Nepal and India both will lose if there is no strong cooperation in energy and water resource

Professor Dr. Mahendra P Lama
Indian Development Economist and Member of Nepal-India Eminent Persons’ Group

Prof. P Lama has spent three decades of his lifetime in playing an important role in energy exchange, energy diplomacy and cross-border energy trade in bilateral Nepal-India, India-Bhutan and India-Bangladesh, including multilateral of South Asia and South East Asia. The current cooperation for cross border energy trade in South Asia and South East Asia has been attributed largely to Lama.  

Urja Khabar talked with Lama on the issues related to Nepal-India social relationship, energy and water, energy trade and energy cooperation among South Asian countries. An excerpt:

1.    How do you take Nepal-India relationship in energy exchange and development?

In terms of potentiality and capacity of feasible projects for Nepal-India energy exchange, the neighboring relationship is unique across the globe. Besides being an inseparable to harness the extensive energy production capacity of the landlocked country, India could serve as a big market for Nepal produced energy. Likewise, the country undoubtedly can be the main mean to sell Nepal’s energy to South Asian region and the countries situated in South-east. I think whatever the existing chain of energy exchange be in Nepal and India, the possibility we have, there is no parallel example. 

2.   As of now, Nepal and India have gone into numerous treaty/agreement in relation to the bilateral water resource and energy. In your reading, whether it is energy or water resource that India is more interested in?

There are many historical agreements took place between Nepal and India in exchange of energy and water, which includes Koshi to Gandak, Pacheshwor and Saptakoshi High-dam. Nepal is a country situated in higher basin, however, it is inevitable that water from Nepal finds its own flow in downstream towards India. It will be against the Principle of Natural Justice if Nepal tries to check water being flown to India.

It will be the matter beyond diplomatic relation also, if Nepal fixes quota on providing water to India. This is because water flows down the sloppy land in its natural form. Nepal and India carried out the agreements not only in energy but also in water, like Koshi, Gandak and Mahakali. However agreements on Koshi and Gandak invited different controversies. A lot of them were focused on flashback of what we did and what we could not do.

Despite having these issues in place, if Nepal wishes to utilize whatever natural resources the country has in order to take them the main mean for the right development, it will be difficult for the mountainous country to accomplish the task without considering assistance and coordination of India. Lacking these, Nepal lost benefits in energy and water over the time and could also lose a great in the future.   

3.   In your view, what roles do energy and water resource play in the bilateral diplomatic relationship?

Apart from exchange of cultural, trade, commerce, tourism, military and human groups, water and electricity are supposed to act the largest and important goods when they come for relationship between Nepal and India. Unfortunately, these were taken to a deepened and an extensive politicization. In Nepal, massive controversies were raised on both of these issues saying “India is exploiting natural resources of Nepal.” Likewise, rumors were also plotted as India had been pressing Nepal to sign treaties and agreements, which were not in favor of the landlocked country. Politics entered in this issue too. 

I consider, Nepal and India are entering into reality from now onward. Both the countries need cooperation from each other to maintain their win-win position in the region. It is apparent now the strategy and direction adopted by India and Bhutan in the past 36 years resulted in clear, improved and fruit-bearing yields through energy cooperation. Nepal and India too can achieve important achievement provided they work in collaboration. In my view, civil societies and society’s leaders of both the countries have also established its validity. 

4.   Mostly, there has been a public assessment that India took Nepal’s energy as one of the strategic goods. What is your take on the issue?

Whatever the agreements on electricity and water were inked, they were not as per the wish of the Nepali side, says the critics. Being a small country too, Nepal could have been raising the issue. The influencing Indian leaders, who might have realized the context, never thought to maintain transparency and to work differently.
The guidelines issued by India in 2021 have clearly mentioned that there should not be limitation that Nepal has to sell its electricity to India; rather the country can sell its product also to other neighboring countries. India has lot more transformed itself from conventional thinking. Otherwise, the South Asian giant might have asked Nepal to sell its electricity only to India, not other countries, for many decades from now.  

