तिमा खलल नगर्ने नै प्रतिबदता दर्शाएको छ । अनि एउटा सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न स्वतन्त्र राष्ट्रले एक अन्तराष्ट्रिय स्तरमा नेपाललार्इ शान्तिक्षेत्र घोषित गरियोस् भनेर ल्याइएको प्रस्तावले चाही भारतको सुदृष्टि पाउन नसक्नु एउटा आश्चर्यको कुरा हो ।

फेरि विशेष सम्बन्ध स्थापना गर्ने त्यही सन्धीको आडमा नै यस प्रस्तावलार्इ भारतबाट समर्थन अप्राप्त छ नै भन्ने हो तापनि भारतलार्इ तैपनि फरक त केहि पर्ने भने होइन र बढीमा नेपाल भारत बीचको खुल्ला सीमा बन्द होला । यो सीमा बन्द भएर त भारतलार्इ नै बढी फाइदा हुन्छ । तस्करहरूले नेपालबाट अनियन्त्रित रूपमा विभिन्न लागूपदार्थ तथा उनाउ मुलुकहरूबाट पैठारी गरिएको विलासिताको सामान सीमा पार गर्ने काम बन्द हुने थियो । नेपालीहरू अनियन्त्रित रूपमा भारत गर्इ काम अरू भारतेहरूलार्इ रोजगारबाट वञ्चित गराउने पनि रोकिने थियो । यस्तै धेरै धेरै फाइदा हुन्छ ।

अझ भारत र भुटान बीचको विशेष सम्बन्धको अगाडि नेपाल र भारतको विशेष सम्बन्धमा केही होइन । भुटानको प्रतिरक्षा तथा परराष्ट्र मामला पूर्णतः भारतको अधीनमा छ भने नेपाल एउटा स्वतन्त्र, सार्वभौमसत्ता सम्पन्न राष्ट्र हो । यस्तोमा भारत र भुटान सीमा त बन्द छ भने नेपाल भारतका सीमा बन्द छ भने नेपाल भारतका सीमा बन्द गर्नमा नेपालले किन विरोध गर्ने

हो सीमा बन्द गर्ने कुरामा भारतको पक्कै पनि सहमति नहोला, होस् पनि किन ? खुल्ला राखेर भारतलार्इ फाइदा पो के छ र ? अं, भारतबाट नेपालमा अवांछित तत्वलाइ घूसपेठ गराउन, भारतेहरूलार्इ अनियन्त्रित रूपमा नेपाल पठार्इ नेपालको राजनीतिमा अस्थिरता ल्याउन आदिको लागि सीमा खुल्ला राखेर नकारात्मक फाइदा हुन सक्छ । तर परम्परागत रूपमा रहेर आएको नेपाल भारत सुसम्बन्धलार्इ वृष्टिगत गर्ने हो भने विश्वको एक मात्र हिन्दू राष्ट्र नेपालको अहित हिन्दुस्तान (भारत) ले कहिले चितायो होला भन्ने कुरा सजिलोसँग मात्र सकिन्छ ?

यस पृष्ठभूमिमा नेपाललार्इ शान्तिक्षेत्र घोषित गर्ने प्रस्तावको समर्थनमा नआएको कुरा नेपालीहरूले पचाउन सकेका छैनन् । श्रीलंकामा हाल देखा परेको गडबडी र दुर्इ विश्व शत्तिहरूले परस्पर एंव अर्कालार्इ त्यस गडबडीमा ह्रात भएका आरोप लगाएको तथा यसमा तामिली भारतेहरूको सक्रियतालाइ दृष्टिगत गर्दा नेपाली मात्रको लागि नेपाललार्इ शान्तिक्षेत्र घोषित गर्ने प्रस्ताव अझ बढी महत्व हुन पुगेको छ ।

२०४० भाद्र ३ गतेको मानसमा प्रकाशित

विश्वास अविश्वासको संघारमा चन्द मन्त्रीपरिषद् - निर्दलियताको राजनैतीक अग्निपरीक्षा

सूर्यबहादुर थापाको मन्त्रिपरिषद्ले इमान्दारीपूर्वक जिम्मेवारी वहन गर्न नसकेको आरोपमा थापालार्इ पदच्यूत गरिएपछि गठन भएको चन्द मन्त्रिपरिषद्को उमेर एक महिना पुग्दा नपुग्दै यस मन्त्रिपरिषदप्रति पनि इमान्दारीपूर्वक जिम्मेवारी पूरा नगरेको आरोपले राष्ट्रिय पञ्चायतमा टाउको उठाउँछ । काम गरेर देखाउँदा जिम्मेवारी पूरा गरे नगरेको ध्यान विचार हुने कि काम गर्न नपाउँदै इमान्दारीपूर्वक पूरा गरेन भनेर ठहर्याउने भन्ने सम्बन्धमा जनसाधारण सोचमा रहँदा यही भाद्र ६ गते दिलबहादुर श्रेष्ठ प्रस्तावक रहेको कथित "अविश्वासको प्रस्ताव" राष्ट्रिय पञ्चायतमा दाखिला भर्इ केही दिनपछि दर्ता पनि हुन्छ ।

