पहिचानमा आधारित बिखण्डनकारी संघियता

मुख्यतया राज्य पुनःसंरचना सम्बन्धमा सहमति नभएर पटक पटक अन्तरिम संविधान संशोधन गरेर बढाइएको कार्यकाल समेत सकिएर पहिलो संबिधानसभा बिघटन भयोे र दोश्रो निर्वाचन सम्पन्न भएर पहिलो बैठक बसेको पनि ५ महिना बढी भै सकेकोछ । २०७१ साल माघ ८ गते (एक वर्ष) भित्र नयां संबिधान दिने बाचा गरिएतापनि अहिले सम्म पनि संघियता सम्बन्धमा सहमति हुन सकेको छैन ।

पहिचानको राजनीति
मुख्यतया लिम्बु, किरात, शेर्पा, तामाङ, तमु, मगर र नेवार सम्प्रदायहरुका पहिचानको आधारमा ७ प्रान्तहरु निर्माण गर्ने चर्चा व्यापक छ । सन् २०११ को जनगणना अनुसार नेपालमा १२५ भन्दा बढी जात–जाती, नश्ल, संस्कृति, भाषाभाषी, धार्मिक आदि सम्प्रदायहरु छन् र चर्चा भए अनुसारका प्रान्तहरु निर्माण भएमा १०० भन्दा बढी सम्प्रदायको पहिचान फेरि पनि उपेक्षित हुनेछ । हुन त पूर्व प्रम बाबुराम भट्टराईले राउते, चेपाङ आदिलाई पनि राज्य पुनःसंरचनामा पहिचानको आधारमा छुट्टै प्रान्त दिने बचन दिइसकेका छन् । यसबाट के पनि प्रश्न उठ्छ भने जो जस्ले माग्यो त्यो सम्प्रदायको पहिचानको आधारमा नयां प्रान्त बनाउंदै जाने हो ? नेपाल जस्तो सानो मुलुक थेग्न सक्ने गरेर कति प्रान्तमा बिभाजित गर्न मिल्छ भन्ने पनि प्रश्न अवश्य पनि उठ्ने छ । यस्तो लाग्छ कि २ सय ५० वर्ष पहिले नेपाल एकिकरण पूर्वको स्थितिमा यो देशलाई पु¥याउन प्रयास हुंदैछ ।

७ सम्प्रदायलाई मात्र पहिचानको आधारमा प्रान्त निर्माण गरेर पहिचानमा आधारित गरेर राज्य पुनःसंरचना गरिएको दाबी गर्न पक्कै पनि मिल्दैन । केहि सम्प्रदायको पहिचानको आधारमा संघियता कार्यान्वयन गरेर पहिचान सहितको संघियता बन्दैन र यस्तो संघियताले द्वन्द्व, बिखण्डन, बिघटन मात्रै निम्त्याउने छ । नारा पहिचानको लगाउने, तर एक सय भन्दा बढी सम्प्रदायको पहिचानलाई उपेक्षा गरेर पहिचान सहितको संघियता कसरी निमार्ण हुन्छ भन्ने प्रश्नको तर्कसंगत उत्तर पहिचानको नारा लगाउनेले दिएको देखिंदैन ।

छुट्टै नेवा राज्य दिइए पनि नेवार समुदाय भित्रै पनि छुट्टाछुट्टै नश्ल, धर्म, संस्कृति आदि छन् । के नेवार सम्प्रदाय भित्रका यस्ता छुट्टाछुट्टै नश्ल, धर्म, संस्कृतिलाई पनि पहिचानको आधारमा अलग राज्य निर्माण सम्भव छ ? कदापि छैन ।

जिल्ला अंचल आदि नामकरण र संघियता
हुन त ७५ जिल्ला, १४ अंचल तथा ५ विकास क्षेत्र बनाउन मिल्छ भने एक सय भन्दा बढी प्रान्त बनाउन मिल्दैन भन्ने कहिं कतै छैन भन्ने तर्क पनि आउन सक्छ । तर एउटा महत्वपूर्ण कुरा बिस्मृतिमा पार्न हुन्न — राज्य पुनःसंरचना गरेर छुट्टा छुट्टै प्रान्त निर्माण गर्नु भनेको केहि संख्यामा जिल्ला, अंचल वा विकास क्षेत्र नामाकरण गरे जस्तो मात्र होइन; विशेष गरेर स्वायत्त र अझ आत्म–निर्णयको अधिकार सम्पन्न प्रान्त निर्माणको सन्दर्भमा । जिल्ला, अंचल वा विकास क्षेत्र नामाकरण भनेको प्रशासकिय दृष्टिकोणबाट मात्र गरिएको हुन्छ भने स्वायत्त र आत्म–निर्णयको अधिकार सम्पन्न प्रान्त नैं बने पछि त्यसको सामाजिक, राजनैतिक र आर्थिक आयामहरु धेरै हुन्छन्, जुन नेपालले थेग्न नसक्ने किसिमका हुन्छन् ।

एक पटक पूर्व प्रम पुष्पकमल दहालले संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिकामा ५० राज्य छन् भने नेपालमा पनि त्यत्तिकै संख्यामा प्रान्तहरु बनाउन सकिन्छ भन्ने धारणा व्यक्त गरिएका समाचार सार्वजनिक भएको थियो । सम्झन के जरुरी छ भने त्यो देश यति ठूलो छ कि त्यसको पश्चिमि राज्यमा दिउंसो १ बज्दा पूर्वी राज्यमा साँझ ७ बजीसकेको हुन्छ । तर नेपालको मेची र महाकालीमा समयको फरक आधा घण्टा पनि छैन । जहांकि काठमाडौंबाट बैंकक पुग्न बिमानबाटै ३ घण्टा लाग्छ तर समय फरक १ घण्टा भन्दा अलिकति मात्र बढी छ । एक थान पूरै कपडा भएमा धेरैलाई लुगा सिउन पुग्छ, तर एक गज मात्र कपडा भएकोले सयौंलाई लुगा लगाइदिने भन्दा धेरैले नांगै बस्न पर्ने हुन्छ ।

