CHAPTER III. Indo-Nepal Transboundary Waters: Disputes And Cooperative Efforts

Transcription

1 CHAPTER III Indo-Nepal Transboundary Waters: Disputes And Cooperative Efforts Nepal is a landlocked country in South Asia, bordered by China to North and India to the south, east and west. It is located between latitudes 26 22'N-30 27'N and longitudes 80 4'E-88 12'E. Nepal extends 885 km along the east west with an average width of 193 kilometers along the north south. The country, covering a total area of 147,480 square kilometers, has very diverse physical characteristics in its topography, climate, geology and land use system. Nepal is predominantly mountainous, with three broad ecological zones i.e. the Terai plains, Churia hills and High mountains (Middle and Greater Himalaya), covering respectively about 18, 58 and 24 per cent of the total land area. The Terai region is an extension of the Indo Gangetic plain, which is underlain by fertile soil mantle. Adjacent to the Terai in its north, rising abruptly, lies the Churia hill ranges. Its average elevation ranges between / 300 m to 500 m. North of Churia lies Mahabharat range (part of middle Himalaya) with rugged terrain, deep valleys and incised rivers. On the North lies the Himalayan range whose elevation rises above 4000 mts. Each region has distinct characteristics, which influences the availability of water resources. Drainage System of Nepal Nepal's dra~nage system consists of four major river basins seven smaller basins and several smaller sub basins. The first group of rivers has their sources in the snow and glaciers, in the dry season. The Mahakali, the Karnali, the Gandaki and the Sapt Kosi are four rivers in the first category. The second group of rivers originates in the middle mountains, which are mostly rainfed and have low dry season. Bagmati, West Rapti, 80

2 Mechi, Kankai, Kamala and Babai are the rivers in the second category. Rivers in the third category originate in Churia, southern face of the Mahabharat, or in the Terai. These rivers have small catchment areas. Tilawe, Sirsia Hardinath, Sunsari and Banganga are some of the rivers in this group. The major river basins of Nepal are transboundary in nature and form the upper catchment of Ganges system. (1) Mahakali River Basin: The Mahakali River is the major nver of this basin. It forms the western international border of Nepal with India. Starting from Api-himal the river flows in a gorge section in the upper region. The Mahakali after it flows into India is known as Sharda, which meets the Karnali (Ghaghra) in Indian territory. The river basin has a total drainage area of 15,640 km2, about 34per cent of which lies in Nepal. (2) Karnali River Basin: The Karnali river basin drains Nepal's western region. The Seti and Bheri are the two major tributaries, contributing to its water resources. The total catchment area within Nepal is estimated to be 41550km2. (3) Gandaki Rive~asin: The Gandaki basin also known as Sapt Gandaki basin has a catchment area of 36000km2 with an additional area of approximately 4600km2 of Tibet being drained by tributaries of Kali Gandaki, Burhi Gandaki and Trishuli rivers. The basin is located along with central alignment of the Himalayas with intrusions into Indus-Tsangpo Plateau to north and extending to the Ganges Brahmaputra plain to the South.l (4) Kosi River Basin: The Sapt Kosi is the biggest river of Nepal. It drains the region lying east of Gosainsthan and west of Kanchanjunga. The Kamal Rijal, "Role of Nepalese Water Resources for Meeting Energy Needs in South Asia," in Sridhar K. Khatri [ed.] Energy Policy: National and Regional Implications, NEFAS Publication, Kathmandu, 2002, p. 95. Ql

3 total drainage area of the nver basin is 60,400 km2 of which 47 percent lies in the Nepal's territory. Sun Kosi, Arun, Indrawati, Dudh Kosi are the major rivers of the basin. All these large and small rivers give rise to about 6,000 rivers to totaling about 45,000 km in length. The drainage density of 0.3 km/km2 of lateral drainage reflects the closeness of the drainage channels. Surface water is estimated to occupy 2.7 per cent of the country's area of which 97 per cent is occupied by large rivers.2 The entire area of Nepal lies within the Ganges drainage basins. A dominant feature of Nepals water resource, however, is that even though Nepal occupies 13 percent of the total drainage of the Ganges basin its contribution to the flow of Ganges river is much more significant, amounting to about 45 percent to its average annual flow at Farakka barrage. In the dry seasons, Nepals contribution to the total run off is as much as 70 percent. Water Resources: Nepal's Critical Resources The water resource is the most important natural resources of Nepal, which can form the base of its sustainable economic development and prosperity. These resources are plentiful, annually renewable and environmentally safe to be exploited. The development of water resources can be harnessed for the benefit of people primarily to meet the steadily growing demands of agricultural and industrial growth, domestic water supply and energy. The beneficial effects also concern waterway transportation, recreation, mitigation of damage caused by floods etc. Water resources projects are often considered as playing vital role in ensuring social a~d economic development of the country. Increasing populations demand for more water, food and energy will inevitably lead 2 Bhekh B. Thapa and Bharat B. Pradhan, Water Resources Development: Nepalese Perspective, Konark Publishers, New Delhi, 1995, p

