6. TANTIEMES. – (i) The government receives royalties on energy produced and used in the Indian Union at rates that must be paid by mutual agreement. Assuming there are no royalties for electricity sold in Nepal. (ii) The Government has the right to obtain royalties from the Union for stones, gravel and ballasts purchased in the Nepalese area and used for the construction and future maintenance of blocking and other related work at subsequent rates. This agreement was reached on 25 April 1954 between the Government of the Kingdom of Nepal (hereafter referred to as the “government”) and the Indian government (hereafter referred to as the “Union”). Nilam Khanal, the mayor of The municipality of Barahakshetra, said: “When the Indian side built cement piglets, they didn`t consult us.” He said local representatives should be consulted because they are more aware of the people needed in the area. “Sometimes porcupine built on one side causes erosion on the other side of the river,” Khanal said. Nepal in 2008 is different. This “new” Nepal has undergone changes in domestic policy and a representative agreement on power-sharing.
India should be ready to renegotiate the open mind. The Nepalese Prime Minister had made it clear that the state of the damage, which claimed the lives of some 50,000 people, was unprecedented and that, in accordance with the agreement to repair the damage, this must be India`s main task. Although no statement has been made by India, skepticism remains about possible effective cooperation agreements in the field of water management between the two countries. At present, the threat of a possible effective cooperation agreement on water management is still suspect. For India, cooperation with Nepal is the only solution, as the alternatives are limited at home. The shadow of mistrust and mistrust could be costly in the long run for both countries. The devastation caused by the Kosi tidal wave is a grim reminder of the need for a cordial relationship with Nepal and the need to focus on complementary interests and not confrontational issues. Shital Babu Regmee, a former Nepalese water management minister, said Bihar government officials ignored the role of local authorities because Nepal`s federal structure has changed since the agreement was signed. “Since then, the agreement has not been changed, so why would bihar representatives consult with the natives?” Regmee said and stressed the need to revise the agreement. The third pole addressed Indian workers who implemented flood protection measures in Nepal, including Prakash Das, chief engineer, and Sanjay Kumar Verma, an auxiliary engineer. They did not dismiss the complaints, but declined to comment. You also said that the main concern is flood protection, not coordination or participation of people.
This said that his team would implement what was allocated to them and ensure that there would be no further erosion or flooding in the area. 17. ARBITRATION. – Where an issue, discrepancy or objection is somehow related to this agreement or to the importance or operation of a part of this agreement or to the rights, obligations or commitments of one of the parties, with the exception of decisions taken in a case that was previously otherwise foreseen, each of these matters is referred to two persons appointed by the government and the other by the Union. , the decision of which is final and binding, provided that in the event of a disagreement between the two arbitrators, they pass the disputed issue on to an arbitrator jointly appointed by the two arbitrators before recording the reference.