भारतमा हालै तेलगाना नामको नयां प्रान्त निर्माण भएको छ, जुन उनान्तीसौं प्रान्त हो । नेपालमा पनि यसरी नैं आवश्यकता अनुसार थप प्रान्तहरु निर्माण गर्दै जान सकिन्छ भन्नेहरुको पनि कमि छैन । नवनिर्मित भारतिय प्रान्तको क्षेत्रफल झण्डै १ लाख १४ हजार वर्ग किलोमिटर छ, जब कि पूरा नेपालको क्षेत्रफल नैं अंदाजि १ लाख ४८ हजार वर्ग किलोमिटर मात्र छ ।

यहि सन्दर्भमा बिबेचना गर्दा संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिकामा ५०, रुसमा ८० भन्दा बढी, चीनमा २० भन्दा धेरै र भारतमा २९ वटा प्रान्त र ७ वटा केन्द्र शासित प्रदेशहरु हुनाले नेपालमा १४ प्रान्त बनाए फरक पर्दैन भन्दछन् । तर रुसको क्षेत्रफल १ करोड ७० लाख वर्ग किलोमिटर छ र एक प्रान्तमा औसत २ लाख वर्ग किलोमिटर पर्न आउंछ भने संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिकाको क्षेत्रफल ९६ लाख वर्ग किलोमिटर भएकोमा एक प्रान्तमा औसत १ लाख ९२ हजार वर्ग किलोमिटर पर्छ । त्यस्तै चीनको कूल क्षेत्रफल झण्डै ९६ लाख वर्ग किलोमिटर छ र एक प्रान्तमा औसत ४ लाख ३६ हजार वर्ग किलोमिटर पर्छ भने कूल क्षेत्रफल झण्डै ३३ लाख वर्ग किमि भएको भारतमासमेत गरेर एक प्रान्त÷प्रदेशमा औसत ९१ हजार वर्ग किमि पर्दछ ।

जनसंख्या र राज्य पुनःसंरचना
जनसंख्याको हिसाबले बिश्लेषण गर्दा पनि नेपाल निकै धेरै सानो हुनाले नेका र एमालेले भने झैं ५÷७ प्रान्तमा बिभक्त गर्ने सम्भावना पनि देखिंदैन । किनभने ५ प्रान्त निर्माण गरे पनि १ प्रान्तको औसत जनसंख्या ५३ लाख हुन्छ र १२ प्रान्त निर्माण गरेमा २२ लाख मात्र हुन्छ । जबकि भारतको १ प्रान्त÷प्रदेशको औसत जनसंख्या ३ करोड ३३ लाख छ ।

अर्को तिर १ लाख १२ हजार जनसंख्या भएको शेर्पाहरुको लागि पनि छुट्टै प्रान्त निर्माणको गर्ने भनिएको छ, तर ३० लाख जनसंख्या भएको मैथिलि समुदायको लागि छुट्टै प्रान्तको सोच छैन । जुन सन्तुलनहिनताको पराकाष्ठा हो भने मैथिलि समुदायको लागि छुट्टै प्रान्तका मांग गरेर धरना बसेका माथि बम बिस्फोटन गराइएकोले नेपाली नागरिकले अनाहकमा ज्यान गुमाउने अवस्था आयो ।

अझ मांग गरिए झैं तथाकथित तराइ–मधेश भन्ने एउटै प्रान्त बनेमा १ करोड ३३ लाख भन्दा बढी जनसंख्याको लागि एउटा प्रान्त बन्ने र प्रान्तहरुको जनसंख्याको हिसाबबाट पनि धेरै असन्तुलित हुने देखिन्छ, जसले अत्यधिक बिसंगति र बिकृति सृजना अवश्य पनि गर्नेछ ।

सीमान्तकृत, बहिस्करण, उत्पिडनको समस्या सम्बोधन
सीमान्तकृत, बहिस्करण, उत्पिडनको समस्या सम्बोधन गर्नै पनि पहिचानमा आधारित गरेर राज्य पुनःसंरचनाको आवश्यकता दर्शाइएको छ । यस्तै हो भने छुट्टै प्रान्त पाउने ७ सम्प्रदाय बाहेक अन्य धेरै सम्प्रदायहरु प्नि सीमान्तकृत, बहिस्करण, उत्पिडनको समस्याग्रस्त भएकाले सीमान्तकृत, बहिस्कृत, उत्पिडित सबै सम्प्रदायहरुकोलागि छुट्टाछुट्टै प्रान्त निर्माण गर्नु पर्ने हुन्छ, जुन कदापि सम्भव हुन्न ।

सीमान्तकृत, बहिस्करण, उत्पिडनमा परेका सम्प्रदायका महिलाहरु झन दोहरै सीमान्तकृत, बहिस्करण, उत्पिडनमा परेकाछन् । यसै पनि १ करोड ३६ लाख महिलाहरु सीमान्तिकृत, बहिस्करण, उत्पिडन पिडित छन् । त्यसो भए महिलाहरुको पहिचानको आधारमा छुट्टै प्रान्त बनाउन पर्ने हुन्छ, जुन कुनै पनि हालतमा सम्भव छैन, सृष्टि नैं रोकिने हुनाले । महिलाहरुको पहिचानको आधारमा छुट्टै प्रान्त निर्माण गरेर १ करोड ३६ लाख महिलाहरुलाई त्यस प्रान्तमा बसोबास गराएर समस्या समाधान गर्न खोज्नु हास्यास्पद मात्र हुन्छ । तर महिलाको सम्बन्धमा सीमान्तकृत, बहिस्करण, उत्पिडन आदि समस्यामा परेको भनिए पनि छुट्टै प्रान्त खडा गर्ने प्रस्ताव नआएको सराहनिय छ । तसर्थ सीमान्तकृत, बहिस्करण, उत्पिडन आदि समस्याको सम्बोधन नेपाललाई बिखण्डन नगरेरै गर्न सकिन्छ र गर्नुपर्छ । द्वन्द्व, बिखण्डन निम्त्याएर होइन ।

