Nepal-India Relations
Water Resources’ Issues

By Hiranya Lal Shrestha

WATER resources issue was introduced in Nepal-India relations, when an agreement was signed on the Sarada Barrage in 1920. Sarada Barrage is the earliest water resource treaty ever signed in South Asia. After that treaty, Koshi Agreement was signed in 1954, Gandak Agreement was signed in 1959 and the Mahakali Treaty was signed in 1996. In 1985, Nepal-India Joint Standing Committee to solve inundation problem in the border areas was constituted. Notwithstanding this, a large tract of Nepalese territory in Banke District has been inundated now owing to Laxmanpur Barrage and Rapti Embankment. There are several issues like the sharing of water, determining lower riparian benefits, systematising power trade, implemen-tation of Strictures on Mahakali passed concurrently with the Mahakali Treaty, solution of the problems of inundation and the opening of alternative waterways are inter-linked with water resources issues coming under the gamut of Nepal-India relations.

Water Sharing

According to the treaty on Sarada Barrage, India is to get 14,000 cusecs of water whereas Nepal is to get 460 cusecs. The ratio of the share between Nepal and India is 3: 97. According to Koshi Agreement India is to get 23,000 cusecs of water whereas Nepal is to get 1600 cusecs. In this treaty, the ratio of the share of water between India and Nepal is 6.5: 93.5. According to Gandak Agreement India is to get 29,000 cusecs whereas Nepal is to get 850 cusecs of water. In this treaty, the ratio of the share between Nepal and India is 3: 97. In this way, the unequal distribution of water between Nepal and India has created an adverse reaction in Nepal at public level. Under people’s pressure, some amendments are found to have been made in Nepal’s favour in the Koshi and Gandak Treaties in 1966. The amended version of the Koshi Agreement allowed Nepal the right to use as much water as she needed. With regard to Gandak agreement, a provision was made requiring Nepal to make a separate arrangement with India to divert the water of the Gandaki River during the dry season from February to May. It would have been fine if the Gandak Agreement had also incorporated provisions similar to those included in the amended Koshi Agreement.

The use of the term "common rivers" by Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, the Prime Minister of the Interim Government, formed after the restoration of democracy had startled the Nepalese people. Later, during the first General Election, the main opposition publicly took issue with the concept of ‘common rivers.’ Indian Water Resources Minister V. P. Sukla, during his visit to Nepal, tried to console the Nepalese people by saying that Nepal would be given priority in the use of water flowing down the Nepalese rivers. However, some differences have been noted in the Indian and Nepalese interpretation of the sharing of water in Mahakali Treaty. In fact, Nepal and India should have equal share of water from border rivers like Mahakali and Mechi whereas Nepal should have the right to use as much water as she needs from other rivers in Nepal.

Down Stream Benefits: When multi-purpose projects based on high dam reservoirs are built in Nepal, it is natural for her to demand payment for down stream benefits. The regulated water acquired from high dam reservoirs by investing a huge amount of money is value added water. The countries reaping benefits from this water should pay to the country providing that benefit to them. Such multipurpose projects not only generate power, they also provide down stream benefits such as flood control, irrigation, drinking water, operation of waterways and other conveniences. If the concerned countries are weak in water diplomacy, there is a risk of other countries making use of them for gratis. The evaluation of down stream benefits and the mode of payment should be determined through bilateral dialogue and in reference with international prece-dence. It should be kept in mind that there is qualitative difference between the run-of-the-river and high dam multi-purpose projects.

Power Trade: An Electric Power Trade Agreement was signed by Nepal’s Water Resources Minister of State Rajiv Parajuli and India’s Minister of State for Water Resources Benu Gopalachari in 1997. It will be desirable to get the agreement ratified only in accordance with Article 126 (2) of the Constitution and after an all party consultation including experts of the field, necessary review and amendment. The Clause 3 of the Agreement has linked the electric power trade with survey, construction, installation , operation and production instead of relating it only with power export business. This will lead to control of Nepal’s natural resources by other countries in the name of trade.

According to the power trade agreement made with India, the private sector will be engaged in producing electricity in accordance with the demand and desire of India. It will lead to mobilization of Nepalese resources in accordance with the Indian priority whereas 85 % of the Nepalese people have not yet been able to benefit from the electricity. On the other hand, Nepal would reap more benefits from the competition among the buying countries, if clauses were incorporated in the agreement to transfer electricity to the third country, say Bangladesh, by using the Indian transmission grid on payment of ‘wheeling charges’ to India. Since most of the projects capable of exporting electricity are based on high dam reservoirs, they should not be sanctioned without ascertaining the down stream benefits. Voices have been raised on the possibility of the Article 126 (2) of the constitution becoming paralysed if the Electric Power Trade Agreement is ratified as it is.

