The 1996 Mahakali Treaty: Whither the “Rashtriya

Sankalpas/National Strictures” of Nepalese Parliament?

S.B. Pun

Abstract: Despite the ratification by the Joint Session of Nepal’s two Houses of Parliament with an overwhelming
majority on September 20, 1996 and despite the exchange of instruments of ratification by the two countries on
June 5, 1997, the Pancheshwar Detailed Project Report (DPR) has yet to see the light of day even after the lapse of
16 years. It was believed that Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba’s government with the concurrence of the main
opposition party, Communist Party of Nepal- United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), had ratified the Mahakali Treaty
with four ‘rashtriya sankalpas/national strictures’. It was also believed that an all party Parliamentary Monitoring Joint
Committee headed by the Speaker of the Lower House was constituted to guide the Nepalese side in the preparation of
the detailed project report of Pancheshwar. That Monitoring Joint Committee in a span of four years held 28 meetings.
Now the very legality of those four ‘rashtriya sankalpas/national strictures’ is being questioned. In 2009 the Secretary
level Nepal-India Joint Committee on Water Resources constituted the Pancheshwar Development Authority (PDA)
that was given the crucial mandate to ‘finalize’ the vital much-awaited Pancheshwar DPR. As institutions have no
memory and public memory is extremely short, this article attempts to recapitulate the commitments made at treaty
ratification time by the Deuba government in concurrence with the then largest party, CPN-UML. The article argues
against the mandate given to the bureaucrat-led PDA to finalize the Pancheshwar DPR and strongly recommends
formation of an all party mechanism akin to the previous Parliamentary Monitoring Joint Committee to guide the
government during this critical Interim period.

Key words: Mahakali Treaty, Rashtriya Sankalpas, national strictures, parliament, Pancheshwar project, Nepal

A. Origin of Sankalpas/Strictures: September 20, irrigation projects. With the then Prime Minister,
1996 Joint Session of Parliament Girija Prasad Koirala, condoning India’s unilateral

T he coalition government of the Nepali

Congress, Rashtriya Prajatantra Party and Nepal
Sadbhavana Party led by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur
construction of Tanakpur on the Mahakali river through
the MOU, previous Nepalese wounds have again been
opened up, and during the repressive Panchayat regime
Deuba initialed1 the Mahakali Treaty on February 12, Indian security forces occupied Darchula’s Tinkar; the
1996 (Magh 29, 2052) with much fanfare at the Delhi secret 1965 Nepal-India security treaty was signed and
durbar. But Article 126 of the then 1990 Constitution of the Tanakpur barrage unilaterally constructed by India
Nepal, requiring ratification by two-thirds of the Joint in the 1980s. MK Nepal then disclosed that CPN-UML
Session of Parliament, hung over the head of Prime had received the following political commitments5
Minister Deuba like the sword of Damocles. With the from HMGN and India: i) Mahakali is basically a
CP Mainali/Bamdev Gautam faction in Communist border river, ii) both countries have equal rights on the
Party of Nepal- United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) Mahakali waters, iii) Nepal will sell India a portion of her
advocating amendments to the Mahakali Treaty before electricity generated from Pancheshwar and the price
ratification, Prime Minister Deuba, his Water Resources of energy will be determined on avoided cost principle,
Minister Pashupati SJB Rana and Foreign Minister iv) decision on DPR will be made through national
Dr. Prakash Chandra Lohani worked overtime2. Their consensus of an All Party Committee, v) members to the
combined efforts bore fruit. Near about the midnight of Mahakali River Commission will be nominated through
September 20, 1996 (Ashwin 4, 2053), the Joint Session national consensus, and vi) the entire western Nepal-
of the Nepalese Parliament overwhelmingly3 ratified the India border will be demarcated scientifically within a
Mahakali Treaty with, it was believed, the four ‘rashtriya stipulated period of time and the Indian military post
sankalpas/national strictures’: i) export of energy and removed from Darchula district. MK Nepal termed Water
its pricing principle ii) formation of Mahakali River Resources Minister Pashupati SJB Rana’s interpretation
Commission iii) equal sharing of waters of the Mahakali of Mahakali Treaty’s Article 3 totally faulty. Minister
River after the Pancheswor project and iv) status of the Rana had informed the House that Nepal and India
Mahakali River. will be entitled half-half waters of the Mahakali River
On that fateful night Madhav Kumar Nepal, leader after deducting their ‘respective existing consumptive
of main Opposition Party and General Secretary of uses.’ MK Nepal wanted Minister Rana to take back his
CPN-UML, had forcefully addressed the Joint Session of interpretation from the very rostrum he uttered then and
Nepalese Parliament thus4: the Nepal-India treaties of declare instead that Nepal and India are entitled half-
Kosi (AD 1954) and Gandak (AD 1959) are remembered half waters of the common Mahakali River. MK Nepal
by Nepalese with sorrows. Nepalese cannot also forget demanded that HMGN get this same interpretation from
the series of Indian objections that blocked international the Government of India6.
funds for implementing the Kankai, Babai and Sikta In response, Water Resources Minister Rana gave the