अर्कोतिर अहिले एकात्मक पद्धति हुनाले प्रान्तिकरण गर्न आवश्यक छ भनिएको छ । तर राज्य पुनःसंरचना पछि पनि प्रत्येक प्रान्त एकात्मक नैं हुने हुनाले एकात्मकताको समस्याको निदान यो तरिकाबाट हुंदैन ।

छुट्टै प्रान्त बनाइएमा तराईको दुर्भाग्य हुने
अधिकांश तराइ समथर भूमि हुनाले व्याबसायिक खेती गर्न (वार्षिक ३÷४ बाली लगाउन) र उद्योग स्थापना गर्न प्रचुर मात्रामा जमिन उपलब्ध छ । तर तराईमा बिजुली उत्पादन गर्ने सम्भाव्यता छैन र सुख्खायाममा सिंचाइ गर्न पानी संचय गर्न आवश्यक उपत्यका, खोंचहरुको पनि अभाव छ । यस्तोमा तराईलाई पहाडी भूभागसंग कुनै पनि तरीकाबाट बिच्छेद गरिएमा पानी र बिजुलीको अभावमा तराई अझ धेरै पिछडिने छ । किनभने माथि भनिए झैं प्रान्तको निर्माण गर्ने भनेको नगरपालिका, गाउं, जिल्ला, आदि छुट्टयाए जस्तो होइन । स्वायत्त र अझ आत्म–निर्णय सहितका प्रान्त बन्ने हुनाले एउटा प्रान्तले दुष्प्रभाव ब्यहोरेर अर्को प्रान्तलाई किन मद्दत गर्ने भन्ने सवालहरु खडा हुनेछन्, जसको दृष्टान्त पाकिस्तान, भारत लगायतका देशहरुमा देखिइसकेको छ ।
तसर्थ तथाकथित “एक मधेश एक प्रदेश” नाममा तराइ मात्रै एक वा एक भन्दा बढी प्रान्त बनाइएमा तराईका बासिन्दालाई नैं दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण हुनेछ ।

सम्प्रदाय विशेषलाई अग्राधिकार
जुन सम्प्रदायको नाममा प्रान्त बनाइने छ त्यो सम्प्रदायले जनजीवनमा अग्राधिकार पाउने चर्चा छ । अर्थात प्रत्येक प्रान्तमा एउटा सम्प्रदाय विशेषले अग्राधिकार पाउने र अन्यलाई सीमित अधिकार मात्र हुने देखिन्छ । यसको सोझो अर्थ हुन्छ नेपाल भित्रै प्रान्त विषेशमा अल्पसंख्यकले अग्राधिकार पाउने छ र बहुसंख्यक बासिन्दा दोश्रो दर्जाका नेपाली नागरिक ठहरिनेछन् । यस्तो कुरा कसैैलाई पनि पाच्य हुन सक्दैन ।

बहुसंख्यक माथि अल्पसख्यकको शासन
साथै विषेश अधिकार अन्तर्गत प्रान्त विषेशमा निश्चित सम्प्रदायले मात्र शासकीय संयन्त्रमा प्रवेश पाउने कुरा पनि आएकोछ । लोकतान्त्रिक हिसाबमा निश्चित सम्प्रदायको बहुमत रहेको अवस्थामा शासनमा यिनको हालीमुहाली हुनु स्वाभाविक मान्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । तर, उदाहरणार्थ, काठमाडौं उपत्यकामा ४५ प्रतिशत मात्र नेवारहरु रहेको भनिएकोले काठमाडौं उपत्यकालाई नेवा राज्य बनाईएको अवस्थामा शासकीय संयन्त्रमा यिनको मात्र हालीमुहाली हुंदा बहुमत माथि अल्पमतले शासन गर्ने अवस्था आउंछ । अझ मांग भए जस्तै काठमाडौं उपत्यका लगायत १२ जिल्लालाई नेवा राज्य मानिएमा अझ कम संख्याको सम्प्रदायले बहुसंख्यकमाथि शासन गर्ने अवस्था आउन सक्छ । यो पंक्तिकार आफै नेवार भएतापनि यस्तो परिपाटी स्वीकार्य छैन । साथै नेवा राज्य बनाउन लागिएको भूभाग बाहिर पनि प्रशस्त नेवारहरुको बसोबास भएको र ती नेवारहरु माथि अन्य प्रान्तमा अल्पसंख्यकले शासन गर्ने सोच पनि अधिनायकबादी सोच हो । यो कुरा नेवारहरुको सन्दर्भमा मात्र लागू हुंदैन, एक सय भन्दा बढी सम्प्रदायहरु प्नि अल्पसंख्यकद्वारा शासित हुनेछ । यो सोचको आधारमा पहिचान सहितको संघियता कार्यान्वयन गरिएमा बितृष्णा व्याप्त हुनेछ र द्वन्द्वमा अभिबृद्धि हुने जोखिम नेपालले उठाउनु पर्नेछ ।

समग्रमा हरेक प्रान्तका बहुसंख्यक जनता दोश्रो दर्जाको नागरिक हुने र अल्पसंख्यकले बहुसंख्यक जनता माथि शासन गर्ने अवधारणा कुनै पनि हालतमा सर्वस्वीकार्य हुन सक्दैन ।