India could have thought they would maintain control over all its neighboring countries in electricity production and exports. The country has changed widely in this type of conventional thinking. Currently, India has been reiterating that it has to assume the role of third party, but not only as electricity producer and trader, provided it intends to take its neighboring countries together.   

The third party role clearly is the ‘transit right.’ This would provide Nepal an opportunity to use transmission lines in India and national grid to sell its produce to Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and many countries in South-east region. It is an unanticipated, but appreciable move of Indian government that it endorsed the guidelines. Currently, the guidelines envision electricity trade only between Bangladesh and Nepal. However, a time will come and the limitation will be crossed over, allowing incorporating other neighboring countries as well for the regional energy cooperation.

5.   It is well known that there is a potential of sufficient hydropower generation in Nepal. While you are studying Nepal's side here in India, which sector do you think should be prioritized for energy development in order to achieve double-digit economic growth? 

Currently, Nepal's electricity generation capacity is slightly more than 2,000 MW. The way new hydropower projects are being built in Nepal shows that in the next decade or two, a large amount of electricity will be produced in Nepal. Its market cannot be only within Nepal.

If we look at the record of past 6-8 months, Nepal exports 364 MW of electricity to India's energy exchange market every day. Looking at this data, Nepal has earned around Rs 10.39 billion by selling 26-27 million units of electricity at an average price of Rs 8.23 per unit. This shows that whatever amount of electricity it produces; there will be no inconvenience for Nepal to sell it in India.

While Nepal's role in the economic development of India will continue to remain important, this could lead to inverse dependency in the future. On the other hand, 400 kV transmission lines are rapidly being built while Dhalkebar- transmission line has been completed. By 2024, the line from Sankhuwasabha to Sitamari via Dhalkebar will also be completed. There is also a plan to build the line from Lamki in Kailali to Bareilly in India in the next 7-8 years.

At first, everyone thought that transmission lines should be laid only after producing electricity. But
At first, everyone thought that transmission lines should be laid only by generating electricity. Now, exactly the opposite opinion has formed. First lay the transmission line, which helps stimulate electricity production automatically. The World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), USAID's Sari/EI project, all have been taking initiatives in this matter. It was because everyone was giving strength that new ideas started to gain recognition. Non-governmental organizations, individuals and experts have played very important roles in this. 
Nepal’s Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi exchanged the Vision Document in April 2022, which has clarified that there will be no problem in selling bilaterally the electricity in whatever the quantity to be produced by Nepal.

In the vision document, it is mentioned that 'India can play 4-5 roles for electricity generation in Nepal'. The document provides a positive indication that the electricity produced in Nepal will not be limited only in the BBIN member countries including Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal, rather it can be expanded beyond that. It also talks about the matter of Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project.

The good thing about this is that a few months ago when the Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina came to India, there was a cordial conversation between the Prime Ministers of India and Bangladesh. The talk has shown positive sign for allowing Bangladesh to make capital investment to produce electricity in Nepal, such that the electricity can be sent to Bangladesh via India or by making India a transit for the transmission.
It has been concluded that 'India will have no objection if Bangladesh invests its capital in Nepal.' This development was beyond the imagination until a decade ago. 

The process of developing the 683 MW Sunkosi-3 hydropower project jointly by Nepal and Bangladesh has progressed considerably. The government of Nepal has already given environmental approval to this first bilateral cooperation project that is estimated to cost Rs 160 billion. The project is being built in the location at the border of Ramechhap and Kavrepalanchok districts.

6.   As our discussions progressed on bilateral and regional basis, the scope of power exchange is widening. In this context, how can Nepal and India get mutual benefits from Nepal's hydropower?

Today, Nepal’s modality of development has been changing. In such situation, if India does not invest in Nepal or if electricity trade does not take a big form in the relationship between India and Nepal, then India will be a loser. It is almost sure that India will lose, in a catastrophic way, the role it has to play in Nepal's electricity production.