HYDRO NEPAL ISSUE NO. 11 JULY, 2012

12
following reply7: the government wanted to transform The Ministry would like to inform that a
the Tanakpur problem into opportunity by tying it with Parliamentary Monitoring Joint Committee has been
Pancheshwar to achieve a ‘new break through’ in water formed under the chairmanship of the Rt. Hon. Speaker13
resources development by opening a ‘new door’ for the of the House of Representatives to give guidance to [the]
export market; on Kosi and Gandak treaties, Nepalese Nepalese side, during the preparation of the detailed
nationalism did cry but that nationalism now is all project report, with a view to monitor the process
smiles – precious smiles – on the Mahakali treaty; on reflecting the resolution and commitment as expressed
existing consumptive uses of Mahakali treaty’s Article by the parliament in safeguarding the national interest
3, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, through his of Nepal. The Terms of Reference of the Committee are
letter of Bhadra 26, 2053 (Sept. 11, 1996) to CPN-UML as follows:
General Secretary, had already explained about both • export of energy and its pricing principle;
the countries having equal entitlement to the Mahakali • formation of Mahakali River Commission;
waters; this equal entitlement to all the Mahakali waters • equal sharing of waters of the Mahakali River after
was the government’s stand and anything presented the Pancheswor project; and
earlier contrary to this would be inadmissible. Minister • status of the Mahakali River.
Rana then proposed to the House an understanding • In addition to advising about the formation of the
that was prepared with the consensus of the main Parliamentary Monitoring Joint Committee to look
opposition party, CPN-UML, wherein the DPR into the above issues, the Ministry would also like to
preparation of the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project draw the attention of the Embassy to a number of
will be based on the Prime Minister’s letter of Bhadra issues on Nepal-India relations and other matters
26, 2053 (Sept. 11, 1996) to the CPN-UML General on the Mahakali Treaty and the utilization of the
Secretary. The four understandings will be undertaken waters of Mahakali River, such as:
as ‘rashtriya sankalpas/national strictures’ and an All • determination of the price of energy to be exported
Party Parliamentary Monitoring Joint Committee will to India on the basis of the principle of avoided cost;
be constituted to provide an overall guidance to the • determination of the source of the Mahakali River;
government8. • withdrawal of the Indian military personnel from
Some had termed these sankalpas/strictures a mere the Nepalese territory;
ploy9 of the Nepali Congress-led Deuba government to • return by India to Nepal of the excess land (36
appease the disgruntled CPN-UML group to garner that acres14) in Brahmadev Mandi/Tanakpur between
critical two-thirds majority. After successfully ratifying pillar Nos. 3 and 4;
the treaty, Nepal’s ministers and politicians rattled out • review of the 1950 treaty;
tantalizing figures10 of billions of revenues from export of • alternate transit route to Nepal to and through
electricity to India. The governments of Nepal and India Bangladesh;
in their February 12, 1996 Letters of Exchange stated • developing river navigation for Nepal for trade
‘The DPR shall be finalized by both countries within purposes; and
six (6) months from the date of entry into force of the • monitoring the Nepal-India border.
Treaty…. The Project shall be aimed to be completed • In the light of the generally positive spirit shown by
within eight (8) years from the date of the agreement the Indian side towards the issues mentioned above,
for its implementation, subject to the provision of the the Ministry hopes that the Nepalese concerns would
DPR.’ Over 16 years have lapsed since that Letters of be taken into account in a friendly and positive
Exchange. Despite the stipulated six months for DPR manner by the Government of India.
finalization and eight years for project completion, the The Deuba government revealed in tying up the
Pancheshwar DPR itself has yet to see the light of day. As Mahakali issues with such age-old perpetual Nepal-
for the sankalpas/strictures passed on that fateful treaty India issues like review of the 1950 Treaty of Peace and
ratification day, a new twist has evolved. Indeed public Friendship, transit route through Bangladesh, developing
memory is short and institutions sadly have no memory navigation and monitoring the open Nepal-India
at all. border. The above Foreign Ministry letter has, however,
identified the main core issues of the Mahakali treaty.
B. Parliamentary Monitoring Joint Committee: The Parliamentary Monitoring Joint Committee headed
For Guidance in Preparation of Detailed Project by the Speaker of the House, Ram Chandra Poudel,
Report (DPR) of Pancheshwar Project included Members of Parliament both from the ruling
Subsequent to the Mahakali treaty ratification, and opposition benches15 to make the Committee more
Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested the inclusive so that a national consensus could be arrived.
Embassy of the Republic of India on November 22, This Committee was to give guidance to the Nepalese
1996 for necessary arrangements for exchange11 of team during negotiations with India on Pancheshwar’s
instruments of ratification so that the Treaty could come detailed project report (DPR) preparation so that
into force. The following is the excerpt of that letter12 to Nepal’s national interest, as reflected in the resolution
the Indian Embassy at Kathmandu: and commitment expressed by the parliament, was