राष्ट्रिय हितको लागि राज्य पुनःसंरचना
हुन त कतिपय देशका एक प्रान्त भन्दा पनि नेपाल सानो हुनाले यसलाई प्रान्तिकरण गरिरहन आवश्यक छैन । तर एकात्मकताले गर्दा भने जलश्रोतको राष्ट्रिय हितमा अत्यधिक दोहन हुन सकेको छैन । नेपालमा कोशी, गण्डकी र कर्णाली मुख्य ३ नदी प्रणाली हुनाले यी ३ नदीको राष्ट्रिय हितमा अत्यधिक दोहन गर्नको लागि यी ३ नदीहरुमा आधारमा प्रान्तहरु निर्माण गरिएमा जलश्रोतको राष्ट्रिय हितमा अत्यधिक दोहन गर्नसकिन्छ ।
एउटा नदीको तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्र र माथिल्लो तटीय क्षेत्र छुट्टाछुट्टै प्रान्तमा पर्दा छिमेकी देशहरुले भोगेको समस्या नेपालमा पनि आइपर्ने हुनाले यी नदीहरु एउटै प्रान्तमा पर्ने गरेर नक्सामा अंकित गरिए झैं ३ वटा मात्र प्रान्त निर्माण गरिनु नेपालको अधिकतम राष्ट्रिय हितमा हुनेछ ।

२०७१ आषाढ १६ गतेको गोरखापत्रमा प्रकाशित

Re: Condition Precedent for implementation of Pancheshwar Project

Mr Surya Nath Upadhyay
former Chief Commissioner of CIAA and former Secretary of Water Resources Ministry

Dear Mr. Upadhyay

It definitely would be appropriate to thrash out “our” differences (if at all it is possible to do so!) in a seminar that you have proposed. I am ready and willing to participate in such a seminar and prepared to put across my concerns (and the concerns of all people in Nepal who love their motherland) from the perspective of Nepal’s interest regarding Mahakali treaty and Pancheshwar project.

You will recall that you had proposed similarly with respect to West Seti project "under development" by SMEC and I had made my reasons clear with respect to why the way that project was structured by SMEC (export oriented hydropower project, instead of multipurpose project to meet Nepal’s need for, more importantly, water and peak-in power) was unacceptable to the likes of me during my presentation in a seminar that JVS had organized in September 2008. Rest is history, including the fact that the license held by SMEC got cancelled after ADB decided to withdraw investment (as a consequence of our success in “dissuading” ADB) and now the project is to be implemented by a Chinese developer as a multipurpose project that will meet Nepal’s need for water and peak-in power.

As regards Chapter 7 of your book entitled “International Watercourses Law and a Perspective on Nepal- India Cooperation” that you have referred to in your email below, which is based on a presentation you made in a seminar organized by Sangam Institute in December 2009, I was present in the seminar personally and have also carefully studied that particular chapter of your book. I did voice my difference of opinion in the seminar itself and there are a number of issues I disagree with your perspective in the book too.

I eagerly look forward to meet all the people that are interested, from whatever perspective, in Mahakali treaty and Pancheshwar project in the seminar that you have proposed. However, I wish that a “scene” similar to the way the seminar re West Seti was organized could be avoided (JVS had organized it with funding from SMEC – an interested party). Even I was offered remuneration by JVS for making the presentation from the fund provided by SMEC, which was reprehensible to me, and, therefore, I had “donated” my “remuneration” to Staff Welfare Fund of JVS.

Thanking you all for taking time to study and also respond.

With best regards,

Ratna Sansar

On Jun 23, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Kalyan Bhattarai wrote:

Professor

Dear friends
I fully agree with Mt Ratna Sansar JI and in reference to the suggestion of Mr S.N Upadhya for the Modi to implement the 6 issues i do not hope any PM of India will do that because the objective of India is to get the maximum benefits from the water resources of Nepal and it will never think how Nepal will be benefited. the implementation of the "the agreement between Lesotho and South Africa for Lesotho Highland Water project, " as suggested by my friend Ratna Sansar is beyond imagination . India is neither honest with its agreement nor she consider the betterment of its neighboring countries. I am not among those fools who consider the help of India to separate Bangladesh from Pakistan was due to its commitment to wards the democracy, rather it was to weaken its birth time enemy Pakistan. Right from the Kosi to Tanakpur agreement Nepal is being cheated in almost every treaty. just for reference I could not stop the tears in my eyes after reading the agreement the NC minister Laxman Ghiumera made with India for water resources.Present day Nepalese politicians are with slavery mentality and they had a notion that no leaders can be PM of Nepal until India wants-and as long as Nepalese leaders do not get rid of that notion to hope the international standard treaty or agreement and its honest implementation like the "Lesotho Highland Water project"will be only fools dream . Thanks with best regards

Kalyan dev Bhattarai

On Jun 23, 2014, at 9:58 AM, Mohan Lohani wrote:

As you explained to me, in some detail yesterday at Lilaji's party, referring to Chapter 7 of your book, I have no intention of entering into a debate on this issue which, frankly speaking, is not my field , although as a citizen of this country I have every right to take interest in and inquire about matters of national interest such as harnessing and utilization of the country's water resources. As regards your chapter on a Perspective on Nepal-India Cooperation, I contributed an article last year to the Nepal Council Of World Affairs Journal.
With warm regards,
Mohan P Lohani

From: Surya Upadhyay
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Cc: Mohan Lohani ; Surya Nath Upadhyay ; Dipak Gyawali ; Ratan Bhandari ; Gopal Siwakoti 'Chintan' ; Christopher Butler ; Matthäus Rest
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: A Good List! [NNSD] Reflecting on what's happening in the neighborhood