जनसाधारणले उपभोग गर्ने नगर्ने मूल्य नै निर्धारण नगरेको भटमासको तेलको मूल्य घटाउनु मौज्दात नै नभएको मोटो उसीना चामलको मूल्यमा एक सुका घटाउनु र करीब ६० प्रतिशतले घटाउनु आदि चन्द सरकारको क्रियाकलापलार्इ सस्तो लोकप्रियता खोज्ने मनसुवा हो भन्दा असहमत त हुनै त सकिन्न । तर सत्तामा आएको मन्त्रिपरिषद्को यस्तो यता न उताको कामको जिम्मेवार श्री ५ को सरकारको कर्मचारीतन्त्र पनि छ । साथै कुन कर्मचारीतन्त्र भन्दा चन्द सरकारले अपुंताली स्याहार्न पुगेको उही प्रख्यात सूत्रथाद्वारा पोषित कर्मचारितन्त्र हौ । यस परीप्रेक्षमा थापाको "नुनको सोझो" गर्न अभ्यस्त यस कर्मचारीतन्त्रले नवजात मन्त्रिपरिषद्लार्इ गुमराह गरेको सम्भावना प्रति उपेक्षा गर्न मिल्दैन ।

जे होस "अविश्वासको प्रस्ताव" राष्ट्रिय पञ्चायतमा विधिवत दर्ता भइसको छ । पाठकवृन्दले यो पंत्तिहरू पढ्ने बेला सम्ममा राष्ट्रिय पञ्चायत नियमावली अनुसार दश दिन पुगिसक्ने हुनाले जे हुने हो त्यो कुरा टुङ्गो लागि सक्ने समेत हुनाले यस प्रस्तावको भविष्य के हो भन्ने सम्बन्धमा कुनै अड्कल बानीको जरूरत देखा पर्दैन । वस्तुतः यस परीप्रेक्षमा निर्दलियताको भविष्य के छ भन्ने केलाउनु सापेक्ष हुन्छ । तर मुलुकको ५५ प्रतिशत मतदाताले रोजेको निर्दलिय व्यवस्थाको खोइरो खन्नु भने अप्रजातान्त्रिक ठहर्न जान्छ ।

तै पनि एउटा कुरो के प्रष्ट भएको छ भने विगत महिनाहरूबीच निर्दलियता एउटा व्यवस्थाको रूपमा अग्नी परीक्षाको कसीमा घोटिदैछ । सूर्यबहादुर थापालार्इ पदच्यूत गर्दा १०८ जना माननीय सदस्यहरूले प्रस्तावको पक्षमा मतदान गरेका थिए भने १७ जनाले विपक्षमा मत दिदा अध्यक्ष बाहेक बाँकी १० मध्ये उपस्थित बांकी ६ जनाले मतदान नै गरेका थिएनन् । यस्तै लोकेन्द्रबहादुर चन्दलार्इ प्रधानमन्त्री पदमा नियुत्तिको लागि श्री ५ मा सिफारिस चढाउन राष्ट्रिय पञ्चायतमा राखिएको प्रस्तावमा १०८ जना रापसहरूले दस्तखत गरेका थिए । तर अहिले यति चाँडै नै प्रधानमन्त्री चन्द विषयमा ४८ दस्तखतहरू संकलन भइसक्दा जनसाधारण स्तब्ध भएका छन् ।
यस घटनाले गर्दा जनमानसमा विभिन्न प्रश्नहरू उब्जेका छन् । साथै निर्दलियता परिपाटीमा पद पैसा र पावरले विशेष सक्रिय भूमिका खेल्छ भन्ने जनमानसमा सुषप्त रहेको आशङ्का पुनः सबल हुन पुगेको छ । हुन पनि माथि उल्लेख गरिए झैं सूबथा खेमामा जम्मा १७ मत मात्र रहेको तथा यस प्रस्तावमा तीनको सक्रिय भूमिका रहेको नदेखिनाले यस प्रस्तावमा दस्तखत गर्ने माननीय सदस्यहरूले मन्त्री पद नपाएकोले आक्रोश व्यत्त गरेको भनिनु पनि अत्त्युक्ति नहुन सक्छ । हुन पनि काम गर्न पाइ नसकेको एउटा मन्त्रिपरिषद्ले इमान्दारीपूर्वक जिम्मेवारी वहन गरेन भन्नु तर्क तथा युक्तिसङ्गत देखिदैन । अनि मुलुकमा राजनैतिक अस्थिरता सृजना गर्ने कुनै पनि महापंच ध्येय हुनै नसक्ने हुनाले यो कुरा पुष्टि हुन जान्छ । तर यी कुराहरूले ल्याउन चाहि अस्थिरता नै ल्याएको छ चाहे कसैले जानाजानी होस् वा नजानेरै होस् ।