HYDRO NEPAL ISSUE NO. 11 JULY, 2012

13
safeguarded. The following four terms of reference of the during treaty ratification in 1996. The Mahakali River
Parliamentary Monitoring Joint Committee, interpreted Commission should have been constituted prior
as the sankalpas/strictures, were: i) pricing principle of to Pancheshwar Development Authority. The four
export energy, ii) Mahakali River Commission formation, sankalpas/strictures of the Parliamentary Monitoring
iii) equal sharing of the Mahakali waters after Pancheswar Joint Committee to guide the Nepalese team during
and iv) Mahakali River status. The same letter explicitly Pancheshwar’s detailed project report preparation have
communicated to the Government of India that the been shrewdly brushed aside.
pricing of export energy be on the avoided cost principle,
source of Mahakali River be determined, Indian military D. Rashtriya Sankalpas/National Strictures: In
personnel withdrawn from Nepalese territory and the Eyes of Ministry of Energy and Legislative
return of excess land (36.68 acres) by India to Nepal Parliament Secretariat
at Brahmadev Mandi/Tanakpur between pillars 3 and In fact, not only have the sankalpas/strictures
4. On the strictures, RR Iyer, the erudite former Water been cursorily brushed aside but a new debate that
Resources Secretary/Government of India, commented16 the Nepalese parliament never passed the ‘rashtriya
that ‘Strictures by the Nepali parliament can apply to sankalpas/national strictures’ officially has raised
the Nepali government, not to the Government of India. its ugly head. Surya Nath Upadhyay, former Water
The Government of Nepal must of course take note of its Resources Secretary, put on record18 that ‘… records of the
parliament’s concerns, and if necessary, go back to the parliament showed that there was no sankalpa prastav
Government of India for a fresh round of negotiations. (Strictures of the Parliament) put to the house according
But in that event, the treaty must be treated as dormant to the Regulations of the House of Representative, 1992
(if not as non-existent) until the re-negotiation … and a prevailing at that time.’ Such comments at a seminar
fresh document is agreed upon.’ on the Mahakali Treaty in November 2009 elicited Dr.
Surendra KC of Tribhuvan University to wonder aloud
C. Formation of Pancheshwar Development that the sankalpas/strictures he taught the students
Authority: Contravention of Parliamentary at the University for the last 13 years were all a mere
Monitoring Joint Committee’s Terms of Reference farce. The debate fueled Gopal Shivakoti ‘Chintan19’ to
In the last 16 years since the Mahakali Treaty write to the Ministry of Energy20 [November 27, 2009
ratification, much water has flowed down the Mahakali (Mangsir 12, 2066)] requesting information, documents
River to India’s extensive Sarada Canal networks including the Sankalpa Prastav on the Mahakali treaty.