4 to an accelerated development and extensive utilisation of water resource in the future. Though the water resources are m abundance, Nepal is seriously handicapped in their utilisation and management through indigenous efforts. Nepal's major problem has been lack of capital and technological resources. Large scale water resource development projects require huge capital investments and sophisticated technologies. The Nepalese government has given high priority to the water sector in its investments plans. During the Eighth Plan period, the government expected to spend 37 percent of the total public development expenditure in the water sector; 10.5 percent in irrigation, 21 per cent in hydropower, 5.5 percent in drinking water. But the government was able to find money for only 73 percent of the targeted expenditure in the power sector. The resources required to launch even a medium sized hydroelectric project are so large that Nepal has not been able to meet it from its present available resources. Therefore Nepal has to seek external assistance for this purpose. Nepal has not been able to effectively utilise its domestic resource inputs like labour, materials and management expertise in its water projects. Further, most of the attractive water resources development sites are not easily accessible. For the development of these sites, the additional costs of access roads need to be incurred to connect them with existing transportation network. Because of lack of accessibility, numerous ideal sites for water resources development cannot be tapped. Nepal Water Resource Development: India's Role Within the Ganga- Brahmaputra basin, Nepal and North Ganges plain lie geographically juxtaposed. The sinews of numerous transboundary river courses interweave the boundaries of Nepal and India, tying up their destiny. 83

5 The Ganges basin of India compnsmg of Uttar Pradesh, North Bihar, Uttaranchal and parts of West Bengal has almost all the rivers not only originating in Nepal but also having considerable catchment areas lying in Nepal. The region is characterized by low agricultural productivity, poverty, energy deficit, flood hazards, frequent droughts, water logging etc., even though there is ample fertile land, groundwater, surface water and large manpower. This paradox can be resolved and regional imbalance can be removed by effective management of water resource. 3 Interdependence and complimentarity: There 1s relation of geographical interdependences and economic complementarities between the water resources development aspects of India and Nepal. Nepal has large hydroelectricity generation potential. The demand for and consumption of electricity in Nepal is likely to grow at a rate much slower than what its hydropower potential implies. 4 Nepal therefore prefers to view its water resources more as a source of export earnings. On the other hand India has been suffering from power shortage for quite some time with constraint of energy becoming acute every year. The excess hydroelectricity power generated in Nepal may be sold to India. The availability of power in India would enhance the use of ground water for irrigation. The development of water and power resources in Nepal would meet the growing power and irrigation water needs in Nepal and would also bring in revenues from power sales to India. While Nepal can exploit a number of medium and mini schemes to meet its domestic power requirements the more exciting projects that could deliver huge blocks of energy at low cost must find a market in India or through it too Bangladesh. Hydropower represents a renewable source of wealth for Nepal, for it could export this power to India and invest the proceeds in 3 T. Prasad "Water Resources as a Factor in India Nepal Relations" Indian Journal of Nepal Studies, Vol. V and Vol. VI, , pp The Rising Nepal, 13 May 1983, p

6 its own further development and prosperity.s Further, bound by the mighty Himalaya on its north, Nepal is a landlocked country with access to world only through its long southern boundary with India. Nepal can develop inland navigation to approach the waterways of India finally having access to seaports of Indian Ocean for development of trade and commerce. For India, dependence on Nepal in the matter of water resources management and utilisation emanates primarily from hydrology. As Nepal is the upstream country optimum and efficient measures of water resource development can in many cases be taken only in Nepal. The construction of reservoirs/dams in Nepal would help controlling flooding and sedimentation in Bihar, West Bengal. Heavy siltation caused by rivers tumbling down from hills to Ganges basin causes ecological damage and reduce the effective life of irrigation projects downstream. Afforestation in upper catchment areas of Nepal is essential for watershed management measures in common basins of India and Nepal. Expansion and management of irrigation facilities in the Ganges basin in India requires cooperation from Nepal. The in-country options that India may adopt or have adopted in past such as embankments for flood controls, surface irrigation through barrages, dredging for increasing channel depth will prove and have proved, grossly inadequate and even counter productive in some cases. Soil conservation and reforestation in the upper catchment could help check erosion, assure fuel, fodder and food security, deter out migration and provide ecological storage by encouraging infiltration and moderating runoff thus evening out stream flows year around. Thus there is complete interdependence between India and Nepal in the matter of water resources. The relation is highly prospective because of both immensity and complimentarity of benefits, and can provide the 5 B.G. Verghese "Learning to Say Open Sesame" in David J. Eaton [ed.] The Ganges Brahmaputra Basin: Water resource Cooperation between Nepal, India and Bangladesh, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Publication, Austin, 1992, p