अब सोचनीय कुरा त के छ मुलुकका जनतालार्इ कस्तो लाग्दो हो । देशको स्थिति के हुने हो भन्ने पनि समस्या त अलग्ग छ। यदि दलविहिन पञ्चायती प्रणालीको नाममा यसरी देश जनताको वास्ता राख्न जनप्रतिनिधिलार्इ कुनै आवश्यकता नपर्ने भएपछि जनताले यस निर्दलीय व्यवस्था प्रति कस्तो धारणा कायम राख्छ भन्नेतर्फ पनि एक दृष्टि दिनु पर्ने जान्छ । २०३७ सालमा जनात संग्रह हुँदा ५५ प्रतिशत त पाएको यस व्यवस्थामा यस्तै प्रकारले जनआस्था गुमाउँदै जाने हो भने भविष्य कल्पनाशील हुन्छ ।

निर्दलीयता व्यवस्थामा कुनै पनि जनप्रतिनिधि कार्यक्रम अथवा सिद्धान्तको आधारमा नचुनिएको हुनाले समेत ती आधारहरूमा मुल्याङ्कन गर्ने प्रश्न रहदैन । तर यसको अर्थ त यो हुनु हुन्न कि जता पद र पैसा उतै जनप्रतिनिधि । अझ भन्ने हो भने यदि दलीय व्यवस्था भएको भए सूर्यबहादुर थापाले जतिसुकै अन्याय अत्याचार गरेपनि उनको पदावधी भर निष्कंकटक शासन गर्थे होलान् । यो कुरा दलीय प्रणाली लागू भएको छिमेकी भारतबाट पनि देखिएकै हो । अझ दलीय प्रणाली कतिको प्रजातान्त्रिक हुन्छ भन्ने कुरा भारतको बिहार प्रान्तका तत्कालीन मुख्यमन्त्री जगन्नाथ मिश्रले विधान सभामा बहुमत प्राप्त गर्दागर्दै पनि निजलार्इ पदबाट कति सजिलैसङ्ग यस पक्षभित्र हटाइयो भन्ने कुराको याद ताजै छ ।

निर्दलीयता व्यवस्थामा यी सब कुराहरू हुन्न । अझ भन्ने हो भने कुनै दल वा व्यत्ति विशेषको अन्धभक्त हुन जनप्रतिनिधिलार्इ आवश्यकता पर्दैन । वस्तुतः देश र जनताको लागि सब जनप्रतिनिधिले आफ्नो विवेक पूर्णतः प्रयोग गर्न पाउँछन─ कुनै छडी (whip) को अादेश बिना नै । गहिरिएर हेर्ने हो भने मन्त्रिपरिषद्मा नरहेका विधायकहरूको मौलिक कर्तव्य नै देशको सर्वोतम हितलार्इ ध्यानमा राखेर सरकारको रचनात्मक तथा सृजनात्मक आलोचना गर्नु हो । अर्को दृष्टिकोणमा यस्ता विधायकहरूले आफ्नो स्वतन्त्र व्यत्तिगत अस्तित्वलार्इ सम्बर्धन गर्न पनि सुगा रटाइको रूपमा सरकारको प्रशंसा गरी हिड्नु पनि उचित हुन्न ।

निष्कर्षमा पुग्न नै खोज्ने हो भने निर्दलीयताको मतलब न त बिरोधको खातिर विरोध गर्नु हो भने रामभत्त हनुमानले जस्तै हरेक कदमलार्इ स्वातगयोग्य तथा सामयिक देख्नु पनि होइन । साच्चिकै मुलुकको हितको लागि उठाइएको कदम छ भने त्यसको प्रशंसा हुनु पर्दछ सबै स्वार्थ त्यागेर । त्यस्तै गलत काम गर्दैछ भने घोर विरोध एंव भत्सर्ना गरिनुपर्छ । प्रजातान्त्रिक शासन पदतिमा विधायिका नै त्यस्तो एउटा अङ्ग हो जसले सरकारलार्इ ठीक बाटोमा हिड्न बाध्य तुल्याउनुका साथसाथै गुमराह हुनबाट बचाउँछ ।

२०४० भाद्र १७ गते मानसमा प्रकाशित