from Tanakpur barrage. In Nepal itself, Dr. Babu Ram The Ministry of Energy replied21 on December 8, 2009
Bhattarai in his 40 Points Demand of 4th February (Mangsir 23, 2066) ‘… as this Ministry has no record
1996 to Prime Minister SB Deuba decried: ‘The so- of authoritative information on the passing of Sankalpa
called Integrated Mahakali Treaty concluded on 29 Prastav as precondition by the then Parliament prior
January 1996 should be repealed immediately, as it is to the ratification of treaty, please avail all required
designed to conceal the disastrous Tanakpur Treaty and information through the Legislative Parliament
allows Indian imperialist monopoly over Nepal’s water Secretariat.’ Despite the Energy Ministry passing the
resources.’ Several Nepal-India track two exercises on buck, GS ‘Chintan’ followed this up at the Parliament
the Mahakali treaty failed to resuscitate the dead-locked Secretariat that replied on August 10, 2010 (Shrawan
Pancheshwar DPR. With the ragtag army of CPN-Maoist 25, 2067) ‘… prior to ratification of treaty the then
challenging the might of the State from 2001 and the Parliament, as per the regulations of Parliament, has
tragic deaths of over 14,000 innocent Nepalese lives, the no officially registered Sankalpa Prastav about the
2006 Spring Revolution, despite bringing peace, is still above subject. Before ratification of the above treaty by
grappling with an open-ended Interim period. the Joint Session of Parliament, records indicate Water
It is during this interim period that Prime Minister Resources Minister Pashupati Shumsher JBR on behalf
Madhav Kumar Nepal in 2009, to fulfill his petty interest, of the government with the concurrence of the main
delivered the fatal stab to Nepal’s Water Resources opposition CPN-UML presented the “sahamati ka
Ministry to create the Ministries of Energy and Irrigation. bunda/agreed points.” The Legislative Parliament
Prime Minister Nepal, thus, facilitated the environment Secretariat does mention the existence of the record of
whereby all bilateral Nepal-India Ministry of Water agreed points between the government and the main
Resources talks are ironically led by Nepal’s Energy opposition CPN-UML.
Ministry. During MK Nepal’s tenure, the Fifth Secretary
Level Meet of the Nepal-India Joint Committee on E. The Rush to Decide: ‘Benefit and Cost, Who
Water Resources at Pokhara on 20-22 November, 2009 Bears How Much?’
constituted the Pancheshwar Development Authority17 So was Prime Minister Deuba with his Ministers Rana,
that was given the mandate to ‘finalize’ the most vital Dr. Lohani including the CPN-UML General Secretary
much-awaited ‘Detailed Project Report of Pancheshwar MK Nepal merely playing gimmicks in the Parliament
Multipurpose Project.’ This is in contravention of the with half-baked sankalpas/strictures? They all are still in
sankalpas/strictures passed by the Nepalese parliament very responsible positions in their respective parties. The