7 basis for more coherence and cooperation in all other spheres such as in political, social and economic interactions. Policy Planning in Retrospect Although the potential for water resources development between India and Nepal is considerable, the cooperation between these two countries on the issues related to water has not been easy and forthcoming, in particular because of the extreme sensitivities and divergent interests and approaches of the political parties. The two neighbours, in spite of this mutual interest, have found it difficult to cooperate with each other in developing the Himalaya water resources. Their bilateral relations have been heavily influenced by politics; marked by emphasis on historical wrongs (real and perceived), failure in understanding each other sensitivities and interest, aggressive posture, negative approach, inward looking dynamics of the faction of the political actors in both countries. To appreciate the ramification of the problems with water resources between two countries, it is imperative to acknowledge the political underpinnings of their bilateral relations. India and Nepal have a long historical, cultural and political relations. The political relation was formally regularized in the form of Peace Treaty m 1815, between British India and Nepal. After India gained independence, the two countries signed a new Treaty of Peace and Friendship m July The India Nepal Treaty of Friendship was predicated m the idea that India and Nepal shared permanently intertwined destinies. With this in mind Pandit Nehru, facilitated the process of modernization and development of Nepal very early, offering advice on social programmes and helping draft a democratic constitution. The approach was sincere and well intentioned, with an underlying assumption that Nepal's interests were in unbreakable harmony with India. 6 6 Jagat S. Mehta, "Opportunity Costs of Delay in Water Resource Management between Nepal India and Bangladesh," in David J. Eaton (ed.] The Ganges Brahmaputra Basin, Lyndon. B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, Austin, 1992, p

8 Pundit Nehru had a vision to jointly utilise water of some of Himalayan Rivers. In a joint communique issued at the end of his visit to Nepal on 14 June, 1959, it was pointed out that the "geographical contiguity of the two countries, however makes it inevitable that certain development projects can be best planned and executed by the joint endeavors of the two countries". Nehru ji apparently referred towards the cooperation between the two countries for the development of river waters. It will be a partial view to analyse the India's 1950 Treaty with Nepal and development assistance only in the light of security considerations, which became important in 1949 when China asserted its rights over Tibet and Nepal emerged as crucial buffer state between China and India. The effort towards the exploitation of Himalaya river water, to meet the needs of irrigation, flood and sedimentation control, had begun even before India's independence. The British Government of India had exchanged letters with its Nepalese counter parts in 1920 for the construction of a barrage in the river Mahakali at Banbassa bordering the present Mahendra Nagar of Nepal and a power station at Khatima. To help the construction, Nepal offered to give land of her territory in a chunk ( acres) and got in return the pieces near different parts of her territory.7 Nepal also received right of drawing the water, minimum of 400 cusecs and a maximum of 1000 cusecs from the Sarda canal for the purpose of irrigation. Some initiatives were taken in order to launch other mutually beneficial water resources projects, but concrete development took place only after Indian independence. In post 1950 situation, the Kosi project became the first development project on an international river presented as mutually benefiting both India and Nepal.B It is a multipurpose scheme that includes flood control, hydropower generation and irrigation. 7 Ramesh Prasad Koirala, SAARC: Nepal's Role in Collective Utilization of its Water Resources, The Team Publications, Kathmandu, 1990, p U.K. Verma, "Socia Economic Renaissance Through Dynamic Indo Nepal Cooperation on Water Resources Development", Water Nepal, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1994, p

9 The Kosi Project The Kosi, Nepal's largest transboundary river originates in Tibet and has drainage area of 92,538 km2 The Kosi basin is 270 km North-West, South-East long and about 145 km North East & South West wide with a catchment area of about 25,000 sq. km3. 9 Downstream it causes devastating floods in north Bihar Plain of India, thus also called "the Sorrow of Bihar". Historically, the idea of taping the waters of the Kosi had been discussed in India as early as But because of the absence of serious feasibility studies no immediate decision was made. Though the problem of flood and shifting tendency of the river course has been engaging the attention of engineers since long, work of surveys and investigation for the purpose of preparing a project was taken up in the year As a result of these surveys, a multipurpose scheme envisaging construction of (i) a dam at Barakeshetra of a height of 235 mt to impound 0.85 Mham in the reservoir, and (ii) a barrage at Chatra with canals offtaking from both sides to annually irrigate lakh hectare in India and Nepal was prepared. However, after further investigations and series of discussions among experts, the erstwhile Central Water and Power Commission formulated a project in 1953, which envisaged construction of (i) a barrage at Hanuman Nagar at a distance of 48 kms. below Chatra to serve as a controlling structure and to provide gradient control in the steep reach of the river below Chatra, (ii) flood embankments on either side of the river to confine it in its existing course, and (iii) canals on eastern side to provide irrigation in India and Nepal. An agreement was signed between the Government of India and HMG Nepal in April 1959 envisaging the construction of a barrage on Kosi and other components of the Kosi project C.K. Sharma, Treatise on Water Resource of Nepal, Sangeeta Sharma Publication, Kathmandu 1997, p IO P.C. Rawat, India Nepal Economic Relations, National Publishing House, New Delhi, 1974, p II Cooperative Development of India-Nepal Water Resources: Theme Paper For Two Day Work Shop 29-30, May 1992, Centre for Water Resources Studies, East Patna, 1992, p

