Submit your Article

After a gap of over two years, the Nepal-India joint steering committee (JSC) consisting of energy secretaries of Nepal and India met in Kathmandu on 23 February 2022. The meeting happened amid concerns of the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) and private investors over restricted electricity export to India and Bangladesh under India’s new export/import guidelines issued in February 2021. For Nepal, the meeting was crucial to clarify matters in order to enhance inter-country electricity export as Nepal will be adding 300MW by July 2022.

With the guideline as a reference for future energy cooperation, Nepal adopted a new approach of wooing India by proposing joint investment in hydro projects and transmission lines. A day before the meeting, the NEA proposed a revised list of operational hydro projects—Upper Tamakoshi (456MW), Upper Bhotekoshi (45MW), Kaligandaki (144MW), Marshyangdi 69 (MW), Middle Marshyagndi (70MW) and Chameliya (30MW)—for India to import 814MW electricity.

In July 2021, the NEA had approached the Central Electricity Authority of India (CEAI) to export its surplus electricity after the operationalization of Upper Tamakoshi. After three months, the CEAI expressed its interest in purchasing 39 MW from the 24MW Trishuli and the 15MW Devighat as only these two projects were eligible to export electricity to India as per the new guidelines.

As per the guidelines, most Nepali power projects cannot sell electricity to the southern neighbor as they have the support of the countries with no energy cooperation with India. Only the projects either developed by NEA or with India’s support qualify.

For example, out of the five NEA-proposed projects, the civil works of the Upper Tamakosi were undertaken by a Chinese company (Indian companies carried out other works). In Upper Bhotekoshi, a JV between China and Nepal, only hydro-mechanical work is done by an Indian company. More such projects are being developed by contractors from multiple countries with 100 percent domestic investment.

Apart from this, there are concerns in India that a large number of these projects have Chinese investments, like shares in electrical-mechanical units and turbines. As Nepali companies failed to secure bank loans to purchase mechanical parts and turbines, they negotiated with Chinese companies, which supplied cheaper machines on the condition of owning shares in those projects. If so, this could create misunderstanding in India-Nepal energy trade given the uncomfortable state of relationship between India and China. 

As per the press release following the JSC, the meeting was successful and both sides committed to bilateral energy cooperation for regional and mutual benefit. Both agreed to explore developing storage hydropower projects. In this regard, they agreed to constitute a Joint Hydro Development Committee (JHDC). India’s SJVN is already developing 900MW Arun III, a storage-type project. The SJVN is also developing 669MW Lower Arun.

In any important development, during the meeting, the Indian side acknowledged enhancements in Nepal’s installed power generation capacity. The two sides reaffirmed power sector cooperation as a strong pillar of India-Nepal partnership and agreed to further strengthen it by joinly developing projects and cross-border power transmissions infrastructure. But there was no mention of Nepal’s new proposal to export 814MW from the five hydro projects. The issues and contents in the press releases of India and Nepal differed slightly, indicating a degree of disagreement on energy trade cooperation.

Nepal aspires to be a regional energy hub by 2040. That won’t be easy. First, for sustainability, the hydroelectricity projects, both run-of-the-river and storage types, are highly dependent on weather, river drainage systems, connectivity, transmission lines, and markets. Several studies have found the Himalayan region vulnerable to rising global temperatures. According to the Independent Power Producers’ Association (IPPAN), floods and landslides damaged 16 under-construction projects in 2021. Ten projects generating electricity, both small and big, incurred damages worth around $83.9 million.

Apart from that, the impact of climate change will determine Nepal’s production, with a lean winter, as most of the current operationalized projects are designed as run-of-the-river. Except Arun III, other storage-based projects are yet to take off. There is also domestic resistance to the shortage-type projects on the grounds of possible earthquakes and people’s displacement.

The second challenge is marketing. Given the small market and the huge gap between domestic energy consumption and production, a guaranteed market is needed to attract investments. Nepal is perhaps motivated by growing renewable energy requirements in the region and perhaps by the prospect of trans-border energy trade under the BBIN framework and the setting up of an energy bank in South Asia. But India will purchase electricity only from those projects that are developed either with 100 percent investment of the exporting country or of Indian investors. As per the new guidelines, only a few Nepali projects are eligible. But the implementation of these guidelines will also depend on the future geopolitical situation in the sub-Himalayan region.

Lastly, domestic politics of Nepal has been a major hurdle in hydropower development. The decade-old Maoist insurgency hindered infrastructure development. And other old issues remain as they were. Despite having a constitution in 2015, political instability, policy paralysis, corruption, and bureaucratic apathy toward the energy sector continue.