HYDRO NEPAL ISSUE NO. 11 JULY, 2012

14
Parliamentary Joint Monitoring Committee had national Multipurpose Project.’ This means that PDA is yet to be
statured names like Ram Chandra Poudel, Jhalanath set up and as for that ‘benefit and cost, who bears how
Khanal, Bharat Mohan Adhikari, Bhim Bahadur Rawal, much’, fortunately nothing has been agreed upon.
Mahesh Acharya, Subhas Chandra Nembang, Hridesh
Tripathi and the ministers Narhari Acharya, Pashupati F. Conclusion: Grave Mistake to Bypass the
Rana and Dr. Prakash Chandra Lohani. If they are Terms of Reference of Parliamentary Monitoring
the true sons of the soil, they surely are answerable to Joint Committee
the Nepalese people about the ‘rashtriya sankalpas/ Thus, while one, like SN Upadhyay, can question
national strictures’ and the Monitoring Committee they the legality of the Rashtriya Sankalpas/national
were members of. Why was Prime Minister MK Nepal strictures, the fact that the Sahamati ka Bunda/Agreed
itching to truncate the Ministry of Water Resources into Points do exist at the Legislative Parliament Secretariat
that of Energy and Irrigation? Having truncated the cannot be denied. One cannot also deny the fact that a
Ministry, why should the multipurpose Pancheshwar Parliamentary Monitoring Joint Committee was formed
Project be under the purview of the Ministry of Energy under the chairmanship of the Speaker26 of the House
and not that of Irrigation? Water has become a scarce of Representatives 'to give guidance to [the] Nepalese
resource globally and, far more so, in the 656 million22 side, during the preparation of the detailed project
peopled Gangetic belt. report, with a view to monitor the process reflecting
The failure23 of India’s Prime Minister Man Mohan the resolution and commitment as expressed by the
Singh and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Begum of parliament in safeguarding the national interest of
Bangladesh to ink the long festering Teesta water Nepal.’ Similarly, one cannot deny the four Terms of
sharing deal in September 2011 should be an eye opener Reference, sankalpas/strictures or whatever given to the
for Nepal. Bangladesh, as the lower riparian, wanted Joint Committee:
a ‘fair’ 50-50 percent share of the Teesta waters24. • export of energy and its pricing principle;
But, as the upper riparian, the Chief Minister of West • formation of Mahakali River Commission;
Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, found the about-to-be-signed • equal sharing of waters of the Mahakali River after
agreement ‘detrimental to the interests’ of West Bengal the Pancheswor project; and
and objected. Unfortunately, Nepal’s policy makers • Status of the Mahakali River.
have paid little or no attention at all to water sharing Over the four year period from November 1996 to
mechanisms. They have already acquiesced to the August 2000, records indicate that Ram Chandra Poudel
existing consumptive use demand of India and consented and Taranath Bhat as Chairmen conducted 28 meetings
to preclude the claim, in any form, on Nepal’s unutilized of the Monitoring Joint Committee. Many members of
portion of the Mahakali waters. Nepal, instead, is that Joint Committee still hold important positions in
totally mesmerized by hydroelectricity and electricity their respective parties. The minutes of those meetings
alone. Electricity production has other alternatives like must be lying in some dust covered cupboards of either
coal, gas, nuclear, wind, solar etc. but water for future the energy or irrigation ministry.
Nepalese generations has no alternatives at all. In the absence of the Parliamentary Monitoring Joint
On the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project, the Committee, one does discern a distinct air of urgency,
media25 reported the Project Chief, DB Singh, as the same urgency akin to that during the ratification of
having said that while the formation of Pancheshwar the Mahakali Treaty in 1996, to rush through this ‘benefit
Development Authority has been, in entirety, agreed and cost, who bears how much’ issue. The nation is still
upon between Nepal and India, only the ‘benefit and clueless about the energy pricing mechanism. India has
cost, who bears how much’ requires to be sorted out. not uttered a single word on whether the price of energy
The media also reported that ‘who bears how much’ for export to India will be on avoided cost principle or not.
was to be decided by the Ministerial level meeting of Yet the Department of Electricity Development/Ministry
the two countries. It belated that this could not take of Energy has now rolled out another27 tantalizing figure
place as Prime Minister MK Nepal unfortunately had of Rs 34.5 billion (US $ 0.39 Billion) annually from
to resign. This first meeting of the Nepal-India Joint Pancheshwar electricity export. In order to garner local
Ministerial Commission on Water Resources between support, the Ministry has dangled the carrot of over 0.23
the two countries did take place at New Delhi on billion of Rupees annually to each of the famished nine
February 15, 2012 during Prime Minister Dr. Baburam districts28 in the Mahakali basin. Having acquiesced to
Bhattarai’s tenure. Despite the much publicized feud India’s ‘existing consumptive uses’, what exactly is that
between the Ministers of Energy and Irrigation as to agreed29 ‘existing consumptive use’ figure? On equal
who leads the Joint Ministerial Commission on Water sharing of the Mahakali waters after Pancheshwar,
Resources to New Delhi, the joint Nepal-India press is this equal sharing ‘pre- or post-’ deduction of this
statement regarding Pancheshwar came out merely ‘existing use’? In other words, is it, as Minister Rana had
with: ‘Both sides agreed to expedite the setting up of interpreted half-half waters after deducting the existing
the Pancheshwar Development Authority (PDA) at consumptive uses? Or is it, as Secretary General MK Nepal
the earliest for implementation of the Pancheshwar believed half-half waters (equal entitlements) prior to

