After the talks in the Chameli room at the International Conference Centre at the Prime Minister’s Office, Hasina personally called the attention of Manmohan to the shortcomings in the draft protocol on the land boundary.
The prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, became annoyed with two of her advisers — Mashiur Rahman andnGowher Rizvi — on Monday night for the mishandling of the signing of three agreements on Teesta and Feni water sharing and the land boundary with India, a cabinet minister told New Age.A senior official at the Prime Minister’s Office also confirmed the prime minister’s annoyance with the two advisers.(The New Age BD)
A senior official at the Prime Minister’s Office also confirmed the prime minister’s annoyance with the two advisers.
Hasina, who was apparently angry with India’s formal refusal, despite Bangladesh’s repeated requests on Monday midnight, to sign the much-talked-about agreement on sharing of the water of the River Teesta hours before the arrival of India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh, expressed her annoyance as the advisers had given their contacts in New Delhi an impression that the Bangladesh side was ready to sign all the agreements, protocols and memorandums of understanding even if India ‘does not sign the Teesta agreement.’
She was holding series of meetings with senior cabinet members and influential party leaders at her residence, Ganabhaban, to weigh the fate of the Teesta deal on Monday night as the Indian foreign secretary, Ranjan Mathai, had said in the afternoon on the day in New Delhi that ‘any agreement
[on sharing of water] will have to be acceptable to both the state government [of Paschim Banga] and the government of Bangladesh.’
Mashiur and Rizvi were assigned to deal with issues including the transit, land boundary and Teesta for their settlement with India.
They also consulted India’s national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon, India’s water resource minister Pawan Kumar Bansal and Pashchim Banga chief minister Mamata Banerjee in her office in Kolkata on several occasions.
Their Indian contacts were, a Bangladesh said, trying to know of two specific issues: whether the (Indian) prime minister should ‘reschedule the visit’ for settling disagreements with the Pashchim Banga state government on the Teesta and whether Bangladesh would exchange a letter of intent on the transit using the Chittagong and Mongla seaports even if the Teesta deal was not signed.
After knowing about the content of the conversations between the advisers and their contacts in India, Hasina decided that there would be no agreement on the Feni and no exchange of letter on the transit unless the deal on the water of the River Teesta was signed, a senior government official said.
She asked the foreign minister, Dipu Moni, and the foreign secretary, Mohamed Mijarul Quayes, to take up the issues to ‘save the visit’ and, if possible, to convince India to sign the Teesta agreement.
It was an open secret that the foreign ministry had been kept almost on the sidelines for two years and a half, especially on dealing with issues with India, the official said.
At the instruction of the prime minister and the foreign minister, Quayes on early Tuesday summoned the Indian high commissioner in Dhaka, Rajeet Mitter, to convey the government’s disappointment at India’s refusal regarding the Teesta water.
Mitter rushed to the foreign ministry three hours before the arrival of his prime minister to say ‘sorry’ for the refusal. In another blow to Bangladesh, the advisers managed several officials in the ministries concerned to incorporate a provision into the protocol to the agreement concerning the demarcation of the land boundary to exchange adversely possessed land by the two countries by next year. There was, however, no clear timeline for the exchange of the enclaves of the two countries.
The foreign minister and the secretary convinced the prime minister that the signing of the protocol on the land boundary would go against the interest of Bangladesh if exchanges of adversely possessed land and enclaves were not completed at the same time.
There was uncertainty over the signing of the protocol on the land boundary even after the one-on-one and official talks between the two prime ministers on Tuesday afternoon, the official said.
After the talks in the Chameli room at the International Conference Centre at the Prime Minister’s Office, Hasina personally called the attention of Manmohan to the shortcomings in the draft protocol on the land boundary.
Dipu Moni and Quayes, India’s external affairs minister SM Krishna and India’s foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai were also there, he added.
They sat together once again for discussions on the land boundary protocol for about 45 minutes beginning at 6:35pm on Tuesday.
The two prime ministers finally gave their consent to the signing of the protocol keeping options open for exchanges of adversely possessed land and enclaves at the same time subject to the ratification of the protocol by the two countries.
