In common parlance, our neighbouring country India has imposed an unofficial blockade from the other side of the border. Thankfully, the UN has gone up to the extent of condemning this action of our giant neighbour, after two months of chaos. In this light, many have pointed out that India’s interest in the Madhes is to use it as a means to control the centre, which might have its own rationale. However, as a student of environmental law, I beg to differ.

India has repeatedly reiterated through its various press releases and its comments at the recent Universal Periodic Review sessions in Geneva that Nepal has to resolve its problems in the Madhes and ensure the human rights of the people there. This seems to be a fair deal in lieu of the supplies that India has denied to pass, assigning security concerns as prime reason. However, a question that remains unanswered is: how would the accession of the Koshi and Karnali catchment areas (which are not de facto Madhesi settlements) into a Madhesi federal province ensure the rights of people belonging to Madhesi community?

India’s responsibility

In this regard, it might be of some relevance to look into the amount of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) India has been able to receive over a year’s period. At present, it boasts of $30.9 billion worth FDI, of which $19.8 billion were received in the year 2014-15 alone. As a growing economy and the third largest greenhouse gas emitter after the US and China, India has some responsibility towards cutting down carbon emissions. China and the US have recently undertaken voluntary emission reduction goals. In the same line, India has submitted its plan prior to the beginning of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris to be held in December 2015. India has pledged to source 40 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. In order to reduce emissions while continuing to work on bigger projects, India is bound to need more clean energy alternatives. This is where our Madhesi province claim comes into picture.

The energy needs of our immediate neighbour, who is in fact the fourth greatest energy consumer in the world, are expected to rise steeply. In order to reach its energy goals, India needs a minimum 1,300 GW of electricity, which is ten times higher than its present production. Besides, 80 percent of the current electricity is attributable to fossil fuels, while only 15 percent is ascribable to hydropower and two percent to renewable sources. In this situation, it is imperative for India to find a cleaner solution for its problem. However, generation of energy by nuclear fusion, which is a bit cleaner than fission that India is currently relying on, is not as cost-effective as hydropower.

Nepal’s potentiality

Nepal, a country rich in water resources, which allows itself to be treated as a protectorate state by its bigger southern neighbour, might have the solution. In terms of hydropower production, the two largest river basins Koshi and Karnali stand at the capacity of a gross total of more than 22 gigawatt and 32 gigawatt respectively. If mobilised to their optimum capacities these probable hydropower projects could make a significant contribution to India’s anticipated electricity generation goals. In addition, much of the foreign direct investments that find their way into developing countries come with a prerequisite to generate and use clean energy alternatives. Clean energy which has become crucial to present day investments could be a turning point for growing economies like India. In order to attract more FDI, it is inevitable that countries focus on renewable energy sources, such as hydropower. In this scenario, it is possible that India would find ways to secure its interests, even if it has to be done by inflicting violence across the border. It is now up to the present Nepali government to protect both the human rights of its people (Madhesi as well as other ethnic groups) and its sovereignty over natural resources.

Lamsal is associated with Alliance for Social Dialogue