HYDRO NEPAL ISSUE NO. 11 JULY, 2012

15
deduction then applying the ‘without prejudice’ clause commitment in writing then the Nepalese public has
to existing consumptive uses? Why was PDA constituted every right to see it. Indian Ambassador KV Rajan’s
instead of the Mahakali River Commission? Above all, letter of September 10, 1996 to Foreign Minister Dr.
why was the PDA manned entirely by the two countries’ PC Lohani on Mahakali Treaty matters conveys an
bureaucrats, given that crucial mandate to ‘finalize’ that otherwise statement: ‘[as] the Parliament of Nepal
mother of all Pancheshwar DPR? In the last 16 years, is currently dealing with the question of ratification
there has neither been any progress30 on determining the of the Treaty, I feel it would be highly inappropriate
source of the Mahakali River nor the inclination of the for us to comment on any aspect since ratification is
Indian Government to withdraw her military personnel purely Nepal’s internal affair.’
from Nepal’s Kalapani territory? Similarly, India is not 6. A very important demand of CPN-UML General
inclined31 to return that already agreed upon tiny 36.68 Secretary, MK Nepal, but one wonders whether
acres of land at Brahmadev Mandi, languishing for the Prime Minister Deuba’s government ever bothered to
last 65 years since the British left India. Didn’t the Joint get that interpretation from the Government of India.
Session of the two Houses in September 1996 constitute 7. Op. cit footnote 4
the all party Parliamentary Joint Monitoring Committee 8. Parliamentary Secretariat’s Verbatim Recordings of
to give necessary guidance ‘in safeguarding the national the Joint Session of two Houses of Parliament on
interests of Nepal'? Ashwin 4, 2053 (September 20, 1996).
Public memory is very short and institutions, the 9. Dhruba Kumar. 2004. Parliament and Public Policy
bedrock of any society, unfortunately have no memory Making: A Case Study of the Mahakali Treaty in
at all. There is a dire need in this Interim period to Dr. Lok Raj Baral (ed) Nepal Political Parties and
constitute an all party mechanism akin to Parliamentary Parliament. Delhi. Adroit Publishers.
Monitoring Joint Committee. Without such a mechanism 10. Water Resources Minister Rana, Rs 21 billion;
giving guidance, Nepal will be making a grave mistake if Foreign Minister Dr. Lohani, Rs 24 billion and CPN-
the Pancheshwar Detailed Project Report is finalized by UML Mahakali Treaty Study Team coordinator KP
the all bureaucrat-led PDA. A grave blunder of national Sharma (Oli), Rs 120 billion annually. Now 16 years
proportion because this will set the precedent that, in all later in 2012, DOED/Ministry of Energy’s brochure