Dear Sirs,

I think the kind of issues that have been raised by some of you needs to be explored and analysed in detail interpretation of the Treaty. We have had several discussion at various level and at various times on this. I have made presentations at various occasions on this matter. I think it would not be possible for debating here on this forum. Lot have been written by our friends also. I can simply refer you Chapter 7 of my book entitled International Watercourses Law and a Perspective on Nepal- India Cooperation to get my view on the treaty.. If some of you want to debate on this let there be a seminar and we shall have sufficient time to debate on this. With best regards
SN


On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:
Dear Prof. Lohani

Yes, that will be just fair. Otherwise, no need for Nepal to suffer from negative externalities of submergence and involuntary displacement, just to provide positive externalities of flood control and lean season augmented flow to India free of cost

With best regards

Sincerely
Ratna Sansar Shrestha

sent from iPad

On Jun 22, 2014, at 16:13, Mohan Lohani wrote:

In response to Mr. Upadhyay, you have raised a pertinent question: is India willing to pay $ 216 million/ year to Nepal for 'the lean season augmented flow'?
Regds,

MP Lohani

Condition Precedent for implementation of Pancheshwar Project

Mr Surya Nath Upadhyay
former Chief Commissioner, CIAA and
former Secretary, Ministry of water resoruces

Dear Mr. Upadhyay

I also would like to add a few points in the interest of Nepal specifically with respect to your statement re “Start Pancheshwar Project and implement the Mahakli Treaty provisions for quickly delivering the agreed water to Nepal” that you have mentioned below:

As a 4-point stricture motion (संकल्प प्रस्ताव) was passed by the then parliament of Nepal prior to ratifying the treaty, the treaty first needs to be amended to incorporate the points included in the stricture motion before even thinking of implementing the treaty and building Pancheshwar Project.

As stipulated by Clause 1 of Article 9 of the treaty, “Mahakali River Commission” needs to be formed before belaboring about the details of what to build, when to built and where to build. You will recall that Pancheshwar Development Authority has already been constituted even before “Mahakali River Commission” coming into existence: almost like son taking birth even before the father was conceived.

Your motive behind saying so seems to be very nationalistic, as you wish for Nepal to receive “agreed water” from Mahakali. However, you must be aware that what Nepal isn’t receiving now is merely water from spatial transfer and for this Nepal shouldn’t need to cause inundation of her land and involuntary displacement of the inhabitants by building the project which basically is a storage project that will enable temporal transfer of water. The Nepali people with nationalistic feelings should try to force India to “share” agreed quantum of water right away without having to wait for the project to be built.

In order for Nepal to go ahead with building of Pancheshwar project for temporal storage of water which will result in lean season augmented flow, mainly in India, without incorporating the clauses of the stricture motion, Nepal will continue to get cheated of rightful quantum of water that she is entitled to. As others, you may also opine that since there is no land in Nepal to irrigate from half of the water that will be stored in the reservoir that belongs to Nepal, and you could add that there shouldn’t be problem for the likes of me to object to India “enjoying” lean season augmented flow that Nepal cannot use. I will have to disagree with you in this respect. The correct thing to do will be to reach an agreement in the lines of Columbia Treaty or Lesotho Highland Water Project Agreement. For the sake of mathematical simplicity, if Nepal and India were to follow the formula enshrined in the agreement between Lesotho and South Africa for Lesotho Highland Water project, India will need to pay $ 216 million/year to nepal for the lean season augmented flow. Otherwise, there is no sense in building such a project.

There is no sense in building this project in near future from the perspective of electricity too as there is no load centre in the vicinity of the proect in Nepal. Hence, this is an export-oriented project. From this perspective too the treaty needs to be amended to incorporate the stricture motion one of which deals with tariff rate for export.

Most importantly, what people should not lose sight of the fact is that, Nepal doesn’t have access to the kind of money that will be needed to build this project. If attempt is made to build it forcefully with funding from multilaterals, the attempt will be futile as multilaterals have time and again listened to the likes of us for example in Arun III (cancelled by world bank in 1995) and West Seti (ADB withdrew investment from it, although you personally advocated building it as envisaged by SMEC).


With best regards

Ratna Sansar

-- Original Message -----
From: 'Surya Nath Updhaya' surya@upd.wlink.com.np [NNSD]
To: NNSD@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2014 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [NNSD] Reflecting on what's happening in the neighborhood

Yes, Modi has shown good omen for better due to his recent steps though little it might look but important and illustrative for many of our leaders. However, when it comes to" capitalizing on his rise and vision" by Nepal I am a bit skeptic because during the last NDA period nothing material has changed in the perspective of so far as Nepal-India relations are concerned. They seems to have the same attitude. It was reported that Modi during the Koirala's recent meeting with him asked to come up with concrete plan. The media here, as always, not tired to diminutively present their their own leaders in the face of foreign leaders reported that that Nepalse PM did not have any plan ready to present to the" Master" . In fact, if Modi is really upbeat in improving the Nepal-India relation and win over the heart of Nepalese people there is no dearth of issues where Nepal feels she is not being treated equitably and fairly. Modi could pick up any of these and mend the course of actions rather than again taking benefit from the transitional political situation of Nepal when India is evidentially alleged to be "micromanaging" the polity of Nepal to in its favor :

1. Start Pancheshwar Project and implement the Mahakli Treaty provisions for quickly delivering the agreed water to Nepal
…

Norwegian government should “gift” Khimti project to Nepal

By an accident in history I happened to join HPL, owner of Khimti project (60 MW) as the financial controller and company secretary in May 1994 at the express request of Mr. Odd Hoftun (whom I consider my Guru and I have learnt many a things about water resources from him like Eklavya did from Dronacharya of Mahabharata fame, without having being taught by him directly or ever worked under him). It was he, an UMNer who initiated development of hydropower projects outside the ambit of GoN and NEA. He was instrumental in building Tinau project, 1 MW, near Butwal by securing financial grant from Norwegian government. Under the agreement signed between UMN and Norwegian government for the purpose, the project was “gifted” free of cost to GoN, which handed it over to NEA. Later under his very leadership Andhi Khola (5.1 MW) and Jhimruk (12 MW) projects respectively in in Syangja and in Pyuthan were built similarly, but were put under BPC’s ownership, shares in which were again “gifted” free of cost to GoN and GoN “earned” about Rs 1 billion in 2003 by privatizing BPC – selling shares of BPC.