Hydropower has the potential to support peak-hour demand, cheap and clean energy, and operational flexibility, which may not be possible with fossil fuels. The role of hydropower would also be critical for the stability of the national, bilateral, and sub-regional grids.

In that context, Nepal’s importance as a major energy source will only grow. Despite its potential of over 40,000MW electricity, Nepal’s energy dependence on other countries has not ended. Although there have been certain improvements in energy production, Nepal needs to devise new energy policies to address existing challenges and to project itself as a reliable and sustainable energy supplier in South Asia.

The author is a Research Fellow with MP-IDSA, New Delhi. The views are personal 

As former US President John F. Kennedy famously said, “Domestic policy can only defeat us, foreign policy can kill us”, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact has weakened Nepal on both domestic and international fronts. The debate over the compact has deeply polarized the Nepali society, Nepal’s major political parties and scholars, hinting at Nepal’s policy instability and political bickering to the international community. The protracted controversy and conspiracy over the compact are a reflection of two major challenges: 1) Lack of stability in Nepal’s major policies, both development and foreign, and 2) the emerging world order and fast-changing geo-political dynamics and polarization of world politics.

It is unfortunate that Nepal has failed to forge national consensus on vital development policies and projects. The major parties are changing their positions depending on partisan benefits, regardless of whether the policies and projects in question are beneficial to the country. The CPN (Maoist Center) and the CPN (Unified Socialist), two major factions in the Deuba-led government, have been protesting against the MCC compact both in and outside the parliament, without quitting the government.

The then KP Sharma Oli government had registered a motion for ratification of the MCC compact in the House in June 2019, but the same Oli-led UML has now done a U-turn and is accusing the Deuba-led government of tabling the compact in the House on the instruction of foreigners. This is a testimony to the deep-seated policy and political instability in Nepal, as well as to a purely partisan political culture and double-standards in Nepal’s politics.

For the most part, the debate over the compact is driven not by the stake of Nepal’s development, but by the imaginary threats to Nepal's sovereignty and security. It is less about safeguarding Nepal’s national interest with a foreign power trying to bully or intimidate Nepal, and more about politics of exaggeration and fear-mongering for partisan gains.

Nepal’s geo-political location between two emerging superpowers China and India and China’s increasing economic and political influence as an alternative superpower against the current US-dominated world order seems to be in full play behind the compact debate.

Given its vital implications for international relations and foreign policy, the communication about and the sensitivity around the compact could have been better handled, for instance by keeping the foreign ministry in the loop from the start. Due to globalization and increased connectivity in finance, people’s movement and technology transfer, domestic developments and foreign policy agendas are closely linked. This is why our own neighbors—including India, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Pakistan—have recently added weight to their foreign policy portfolio.

Sometime ago, the news media reported that Washington had warned that it would review its relations with Nepal in the event Nepal failed to ratify the compact from Parliament. As the foreign ministry has recently tried to communicate, the longstanding US-Nepal relations do not depend on one development project. The controversy over the compact has more to do with Nepal’s domestic politics and nature of the current coalition and less about Nepal’s overall relationship with the US.

Change and stability both guide a country’s foreign policy. In Nepal’s case, it may need to fine-tune its foreign policy in the context of emerging world order. But it is equally important to have a consistent, stable and coherent foreign policy so that Nepal does not send mixed or wrong signals to major powers, its neighbors and other countries with whom it shares vital security, economic, cultural and political concerns.

The world is in fact undergoing a momentous economic, military and technological transformation. The global center of gravity is shifting from the trans-Atlantic to the trans-Pacific. Existing security arrangements and alignments are also undergoing a pivotal change. China is emerging as a front-ranking power against the US and the West. But in the coming decades Asia will be a cluster of major powers such as India, Indonesia, Japan, and the four old tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan), each with significant economic and military capabilities.

In 2050, according to the PricewaterhouseCoopers, a multinational professional services network of firms, in projected GDP at the Purchasing Power Parity, China will be number one economy in the world ($58.4 trillion). It will be followed by India in the second position ($44.1 trillion), the US in the third ($34.1 trillion) and Indonesia in the fourth ($10.5 trillion). According to the Global Power Index, the US and Russia have been ranked number one and two in military strength, but China, India, Japan and South Korea have been ranked third, fourth, fifth and sixth, respectively. With the economic growth of China and India, their military strength will also rise significantly by 2050. Asia is already a new leader in technologies (such as China’s lead in 5G, India in software-as-a-service (SaaS), and Japan and South Korea in electronics).

Between 1945-1989, the world saw a Cold War with the US and former Soviet Union facing each other. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the US was able to assert its claim as the only superpower in the world. In the past decade or so, the rise of India and China, the reassertion of Russia’s military power, and the growth of European Unions’ collective strength have created a multipolar world. Because of the global challenges such as pandemics, climate change, cyber security, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the world is also increasingly interconnected and interdependent.

