Nepal Threatened by Indian Water Dams:

News from The Associated Press.

KATMANDU, Nepal (AP) -- Nepal has asked India to stop building a dam that threatens to flood Buddha's birthplace.

Nepal formally requested India to "stop the construction of the barrage,'' Minister for Water Resources Bijaya Gachchedar said Tuesday.

Four months ago, India began building the Rassiyal-Khurda-Lautan dam across the Danav River, just 655 feet from the Nepal-India border south of Lumbini.

Lumbini, 170 miles southwest of Nepal's capital of Katmandu, is where Buddha was said to have been born more than 26 centuries ago as Gautama Siddhartha. UNESCO, the United Nations' cultural arm, has recognized Lumbini as the birthplace of Buddha and declared it a World Heritage Site.

The dam is meant to block and manage the flow of river water, mainly for irrigation, Indian officials have said.

The 20-foot high dam has come under fire from Buddhist scholars and Nepalese political parties. They accuse Hindu-dominated India of violating international laws that bar such constructions within five miles of an international border.

"The construction of this barrage is a well-designed conspiracy of India to inundate the birthplace of Lord Buddha and create another fake Lumbini somewhere in the Indian territory,'' said lawmaker Gokarna Bista of the United Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Nepal.

India has long claimed the actual birthplace of Buddha is in India and not Nepal. However, archeologists discovered in 1996 a commemorative pillar placed there by the Indian Emperor Ashoka in 249 B.C. that marked the precise location.

UNESCO has said that Lumbini is one of the holiest places of one of the world's great religions, and its remains contain important evidence about the nature of Buddhist pilgrimage centers from a very early period.

source: http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/world/facts/111-nepal.htm

Nepal and India treaty of Peace, Friendship and development.

Like this

Every year, villages, towns and farmland flood like this.

It destroyed Nepal economy, life and devlopments.

Dude, that news is from July 2001

Coz he is Gyane supporter so he wanan get some sampathy to gane.

sajhabusaima have some brain man, question is not he is gyane supporter or not? question is India is making a dam and it will have a serious consequence for Nepal. I have virtually no clue what it has to do with Gyane or other leaders, its the question of country man.

IF you think that he is supporter of Gayane King, then you guys must be suppoter of Indian Dothi.

Is not it?

Is that sound good to you. :-<

Some musings on the Mahakali Treaty between India and Napal:

by S B Pun

It is with interest that I read Dipak Gyawali and Ajaya Dixit?s ?How not to do a South Asian Treaty? (April 2001). Equally interesting was Ramaswamy R. Iyer?s response ?Delay and Drift on the Mahakali? (June 2001). Such articles on important issues by well-known thinkers from both sides will definitely help to bridge the yawning gap between Nepal and India. I am adding my own thoughts to those two excellent articles, in this instance related to water sharing, on the much hyped Mahakali Treaty, one which is literally in the ?Kumbhakarna? stage of hibernation.

A. Nepal?s right to say no: Iyer is right when he says that even if India did want the treaty and pushed hard for it, Nepal, as a sovereign nation, had always had the right to say ?no? to a document that it was not satisfied with. This right of the sovereign nation was amply demonstrated by Canada when, despite the signing of the Columbia River Treaty on 17 January 1961 by the heads of states of Canada and the United States, the Parliament in Ottawa refused to ratify the treaty. It was only on 16 September 1964, after a lapse of a full three years and eight months and the ?manner of implementation was defined through a Protocol and arrangements were made to sell the first 30 years of Canada?s Entitlement to the power benefits arising from each storage project?, that the Canadian Parliament finally ratified the treaty with the United States.

B. Nepal?s inability to say ?no?: One has got to back-peddle to the period of the early 1980s to know the environment and circumstances to understand why Nepal could never utter that simple word ?no?. It is here that Gyawali and Dixit have done an extremely commendable job in their ?forensic deconstruction of the Mahakali Treaty of 1996 between Nepal and India ?..the larger neighbour as bulldozer and the smaller one as hapless and internally divided. Just how not to do an agreement for the sharing of a common resource ??. The two writers have, much to the discomfiture of many in India as well as Nepal, explained the chronology and nuances of events that included the unilateral construction of the Tanakpur Barrage, the gifting away on a platter of the 2.9 hectares of Nepalese land at Jimuwa, through an understanding that the Nepali Supreme Court subsequently termed as a treaty for being ?pervasive and long term?, Nepal?s ill-fated upmanship in converting the Tanakpur issue into the broader Mahakali Package Deal, and the final closing-in for the kill on the hapless and much divided coalition government in Nepal. Ironically, the Mahakali Treaty was signed at a time when Prakash Chandra Lohani was foreign minister and Pashupati SJB Rana water resources minister, the same stalwarts of the Panchayat era who may have on an earlier occasion said no to the same Tanakpur Barrage!