likelihood, would be replicated in all future joint Nepal- on Pancheshwar project claims Rs 34.5 billions
India water resources projects! annually.
11. The Mahakali Treaty came into force on June 5,
-- 1997 when the two governments exchanged the
instruments of ratification. Ironically, this exchange
S.B. Pun is the former Managing Director of Nepal of instruments was done when Bamdev Gautam,
Electricity Authority (NEA) and in his closing years the opponent of treaty ratification, was Deputy
served as the Officer on Special Duty at the Ministry of Prime Minister during Lokendra Bahadur Chand’s
Water Resources, Government of Nepal. He writes on premiership.
energy and water issues. 12. DN Dhungel and SB Pun (eds). 2009. Nepal-
Corresponding address: [email protected] India Water Relationship: Challenges. Springer.
Netherlands.
Notes 13. Ram Chandra Poudel, the present Parliamentary
1. Actually the Treaty had already been initialed on Leader of Nepali Congress, was the then Speaker.
January 29, 1996 at Kathmandu by the two Foreign 14. Actually this is 36.68 acres, indicating lack of due
Ministers Dr. Prakash Chandra Lohani of Nepal and diligence by Nepalese bureaucracy. This mistake
Pranab Mukherjee of India. of 36.68 acres excess land was made during the
2. Also working overtime were the pro-treaty MK Nepal swapping of lands for the 1920 Sarada barrage at
and KP Oli faction of the CPN-UML party. Banbasa. India in July 23, 1946 had already agreed to
3. Of 228 MPs present at the Joint Session, 220 MPs return this excess land but has not done so even after
voted for and 8 MPs voted against, so that 96.5% of 66 years!
the MPs present in the House voted for ratification of 15. According to the Parliamentary Secretariat letter of
the Mahakali Treaty – 31 MPs (26 from CPN-UML) 2053/7/16 (November 1, 1996) to the Ministry of
abstained. Water Resources, the following were the members
4. From Parliamentary Secretariat’s Verbatim of the Parliamentary Monitoring Joint Committee:
Recordings of the Joint Session of two Houses of 1. Speaker of Lower House, Ram Chandra Poudel –
Parliament on Ashwin 4, 2053 (September 20, 1996). Chairman 2. Amar Raj Kaini 3. Urba Dutta Pant 4.
5. It is not clear whether this commitment from India Jhala Nath Khanal 5. Prem Bahadur Singh 6. Bhakta
was verbal or written. What we do know is that Prime Bahadur Balayar 7. Bharat Mohan Adhikari 8. Bhim
Minister Deuba did make this commitment in writing Bahadur Rawal 9. Mahesh Acharya 10. Mahesh
to MK Nepal through his letter of September 11, 1996 Chaudhary 11. Rabindra Nath Sharma 12. Ram
(Bhadra 26, 2053). If India has indeed made this Janam Chaudhary 13.Surendra Prasad Chaudhary 14.

