India's thirst leaves neighbors gulping

by Dhruba Adhikary

Mahatma Gandhi, the universally-acclaimed personality in which India can genuinely take pride, left behind many gems of wisdom for posterity. One of his thoughts reads as follows: "One who serves his neighbors serves all the world." Unfortunately, it appears that present-day leaders in India care not to be guided by such counsel.

Apart from long-standing rival Pakistan, India's relations with its other neighbors are also not free of conflict. Bangladesh does not have cooperative ties, and the relationship with Nepal, which shares a porous land border of over 1,800 kilometers together with some of the cultural values based on the Hindu religion, remains trouble-prone. Sri Lanka has its own bag of problems, including the Tamil issue, keeping it suspicious about New Delhi's motives in the island nation across the Palk Straits. Bhutan's worries are several, but a 1949 friendship pact prevents it from publicly airing its grievances against New Delhi. The Maldives' position is not strikingly different from that of Bhutan, except from the fact that Bhutan is a landlocked country and the other is a nation surrounded by water from all sides.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that New Delhi's latest initiative to interlink some of the major river systems running through its territory has set off a regional controversy, raising the level of concerns in both Nepal and Bangladesh. Once implemented, this Indian mega project could deprive both of its neighbors of their natural resource: water. Nepal would be prevented from making consumptive use of river water as it would affect the flow downstream in Indian territory, and Bangladesh would find a itself dry if New Delhi went ahead with its plan to dig deep canals on the upper reaches for diverting rivers which have traditionally been the main source of water for Bangladesh. India, meanwhile, wants to enjoy the best of both worlds - from Nepal as a lower riparian country and from Bangladesh as an upper riparian country.

Why should the smaller neighbors grumble if India is geographically well placed to make these gains? Ostensibly, this is a valid contention. But experts as well as members of civil society in Nepal and Bangladesh refuse to be convinced by such an argument. They do not think India alone can take a decision on natural resources, river waters in this case, which belong to a region comprising more than three countries. "This is an example of blatant unilateralism," says Upendra Gautam ,a Nepali independent policy analyst on water resources, citing Indian media reports on this gigantic project New Delhi plans to launch once ongoing feasibility studies are completed by 2005.

Kathmandu and Dhaka, meanwhile, are officially saying that New Delhi has not consulted them thus far about this mega scheme.

The project, estimated to cost over US$118 billion, is primarily expected to provide internal water security to the Indian people living in areas known for water scarcity and water-induced disasters. Besides this, Indian authorities envisage to bring 35-37 million hectares of farmland under irrigation, generate 34 billion kilowatts of electricity, control floods in flood-prone states and also enhance the country's navigational efficiency. India appears to have been inspired by China's south-north water diversion project which is being carried out at the expenditure of $60 billion.

According to Indian newspapers, chairman Suresh Prabhu of the government-appointed task force entrusted with feasibility studies has already been confronting native environmentalists who are opposed to the construction of large dams and embankments. Since Indian laws have made water a subject to be dealt with by individual states, the process of consultations on this federal initiative is visibly slow.

"On the eve of elections, this is an issue no state government is ready to take up," said The Hindu , a prominent Indian newspaper, recently.

Anyhow, if the Indian parliamentary elections in April and May return the incumbent coalition led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, the task force on the interlinking of rivers may expedite work for the project which was first mooted in 1982.

The project in question has two components; the first one includes 14 Himalayan river links in India's north. The second component is to have 16 peninsular river links in India's south. The Himalayan river links are the Ganga and Brahmaputra-fed component in which Nepal, the upper riparian country in the Ganga basin, is the major contributor. This ground reality does not permit India to ignore or bypass a neighbor which provides a perennial source of water from its snow-fed rivers.

"Nepal ... hence [is] a necessary partner in any large-scale water management plans," Indian diplomat Salman Haidar, former foreign secretary, admitted in an article published by The Statesman newspaper.

Bangladesh faces a worse scenario. If the mighty Brahmaputra river, which originates in Tibet and is known there as Yarlung Zangbo, is diverted to a west-bound canal before it reaches Bangladesh, the ecology of the entire area including that of the Sunderbans would be adversely affected and desertification would ensue.

"It is going to bring a calamity of unthinkable proportions," says Bangladeshi minister for water resources, Hafiz Uddin Ahmad, who visited Nepal in January. Water management is a question of life and death for this country, the economy of which is dependent on 54 major rivers flowing through it. There is a bilateral agreement with India only on one river, the Ganges. Responding to Bangladesh's concerns on the river-linking project, says Ahmad, New Delhi has told Dhaka that only a preliminary study was being conducted and that no decision was being taken in a hurry. But anxiety persists in Dhaka, and it wants Kathmandu to play its crucial role prudently so that the joint efforts of India, Bangladesh and Nepal can control floods and utilize river waters for the benefits of all three countries and the secretariat of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, located in Kathmandu, could act as a facilitator.