C. Ratification or non-ratification: I am in full concurrence with Iyer?s view that there can now only be ratification or non-ratification of the Mahakali Treaty. There is no question that the conditional ratification with ?strictures? (the sankalpa prastav) will be applicable only to the Nepali government and not the government of India. This is why I have been compelled to state that the Mahakali Treaty has technically achieved the ?Kumbhakarna? status. So far, India has been the sole beneficiary of the agreement, with the formal legalisation and utilisation of the unilaterally constructed Tanakpur Barrage. Nepal?s attempt at one-upmanship of linking the Pancheshwar Project in the Mahakali Package Deal has failed miserably, although hopefully for the time being only.

D. The differences: Iyer has very eloquently elucidated the differences that have emerged between the neighbours on the following five issues :

i. The Kalapani Issue: However, here, Iyer has misunderstood the Nepali sensitivity when he very clinically argues that the Kalapani border issue ?has nothing to do with the implementation of the Mahakali Treaty.? He cannot be faulted too much on this, of course. Nepalis may not be in a position to understand the sentiments of India on the recent Boraibari/Padua incidents on the Indo-Bangladesh border, or for that matter the Indo-Pakistan Kargil skirmish. One principle clearly demonstrated and stood firmly on by India both with Pakistan and Bangladesh, was its stand on the pre-conflict ?status quo/line of control? position. It is exactly this internationally accepted principle of the return to the status quo position that Nepal wants India to abide by on the Kalapani issue. I believe this is the government of Nepal?s position. That is, the categorical return of India?s armed personnel to the pre-1963 position and then as stressed by Mr. Iyer ??a matter to be resolved with reference to old records, documents, maps, survey points etc.? Nepal vividly remembers the Mahakali/Sutlej territories it ceded to the East India Company in the 1814-16 Anglo-Nepal war for its reluctance to cede 22 measly villages in the Tarai to the Company!

ii. The Boundary River Issue: On the matter of the Mahakali being a ?boundary river on major stretches? and basically ?a border river?, Nepal?s then water resources minister, Pashupati SJB Rana, went categorically on record to say that they have the same meaning. I believe Nepal has no problem with the sacrosanctity of the treaty on this issue.

iii. Equal Sharing Issue: It is here that Nepal, I believe, would have major differences of opinion with what Iyer believes is the Government of India?s position. He, too, concurs that there is a ?clear divergence of views here?. He terms the ownership of half of the Mahakali waters as ?Nepali innovations not easily derivable from any international law or principles.? I would like to humbly state that the unilateral construction of the Tanakpur Barrage by India on ?a boundary river on major stretches? without informing/consulting Nepal was similarly an Indian innovation not derivable from any international law or practice. This is probably the reason why Gyawali and Dixit use the term ?bulldoze?, which Iyer has difficulties with. But I do fully agree with the latter that nothing is ?gained by taking a dogmatic position on this issue; this is a matter for discussion between the two countries with a view to arrive at an agreed position.?

iv. Protection of Existing Consumptive Uses: Here, too, the two governments are at serious loggerheads. Iyer states, ?India has claimed that there is such an existing consumptive use at the Lower Sarada, but the Nepalis question this on certain grounds.? It is on this existing consumptive use issue that Nepal?s Parliament has unanimously passed its strictures, interpreting this to mean equal rights to all the waters of the Mahakali. If I understand the Nepali government?s position on this issue correctly, then this ?respective existing consumptive uses of the waters of the Mahakali River? emanates from the treaty?s paragraph 3 of Article 3 which pertains to the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project and not the Mahakali River itself. I do not pretend to be a lawyer but I believe this interpretation may keep our parliamentarians happy. But the implication this may ultimately have on Nepal?s cost-sharing mechanism in relation to the Pancheshwar Project needs to be carefully ascertained by our bureaucrats. Iyer refers to the Helsinki Rules on the ?fair and equitable? sharing of common resources and also the new UN Convention on which, if I am correct, India abstained from voting. I might add here that, internationally, these rules and conventions are preached more than they are actually practised. There is no doubt that this existing consumptive use issue is the major stumbling block in the implementation of the Mahakali Treaty.

v. Power tariff: Nepal?s then minister for water resources, Pashupati SJB Rana, exhorted the joint session of Parliament on September 11, 1996 to ratify the Mahakali Treaty because Nepal was successful in convincing India ?to accept the principle of displaced cost of alternatives in the evaluation of electricity benefits.? In this context, Iyer has clearly spelt out the Indian position that ?there are many possibilities (other hydro-electric projects, thermal projects, gas-based projects etc), and thermal generation need not be assumed to be the only alternative available.? He is probably referring to the 3.3 US cents per unit gas-based generation in Bangladesh. There is a tendency here in Nepal to gloat over the ?avoided cost principle? victory. This could be the Pyrrhic victory pointed out by Iyer. He has also quite rightly stated that if the generation cost at Pancheshwar is lower than the alternative then this gain will surely have to be shared between the two countries.