If India loses, it will allow investors from other countries including China to inject their capital in the energy sector of Nepal, which might not be good for India regarding its national security. When India realized need for assuming its prime role to accomplish this work, it completely transformed from its traditional role to be played in Nepal. Firstly, it came out of the idea that 'electricity produced in Nepal should be sold in India' and secondly, it opened the gateway to sell Nepal’s electricity to Bangladesh and Myanmar. India has to think for bigger prospects now.

In Jakarta of Indonesia, there is a large regional research institute of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) called 'Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East-Asia (ERIA)'. There, we conducted a study together with energy experts from Japan and India three years ago. The study report has clearly stated that we can make the North-East region of India, where there is proximity between Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh, a power bridge of energy.

All the electricity produced by India, Nepal and Bhutan can be developed into a 'power bridge' in one place, like South African Power Bridge, Nord Power Bridge and Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Power Bridge. The power bridge can be built in anywhere like Guwahati or Imphal or Nagaland in North-East India that can bank electricity produced by these three countries. Our study was not just limited to South Asia, but also considered the possibility to trade our electricity to South-East Asian countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand.

If the electricity trade and production relationship between Nepal and India are more organized and structured, this kind of potential can come forward in larger form, while both the countries can take it for greater development. Therefore, Nepal has to come out of its traditional political practices and inferior thinking of being a small country. On the other hand, India should also come out of its haughty nature of being a big and an all-powered nation. If both the countries agree for taking forward the idea that electricity should be promoted commercially,' it will give both the countries a good back up for their economic development. 

In addition, there is talk going on for green energy. The global discussion now is focused on transforming from fossil fuel, gas, petroleum and coal to green renewable energy. Nepal has immense potential of hydropower, the largest source of renewable energy. With the ongoing climate change debate, various strategies are being devised. Nepal, in single or collatoration with India, can play a vital role in this regard.

7.   In Nepal, there is a conventional belief that the country cannot be rich by selling electricity. How can Nepal get out of this?

The idea is quite strange in present context. If we take a look of the Gulf countries, they have been rich by selling oil. If we look at Russia, it gained economic prosperity by selling oil and gas. Bhutan and Laos have been selling electricity. And, Nepal, which has great potential and abundant natural resources, refuses selling them. What can be quite amazing than keeping this type of thought?

Unless you look for taping the existing potentials, the oil stays under the ground, natural gas remains idle at the bottom of the mining and water flows away to be wastage. It means in each and every moment, week, month and year, there is a huge loss of billions and trillions of rupees. In this context, there is a need for prompt action by changing our mind set. The country should have a strategy on how to convert water into electricity and sell it as quickly as possible. If the government or leaders concerned do not think over the issue, people will achieve the least despite their wants. 

The thought mentioned, used to exist in a particular generation. We have observed that such ideas get disappeared over the time. If you take a look at how terrible the debate was for Arun-3 in the 1990s, the World Bank kept its hands out of the mega project. Now again, works for the same abandoned projects like Arun-3 and Arun-4 have come forward and they are now going on.

A generation with the rigid thought is gradually getting older and passing out. The new generation wishes for a stronger economic system and greater mobility. The people now like bright light everywhere - from hospitals to educational institutions and hotels, following the development of new thought driven by 'we need electricity and we need light at any cost'. The government seemingly moves away from the ideas that provoke lower electricity production and politics first or not letting India come along electricity production.

Whether you want to do politics or you wish to win elections, electricity is the gateway. It is obvious that the government comes under pressure when the people's desires were the same and they do not want to live in the dark. The government is inviting various organizations and nations to invest in electricity production again. A silver lining is seen on the side of Nepal-India relationship. The role that electricity and water have to play among us is becoming more important.

Two decades ago, the way of thinking was very worrying and critical type in Nepal. We all used to be speechless to see this kind of thinking of Nepal, but today the country is rapidly moving towards reality. We are hopeful that by producing electricity and exporting it to Indian market and other countries via Indian land, Nepal will move into a drive to become rich.