Bangladesh also wants Nepal to simultaneously look into the possibility of constructing storage dams within its territory to help a regulated flow of water to downstream areas.

But India's commitment to - and interest in – regional cooperation has usually been less than encouraging. New Delhi's priority has usually remained on agreements at the bilateral level, proven by the number of pacts it has concluded in recent years.

Experiences have shown that Indians find it easier to exert pressure on individual neighbors when the deal is on a one-on-one basis - be that with Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal or Sri Lanka.

The other striking Indian trend is characterized by its persistence to enter into crucial negotiations whenever a neighbor is politically weak and unstable. Nepal's current situation is a case in point. King Gyanendra, though he usurped power by sacking an elected government in October 2002, is not in an enviable position as his regime continues to face Maoist insurgency as well as a pro-democracy movement - jointly launched by five political parties.

Intriguingly, New Delhi has found it expedient to push through its pending proposals on water resources, including the one on the Karnali river, when Nepal's parliament stands dissolved. The kingdom's democratic constitution, drawn up in 1990, stipulates that agreements which entail the sharing of natural resources with other countries need to be ratified by the parliament with a two-thirds majority. (Parliament was prematurely dissolved in May 2002 though its five-year term would have ended only in mid-April this year.)

The latest Indian activities, contends analyst Gautam, aim at circumventing Nepal's rights over its own water resources. Several of the country's newspapers have already printed editorial comments critical of Indian moves. Available reports and trends suggest that India wants Nepal to follow the model Bhutan offers. This essentially means Nepal should recognize India as the one and only developer which takes part in activities right from the planning stage to the distribution phase. In other words, if Nepal adopts the Bhutan model, then it would effectively deprive itself from the chances of entering into partnership with, and receiving assistance from, friendly countries other than India. Water experts in Kathmandu are confident that Nepal can develop several small and medium-sized hydro-power projects on its own. But, in India's view, Nepal needs only electricity (for domestic consumption and for export) which does not require the consumptive use of water.

The amount of farmland which Nepal possesses is limited, hence does not, so goes the Indian argument, need water for irrigation. Indian diplomat Salman Haider, who previously served as his country's ambassador to Bhutan, contends that it is only India which needs water for consumptive purposes. Nepali experts see in this assertion a linkage between the Bhutan model and India's river-linking project.

In its bid to establish assured access to river water for India's vast agricultural land in both its northern and southern provinces, New Delhi is said to apparently be ignoring its commitments made through international forums as well as its responsibility to the South Asian region. It also has left questions related to climate, environment and earthquakes in this vast area unanswered.

"We still do not fully understand the ecosystem and river systems of the region," Jayanta Bandhopadhyaya, a professor with expertise on water at the Indian Institute of Management in Kolkata, told a newspaper recently. In his perception, the floods in the Himalayan foothills and adjoining plains are the result of a complex ecological process, and much of it is not yet fully understood. Indians who take interest in water issues but are not in favor of the interlinking project include 91-year-old Dinshaw JDastur, who is known for his "garland canal scheme".

"The interlinking of rivers is purely a scheme made to benefit various bureaucrats and politicians," Dastur told an Indian journal, Business World, recently. Nepali geologist, Tanka Ojha, concurs with assessments based on science. "Tempering with the natural river systems can pose a danger to the region," the Kathmandu Post daily has quoted him as saying.

The Himalayan region stretches across 2,500 kilometers with a width of between 150 and 200 kilometers. And in the center of the Himalayans lies in Nepal.

"Humanity needs water for a hundred reasons," emphasizes Indian writer V R Krishna Iyer, "so civilized progress is inconceivable without potable water." The message in this statement is pithy, especially in the context of Bangladesh, which is already suffering from arsenic content in its ground water.

Will Dhaka remain a silent spectator in the event of New Delhi implementing its scheme? "No, not at all," is the answer of minister Ahmad, a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party government. Whether India will listen, however, is an entirely different matter.

Maoist Insurgency: Politico-Historical, Socio-Cultural, and Economic Implications - III

By D.B. Gurung

Some authoritative British historians have argued that Nepal suffered the highest per capita combatant casualties of all the nations in the world during World War II, although it was neither invaded by a foreign enemy, nor was it circumstantially engaged in the war. Given the population of the indigenous nationalities of Nepal recruited in the British armed forces, the losses will appear in their truly staggering proportions. These marginalized natives were mercilessly devastated. Worse, the Gurkha casualty figures, since 1814, have never been made known publicly, and the government of Nepal never ever showed any concern regarding the loss of its so many productive citizens. It is evident from their deeds that there were attempts by the malevolent rulers to wipe out the entire race of the ethnic janajati, the Gurkhas. But that is history. And now who can tell what the future has in store for the Kham Magar of Rolpa and Rukum, who have been the hardcore fighters of the Maoist guerillas/militia, and whose home has become the epicenter of the insurgency?