E. Conclusion : If the Mahakali Treaty is to wake up from its present anaesthetised status, then there is the urgent need for sagacious leadership on both sides of the border. In their ?way forward?, Gyawali and Dixit have rightly stressed ??Nepalis should stop reflexively blaming the Indians?.? and equally that ??there cannot be a way out unless there is also a change of perspective in India?s approach.?

Again, consider what Nepal?s then water resources minister, Pashupati SJB Rana, assured the joint session of Parliament on 11 September 1996 while exhorting it to ratify the Mahakali Treaty, ?From now onwards, no project like Tanakpur will be constructed unilaterally. It is a great achievement for Nepal that projects in future can be developed only on the basis of bilateral agreement.? This has become a hollow statement, far removed from the truth, when one considers the ongoing Indo-Nepal duel on the Laxmanpur Barrage on the Rapti River. Issues like these are the ones that touch the raw nerves of Nepal in the furtherance of a cordial Indo-Nepal relationship.
Like Iyer, I too would like to end on an optimistic note. I believe that wisdom will ultimately prevail on both sides and our differences be amicably resolved in order to develop our vast water resources. This is in the larger interest of the poor and hungry masses on both sides of the border.

Source: http://www.himalmag.com/july2001/response.html

Nepal threaten by Indian-built barrage:

News from Asian Economic News.

Just five days before Nepalese Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala embarks on a visit to India, the two neighbors have clashed over a barrage and dam recently built by India on its side of the border.

Nepal says India built the 13.6-kilometer Laxmanpur Barrage, without consulting Nepal, only 4.25 kilometers from the Nepal-India border.

The dam has caused inundation in Nepalese territory and thousands of people from 33 villages have had to be evacuated, the Nepalese side said.

A Nepalese parliamentary committee has said the construction of the dam and barrage on the Rapti River is a violation of the international law.

But the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu said the barrage is 8 km from the border, the requirement according to international practice.

But Nepalese Foreign Minister Chakra Prasad Bastola told the official RSS news agency Wednesday the Indian dam has in fact inundated Nepalese territory and India's version that Nepal remained unaffected was not acceptable.

North Bihar Floods and the Proposed Dams in Nepal:

Read Indian proposed links:

http://www.dams.org/kbase/submissions/showsub.php?rec=opt028

Ahafno Gar vitrako manche haru Phata Chor Badmas baye pachi, bidesi bahirako ta kura nagare huncha.

So we must control root of crimes, corruption and illegal activities inside Nepali government offices.

We have to create rule, regulation, law and order for working in Nepali Government Office. Nepali people whoever work in Nepali government offices, actually they never ever work Seriously, Responsibly and Accountably.

Nepali Government are weak because of Government employee are corrupt and criminals. Therefore, Indian does whatever they like. Who oppose them.

Nepali Government Officials and Ministers are busy in bribery and corruption Why they care about Nepali Land, water and border?

Students and Public has to push them all to do something.

Link below copy and paste in internet address:

http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/OpenThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=23855

Dam construction threatens villages:

Nepalgunj: As the problem created by construction of a dam by India to prevent the flow of water in the Indian side of the border has not yet been resolved, the local people are a worried lot.

Most of the areas of five village development committees (VDCs) of Banke district are submerged in the rainy season because of the dam constructed by India from Jamunaha Bazaar Barrage to Abdullagunj Jungle in the Indian side.

Thousands of people of the area affected by the dam were evacuated and shifted to a safer place, and the process of shifting has turned out to be an annual event while foodgrains output of the affected area has also declined dramatically.

According to a study carried out by the district irrigation office, Banke, 9,956 people of 1,723 households of the five VDCs have been highly affected and about five thousand people of 856 households have also been affected because of the dam.

The height of the 22 kilometre afflux embankment constructed by India is from two to five meters and the VDCs most affected by it are Gangapur, Holiya, Fattepur, Betahani and Mataihiya.

Though survey on the likely impact of the dam on the Nepalese territory had been undertaken, it has been found that the government of India has not shown concern for the implementation of its findings.

The Nepalese side has been demanding the demolition of the dam constructed arbitrarily and unilaterally by India, but the irrigation office at Bahraich sent a letter seeking discharge of the water from Gandhaili and Sutaiya, it is learnt from the district irrigation office. Chief of the office Rishi Ram Sharma said that as demanded by the Indian side, it has been informed that the total discharge level at Gandhaili and Sutaiya rivulets was 240 cumec.