10 Though, the Kosi project was envisaged as a multipurpose project, the immediate emphasis was on flood control benefits and to reduce the recurrent flood devastation in the two countries. For this purpose an 1150-meter barrage was built in Bhimnagar, 5 kms. upstream of Hanuman Nagar (8 km inside Nepal). 12 The barrage over the Kosi intended to serve as a gradient control measure for controlling the meandering behaviour of the river, minimise the erosion of soil and deposition of silt. The diversion was constructed to feed the two canals, which took off from either side of the barrage. The canal system were planned to irrigate lands in India and Nepal. The Eastern Main Canal lies entirely in the Indian territory. It provides irrigation to 612,500 hectares of agricultural land in India. A powerhouse with an installed capacity of 4 units of 5000 KW each is located along the canal at a distance of 11 km from the barrage and generate power by making use of the head drop of the canal. Nepal is entitled to use 50 per cent of the electricity generated by any power house situated within a 10 mile radius of the Kosi barrage but must pay for the right t? use this power at a price fixed by mutual consent.13 The Western Main Canal passes through a distance of 35 km in Nepal before entering the Indian territory. This canal provides, irrigation water to 11,300 hectare of agricultural land in Nepal and 356,610 hectare of agricultural land in India. Flood control works in Nepal consists of a Western afflux bund about 12 km long and a 40 km. embankment along the eastern bank of the river. Extensive embankments, about 220 km long are constructed on either side of the river in the Indian territory to confine river flow and protect land beyond from the flood disaster. The Barrage and the Eastern Main Canal were completed in 1962.The construction of Westem Main Canal was taken up in 1972 and was put into use in Aditya Man Shrestha, Bleeding Mountains of Nepal, Ekta Books, Kathmandu, 1999, p n. 2, p

11 Map 3 The Kosi River Basin 86" KOSI RIVER BASIN 88' 0 SELECTED CITIES 29-27"- - 27" 0 Birutnouar -- 26'' Kilometers r ( ) ) I \ r,. I ' 0 McJ<lhul><mi \ I ) ( f',, ~I INDIA l ~ ORanjganj I \ \ l l "o Purnea I _p Kutihur I (/) LU z <( co 86" 88'

12 Nepal's Contention Over the Project Soon after the conclusion of Kosi Treaty, 1954, it was severely criticised by the opposition political parties in Nepal. The critics assessed that the project did not benefit Nepal. The conclusion of the Treaty was specifically objected that it had given extraterritorial rights to India for an indefinite period, without obtaining adequate compensation and benefits from the project. It was also alleged that Nepal had to loose its fertile land without equivalent gains in exchanges of it. 14 It was also voiced in certain quarters that the scheme was actually designed for the furtherance of India's own interest and the well-being of Nepalese does not given proper attention. The Indian officials working on the project were criticised for their interference in the internal affairs of Nepal and demands were raised for their removal from the project work. The opposition focused on two clauses that restricted the use of water above the project site and the ownership of the acquired land. The loss of control over the land was interpreted as a loss of Nepal's "sovereignty''. Some political organization accused Matrika P. Koirala government of buckling under India's pressure and trading the sovereignty of Nepal. Others such as B.P. Koirala, leader of the Nepal Congress, commented on the weakness of the Agreement. IS Another frequently raised issue was the payment of compensation. India had been accused for delaying the payment of compensation. The Government of India was also criticised for delay in the implementation of rehabilitation scheme and expediting work on those parts of the project, which were designed to benefits India. It was not merely the India government, which was criticised, but the Nepalese Government was also made a target of criticism. 14 B.C. Uprety, Politics of Himalayan River Waters, Nirala Publication, Jaipur, 1993, p. 98. IS Jagdish C. Pokharel, Environment Resources: Negotiation between Unequal Powers, Vikash Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1996, p

13 Matrika Koirala defended his agreement and justified the project on the grounds that without the project some Nepali cities and villages in Kosi would disappear within a few decades. He argued that the sovereignty and territorial rights of Nepal had not been impaired by the Kosi Agreement. He criticized the opposition as "politically motivated" and responsible. King Mahendra also had defended the project. In 1959, King Mahendra formally inaugurated the Kosi project in the presence of Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India. In his speech, the King justified the project on humanitarian grounds and highlighted the opportunity for future cooperation between India and Nepal. Despite assurances by government the feeling among the Nepali people was that they had not received fair treatment in the Kosi Agreement. Revision of The Kosi Agreement Due to continued criticism of the Kosi Agreement in Nepal in post 1960's situation and deterioration of political relationship between India and Nepal, pressure was put on the Indian government to revise the Agreement. The Indian Power and Irrigation Minister, Mr. K.L. Rao, visited Nepal during and expressed India's readiness to amend the Agreement in light to complaints lodged by Nepal. Not satisfied with mere assurances, Nepal asked Indian authorities to suspend the work on Western Canal system till further discussions for the revision of the Agreement. In 1965, during Lal Bahadur Shastri's visit to Nepal further assurance was given to the Nepalese government of India's readiness for revision. The Agreement was amended with extensive modifications in 1966 where the spirit and scope of cooperation was broadened. The Agreement replaced the 1954 Treaty and immediately entered into a force. The modified aspects of the 1966 Treaty are - ( 1) Bilateral Consultation: The revised Treaty provided that any construction and other undertaking by India in connection with the 91