A famous African proverb goes, “when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled”. When there are multiple competing great powers in the emerging world order, countries like Nepal in sensitive geo-political locations will be asked to be a part of each great power’s political, security and economic alliance and to support their positions at multilateral institutions, including in the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly.

Now the question is, what should Nepal do to protect its interests, remain relevant and effective in the emerging world order and yet not undercut the vital interests of major world powers?

Without a doubt, there will be more policy issues like the MCC compact in the future, including projects funded by China, India and multilateral institutions. Nepal should develop a coherent policy and decide whether a project with big geopolitical stakes and financial implications needs parliamentary approval.

On multilateral fora including at the UN General Assembly, Nepal should be stable in its policy, whether on Kashmir, South China Sea, Israel, Myanmar or Ukraine.

In an era of multipolar emerging world, Nepal should assure both India and China about their security and other vital concerns, but should emphasize that both these emerging powers could benefit from Nepal’s Trans-Himalayan connectivity. While balancing China and India, it is also important to maintain friendly relations with other powers, including the US, the EU, Japan, Russia, South Korea and Australia. This will help prevent heavy dependence on and influence of a single global power in Nepal’s domestic politics and economy.

For example, Bangladesh has maintained good relations with all major powers by focusing on economic development. Bangladesh has also turned its neighbors’ rivalry into billions of dollars in investment. It has indicated its keenness to sign a free trade agreement with China, which in turn has promised $24 billion for infrastructure-development during the recent visit of President Xi Jinping.

According to the US State Department, besides being the single largest importer of Bangladeshi garments, the US is also the top investor in Bangladesh, with $3.5 billion in accumulated investments in 2019. Likewise, Bangladesh-India relations are stronger than ever after the resolution of longstanding border dispute in 2015 and various high level official visits that have enhanced economic, trade and connectivity ties.

As BP Koirala eloquently outlined in the 1960 UN General Assembly, small nations have a role to play on the global stage. A country heavily impacted by global climate change despite its near negligible greenhouse contribution, Nepal should take the lead globally on the climate change agenda by working together with all major powers and affected countries.

Finally, regardless of whether the MCC Compact is approved or not, it is time to reboot Nepal’s foreign policy by organizing a series of international conferences with a proactive role of Nepal’s foreign ministry. The goal should be to give a clear signal to the international community that Nepal has stable and coherent foreign policy. 

The author holds a Master of Science in International Affairs from New School University, New York, and specialized Post Graduate courses from Harvard University, Boston

Climate change has been one of the most pressing issues in recent decades, presenting an overwhelming challenge for scientists, and social, economic, and political systems around the world. The alarming rate of environmental and natural disasters in recent years poses a serious threat to the entire Earth.

While scientists have been warning about the severity of the issue for long, not until recently has it caught the attention of the public and politicians. This increase in consciousness has been changing how a society, in general, should define prosperity and the means to achieve it.

Greenhouse gasses are the major drivers of climate change. Ever since the advent of the industrial era, human activities have added an enormous amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, causing a rise in global temperatures. Energy-use is responsible for emissions of almost three-fourth greenhouse gasses. Growing thirst for cheaper fuel sources to meet the society’s unquenchable energy demands is causing emission-induced climate change. This has disturbed nature, leading to environmental calamities.

Energy is fundamental to life and for the development of human society. The history of human civilization has been categorized based on the way humans recognized and used energy. The ability to create and control fire gave humans a massive advantage over animals. The Iron Age, the Bronze Age, and the Copper Age were all distinguished by the amount and intensity of energy humans used for social transformation.  From firewood to coal, and from petroleum to nuclear energy, humans have come a long way when it comes to harnessing energy.

But due to competition-driven globalization and open market economy a compromise has been made on the quality of energy. Fossil-based fuels for economic development flourished over the past 100 years. The downside of these 100 years of progress and prosperity is an unprecedented global environmental damage.

Learning from past mistakes, human civilization is slowly understanding the need of a “Carbon Neutral Society”. This would be a new era for humanity, a paradigm shift towards understanding the unity between ‘habit and habitat’. The Carbon Neutral Society demands strong political conviction and transformation at the individual, institutional, and societal levels. To achieve a green society, we need to adopt green energy and green conduct, which should be reflected in our thoughts and behaviors.

Has Nepali society gained the maturity to understand the concept of green society? How can our fatalism and modern social norms be transformed to meet the foundations for the creation of Carbon Neutral Society? What roles should politicians, government, academia, and think-tanks play? What are the indicators and influencing factors that guide this process?