The Magar, who collectively constitute about 7.2 per cent of the country’s population, are the largest ethnic janajati group and are the direct descendants of the legendary Gurkha (Gorkha) warriors. It is an established fact that the strength and sustenance of the Maoist "people’s war" chiefly resides in the martial spirit of the ethnic janajati, who have a significant share in the Maoist movement, together with the madhesi, dalit, non-Hindus and women. Moreover, the engagement of ex-Gurkha veterans in the People’s War has been highly advantageous to the Maoists. The Maoist march has been made at the cost of Magar blood, just like the conquest of "great Nepal" by Prithivi Narayan Shah, to echo a critic’s version.

None of the incoming governments have been able to bring roads to those remote regions, or dent the dreadful levels of illiteracy and rural poverty, let alone provide electricity or development in any sector worth the name. Nevertheless, the people never failed to pay taxes and even offered their lives whenever demanded. Apart from eking out a living from the dry mountains and herding, they had no choice but to become mercenaries. As one analyst remarks, the possibility of the discontent born of chronic and acute social deprivations exploding into violence can hardly be ignored. A violent uprising was almost inevitable viewing the overall deteriorated scenario of the country, as a strong metaphor of "historic incompetence" of Nepal’s rulers, both military and political, in ruling a multiethnic nation, that finally graveled the path for guerilla insurrection. As a consequence of this ruthless war, the human and financial costs have been staggering, practically reducing Nepal to a failed state.

Insurgency in Nepal has a series of implications, including ideological, economic, social, and even of geo-political dimensions. The roots of this violent upheaval can be traced back to the Panchayat era (needless to mention the "ebony era" the nation went through during the Rana regime), when all kinds of development dramas melted away into a series of fiascoes. In the late 1960s and 1970s the country went through a critical phase marked by absolute poverty and institutionalized corruption. The sole aim of the government was directed toward sustaining the Panchayat regime, which took precedence over all other values and objectives, and the gulf between the majority poor and the minority of privileged classes and groups who reaped benefits from the system became intolerable. As a backlash, popular protests burst out across the country throughout the 1980s, organized by lower-echelon professionals, students, unemployed youths, intelligentsia, and civil society, which culminated in a nationwide Popular Movement against the medieval-style feudalistic regime, ultimately bringing it down on its knees for good in 1990.

Since its birth, Nepal has been a highly centralized state, with a rich minority and poor majority sharing the same territory; it has been a near impossible place to co-exist in. Our economy is still being yoked by traditional feudal entities and ruling elites, thus leading to deep-seated inequalities in the distribution of wealth and power. The majority of the Nepali people are economically handicapped. A Nepali baby is born with a crushing debt on its back. Nepal simply cannot afford to fight a war. Apart from the escalation of associated insecurities and uncertainties, recently the Nepali people are being imposed with new economic burdens, such as the accelerated military expenditure and the extraordinary royal spending. The requisite for creative and critical questioning has never been efficient.

Even after the seizure of all executive powers by King Gyanendra through the constitutional coup of October 4, 2002, there has been no miracle of any significant change or progress in any sector. One precious year has gone amiss. Peace-talks failed: the "hope" of millions shattered. What we saw over the last one year is not "development" of any sort, but all those Panchayati remnants who enjoy little or no popular support taking the reins of government again, jumping in one after another trying to make a difference in vain. In fact, the people are fallen into an abyss of a great dilemma in history, as there is a dearth of credibility to trust any of the three forces - the political leaders, the Maoists, and the monarch. The political leaders for their corrupt instinct and incapability, the Maoists for their bloodcurdling politics, and the monarch for fallibility and lack of total legitimacy, which is directly connected with the royal massacre factor.

Are we again making our way toward another partyless political regime? Not so fast. Eqbal Ahmed affirms: "A regime unwilling to satisfy popular aspirations begins to lose legitimacy. Coercion increasingly becomes its primary instrument of assuring obedience; "law and order" becomes the favorite phrase of its governing groups. The revolutionary forces deliberately activate this process" (Thapa 2003b: v). Contextually, Ahmed sounds true in Nepal’s prevailing politics. The King’s adamant stance in rebuffing the popular aspirations of the people has further damaged the already tainted institution of monarchy. The King is best suited to continue as a constitutional monarch, nothing more. Prince Philip of Britain said less in riddle than in earnest, "To survive, monarchy must change," whereas his son Prince Charles opined, "After all, if people don’t want it, they won’t have it," and continued that this simple truth makes monarchy "a kind of elective institution" (Holden: 164-65). In Nepal, we never heard such esteemed royal proclamations! What we hear once a while with a recurrent monotony is "multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy" and, ironically, both are non-existent at this hour in reality.(To be Concluded)

(Courtesy: Book: Conflicts, Human Rights & Peace: Challenges Beforre Nepal, Editor: Bipin Adhikari, Publisher NHRC, Nepal)

Headline | Opinion | Dateline | 5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Past