HYDRO NEPAL ISSUE NO. 11 JULY, 2012

16
 Subhas Chandra Nembang 15. Hridesh Tripathi. The 26. Ram Chandra Poudel, the present Parliamentary
first meeting of the Committee invited the following Leader of Nepali Congress, was the then Speaker.
ministers as permanent invitees to all meetings of 27. Earlier Kantipur (Shrawan 29, 2066 – August 13,
the Committee: 1. Water Resources Minister PSJB 2009) had quoted the Pancheshwar Project Chief, DB
Rana 2. Foreign Minister Dr. PC Lohani and 3. Singh, that the annual benefits from Pancheshwar
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Narahari Acharya. were electricity: Rs 45.88 billion, irrigation: Rs 5.69
16. Delay and Drift on the Mahakali. June 2001. Himal billion, fisheries: Rs 16 billion and carbon credit: Rs
South Asian. Kathmandu. 4.42 billion totaling an annual benefit of Rs 71.99
17. The Secretary level meet decided that the CEO billion.
of Pancheshwar Development Authority will be 28. The recent DOED/MOE brochure on the Pancheshwar
appointed ‘either from India or Nepal on competitive Multipurpose Project claims NRs 34.50 arabs of
basis having required qualification, relevant revenue from Nepal’s portion of 6.16 arab units which
experience and proven track record.’ Such ‘relevant means NRs 5.60 per unit. Thus the Project has given
experience and proven track record’ criteria clearly each of the districts of Darchula, Kanchanpur, Kailali,
rules out Nepal ever having her CEO at PDA. Actually Doti, Bajhang, Bajura and Achham Rs 0.234 billion
as this is a bi-national project, this CEO post should annually as royalty. The districts of Baitadi and
have been shared on a rotational turn by turn basis. Dadeldura having the dam and regulating structures
18. SN Upadhyay. December 2009. The Mahakali Treaty: will get Rs 0.564 billion and Rs 0.261 billion per
View from the Negotiating Table. Prof. Ananda P annum respectively.
Shrestha and Dr. Pushpa Adhikari edited Mahakali 29. The 2069 calendar distributed by Pancheshwar
Treaty Pros and Cons for Nepal. Sangam Institute. Multipurpose Project, DOED/MOE, indicates India’s
Kathmandu. Sarada Canal with 326 cubic meters per second
19. Assistant Professor, Nepal Law Campus, Bhrikuti discharge. Does this then mean that Nepal has already
Mandap, Kathmandu. acquiesced to India’s existing consumptive uses of
20. By this time Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal had 326 cubic meters per second? Who agreed to this
already dismantled the Ministry of Water Resources figure and what has happened to MK Nepal’s equal
into that of Energy and Irrigation. MP Nepal is also entitlements to the waters of the common Mahakali
credited with having fathered the Mahakali Treaty river?
by ‘tying up the Sarada barrage of yesterday with 30. Prime Minister SB Deuba in his letter of Bhadra 26,
Tanakpur barrage of today for Pancheshwar of 2053 (Sept. 11, 1996) informed MK Nepal that the
tomorrow’! two countries had agreed on a three year program
21. The writer wishes to thank ‘Chintan’ for availing this to demarcate the Nepal-India border in a scientific
letter as well as that from the Legislative Parliament manner. In the last 16 years, nothing has materialized
Secretariat to the writer. on determining the source of Mahakali river. In the
22. World Bank’s Final Draft Report on Ganges Strategic 1996 query of KP Sharma (Oli), Water Resources
Basin Assessment, March 2012. Minister Rana had stated that Nepal categorically
23. Kathmandu Post (May 8, 2012) quoting Indo-Asian rejects India’s version of Kalapani Tal as the source
News Service. of Kali river.
24. Reports indicate that Bangladesh proposed India the 31. On the return of excess 36.68 acres of land to Nepal,
Teesta water sharing of 40% each with 20% release Indian ambassador KV Rajan on September 21, 1996
for preserving eco-system. It appears the two sides – RSV (a day after treaty ratification) replied in this
had agreed on India getting 42.5% and Bangladesh seeming fashion: ‘It seems a matter that goes back
37.5% of Teesta waters. But as West Bengal Chief to 1920 before India became independent. It seems
Minister, Mamata Banerjee, opposed it, the as if after the actual land was measured … was likely
agreement could not be signed. Packaged with this in excess of what was supposed to be the case now.
Teesta water sharing were two other important deals: This is a very small, very technical matter. I have
the exchange of enclaves from British-India times no doubt at all that the two countries will be able
(India’s 111 enclaves – 17,158 acres and Bangladesh’s to resolve this….. to the total satisfaction of Nepal
51 enclaves – 7,110 acres) and the strategic Transit in the very near future.’ From publication in Nepali
Corridor through Bangladesh for access to India’s of the Ministry of Water Resources, His Majesty’s
seven north-eastern States. Nepal’s policy makers, if Government of Nepal dated Kartik 29, 2053 (Nov.
they wish, could learn a few things from this Teesta 14, 1996) on the Treaty between His Majesty’s
packaged deal on the Mahakali treaty. Government of Nepal and the Government of India
25. The Kantipur Bhadra 7, 2067 (August 23, 2010). DB concerning the Integrated Development of the
Singh is presently the Director General of Department Mahakali River including Sarada Barrage, Tanakpur
of Electricity Development. Barrage and Pancheshwar Project.

HYDRO NEPAL ISSUE NO. 11 JULY, 2012

17