Stricture on Mahakali Treaty: The Mahakali Treaty was the result of a search for the way out from Tanakpur imbroglio. It became a necessity when the Parliament and the Court did not let Prime Minister Girija Parasad Koirala get round Article 126 (2) of the Constitution even after some amendments in the Tanakpur Treaty, which he had initially tried to pass off as an understanding and not a treaty. At the initiative of Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukharjee, a consensus was hammered out on the Mahakali Treaty between the ruling and the opposition parties of Nepal. Though some lawmakers voted against and some others abstained registering their note of dissent, the Mahakali Treaty was ratified with a two-third majority of the Parliament. At the same time, a stricture was unanimously passed in the parliament incorporating points such as sharing the water of the Mahakali on equal basis, representation of all the national parties in the Mahakali Commission, determination of the price of electricity generated from the Pancheshwor Project on the basis of avoided cost principle etc. This stricture is an unavoidable responsibility of His Majesty’s Government, but a com-plication has emerged because of non-acceptance of the same by the Indian Government.

Despite the preliminary arrangement to complete Detailed Project Report (DPR) within six months, it is nowhere near completion even after four years of the agreement. India is planning to make a re-regulating dam at Purnagiri which is likely to cause a large fertile tract of Nepalese territory to get inundated. Nepal, on the other hand, has proposed making such a dam at Rupaligad which is likely to bring less Indian and Nepalese land under water. It is not unnatural for both the countries to try to promote their national interest to the maximum. But a problem of maintaining balance of interest for both the countries remains unsolved.

Problem of Inundation: It is not unnatural for Nepal and India to have a short term inundation problem due to a sudden increase in the volume of flow in river systems due to heavy rain. But it is imprudent and inimical to try to protect oneself, increase irrigable area by building dams and narrow embankment at the cost of submerging the populated areas of a neighbouring country, that too without pre-information. India has created such inundation problems in 30 to 35 places including in Banke and Rautahat districts. A joint standing committee has been in existence since 1985 for solving the inundation problem through joint efforts. But it has not been activated in a fruitful and effective manner. India has been continuing to make ring-dams and embankments close to Nepalese borders in violation of international law and construction works are continuing even in no-man’s-land causing adverse effects to the interest of Nepal.

All the political parties and the Parliamentary committees have expressed concern over the inundation problem along the Rapti River in Banke district. His Majesty’s Government has requested the Indian Government from various levels to stop that. But India has yet to take any concrete steps to mitigate the damage. An immediate high level negotiation should be held in this regard. Technical rectification should be started to mitigate the problem of inundation of the Nepalese territory, even if it means lowering the height of the dams or widening the area of water accumulation within Indian territory. If the problem cannot be solved by these methods, status quo ante should be restored, demolishing the dams. If need be, pressure should be created for justice even at the cost of internationalising the issue.

River Navigation: Rivers are the great natural highways linking seas. There is an abundance of possibility of navigation in big rivers of Nepal like Koshi, Karnali and Gandaki. International status should be granted to rivers like Ganges and the Bramhaputra. The use of waterways to go to sea should be guaranteed for land-locked country Nepal as her transit right. The operation of water transport is comparatively cheaper than airways, railways and even surface roads.

Nepal should immediately hold dialogue with India on the use of Water transport making necessary arrangement concerning the route, station, lock system, diversion at dam sites and the construction of bridges maintaining enough height not to obstruct water transport etc. India has been procrastinating since 1954 saying that it was undertaking studies in this regard. The situation brooks no further delay in this regard.

Conclusion:

Apart from the above mentioned major issues regarding the use of water resources, there are also other irritants between Nepal and India. India has tried, to obstruct the assistance from international financial institutions and donor countries for Babai and Kankai Irrigation Projects. It is because of Indian pressure that these institutions require Nepal to submit a no objection letter from India as and when she asks financial help for irrigation projects. But it is difficult to understand why these institutions did not deem it necessary to ask a no objection letter from Nepal while granting financial assistance from Projects like Laxmanpur Barrage and other irrigation projects near Nepalese borders. India should, therefore, withdraw the obstructions it has created in allowing Nepal to make a maximum use of her water resources with external assistance. If India has been using more water out of the Nepalese share, she should not take it as her rights. She should view it from the concept of ‘water-loan’ or ‘water–banking’ and become ready to provide water to Nepal from other points where she needs most. We should also set about creating conditions for the irrigation of maximum area of cultivable land of Nepal by giving priority to Projects like Babai diversion and Sunkoshi-Kamala diversion. An east-west irrigation canal should also be constructed at the foot-hills of the Chure Range in a phase-wise manner. In order to put the Nepal-India relations on a correct and cordial footing, we should move ahead maintaining a balance of interest in the use of water resources.