In this manner Nepal received all three projects built with Norwegian government financial assistance as gift (free of cost). Again under the leadership of Mr Hoftun, the idea of developing Khimti (60 MW) was conceived by BPC, but for lack of fund, Norwegian assistance was again sought. This time Norwegian “private” sector, Statkraft SF was roped in and after protracted negotiation a PPA was signed on 30th March 1994 – couple of months before I joined HPL in May 1994 which was revised in January 1996. At that time I didn’t have a clue as to which bird’s name is hydro or power. I left HPL in late 1998 on grounds of principle and I started to study the sector deeply and also commenced to analyse, write and publish about the sector. I did an in-depth analysis of the risks involved and how was the various risks allocated/shared; culminating in publishing an article on “managing the risks of private hydro development in Nepal”, published in HRW (Hydro Review Worldwide) – an international magazine specializing in hydropower, in November 2000, based in Kansas City, Missouri, USA which can be viewed at http://www.ratnasansar.com/2009/01/managing-risks-in-private-sector-hydro.html

As I happened to sign as a witness in the revised PPA in 1996, media started to paint me as a “villain” and was being blamed for everything that had gone wrong due to this PPA, more than a decade after the PPA was executed. Those who made these comments seemed not to know that a company secretary is a glorified scribe drafting what was decided in a board meeting without any right to express own view and or be heard. Moreover, these people also seemed to be ignorant of the fact that a witness too doesn’t have right to decide who should get what, why and how. All these decisions were made by HPL board, which comprised of members in majority from Statkraft who dictated from Norway whatever was to happen. The situation was so bad that although I was appointed as HPL’s financial controller also, but all the financial controlling was done by a person working for Statkraft and at their instruction (some of my well-wishers had termed “behaviour” racist, to which I didn’t subscribe).

In my considered opinion, the only way out to mitigate the problem caused by Khimti PPA is for Norwegian government to gift (free of cost) the proejct to GoN if HPL is unwilling to review the PPA. What must not be forgotten is the fact that the PPA signed in March 1994 was revised in 1996 as HPL deemed the project unfeasible at the tariff of original PPA. Similarly, since NEA now is facing problem due to this PPA, it is time for HPL to agree to review the PPA in good faith.

The reason why I have come up with the idea of gift is that prior to Khimti all projects built with Norwegian assistance were gifted to Nepal. What also must be remembered is the fact that the owner of majority shares in Khimti (60 MW), Statkraft of Norway is also Norwegian government owned institution (not any private enterprise), and Norway, a superrich country of the world is raking profit from this project, which wasn't done in the case of previous 3 projects. I think Norwegian government has "earned" and taken out of Nepal more than enough profit from Khimti, built in a poor country like Nepal.

During discussions in parliamentary committee meetings people expressed the view that it is time for Nepal to “buy back” the project. I don’t agree with this idea. A super rich country doesn’t “pennies” from Nepal.
Therefore, it is time for Norwegian government to gift (free of cost) Khimti project to Nepal.

No Sense in Building Muzaffarpur-Dhalkebar Transmission Line

Kanak Mani Dixit
Publisher
Himal weekly

Kanak jee

you have written article in TKP of a few days back on "construction of Muzaffarpur-Dhalkebar transmission line must not be obstructed." My perspective is very different from his.

This transmission line will have a capacity for 1,000 MW, but to build it to import 150 MW is sheer misuse of Nepal’s scarce resource for a resource constrained country; it doesn’t ensure optimum use of resources. Underutilization of capacity costs highly to the economy.

Further, 150 MW will be like a drop in the ocean as Nepal’s deficit is already more than 500 MW. Moreover, if Nepal is to attain normal economic growth (current scenario obtaining is suppressed economic growth), demand for electricity will surpass 5,000 MW in 5 years time (by when one can expect the lines will be ready) and the “drop”, in that scenario, will become infinitesimal.

Moreover, India, especially north India is suffering from power deficit and she is not in a position to provide power in quantities that Nepal need. It will amount to अाफै त महादेव कसले िदने बर ?

Furthermore, India has been using power export to Nepal as a "Damocles’ sword" exemplified by refusal by Ministry of External Affairs to sanction export of 30 MW to Nepal in 2009 May, impelling Prachanda to resign (after Bihar Electricity Board, PTC, and other ministries had already concurred with the proposal); the incident related to Katuwal is mere eyewash. Even afterwards that Nitish Kumar also disconnected power to Nepal several times.

Therefore, it will be basically used for export of power to India. Which doesn’t make sense as it is for the importer or project developer that should be investing for evacuation of power – not Nepal government.

In this backdrop it also shouldn’t be forgotten that hydrocrats in both Nepal and India are working to build a string of projects for export like Arun III, Tamakoshi III, Upper Marshyangdi and Upper Karnali; this defies logic. Nepal readies to export at the same time it is also planning to import.

Then the tragicomic situation will be: Nepal exporting in the range of tariff of Rs 2-3/kWh and importing at more than Rs 10/kWh. It will just like what Indians are going about saying: नेपाली लाेग अच्छे, हैं मगर बेबकुफ हैं ।

Therefore, transmission lines should be built for hydropower projects in the pipeline to ensure use of electricity generated as such to meet Nepal’s not only existing and projected demand but also latent demand like providing access of electricity from NEA to close to 100% of the population (currently only 40% of the population is connected to NEA system), providing electricity for industrialization such that employment is generated in adequate quantum to enable those who have migrated overseas for employment are able to return home, electrification of transportation, displacement of LPG from kitchens, etc.; if possible even to displace firewood from rural kitchens which is resulting in loss of 430 million working days that is spent in collection of firewood.

