Delay and drift on the Mahakali

Should lndia and Nepal not enter into any treaty? That is the implication of the article "How not to do a South Asian treaty".

Dipak Gyawali and Ajaya Dixit's critique of the Mahakali Treaty in the April 2001 issue of Himal ("How not to do a South Asian treaty") is a valuable contribution, but I have certain reservations about some aspects of their argument.

Let us begin by looking at the matter from the perspectives of the governments of India and Nepal. The Indian view is that there is enormous hydro-electric potential in the Himalayan rivers, and that the realisation of this potential, the provision of water for irrigation, and to some extent, considerations of flood moderation, necessitate several big projects in Nepal. This is not merely the governmental view; it is also shared by many outside the government. The Nepali view (again, not merely restricted to governmental circles), is that water is to Nepal what oil has been to the Gulf countries, namely, a source of wealth and prosperity. The expectation is that a series of projects for the export of power will generate vast financial resources for the country. These are dominant views in both countries. Given these perceptions, there is a convergence of interests between the two sides (at any rate at the official level). That is why the two governments have been talking about certain projects, and have entered into a treaty on one such, namely, Pancheswar.