Here, I don’t want to say that, like the former Chief Minister of Sikkim who built a 2W project on the peaceful Tista-Rangit River in a despicable and reprehensible way and it should be done in Nepal as well. Bringing in companies that have never worked in hydroelectricity and have never seen mountains and cliffs and tough terrain, just for personal interests and benefits, for sure is devastating for the places like Sikkim which is full of natural beauty. It seems to bring in misfortune for Sikkim, which is entering darkness and destruction in the future.

In the context of modern Sikkim, the structure can only be demolished or destroyed. All around, hills-houses-land were washed away and rural life was destroyed, resulted from the trauma and pain caused by these projects.

After the 2011 earthquake, as more than half of the companies fled, Sikkim plunged in high debt. The current government has to bear the financial burden of that debt. The then leaders, who were actually the cause of destroyed river-nature-community, have been enjoying their political life in a normal way as if they did not do anything wrong. While developing hydropower in the future, Nepal has to learn a big lesson from Sikkim.

8.   You have been working in connection to not only South Asia, but also in number of countries of South-East Asia and others from around the globe. Regarding this issue of energy, what is the situation of energy trade within the BBIN network and what kind of contribution do you think Nepal can make?

Nepal needs to play a leading role, which the country has not been able to do so far. Nepal has sufficient hydropower generation capacity to lead the entire Himalayan region on climate change, while other countries may not have that ability. First, you have to prioritize your ability to lead. Nepal lags largely in this matter at present.

A concept called BBIN (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal) was formed, under which a Motor Vehicle Agreement was signed in 2015. In the 2014 SAARC summit held in Nepal, the agreement on electricity trade incorporated eight South Asian nations.

In this agreement, it is clearly underlined that the role of power generation, export and trade is crucial in the South Asian region. Rather than India, Nepal needs to take forward the agreement. It is also because Nepal is at a higher side of geographic situation and is a nation that can produce electricity in abundance, compared to India. No matter how many partner countries there are at the international level, they are the countries that expressed commitments to help Nepal. Only needed the factors like political will, leadership, technical manpower and technical institutions, together with the associations to work in this field. As the situation today is very favorable and rewarding, Nepal must work in this field promptly within the next 10 years.

Since 2000, we have worked on the South Asia Regional Initiative on Energy (SARI/E) project under the USAID. There was extensive cooperation of the organizations involved in the research. Nepal's Institute of Integrated Development Studies (IIDS), Bangladesh's Bangladesh Development Council and Center for Policy Dialogue (CPD), Sri Lanka's Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), Pakistan's Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) and India's Jawaharlal Nehru University and Tata Energy Research Institute, among others, we all worked together. In this way, we have widened the narrow door of international electricity trade.

In the 1990s, India hardly accepted any positive things when it came for the energy trade. It used to say that there was no need to talk about electricity business with neighbors. It showed the reason of the 'chicken neck' that connects Siliguri, Darjeeling and the North-East which hardly allow an easy access to stretch transmission line via the route. Despite having limited resources, we carried out a study from our part and developed a viable model. We not only showed a dream, but also widened the path of possibility and proved how it could be turned into commercially viable.

After carrying out study under the USAID and Sari/E, we moved forward by providing training to transmission and power producing organizations, which changed the situation. At present, India connected the national grid of both countries by extending the transmission line between Baharampur (West Bengal) and Veramara (Bangladesh). The country started supplying Bangladesh with the electricity produced by the gas-based project from in Palatana of Tripura.

As India comes out of its narrow thinking, why can't Nepal come out of it? Rather, Nepal has to lead.
When Maharaj Krishna Rasgotra was the foreign secretary of India, he went to Bhutan and discussed the construction of the Chukha hydroelectric project. The then Bhutanese king Jigme Singhe Wangchuck told Rasgotra both India and Bhutan need electricity equally. However, if Chukha or Kurichu is made, Bhutan would suffer a great loss. Bhutanese king Wangchuck presented the reason that Bihari, Bengali and Nepali workers, among others, all would come to work here and if they didn't go back, it would create upheaval in our Bhutan.
In response to this, Rasgotra replied "Then, we will not keep the laborers we brought here, we will take them back with the construction of an electricity factory," Rasgotra wrote in his book. 