14 project needed to be planned and carried out in consultation with the Government of Nepal. (Article 1). 16 (2) Operational Aspect: When any survey or investigation m connection with the Kosi project to be required, the Nepalese Government provides necessary facilities to the concerned officers or persons acting under their orders to undertake such surveys and investigations (Article2). Investigations and surveys necessary for the general maintenance and operation of the project, inside the project area, may be done by India after due intimation to Nepal. (3) Sovereignty Over Land: The land required for the purpose of the Project was to be acquired by the Nepalese government and compensation was to be paid by the Government of India. Compensation in every case shall be tendered by the Union through the Nepal government to the owners of said land, Art. 3 [111]. Nepal government will permit India to quarry the construction materials required for the project from various deposit in Nepal. The 1954 agreement was severely criticized by Nepalese people regarding its land ownership issues, as it conferred on India the ownership of all lands acquired by Nepal and transferred to India for Kosi project purposes Revised Agreement changed ownership to lease. The Article 5(i) stipulates all the lands acquired by Nepal was to be leased to the Government of India for a period of 199 years from the date of signing of amendment, at an annual nominal rate. The rent and other terms and condition on of land biased will be fixed by mutual agreement. Article 5(v) enunciates the sovereignty rights and territorial jurisdiction of HMG (Nepal Government), including the application and enforcement of the law of Nepal on the leased land will continue unimpaired by such lease. 16 Text of Amended Agreement between his Majesty's Government of Nepal and Government of India Concerning the Kosi Project, 1966 in C.K. Sharma, Water and Energy Resources of the Himalayan Block, Sangeeta Sharma Publication, 1983, pp

15 [4] Right over of power and water: The Revised Agreement gave more rights to Nepal over water and power. According to Article 4 (i), the Nepal government will have every right to withdraw for irrigation and for any other purpose in Nepal water from Kosi river and Sunkosi river or any other tributaries of the Kosi river as may be required from time to time. Indian government will be free to regulate all the balance of supplies in the Kosi River at the barrage site available from time to time and to generate power in the Eastern Canal. Article 4 (ii) further entitled Nepal government to obtain for use in Nepal any portion upto 50 percent of the total hydroelectricity generated by any power house situated within 10 mile radius from the barrage site, constructed by or on behalf of India, as Nepal government will from time to time determine and communicate to India. [5] Royalty: India's has to pay royalty to Nepal on power generated and materials used in the project. Article 6 fixed that Nepal government will receive royalty in lieu of power generated and utilised in the India at rates to be settled by agreement, however, no royalty to be paid on the power sold to Nepal. Nepal government is also entitled to receive royalty from India for stone, gravel and ballast obtained from Nepal territory. The use of timber from Nepal forests, required for construction, is permitted on payment of compensation (Article 5 (iv)). [6] Labour: India committed to give preference to the Nepalese labourers, personnel and contractors. [7] Civic Amenities: Subject to the prior approval of Nepal government, India may in the project area, establish schools, hospitals, water supply system drainage electric supply systems for the duration of the construction of the project (Article 13). [8] Navigation and Fishing Rights: All the fishing rights and navigation rights in the Kosi River in Nepal rest with Nepal (Article 10 and 11). Article 10 states that provision shall be made for suitable arrangements at or around the site of the barrage for free and 93

16 unrestricted navigation in the Kosi River, if technically feasible. This article has important implication, as Nepal being a land locked country, attached great strategic and commercial significances to access to the see port. 17 [9] Institutional Arrangements for Conflict Resolution: The Revised Treaty of 1966 made provision for the establishment of Indo Nepal Kosi Project Commission, for the discussion of problems and for the purposes of coordination and cooperation between the two governments with regard to any matter covered in the agreement. The rules for the composition, jurisdiction etc. of the said commission shall be mutually agreed upon. The Commission consists of four representatives from each country to be nominated by the respective governments. The Commission was expected to consider matters of common interest concerning the project as land acquisition by Nepal government for lease to the Union, rehabilitation of displaced population, maintenance of law and order (Article 15 (ii) c). Any dispute or difference arising out of construction, meaning of the 1966 Agreement, respective rights/liabilities of the parties, if not settled by discussion, would be determined by arbitration. Each of the two parties shall nominate an arbitrator for jointly determining such dispute or difference and award of the arbitrators would be binding on the parties. With the Revised Treaty many of complain of Nepal were taken care of. Multiple factors were working in signing 1954 Treaty. Small and big country syndrome was visible. The regional power, India argues that they have been more than generous. While Nepal thinks that they have been cheated or outsmarted. In post-colonial era India signed its first treaty on water resources with Nepal in form of Kosi Treaty Nepal negotiated with India without much homework, thus, mistakes were 17 A B. Thapa "Kosi Navigational Canal and the Hooghly River", Spotlight, January 9, Kathmandu, 2004, p.9. 94

17 unavoidable. India realized that any treaty with smaller neighbouring states must be dealt with sensitivity towards sovereignty issues and consensus building approach as well as understanding of their internal political dynamics. The Gandak Project The second multipurpose mutual benefit project undertaken by India and Nepal was the Gandak project. The Gandak River, also called by the name of Kali, Krishna Gandaki, Narayani, originates in the Tibetan plateau at an attitude of 7620 m. After draining the central mountains of Nepal, the Gandak debouches into the plain of Champaran district of Bihar at Tribeni. Gandak was a major source of trouble to both India and Nepal. Every year it damaged crops, property and human lives in vast areas due to flood in both sides. A canal was planned on Gandak (Tribeni Canal) as early as 1871, to harness the large irrigation potential of river Gandak. In 1947, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the then Food and Agriculture Minister wrote to Government of Bihar to explore the possibilities of constructing a Canal system from the Gandak for irrigation. Finally an international agreement was concluded between India and Nepal over Gandak Project on 4th December Exchanges of letters were signed in the same day spelling out some operational details and mentioning provision for the establishment of a coordination committee. A barrage has been constructed at the Gandak River near Bhaisalotan to regulate the flow of water for irrigation and power purposes. Two canals take off from either side of barrage. The main Eastern Canal lies in the Indian territory but one of its branches called Don Branc;:h Canal reaches Indo Nepal border and bifurcates into two canals. Nepal Eastern Canal constitutes one of them and passes through Bara, Parsa and Rautahat districts of Nepal respectively. The main Western Canal passes through a 95

