Misleading editorial

It is unfortunate that you have rushed into making prejudiced and preconceived judgements on India’s intentions on the issue of inundation, without verifying facts or the applicability of certain international instruments to these issues.

There is no Helsinki Convention of 1966. There are Helsinki Rules of 1966 on the uses of the Waters of International Rivers, which were adopted by the International Law Association at Helsinki in August 1966. The Association is an international non-governmental

organisation and therefore the Rules are not binding on any State, although they reflect the existing practice of States on the subject. The UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Use of International Watercourses was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1997. In both these documents there is a general obligation on upper and lower riparian states to consult and cooperate while planning measures that are likely to affect one or the other state. In cases where one state apprehends any adverse

impact from a measure being taken by the other, then such apprehension must be backed by proper evidence and technical data. In the case of India and Nepal, there is already an institutional mechanism to deal with inundation issues i.e. the Standing Committee on Inundation Problem, which meets at regular intervals. In case of difference of opinion on any issue, there is a provision for joint surveys and inspections. Measures to prevent or minimise

inundation on one or the other side can then be undertaken on the basis of agreed parameters. This is precisely the spirit in which India has been cooperating with Nepal on a number of inundation issues.

It is deeply offensive and derogatory on your part to accuse India of carrying out construction of structures on its side “on the sly” or “clandestinely” or “secretly”. Such language has no place in a relationship that you yourself describe as an “excellent bilateral relationship”. The projects are by their very nature, out under an open sky, for everyone to see. They

cannot be constructed behind closed doors, nor can they be constructed secretly overnight. There is an open border between our two countries. No construction on the Indian or the Nepali side, for that matter, can be carried out clandestinely.

You have offered sane advise that the two countries need to cooperate to address each

other’s riparian woes. This is only possible if misinformed judgements and comments deeply hurtful and offensive to a friendly neighbouring country are avoided. We are prepared to discuss with our Nepali counterparts any issue of concern to them on the basis of facts and when necessary, a joint determination of data.

Attempts to inflame public opinion through prejudiced and preconceived judgements will only make it that much more difficult for established institutional mechanisms to carry out their work professionally and objectively.

Sanjay Verma, Counsellor (PIC), Embassy of India,

Kathmandu

Division

In any news concerning army operations you constantly use the word Pritana headquarters. But common readers would not understand what it means. It means a “division” which is a multibrigade unit of the army in the ordinary sense.

However in Nepal, divisional headquarters are rather administrative regional structures. In other countries division is a mobile unit capable of independent operations. The following might prove useful. A Company is a Gulm, Battalion a Gan, Brigade a Bahini, Division a Pritana, and Corps a Chamu.

Pritam Rana, via e-mail