scholarly journals Reflections on India’s ‘Guidelines on Cross Border Trade of Electricity’ Vis-a-vis Nepal’s ‘Electricity Development Decade 2016/’026’ and ‘2017/’018 Budget’

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 5-10
Author(s):  
Santa Bahadur Pun

Nepal unfurled her 10,000 MW in 10 years Electricity Development Decade 2016/’026 in February 2016 supposedly with one eye on her own domestic consumption but definitely with the other eye on India’s growing hungry market. India, for ‘strategic, national and economic’ reasons, issued her Guidelines on December 5, 2016 whereby preferential treatment is given to Indian entities that wish to export power from Nepal to India. While Indian entities with 51% or more ownership require a one-time approval, all other participating entities are eligible to participate on ‘case to case basis.’ The concerned authorities of Nepal, thick-skinned as they are, made no fuss at all about India’s Guidelines. In fact, Nepal held the 5th Power Summit on December 16, 2016 concluding that, though the 10,000 MW is ambitious, it is realistic and achievable. In the immediate aftermath in January 2017, the USAID financed Delhi-based IRADe launched its report in Kathmandu wherein the Nepalese media was all agog reporting ‘Nepal can earn Rs 1 Trillion a year by selling power.’ This was then followed by the Nepal Investment Summit jamboree in March 2017 that boasted of garnering 13.6 billion US$ foreign commitments. All these were then topped by the Nepal government’s 2017/’018 budget that sanguinely hiked up the “10,000 MW in 10 years’ to an inconceivable ‘17,000 MW in 7 years!’Sans the electricity regulatory commission, sans the Indo-Nepal downstream benefit sharing mechanism from storage projects and sans the huge required capital skillfully throttled by India’s Guidelines, Nepal’s 17,000 MW in 7 years is an extremely tall order, more likely to end up in the manner of Som Sharma’s sattu! HYDRO Nepal JournalJournal of Water Energy and EnvironmentIssue: 21, July, 2017Page: 5-10Upload Date: July 18, 2017

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Santa Bahadur Pun

Despite the Indo-Nepal Electric Power Trade, Cross Border Transmission and Grid Connectivity Agreement of October 2014 and despite the SAARC Framework Agreement on Energy Cooperation (Electricity) of November 2014, the Government of India issued the discriminatory Guidelines on Cross Border Trade of Electricity on December 5, 2016. The Guidelines provide preferential one-time approval for all entities with 51% or more Indian ownership wishing to export electricity from Nepal to India. All other entities, the Guidelines stated, had to undergo the case-to-case basis. Historically, such unilateral actions have always been the modus operandi of India. Despite the regular regional cooperation preaching by India, Nepal will have to, like the Tanakpur and Laxmanpur barrages, BUT accept India’s discriminatory December 2016 Guidelines as her fait accompli!   HYDRO Nepal JournalJournal of Water Energy and EnvironmentIssue No: 22Page: 1-4Uploaded date: January 14, 2018


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Peberdy ◽  
Jonathan Crush ◽  
Daniel Tevera ◽  
Eugene Campbell ◽  
Ines Raimundo ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone M. Müller ◽  
Heidi J.S. Tworek

AbstractThis article uses the example of submarine telegraphy to trace the interdependence between global communications and modern capitalism. It uncovers how cable entrepreneurs created the global telegraph network based upon particular understandings of cross-border trade, while economists such as John Maynard Keynes and John Hobson saw global communications as the foundation for capitalist exchange. Global telegraphic networks were constructed to support extant capitalist systems until the 1890s, when states and corporations began to lay telegraph cables to open up new markets, particularly in Asia and Latin America, as well as for strategic and military reasons. The article examines how the interaction between telegraphy and capitalism created particular geographical spaces and social orders despite opposition from myriad Western and non-Western groups. It argues that scholars need to account for the role of infrastructure in creating asymmetrical information and access to trade that have continued to the present day.


2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Adsoongnoen ◽  
W. Ongsakul ◽  
C. Maurer ◽  
H.-J. Haubrich

Author(s):  
Lars Lyngsgaard Fjord Kristensen

In a region that is traditionally considered to be transnational, Nordic cinema has often posed as the prime case for a transnational cinema. The paper contests this notion of Nordic transnationality by analysing two films that depict two Russian women travelling to Sweden. Interdevochka/Intergirl (Todorovski, 1989, USSR) and Lilya-4-ever (Moodysson, 2004, Sweden) challenge the inclusiveness of the region and make explicit the fact that Russian identities are not part of the homogenous mixture of the region. Instead, Russian identities of cross-border prostitution are cinematically subjected to rejection and victimisation. This paper examines how Lilya-4-ever adheres to a European anxiety narrative by performing a Russian return narrative and how Interdevochka/Intergirl portrays ‘the fallen soviet woman’ by travelling to Sweden. These cinematic representations of the female Russian identity travelling to Sweden differ from each national context, but by probing into a comparative analysis the paper will reveal that both films need the Other to narrate these stories of transnational labour migration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document