18 Map 4 The Gandaki J{ivcr Basin 8}- 84' GANDAKI RIVER BASIN -7.9' 29" -- CHINA INDIA 0 SELEGED CITIES <!) NATIONAl-cAPITAl INDIA -26' Kilomclcrs 28''- 27"- 26"-!l&' 85'

19 few kilometers in Nepal before entering the Indian territory.l8 The canal provides irrigation water to 4, 7000 ha of land in Nepal and 9,30, 100 ha of land in India. Another canal called Nepal Western Canal takes off from the western side of the barrage. The command area of this irrigation canal is 16,000 ha which is wholly in Nepal. On the main Western Canal at Surajpura, m Nepalese territory, lies powerhouse, which utilizes the head drop in the canal to generate 15,000 KW of power. This power house is in tended to handed over to Nepal after a certain demand condition, as stipulated in the agreement is met. This has since been done. Benefits to India and Nepal: The annual irrigation from the Gandak Canal was estimated to be lacs acres. The total area to be irrigated in Nepal was about 1.8 lac acres. Nepal was also to be benefited from the compensation that India had agreed to pay to the Nepalese for the land acquired for the construction works. The irrigation facilities provided by the Gandak project were considered to be the cheapest. 1 9 Nepal was also given rights to withdraw the supply of water from the Gandak or its tributaries, if the requirement of the Gandak project would not be affected by such withdrawals. Both the countries were also to be protected from the floods and sedimentation after the construction of the barrage. The Tirhut Main Canal was opened in 1969 to give irrigation in the kharif season to 18 thousands hectares 20 The Gandak Agreement also specified that project was being built by and the cost of the Government of India. Protest of Gandak Project Like the Kosi project, the conclusion of Gandak Project als9 faced protests from the political parties in Nepal. The construction of barrage in 18 n. 2,p n. 14, p o Surya Nath Bastola, Water Resources Development of the Mighty Himalayan Rivers, Sunil Bastola Publishers, Kathmandu, 1994, p. 155.

20 the Nepalese territory was propagated as Indian encroachment on Nepal's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It was also stated that the Agreement had undermined the interests of the Nepalese people in general and that they were unfairly treated. The Gandak agreement came under severe criticism from those opposed to the B.P. Koirala government and made an anti Indian tirade to gain public sympathy. 21 The opposition parties raised the issue of the Nepal government's lack of authority to conclude the Agreement. Late K.I. Singh a former Nepalese Prime Minister during whose regime discussion on the scheme had actually began issued a statement on 9 December 1959 "violating the rules of the house of representative and the sentiments of the entire people of Nepal, the Koirala government has handed over the Gandak project to the Nehru government and hurt the sovereignty of the country more than under the Kosi project. This is highly condemnable and traitorous act, which the Nepali people will never accept".22 It seems that the protest against the Gandak agreement was politically motivated, as those political leaders who had been responsible for the conclusion of a similar Kosi Agreement and had initiated a discussion over the Gandak Agreement, opposed it. B.P. Koirala defended the project and argued that criticisms were based on ignorance and was politically motivated, unrealistic and baseless. King Mahendra also defended the project and endorsed its viability. Some aspects of the Gandak Treaty need a close examination. (a) Land Acquisition: The Agreement provided that the Nepalese government would acquire all such lands as are required by the Government of India for the project i.e. for the purpose of investigation construction and maintenance of the project. The Government of India was to pay reasonable compensation for such lands acquired or 21 Sangeta Thapliyal,"Water and Conflict: the South Asian Scenario", Strategic Analysis, October 1996, p n.4, p

21 requisitioned (Article 3). As the Kosi project was protested or the issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity, Gandak agreement contained special article on the subject. Article 11, stipulates that nothing in the agreement was deemed to derogate from the sovereignty and the territorial jurisdiction of the Nepalese Government in respect of lands it had acquired and made available to the government of India for investigation execution and maintenance of project. 23 (b) Irrigation: India was supposed to construct the two canals; Western Nepal canal and Eastern Nepal canal, at their own cost Article (7). The canal systems, including the service roads in the Nepalese territory (except the main Western Canal) were to be handed over to the government of Nepal for operation and maintenance. According to the Article 9, Nepalese Government continues to have the right to withdraw for irrigation or any other purpose from the river or its tributaries in Nepal such supplies of water as may be required from time to time. (c) Power: Under the Gandak Agreement, India agreed to construct one powerhouse with an installed capacity of 15,000 KW in the territory of Nepal on the Western Canal. It also agreed to construct a transmission line from the powerhouse in Nepal to the Bihar border near Bhaisalotan and from Sugauli to Raxaul in Bihar in order to facilitate supply of power on any point in the Bihar Grid (Article 8). (d) Conflict Resolution: Like in the Kosi agreement any dispute or difference arising out of Agreement/Project, if not settled by discussion, is to be determined through arbitration. 2 3 Text of Agreement between his Majesty's Government of Nepal and the Govemment of India on the Gandak Irrigation and Power Project in C.K. Sharma, Water and Energy Resources of the Himalayan Block, Sangeeta Sharma, Kathmandu, 1983, pp