However, he said that the actual picture of the problem was not clear due to the lack of rains since the last three years.

It is estimated India, which has been claiming all along that the barrage has been constructed eight kilometres away from the Nepal-India border, is planning to construct a bridge over the Gandhaili and Sutaiya canals in order to adjust the water outlet.

Following India?s reluctance to dismantling the barrage, local people living in and around the area have been worried about having to undergo similar agonies as happened to them last year during the monsoon.

Parameshwar Chaudhari of Holiya VDC said that the local people are in a state of anxiety as soon as the sky is overcast with thick black clouds.

It is sad the government, all the year, did not take any initiatives towards resolving the problem, he complained.

Although it is the professed wish of Nepal to dismantle the entire barrage, the local people and technicians concerned believe that half the problem would get solved after arrangements are made to adjust the water outlet from the canals.

Meanwhile, it is learnt that His Majesty?s Government has designated the water-induced disaster prevention and control department to study the entire technical aspects of the Laxmanpur barrage and make necessary arrangements.

Earlier, the district irrigation office had been studying the fallout of the barrage and the water-induced disaster resulting from it.

News from The Rising Nepal.

News Report:

http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishweekly/spotlight/2003/mar/mar28/national3.htm

Photo of constructed India Mahalisagar Dam in Nepal-India border.

Nepal, India Should be Serious on Barrage Issue:

Kathmandu, July 27: A day after a row escalated between Nepal and India on the adverse effects in west Nepal by a barrage constructed unilaterally downstream in India across the Rapti River, Foreign Minister Chakra Prasad Bastola said Thursday the two countries should be serious on such issues.

" Technically, I agree that it can be examined and I only feel that we have to be serious about such incidents.We should not bring in subjective issues," Bastola said in reply to a question " Indian Embassy has dismissed a Parliamentary Committee's report that 33 villages in Banke district have been inundated."

Bastola said this an exclusive interview with The Rising Nepal.

" I have been raising the issue with the Indian Ambassador. We do not have the same information on facts," he said in reply to another question on how far downstream India constructed the dam from the border.

Foreign Minister Bastola reacted angrily Wednesday to a statement by the Indian Embassy that it had neither violated international law nor inundated land in Nepal by constructing the dam. India also came in for criticism in Parliament for statement issued through a press release ahead of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala's visit to India from August 1.

Bastola said he was " dismayed" and wondered " why such a statement came from the Indian government on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to India.The matter is a serious one."
" It is Nepal that is in difficulty, but India insists Nepal has not been affected in any way. Nepal is not prepared to accept that," he said.

" We have been sincerely convincing our neighbours that we will not allow anyone to use our soil against them," Bastola told The Rising Nepal in reply to a question "how Nepal is no threat for it."

News Report Nepalnews

Why India Water Dam is danger and bad for Nepal economy, development and future?

Nepal whole 100% economy depends on (1) Foreign employments 40% (2) Cultivation 30% (3) Tourism 10% (4) Forest 10% (5) Rivers 5% (6) Medicine plants 5%.

Why Nepal flood each year?

Major causes, Indian build water dams and barrages near Nepal borders, therefore, Nepal flood in each year.

Terai (southern flat region) is major land for cultivation. When each year water flood to farming villages and cultivated lands in Nepal, there is No wonder and by the nature of Nepal, Nepal must be a poor nation.


http://www.nrcs.org/nrcs_support_diasaster.html

Does any Nepali Engineers and Politicians have comment on this topic?

What do you have? Tell us here

Nationalist5 Ji,

Nepali Engineers and Politicians are still doing crimes and corruption in Nepal development porjects.

These crooks do not have your answers. They RUN from it.

Dam burst leaves 1500 homeless in Kanchanpur:

News from KOL Report, KATHMANDU, Sept 26.

As many as 1500 people have been displaced in Kanchanpur district Sunday night after a dam on the Mahakali river burst, following two days of incessant rain, reports said.
Most of the displaced belong to Chandani VDC-7 in Syaule bazaar that was inundated by the Mahakali river last night.

The incessant rain and landslides along the main road in Baitadi has also led to the death of one youth identified as Yogendra Bohara and one resident injured.

The Baitadi-Dadeldhura main road section is also reported to be disrupted due to the rainfall and landslides.

More than five-dozen houses were also swept away by the deluge.

According to government authorities more than 28 families have been evacuated and taken to safer places following the inundation of the villages.

A rescue team of security men has been dispatched to the inundated area for relief operations. (hb)

source: http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=52953

------ X --------

note: This was happening since 4 Decades.