It, however, doesn’t mean that Nepal shouldn’t export even a kilowatt-hour of electricity because electricity, under normal circumstance cannot be stored; any all excess electricity should/could be exported.

Mr Bharat Upreti
Former Ad Hoc Judge, Supreme Court, Nepal


Bharat Upreti jee

Writing an article on “roadmap for reform of judiciary under crisis” in Himal weekly of 25-31 May 2014, you have stated that “due to interim order issued by a supreme court bench comprising single justice, Arun III project of 450 MW was ‘wrecked’” (exact word you have used in Nepali is तहसनहस). It is very strange indeed at it is coming from a person who has been an ad hoc judge of Supreme Court twice and also for a lawyer who pleaded in that very case representing NEA, verdict of which was delivered by Justices Hargovinda Singh Pradhan and Keshav Prasad Upadhyay in the first week of May 1994.

I have checked the verdict published in Issue 4, Vol. 36 of Nepal Kanoon Patrika and it is clear that no “interim order” was issued in that case filed by Gopal Siwakoti and Rajesh Gautam; neither by one judge nor by 2 judges. Fact of the matter is that it was a case filed under RTI and the court had simply said that if citizens of Nepal demand information, it should be provided, following due process and through proper channel. The verdict didn’t at all say that the project should be “cancelled” neither as final verdict nor issuing interim order for the purpose.

Therefore, what you said in that article is completely incorrect and it could even amount to contempt of Supreme Court. I am prepared to stand corrected if you could cite any other judgment that “wrecked” the said project.

However, it is true that the project did get cancelled, which, however, isn’t due to the writ petition or interim order of the Supreme Court as I have mentioned above. The project was cancelled by the World Bank in August 1995 immediately after James D Wolfensohn became its president. Besides financial reasons, it was cancelled as GoN had breached a covenant restricting Nepal from implementing projects of capacity bigger than 10 MW. The covenant specifically stipulated that “NEA … would seek IDA’s specific consent before undertaking any investment projects that would increase generation capacity by more than 10 MW capacity or transmission projects costing more than $ 3 million. In granting such a consent, IDA would need to be satisfied that the project is economically and technically justified and part of the LCGEP, that NEA has the financial and managerial capacity to undertake the project without delaying implementation of the Arun III or the rest of its ongoing program, that the project is consistent with HMG’s public expenditure program and macroeconomic framework.”

As you were representing IFC in Khimti project at that time you should have been aware of the fact that GoN had signed PPA for 60 MW Khimti project in March 1994, breaching this very covenant. Besides, Arun III project was highly costly, estimated to cost more than $ 5,000/kW; against average cost of $ 2,000/kW for small and medium sized projects and around $ 1,000/kW due to economies of scale (SJVN has estimated Aurn III, at the same site, with installed capacity of 900 MW to cost $ 1,000/kW for export which people of Nepal are opposed to).

You also may not be aware of the fact that had Nepal built the costly Arun III project, Nepal would have been suffering from more load shedding now than what we have now. Because due to cancellation of Arun III following projects got built:

Nepali Electricity Authority built Kali Gandaki 'A' project, 144 MW from ADB fund earmarked for Arun III and Middle Marshyangdi project, 70 MW from KfW fund earmarked for Arun III

Besides Independent Power Producers built following projects as the negative covenant restricting implementation of projcts begger than 10 MW died with Arun III: Khimti 60 MW, Bhotekoshi 45 MW and Chilime 22 MW.

Moreover, NEA has built Modi 14.8 MW from its own sources.

In this manner a total of 355.8 MW was built instead of just 201 MW. Had Arun III not been cancelled, only this project would have been built due to negative covenant and load shedding hours now would have been much more longer.

You have also specified that the installed capacity of Arun III project as 450 MW which is also very far from the truth. Installed capcity of the proejct, even when hearing of the case was going on in supreme court, was 201 MW only – first phase of 402 MW. It was during the time when Girija Koirala was PM and Mahesh Acharya was state minister of finance, that the capacity was down sized to 201 MW.



With best regards,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Reverse Imperialism Abetted Colonization of Water Resources

Mother Nature bestows certain natural resources to every country, harnessing of which not only sustains the country’s economy, but also leads to prosperity. As a part of natural justice all natural resources aren’t bestowed to every country. Forest used to be touted as Nepal’s wealth. However, forest has dwindled and country is yet to prosper (except for smugglers and their powerful benefactors). Similarly, Nepal is being publicized as rich in water resources. However, only one-fourth of the populace has access to piped water from which water rarely flows and three-fourth has yet to see pipes/taps. Therefore, easy and affordable access to potable water has become a distant dream; diverting resources for medical treatment with heavy toll on productivity of human resources – even premature death linked to unclean water (recent sickness and death from Hepatitis and Jaundice in Biratnagar is a case in point).