After saying this, the Bhutanese king smiled and said, "If it doesn't happen as you said or if your assurance goes opposite…” The king completed his sentences by sign language keeping his own hand on his throat, indicating that he would cut Rasgotra’s throat with his own hand. That level of thinking or barriers was broken at that time. Today, everyone knows where Bhutan has reached in the electricity generation and trading sector.
In the 1980s, Bhutan had the view that outsiders should not be brought inside the country.

Bhutan got out of such narrow thinking and built Chukha, Tala, Mangdechu, Kurichu, Punasangcho and other electricity projects later on, with the help of India. The Sunkos project is also heading towards its construction phase. In 2021, Bhutan exported 117,000 GWs of electricity to the Indian market, which made out 75 percent of the country’s total production. Priorly, in the 2020, the country earned 43.51 billion baht by selling electricity. About 10 percent of Bhutan's gross national income, 38 percent of gross export earnings, and 33 percent of gross domestic revenue come from electricity exports.

Today, Nepal has also shown its commitment to coming out of the conventional thinking. Now, it should be taken to the direction of an organized, institutional and political will.

9.   Although there is such a good environment between Nepal and India regarding electricity trade, there are some differences. In 2014, an electricity trade agreement was signed between Nepal and India. However, Nepal is not able to import and export electricity without discrimination, as envisioned in the agreement. In this context, how do you find the understanding of India?

The Mahakali agreement of 1996 was also appropriate for that time, while the electricity trade agreement of 2014 was equally relevant. On the other hand, it has been eight years since the electricity trade agreement was signed. During this period, a 'guide-lines' has been developed for the exchange of electricity in the entire South Asia, especially among Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and India.

Also, India that once did not want to hear any word of cross-border electricity trade has now introduced the Cross Border Electricity Trade (CBET) guideline. This means, there was a big change in the thinking of India as well. We are also caught by surprise that a country which used to consider chicken neck corridor too narrower to erect electricity poles, now starts saying that 'if you have electricity generated in your country, you can send it to Myanmar and Bangladesh through India.' This means that there is a massive transition in the political parties, technical side and overall system of India. 

I consider if India declines at some point today to provide capital assistance for power generation in Nepal, another country will come to assist the country to help develop the projects. Similarly, if Nepal refuses to sell electricity to India, another country (May it be Bhutan or Myanmar) will come front to purchase Nepal’s produce. Now, there prevails competition about 'who will earn how much and how to protect the market'. The more it is delayed, the more damage the concerned might suffer. In such a situation, India also seems to be aware of the situation.

Earlier, India used to say that all the hydropower projects in Nepal should be built by its public sector undertaking 'NHPC'. Today the country has changed the version, 'Tata, Adani or anyone else can make it'. It means the thinking has changed. 

Private sectors are also going to Bhutan for investment today. The situation is being tough for political leaders, bureaucrats, dictators and technocrats to deal with the market system. The idea 'the more open the market system is, the better it is' is flourishing. While this idea is being materialized, the market system may rule over any of the sectors including electricity, tourism, education or health.

I think that there are bright days coming up in Nepal-India electricity relationship. The achievements in the last two or three years also provide evidences that the good things have started. Nepal that had only imported electricity from India in the past has now started exporting 364 MW to India. It is seeking to export 615 MW in the next six months. Following this, speculations are coming forward to sell 2000 MW and gradually to up to 18,000-20000 MW, which was just an imagination in the past.

10.   You said if India cannot do something in the interest of Nepal, another country will come and do it. The structure of cultural, linguistic and social relations between Nepal and India has also connected the two countries for centuries. From a geographical and strategic point of view also, I don't think any other countries will come to Nepal easily to replace India. Is the thing you have said a diplomatic comment or a reality?

