radhachh@yahoo.com

There have been much discussions on West Seti Hydroelectric Project (WSHEP) not only for the hydro power development but for overall development, especially of the far western region, of the country. The debate is normal and is needed. The project is, sometimes, linked to the issue of Nepal’s nationalism in these discussions. Much is heard or read that the project is against the national interest of Nepal but less is talked on its other side. What could be the reasons behind this? Is it not the conspiracy of creating continued load shedding in Nepal and continuously oppose developing hydro power here? The issue can be debated in this line as well. In fact, this project targets to generate hydro power from the Nepali land and export 90 percent of the produced power to India, and freely distribute 10 percent (more than total capacity of mid-Marshyangdi) in Nepal.

Last week, I received additional information from materials kept at the Dhangadi and Attariya information centers of the project when I reached there during my visit to far west. It was a good attempt to provide information to local people through information centers in villages. It looks a new initiative in the Nepalese context. I had seen such in few less controversial but social projects in India. I was happy to see it in Nepal’s one of the biggest and most questioned project.

The issue to be discussed here is not about information but about laws, development and politics. And it is related to the question about whether the West Seti project is against national interest. I am trying to write on it since the issue has not become inappropriate despite being talked in several occasions.

A case was filed at the Supreme Court demanding verdict against the project in a bid to stop its construction. There are people who oppose hydropower projects in Nepal and it is not abnormal to see them opposing this project as well. It would be astonishing to see that if the court had supported their demand. That is why I, like others, had been waiting for the court’s decision.

The verdict of the court stating that there is no need to stop construction of the project but require a mechanism for compensation to the local people not only erased by suspicion but also elicited hope in me to move ahead with the project. Those, who do not want this project be constructed have resumed their campaign against it and have become active again. Though it is clear that power generated from the WSHEP cannot be shared equally since the government has given the license of producing power within the Nepali territory under joint investment, they (those who oppose) have picked multiple raisons d’être to make people and the investors confused and create unnecessary pressure on the government. This does not suit (the interest) of country and the people.

Primary thing to understand is that export of electricity produced in Nepal to India is normal economic activity. Until the two countries finalize the agreement on sharing water, distribution water resources in the eyes of international laws will not be finalized. That is why it was very clear that this project needed no approval from parliament or constituent assembly. The court has made it clearer.

While talking about (international) laws, suspicion is being raised if India could get first hand right in use of water resources due to this project. However, it is the lack of adequate knowledge on laws related to water resources to assume that a certain country gets first hand right in context of use of water resources. It is clear that efforts of the Non-Governmental Organizations to make the people confuse and present themselves as intellectual is motivated by the notion of protecting their earning source rather than working for the benefit of we the people or the country.

In fact, countries through which river flows get equal rights on water. It does not mean one can demarcate area in water of having his or her rights. The countries through which river flows must consider several issues like its current use, people dependence on that river, future impacts, economic and geographical situation, advantageous use of water resources and such other alternatives.

It is obvious that the project would not control the amount of water flowing into India or retain rights on the flowing water. There is no justifiable logic as well to accept that India has rights on water presently flowing through West Seti. So it is necessary to identify the anti-national elements who advocate, in bid to receive benefits from India, that Nepal must seek rights from India while constructing projects with reservoirs. It has become important task for us to bust the ring of those who prepare project just to oppose the other projects and we must present this as an example to the world community.  To end, all those affected by the project, government, investors, those whose politics rests on the projects and those running NOGs should be aware, in time, from the elements who try to push the society into darkness.

(A permanent resident of Achham, Khadayat is pursuing her master’s degree from Kathmandu)

Editor : The write-up has been translated from the original document in Nepali which appeared in the Kailali Hotline daily of Jan 24.