This is a book of considerable importance with a relevance beyond Nepal to the whole of the region. Despite some reservations and disagreements here and there, it seemed to me necessary to begin with that clear positive statement. My response to the book is compounded of several elements:

Familiarity (I have known the author for many years and have heard him expounding the ideas contained in the book at many seminars and conferences, and have also read some of his writings earlier);

Pleasure of assent with much of what the author says (though we do have some differences);

Chagrin (nationalistic and unworthy, no doubt) that a book of this degree of intellectual distinction has emerged from Nepal, not India;

Regret that what might have seemed new and challenging in the eighties when most of these essays were written has not become conventional wisdom and pass? even in 2002; and Dismay that in recent years, particularly in the context of the alarmed responses to the report of the World Commission on Dams, there has been a loss of wisdom, a retraction from a slowly emerging enlightenment, and a serious retrogression to older attitudes and dichotomies.

As mentioned earlier, this is a collection of essays written largely in the 80s. The question is: do they form an integrated, structured book? The answer: "Not entirely". Undoubtedly they are unified by style, approach, and to an extent, by "cultural theory" (CT). My second difficulty is I am unable to share the author's enthusiasm for CT fully. It is valuable and powerful, but like all ideologies it imposes a jargon, and forces one to think along pre-determined grooves. But the book is characterised by a spirit of enquiry, a determined departure from established ways of thinking, and a distinction of writing, with, from time to time, a flair (occasionally a weakness?) for a striking turn of phrase.

The Arun-3 article shows how a dubious choice was made and persisted in on specious grounds despite the availability of better options; and how, eventually, not environmental concerns or displacement/rehabilitation problems, but the sheer logic of economic arguments rendered the abandonment of the project inescapable.
That may be considered a one-sided statement; even today there are people in Nepal who regard that decision as an unfortunate setback to development. All I can say is that I find Gyawali persuasive on this issue, particularly when he shows that giving up Arun-3 made it possible to proceed with smaller, quicker and cheaper possibilities on the energy front.

The piece "Water Conflict in Southern Riparian Lands" is a path-breaking contribution. It brings together in one narrative two different conflicts proceeding separately and at different levels, with not much interaction between them. The first is a classical "riparian" conflict: Bihar engineers and Ministers are increasingly apprehensive of the rights of the State over the waters of the Ganga system being eroded partly by the upper riparian (UP) and partly by the lower riparian (Bangladesh, particularly after the Ganga Treaty of 1996). The second is a conflict between civil society and the state over the latter's ill-conceived response to floods through the construction of embankments, and the difficulties these have caused to the people, including those supposed to have been "protected".

The Bihar Establishment, while very conscious of the State's riparian rights, shows an inability to appreciate the people's rights and concerns. And those engaged in the struggle against embankments are apprehensive of possible further harm emerging from the State's pursuit of its riparian rights through big projects. The paper is notable for its impressive research and powerful and compelling analysis.

The long paper "Water in Nepal" is an impressive compendium covering geography, hydrology, engineering, economics, history (including "culture"), sociology, anthropology, politics, institutional factors and aspects, and so on, as they bear on water use, management, policy and planning. I cannot do justice to this ambitious undertaking through a summarising of the contents. I can only earnestly urge the reader: read it.
I share Gyawali's suspicions of gigantism; his doubts about the existing bureaucrat-politician-consultant-contractor nexuses (not always or necessarily pointers to corruption, but indicative of similarities in ways of thinking and convergences of interests), his criticisms of the present engineering-driven uni-disciplinarity of approach to water-planning (or at best attempts at multi-disciplinarity with no real integration) and his plea for inter-disciplinarity; his profound distrust of donor-driven "development", particularly valid in countries such as Nepal or Bangladesh but not unimportant even in India; and his preference for smaller, people-centred, co-operative, community-managed answers to felt local needs.

There are two views in Nepal regarding that country's endowment of water resources. The prevailing, "Establishment", dominant view is that water to Nepal is like oil to the Gulf: a potential source of immense wealth through the sale (largely to India) of massive quantities of hydroelectric power. The author debunks this dream fairly effectively and shows what formidable efforts of diverse kinds are involved in converting the natural endowment into a "resource".

From early warnings on these lines Gyawali moved gradually away from big export-based projects towards a distinct preference for smaller, people-centred and people-driven projects for the country's internal needs. It cannot be said that he has had great success in persuading large numbers of people in Nepal to accept his way of thinking, though his influence is undoubtedly growing. The debate is still on.

Finally, I must refer to a difference between Gyawali and myself on the subject of the Mahakali Treaty. He has many criticisms to offer both on the processes leading to the signing and ratification of the Treaty and on its contents. I myself have dissatisfactions with the Treaty; it could have been better in many ways. Nor am I enthusiastic about the Pancheswar Project. However, whatever our views about these matters, we are concerned here with a Treaty formally entered into by two countries, and it seems clear that both signatories want the Pancheswar Project. Unfortunately, the Treaty has got bogged down because of certain differences between the two governments. Given that situation, we can treat it as a dead letter and rejoice in its presumed demise. Alternatively, we can take the view that any accord, however imperfect, is better than discord; that the failure of the Treaty will be fraught with serious consequences for the relationship between the two countries.

Let me conclude with renewed tribute to the depth of the author's concerns and the quality of his thinking. This is a book that needs to be read very widely in India.

(Ramaswamy R Iyer is a former Indian secretary of water resources. This review is excerpted from the Bombay-based Economic and Political Weekly, 2-8 February 2002.)

Water in Nepal
Dipak Gyawali, Himal Books, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2001, pp.xiv + 280, Rs 550