A green society demands social transformation first, a paradigm shift in consciousness to feel unity with other living beings and the environment. A green economy is not for a society where only a small part of the population works while the remainder survives exploiting them. A green civilization demands society to work as one living organism. The communities which have understood this principle are transforming towards a greener sustainable society.

After decades of natural calamities and scientific evidence of even more environmental disasters, the modern scientific society’s sensitivity to make the planet liveable for future generations is rising. Such awareness is being converted into impactful outcomes through political interventions.

For a country like Nepal, the awareness level is still not mature. Several focused campaigns and targeted programs are still necessary to elevate the general conscience.

Kathmandu University has conceived a joint multi-disciplinary program called the “Green Society Initiative”, targeting transformation at three different progressive levels. This includes green thoughts and lifestyle at the individual level, a low carbon system and practices at the institutional level, and a sustainable economic ecosystem at the community level.

Broad participation from government, development agencies, private sector and civil society is necessary for a meaningful impact of this initiative.

The author is Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kathmandu University

There are certain ways we engage with others that are likely to create more distance in relationships. These automatic ways of reacting can lead us to feel frustration at best and have conflicts at worst. Lucy Leu coined the term ‘4Ds of Disconnection,’ which explains four ways that create distance in interpersonal relationships. Let’s understand each of these disconnecting factors and the impact they can have on our relationships as well as our own well-being:

Diagnosis: In our day-to-day interactions, it’s easy for us ‘diagnose’ other people—meaning we find it convenient to blame, criticize, and judge. Diagnosis fuels defensiveness and discord in our interpersonal relations. Who likes to be blamed, judged, or criticized after all? Let’s take my own experience. I have always been an introvert, and I prefer one-one conversations and interactions with a closer group of people instead of parties and gatherings. Some of my relatives take this reality with a pinch of salt.

I remember this one time I went to a family gathering a few years ago when one of my relatives told me straight to my face, “You’re such a loner!” This comment became my self-fulfilling prophecy for not going to gatherings any more. We’re readily subject to being diagnosed in different kinds of social contexts—be it while commenting on someone’s weight (kasto moti bhaeko!) the moment we meet them or judging someone based on two or three interactions we’ve had with them (kasto kichkiche cha). Diagnosis is telling people what they are. When we do this, we get cut off from truly listening and learning what might be going on for them.

Denial of responsibility:  When we deny personal responsibility, we blame others for our choices and actions. We tend to take the ‘anyone but me’ approach. For example, we might say, “It is because you were not listening that I had to raise my voice!” “You make me feel alone.” “I have trust issues because you never tell me what you are up to.” In all of these expressions, if you notice, I, as a speaker, am not acknowledging my choices. I’m instead pointing at others, trying to make them feel guilty, and blaming them for what they did or did not do. Denial of responsibility, therefore, bars us from accepting that we do have personal accountability for our thoughts, feelings and actions.

Deserve: A ‘deserve’ language fuels disconnection because we try to become the judge of another person. We measure other people’s actions and behaviors in terms of whether they deserve reward or punishment. When we operate from this mindset, we are less concerned about connecting and more about who deserves what. This makes us lose connection with another person’s needs, objectives and challenges as we are focused more on what we think is right and what we think is wrong.

Demand: Demand in relationships implies the threat of punishment for others if they don’t comply with what we want. If they disagree, we try to make them submit through fear or guilt. You might have noticed that when we make demands, we might not necessarily threaten others with physical punishment but resort to emotional punishment like laying guilt and making ourselves the victim.

Consider a couple that has been planning to go on a trip after the ease in Covid situation. The partner who came up with the trip idea is excited. The other is wrapping his head around the work he needs to get done, now that his office resumed after months of hiatus. His concern may be to get things started at work, but if his partner is not aware of the four 4Ds of Disconnection, she might not be ready to hear a ‘no’ from him.

When he asks her to reschedule the trip, she might probably try to make him feel guilty. “I thought spending quality time with me meant something to you!” “I was getting excited in vain; you surely have more important things to take care of!” If not through guilt, she might subject him to criticism or judgment to make him comply with what she wants. “You worry about all other things in your life, but I am nowhere in it.” “You’re such a selfish person!”

‘Diagnosis’, ‘denial of responsibility’, ‘deserve’ and ‘demands’ are life-alienating forms of communication. They contribute to frustration at best and conflicts at worst. While we can’t escape from other people’s unconscious disconnecting behaviors, we can try not to reciprocate them in our interpersonal relationships.

The author is Linchpin at My Emotions Matter, an education initiative that helps individuals and teams learn the mindset and skills of Emotional Intelligence. Learn more at myemotionsmatter.com