22 Nepal's View on Kosi and Gandak Project In the case of Kosi and Gandak project, in Nepal there in general feeling that it failed to get her due share of benefits. 24 Both Kosi and Gandak projects were planned and implemented entirely by India. Nepals share lay in facilitating the projects in all possible ways (making available land, construction material, waiving taxes and duties) on payment of nominal royalty and compensation. Both agreements were perceived in Nepal as unilateral initiative, independents, rather than a joint development and a narrow perspective with little regard to Nepal's legitimate interests for a reasonable and equitable share in the use of resource. Nepalese water Resources expert feel that necessary consultations could not take place between the two sides at different levels during the projectplanning phase. Analysis of various alternatives, their impact on the local community and the environment as well as, taking due note to the benefits to both countries, were ignored. Optimization of the benefits was not the guiding factor in the design of the project. No joint institutional mechanism was evolved to look into the matter. Regionally optimum design may have resulted in the barrages being located further upstream, near Chatra in the case of Kosi and near Narayanghat in the case of Gandak. The present scheme conceived and implemented by India produced marginal benefits to Nepal. Nepalese author feel that it is possible that India wanted to have barrage located as near to its border as possible to maintain its control over the operation of the barrage.2 5 Nepal complains that there was lack of conscientious effort to generate consensus on both sides, through mass awareness programmes especially at the local level. The absence of the process helped to fuel suspicion on both sides, which in turn, has resulted in mistrust. Moreover, Institutional arrangements provided under the treaty were not 24 S.K. Malia, Nepal Country Report- Three Country Study on Water Resources Development of the Ganga Brahmaputra Barak River Basins, lids Publication, Kathmandu, 1992, p. 6. 2s n. 2, p

23 effective. Joint Coordination Committee, the main instrument of project management, did not function in a manner prescribed in the agreement. The composition of the Committee did not provide for adequate coverage for representation. Nepal feels that consultation with it on matters related to the construction of the project, as spelled out in the agreement, was restrictive in nature. There was lack of regular sharing of information. Regular meetings which could have helped to dispel several anxieties and misgivings on both sides not only failed to score anything on this account but through the deliberations, unintentionally perhaps augmented them. Asymmetrical benefits and costs The general feeling in Nepal is that both the Kosi and the Gandak projects have yielded considerable benefits to India but the benefit to Nepal has not been consummarate with social and economic cost it had to incur. Water resources experts point out the social cost of submergence of the land behind the barrage and the rehabilitation of the displaced population coupled with economic cost of the natural resource including the use of construction materials. Nepal contention is that the projects involved substantial submergence of scarce agricultural land. Kosi Agreement makes no mention about the irrigation benefits that Nepal and India are to get from the project. Gandak project agreement specifies the irrigation benefit to Nepal but remains silent on the benefit to India. Lack of precise information relating to the sharing of the benefits and costs of the project during the time of signing of the agreements can be considered to be one of the important factors for creation of misunderstanding. Nepal's Disenchantment The feeling of being cheated or outsmarted or getting asymmetrical benefits from these projects led to a disenchantment in Nepal which engendered the feeling that until it could marshal its own capabilities wherever possible, it should avoid turning to India for support and advice. Indeed for a while more nationalist decision makers m 100

24 Kathmandu confidentially asserted that Nepal should go slow in any further riparian cooperation with India. Thus for example Nepal turned to IDA to renovate the Chatra Canal Project [which was originally the part of the Kosi project] and politely excluded India's participation in its construction. Chandra K.Sharma, noted expert on water resources, from Nepal said "some Nepalese feel that had Nepal been economically strong, it would have constructed the entire system and sold the benefit at a fair price to India by utilising her terrain as a resource site". He adds "it is felt that at present the entire watershed of Nepal is working to tap water for the benefit of the lower riparians. Any lean towards extra benefit to Nepal at the time of the Kosi and Gandak agreement would have helped to solve all the prevailing misunderstanding which unfortunately have permeated down to the people.now the situation is such that no politician or bureaucrat will ever dare to stake his earlier career and fame in dealing with the sensitive issue of water resource which resolves the question of sharing between and among the coriparians.26 India's Perspective Indian water resources expert feel that Nepal's contention about Kosi and Gandak siting the barrage near the border resulted in some loss of land to Nepal while the bulk of irrigation and flood control benefits going to India, is true upto some extent in case of Kosi project. Subsequent Indian maintenance of certain project canals providing irrigation to Nepal has not been entirely satisfactory, resulting in irregular supplies during certain years. They also feel. that irrigation and flood benefits to Nepal from the Kosi project in particular would have been greater had the barrage site been located further upstream. 26 B.G. Verghese, Waters Of Hope, Konark Publishers, New Delhi, 1990,p