Look, what we common people think about a country like China, it envisions much higher than that. Who would have thought that a railway would be brought from Shanghai to Lhasa at an elevation of up to 21,000 feet? Who would have thought that this railway line would lead the line to Sigatse and even up to Kerung, but it happened. Who would have thought that a mega dam project would be built on the Yarlung Zangbo (Brahmaputra River) in Tibet to generate electricity? Who would have thought that the Yangtze River would be made flow 1,300-1,400 hundred kilometers up to Shanghai, Beijing, and Tianjin to supply water for drinking or agriculture?

Now, we should not remain confined to yesterday's thinking. China can do anything. It always aims to make its hold over Nepal, from where it can compete with India or America. For China, generating electricity in Nepal is similar to building an oil and gas pipeline from Myanmar to Yunnan province and extending the reach to Chongqing, Shanghai and Fuchen. Who would have thought 20 years ago, that China could do this? Everything is possible when we put ourselves within that periphery.

We often say - there are rocky mountain is a big obstacle for China to come to Nepal. If you consider the route between Shanghai and Lhasa, China is operating a bullet train on the similar tough terrain. Compared to that, the geographical condition of Nepal is not a big task for China. China can strengthen the move and goes to any extent to widen the scope of its sovereignty.

China has no dearth of money and they don't seem to need political will either. If it is for national security and interest, then they are ready to compromise on anything. The historical, cultural, economic and environmental relations between India and Nepal are never comparable when it comes for China and Nepal. We have to expand, protect and promote them.

11.   Now in terms of bilateral and regional electricity trade, which country do you think should play a role in developing a balanced energy diplomatic relationship?

Nepal should keep its stand clear to India in relation to electricity and water. You should make your policy clear. Policies change with a change in different political parties led governments. Today if Congress leads the government, this is the policy, if Maoists come, another policy, and if UML comes, another policy; this should not happen. No matter which party is there in power, the policy should be the same.

If Nepal adopts a clear policy and stance, there will be pressure over India. India will also make its stand more clear and move forward by formulating a long-term policy. I think this is very important. Every time, the policies alter with formation of new government. But the stream and river and water flown in them, is the same. The electricity market and people's need for electricity also remain the same. In this context, how will only the government's stance change in Nepal? This must not happen.

If the policy and stance are kept clear, there will be pressure on the Indian government to do what it has to say or do. For example: In 1996, the Mahakali treaty was signed, whereas the detailed project report (DPR) of the Pancheswor Multipurpose project has not been made yet. In this matter, both the countries have been playing blame game on each other.

Where did the parties that inked agreement go today? Where did the government that signed the deal go? Why don't they speak? That must not happen. Nepal should keep its stand clearly before India while India should also adopt a long-term policy on this matter.

One good thing is that India has brought a policy 'guidelines' for trading electricity with Nepal. The proof of this is the difference between the 'Guidelines' made in 2018 and the 'Guidelines' implemented in 2021. Nepal and Bhutan protested against the 'Guidelines' issued in 2018 claiming that we won't get anything from this policy. Then, the Modi government revised the 2018 'Guidelines' and made them valid for all in 2021.

12.   Let's talk some about water sources. While developing hydropower projects in Nepal, how is it possible for both countries to mutually benefit in terms of distribution of gains out of lower coastal water?

A traditional stance of Nepal is, 'Don't just talk about electricity, but talk about water too'. That is the stance of water. It is said that 'Nepal's water irrigates India, and it benefits immensely the farmers there'. That is a good stance. In particular, Nepal did not get even a fraction of the benefits that India got from the Koshi and Gandak agreements. That is very true and the statistics show the same, which was also a controversial topic. There would have been no dispute if both countries had benefited equally. India reiterates it is inevitable that water goes to them whether Nepal stops it or not. This is a natural flow. Saying this, the country turns to the other side.

