After the virtual failure of the high profile Lucknow meet between Nepali and Indian delegates in August last year to reach an agreement on tackling the problem of inundation Nepal is facing due to unilateral construction of dams on the Indian side of the border, the officials of the two countries are scheduled to hold talks on Mahalisagar dam on Thursday. The rising water level has flooded the lowlands on the Nepali side of the border. The problem of ensuing flooding in Nepal due to India’s construction of dams without consulting the upstream neighbour has been the crux of the problem for a long time. The story is similar at Gaur, Laxmanpur and Khurda Lotan, where embankments built on the other side of the border continue to flood the plains in Nepal. Equally controversial was the Tanakpur issue. That complaints lodged by Nepal, not to mention the bilateral talks, have done little to dissuade India from erecting the dykes without consulting Nepal raises serious question as to why New Delhi must execute the work on the sly. As always, when the media reports first emerge, India is quick to deny any construction in progress. For example, India first denied any work at Mahalisagar dam before halting construction for a while when Nepali opposition mounted along with the rainy season, only to be resumed during the dry months.

Unilateral construction of dams is against the Helsinki Convention 1966 and related UN Convention 1996 which forbid building of embankments in areas likely to adversely affect the other State. With such excellent bilateral relationship between the two countries, there is no need for clandestine dam construction by the southern neighbour. Problems could be discussed in open and an amicable solution found to the benefit of both the countries. Large dams are also an environmental nuisance and the World Commission on Dams clearly discourages construction of such dams. Because siltation and environmental problems have been associated with large dams, as exemplified by the Koshi Barrage, there is a need for Nepal and India to rethink the water management strategy. Even if necessity prevailed, there is no reason why India should secretly construct dykes across the border. The two countries can come to an agreement by addressing each others’ riparian woes. This would dispel grounds for misunderstanding. This will have to be wor-ked out within the legitimate guidelines and a careful study of what an upstream state and a downstream state are entitled to. A part of the solution lies in respecting the international guideli-nes on maintaining safe distance from one’s borders while erecting dams. The best way forward is to keep each other informed.