25 The Indian response 1s, however, that no injury to Nepal was ever intended. 27 The Kosi barrage was part of a phased programme, a subsequent stage of which was to be a High Dam at Barakhsetra, which would provide irrigation, flood control and energy to both the countries in considerable measure. In any event, even the inception embankments were constructed both upstream and downstream of the Kosi barrage to anchor the river and provide a confined floodway. The upstream embankments in Nepal have saved large area from inundation and brought it under cultivation. The Chatra inundation canal, subsequently excavated, also provides a measure of irrigation though it still faces certain problems relating to canal intake and siltation. Both Kosi and Gandak agreements leave Nepal free to use and divert waters from these rivers in the upper catchment. They provided a valuable East-West road link over the two barrages and entire canal networks either constructed or funded by India. Moreover, India has assured Nepal that it can use beneficially the water it requires within the territory. The problem of the small transboundary rivers can be taken care of by storages and inter -basin transfers or by groundwater lift. Suitable transitional arrangements can be worked out to ensure that local farmers on either side of the border are not put to avoidable hardships. Indian assistance was assured to be forthcoming for such programmes. Nepal's contention that the major area benefited under the Kosi and Gandak agreements lie in India must be seen in the context of geography. Nepal being mountainous has only a limited irrigable area mostly in the narrow Terai belt below, which the rivers open into vast Ganga plain. Nevertheless, the point is well taken that, precisely because of the limited irrigable area within its territory, Nepal should be enabled to irrigate all of it as soon as possible to meet its growing requirements of farm produce 21 B.G. Verghese et al. [eds.] Converting Water Into Wealth: Regional Cooperation in Harnessing Eastern Himalayan Rivers, Konark Publishers Private Limit~d, New Delhi, 1994,pp

26 and to generate employment and income. A number of medium and mega projects are on the anvil and as when any of these are taken up, they will extend the area under irrigation and provide flood protection over a wider treat. Further, Indian water resources experts feel that Nepal could justifiably be compensated for storages within its territory. It can also be assured some return for measurable downstream benefits in terms of flood protection and regulated release of water supplied from supplied from its downs that supplied from supplied from its dams that stabilise or augment irrigation and power generation in India. There are precedents for this in Indian and international experience. No uniform rule may apply, but reasonable agreements can no doubt be negotiated in respect of each project. However, India water resources expert agree to the Nepalese complain about inadequate consultative machinery. The mechanism available in the Kosi Coordination Committee, set up under earlier Kosi Agreement was functioning fitfully while the corresponding Gandak Committee had virtually became defunct. India did not take enough interest in the Kosi catchment treatment programme earlier agreed upon. Geopolitical Context of Riparian Politics Geography is considered as the most important among vanous determinants of International relations and rightly been called as the corner stone of international politics. In the context of India's foreign policy towards Nepal, geography plays a significant role. Nepal is located in an important strategic position in the Himalayas.28 Lying along the southern slopes of the central Himalayas it separates the arid Tibetan plateau from the Indian plains Ramakant, "Indo Nepal Relations: Geopolitical Compulsions", South Asian Studies, Vol. VI, No. 1, January, 1971, p Olaf Caroe, "The Geography and _Ethics of India's Northern Frontiers," The Geographical Journal, Vol. 126, 1960, p I 03

27 The international relations of a country are based on the paradigm of continuity and change. It has to be based on a realistic appreciation of the contemporary problems as well as the historical background. The Britishers considered Nepal and Tibet and the main defence line in the Himalaya zone. After the establishment of Rana Rule in 1846, the British succeeded in maintaining peaceful relations with Nepal. But its foreign affairs continued to be conducted within the broad framework of the British interests in the region. 30 With Britain's Imperial policy of exclusive control and influence over landlocked Nepal, the kingdom assiduously insulated it self from the world at large. When India concluded the Treaty of Friendship in 1950 with the Rana regime, it gave proof of its respect for Nepal's international personality and its desire to continue a special relationship predicated on the economic, ethnic cultural and scrutiny interdependence of the two countries. After the overthrow of the Rana regime in 1951, India assisted Nepal to establish modern communications, enlarging its international horizons and encouraging it to embark on all round economic development.3 1 In the early 1950's India was the biggest source of economic aid in Nepal. India recognised that its ecological interests were to tied to Nepal. Thus, linkages were started in ecological sphere besides political and economic spheres. Lacking other resources of economic importance, Nepal had to use its water to generate revenue for development. With increasing consciousness of resources, conflicts over the fairness with which these resources were shared also increased. The agreements began to appear unfair to Nepal. After the death of King Tribhuban in 1955 his son Mahendra became the king of Nepal. Mahendra believed in balancing his country's relation with 30 B. C. Uprety, Uneasy Friends: Readings on Indo Nepal Relations, Kalinga Publication, Delhi, 2001, p. 7. H B.G. Verghese and Ramaswamy R. Iyer, Hamess.ing the Eastern Himalayan Rivers: Regional Cooperation in South Asia, Konark Publishers, New Delhi, 1993, p