The solution to such problems should be sought from international practices. Rivers like Indus, Nile and Euphrates can be taken as examples. Like in an international context, how are water and electricity viewed? What are their problem solving practices? How did they resolve it diplomatically? How was it settled through international agreements? In context of Nepal-India water and electricity also, this kind of experience and testing should be taken as bases.

The 'Joint River Commission' between Nepal and India should be made even bigger. The World Bank participates in discussions under the Indus (Sindhu) River and in the rivers between India and Pakistan. As for the flow of water between Nepal and India, the experts, institutions, and experienced people who have worked globally in the field need to finalize these matters by forming a good committee in consultation of both governments. Otherwise, the influential groups of both the countries play the blame game, while the issues remain unsolved forever.

Now both the countries have to reach to a conclusion. So much work has been done. These little things are keeping the two sides stuck. It has become a bottleneck. I say this dispute should be resolved by the government of India and Nepal in consultation with both countries by bringing in international experts. We also talked extensively in the meetings and discussions of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) formed in 2016. We discussed all these topics in a comprehensive and in-depth manner. The findings obtained out of this have been included in a scientific manner in the report of the EPG group.

On the other hand, there is an urgent need for change in the diplomacy-discussion related with water. So far, only the foreign ministries and diplomats of Kathmandu and New Delhi have spoken. Now the situation is different. Since there are different states under both the nations, the votes of these states should also be kept under the discussion.

After Bengal stalled the discussions between India and Bangladesh over the flow of the Tista River, the Tista Agreement was shelved. This can also happen between India and Nepal. Apart from this, civil society, experts, farmers' organizations, research organizations etc. should also be involved in the discussion. 
With this intention, we along with Asia Foundation of New Delhi in 2020, started a special course on Water Diplomacy (Hydro Diplomacy) in three educational institutions-- Indian Institute of Technology, Gauhati; Sikkim Central University and Pondicherry University.

After seeing such a deep interest among students and teachers, we are planning to start this course also in the countries like Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan, among others. In other words, knowledge about water and the ability of diplomacy will be the institutionalized in organizations-community-experts-civil society apart from the government bodies-organizations.

13.   There were very important agreements took place between the two countries over Koshi, Gandak and Mahakali, but the targeted large multipurpose projects could not be built. What reason behind this do you see?

The biggest reason might be that there could be poor homework done before signing the contract! It seems that these agreements were taken for granted by the two governments. There were not just one or two of such agreements, but this happened to be a long series. Due to the fact of ill preparation in advance, today the work is not going in the pace as we expected. Targeted multipurpose projects like Pancheshwar and Saptakosi High Dam, among others, have not been able to move forward.

After the Mahakali Treaty, the 'Mahakali Commission' was formed under the chairmanship of Prof. Lokraj Baral to solve the problem. However, it would take a lot of effort to pass the treaty through the Nepal’s Parliament. All these results are the outcomes of our immaturity. Now, whenever such agreements are inked, all the necessary works must be done beforehand. They should not be left to be done later. Political, diplomatic and environmental issues should be well studied and debated. It should be discussed not only at the technical level but also at the general public forum.

Along with the treaty/agreement, there should be sufficient study of geographical, geological, environmental, and social aspects in connection with the construction of large projects. The work of DPR should be done in advance. While keeping all these things for later, it will change people's mentality and behaviors with the situation. There could be a deterioration in trust and patience among political parties. As a result, our intended projects cannot be built.

Therefore, such important treaties/agreements should be made only after due preparation and confident that "the work of the project can be started instantly from tomorrow".

(Professor Dr. Mahendra P. Lama, is an Indian development economist and diplomat. Having assumed the responsibility of the founding Chancellor of the Sikkim Central University (New Delhi), Lama, at the age of 45, completed the proud responsibility of becoming the youngest Chancellor of a national university in India. He has been a member of the High Level National Security Advisory Council of the Government of India and is currently the Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of Sikkim and a member of the Nepal-India Eminent Persons’ Group. India has nominated him as a representative in various high-level committees including SAARC.)

"This Interview is taken from the bi-annual journal Urja Khabar, published on December 16th, 2022."