Colonization of natural resources
Exploitation of natural resources of host country for the development of another country is colonization of natural resources; practiced by imperialists till 20th century. India’s natural resource was exploited by British Empire in their interest till Indian independence, as was practiced by other imperialists. No colony has prospered under that format. However, the imperialists exploiting natural resources of the colonies have flourished.
Resource colonization of Nepal, a country never formally colonized, started with the construction of “Sarada” barrage by British India in 1920 to meet requirement of north India, followed by projects built under Koshi and Gandak treaties in 1950s. These barrages resulted in inundation of land in Nepal, involuntary displacement of the inhabitants and also restriction on consumptive use of water in the upstream reaches ranging from irrigation to futuristic hydrogen economy – the negative externalities. While India reaped the benefits from flood control and irrigation of their parched land (positive externalities). This is the best example of colonization of Nepal’s water resource.
Same is being attempted in the name of projects like Pancheshwar, Koshi High Dam, etc. (reservoir projects) which will result in Nepal internalizing negative externalities and India reaping positive externalities. An important distinction is that the barrages built in last century were meant for spatial transfer of water (from plenty to paucity) and, therefore, the magnitude of negative externalities was relatively low compared to the same that will be caused by the construction of Pancheshwar, Koshi High Dam, etc. to be built for temporal transfer of water (from wet season to dry season).
Mindset amongst the hydrocrats of India is understandable, while that of Nepal is startling. Although Mahakali treaty stresses equal right to water, India plans to irrigate 1.6 million hectares while only 93,000 hectares will get irrigated in Nepal after completion of Pancheshwar project. It is natural for hydrocrats of India to endeavor to optimize benefits to India and cannot be faulted for being patriotic towards their motherland. However, when hydrocrats of Nepal surrender Nepal’s interest in this manner, one has to pause and ponder. Why are Nepali hydrocrats happy to surrender Nepal’s national interest!

Colonization of hydropower
Although, Nepal is said to have huge hydropower potential, but she is suffering from load shedding since last few decades, which is limited to well-to-do urbanites, mostly, as only 40% of the population has access to electricity from NEA. Moreover, Nepal’s youth are emigrating abroad for employment for want of jobs in Nepal for lack of industrialization, which isn’t possible without power. Import of petroleum product this year is anticipated to exceed Rs 120 billion, which could have been avoided by electrification of transportation. Something simple like displacement of firewood for cooking in rural areas (83% of the country) by electricity could not only have curbed deforestation but could even have positively impacted rural people’s (especially that of homemakers’) lives by saving them from indoor pollution which is making them sick (entailing huge expense in medical treatment), less productive and even death. An interesting facet of this phenomenon is that Nepal could have generated 430 million working days in a year if rural folks didn’t need to spend time collecting firewood. There are many other meaningful uses of electricity, which have been completely ignored by the hydrocrats who want people in Nepal to chase the mirage of becoming citizens of a rich country by exporting power, comparable to Saudi Arabia.
If one is to calculate ballpark number for electricity requirement of Nepal, with 1,094 MW used by 40% of population last fiscal year, Nepal would have needed 2,700 MW for 100% electrification in that period. Additionally, in order to generate employment for 3 million youth that have emigrated (without accounting for those who have emigrated for employment to India) she would need another 1,000 MW for industrialization and similarly 500 MW for electrification of transportation which would mitigate balance of trade and payment deficit. Further, just to displace LPG from urban, semi-urban and peri-urban kitchens another 1,000 MW would be required. In sum even without planning to displace firewood from rural kitchens (which would have been highly over-ambitious), Nepal could have used 5,200 MW (a ballpark number) last year itself. Therefore, it is criminal on the part of hydrocrats to plan to export power depriving Nepal’s economy and Nepali people from much needed electricity, as Nepal will require about 10,000 MW in 5 years’ time.
Because of such wrong focus, these very hydrocrats now have to pacify people suffering from power crisis that it will be mitigated by importing power from India (northern India which is suffering from huge power deficit!). In the meantime they are preparing to allow foreign investors to build hydropower projects for export (namely Arun III, Tamakoshi III, Upper Marshyangdi-2 and Upper Karnali) that would generate high quality power, totaling 3,050 MW, at cheap rates by signing Power Development Agreement. Again, it is smart on the part of Indian patriots to get clean power from Nepal at dirt cheap rate. But same cannot be said about Nepali hydrocrats who are hell-bent on exporting high quality power cheaply while arranging to import expensive power in the name of mitigating power crisis in Nepal. This is a clear and concrete disconnect, or colonized intellectuality.

Intellectuals afflicted by Reverse Imperialism
Nepal was never colonized, excepting Indian wish to exercise colonial power over Nepal using special relation supposedly “enshrined” in 1950 treaty. Indians don’t overtly reveal their intention to colonize Nepal’s rivers, though. But politicians of Nepal are magnanimous towards India, as was exemplified by a former Premier Krishna Prasad Bhattarai acceding that Nepal’s rivers are “common” when he visited New Delhi in 1990; going against Harmon Doctrine and the concept of “absolute territorial sovereignty” accepted by India in both Koshi and Gandak treaties and disproving people’s belief that he was a patriotic leader. With him appeasing Indian interest in Nepal’s water resources, the embargo also did get lifted as a result of his efforts which was imposed to force the late king Birendra to accept another unequal treaty in 1989 containing references to “commonly shared rivers” besides requiring Nepal to come under Indian “security umbrella”. But people of Nepal are lucky, as Bhattarai couldn’t formalize/legalize the commonality concept by executing another disgraceful treaty to Nepal’s detriment as he lost in the general election. Very few people know that India had imposed the embargo as late King Birendra had refused to sign the treaty proposed by India, with assurance of full support to the then regime against the political parties that were agitating for “democracy”. Common people had started to support the agitation as their lives were becoming unlivable due to the embargo. But late king Birendra preferred to become constitutional monarch rather than surrender Nepal’s sovereignty to India over and above natural resources.
Makes one wonder why such mentality on the part of hydrocrats of Nepal – their eagerness to allow India to colonize Nepal’s water resources! Indians colonizing can be termed imperialistic. But Nepali hydrocrats seeking colonization of Nepal’s rivers by India means they are afflicted by “Reverse Imperialism.” In sum, reverse imperialism on the part of Nepal’s hydrocrats is abetting colonization of Nepal’s Water Resources.

Published in Spotlight News Magazine of Sunday May 10, 2014.