Mashiur and Gawher were, however, waiting at that time in the Karobi room, which is adjacent to the Chameli room, where four chief ministers of India, several Bangladesh ministers including Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, the home minister, Sahara Khatun, and journalists of the two countries were waiting to witness the signing of agreements by the plenipotentiaries.
New Age tried repeatedly to contact the two advisers over mobile but they did not attend the calls. They also did not reply to the text messages sent to them.
A senior official at the Prime Minister’s Office also confirmed the prime minister’s annoyance with the two advisers.
Hasina, who was apparently angry with India’s formal refusal, despite Bangladesh’s repeated requests on Monday midnight, to sign the much-talked-about agreement on sharing of the water of the River Teesta hours before the arrival of India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh, expressed her annoyance as the advisers had given their contacts in New Delhi an impression that the Bangladesh side was ready to sign all the agreements, protocols and memorandums of understanding even if India ‘does not sign the Teesta agreement.’
She was holding series of meetings with senior cabinet members and influential party leaders at her residence, Ganabhaban, to weigh the fate of the Teesta deal on Monday night as the Indian foreign secretary, Ranjan Mathai, had said in the afternoon on the day in New Delhi that ‘any agreement
[on sharing of water] will have to be acceptable to both the state government [of Paschim Banga] and the government of Bangladesh.’
Mashiur and Rizvi were assigned to deal with issues including the transit, land boundary and Teesta for their settlement with India.
They also consulted India’s national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon, India’s water resource minister Pawan Kumar Bansal and Pashchim Banga chief minister Mamata Banerjee in her office in Kolkata on several occasions.
Their Indian contacts were, a Bangladesh said, trying to know of two specific issues: whether the (Indian) prime minister should ‘reschedule the visit’ for settling disagreements with the Pashchim Banga state government on the Teesta and whether Bangladesh would exchange a letter of intent on the transit using the Chittagong and Mongla seaports even if the Teesta deal was not signed.
After knowing about the content of the conversations between the advisers and their contacts in India, Hasina decided that there would be no agreement on the Feni and no exchange of letter on the transit unless the deal on the water of the River Teesta was signed, a senior government official said.
She asked the foreign minister, Dipu Moni, and the foreign secretary, Mohamed Mijarul Quayes, to take up the issues to ‘save the visit’ and, if possible, to convince India to sign the Teesta agreement.
It was an open secret that the foreign ministry had been kept almost on the sidelines for two years and a half, especially on dealing with issues with India, the official said.
At the instruction of the prime minister and the foreign minister, Quayes on early Tuesday summoned the Indian high commissioner in Dhaka, Rajeet Mitter, to convey the government’s disappointment at India’s refusal regarding the Teesta water.
Mitter rushed to the foreign ministry three hours before the arrival of his prime minister to say ‘sorry’ for the refusal. In another blow to Bangladesh, the advisers managed several officials in the ministries concerned to incorporate a provision into the protocol to the agreement concerning the demarcation of the land boundary to exchange adversely possessed land by the two countries by next year. There was, however, no clear timeline for the exchange of the enclaves of the two countries.
The foreign minister and the secretary convinced the prime minister that the signing of the protocol on the land boundary would go against the interest of Bangladesh if exchanges of adversely possessed land and enclaves were not completed at the same time.
There was uncertainty over the signing of the protocol on the land boundary even after the one-on-one and official talks between the two prime ministers on Tuesday afternoon, the official said.
After the talks in the Chameli room at the International Conference Centre at the Prime Minister’s Office, Hasina personally called the attention of Manmohan to the shortcomings in the draft protocol on the land boundary.
Dipu Moni and Quayes, India’s external affairs minister SM Krishna and India’s foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai were also there, he added.
They sat together once again for discussions on the land boundary protocol for about 45 minutes beginning at 6:35pm on Tuesday.
The two prime ministers finally gave their consent to the signing of the protocol keeping options open for exchanges of adversely possessed land and enclaves at the same time subject to the ratification of the protocol by the two countries.
Mashiur and Gawher were, however, waiting at that time in the Karobi room, which is adjacent to the Chameli room, where four chief ministers of India, several Bangladesh ministers including Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, the home minister, Sahara Khatun, and journalists of the two countries were waiting to witness the signing of agreements by the plenipotentiaries.
New Age tried repeatedly to contact the two advisers over mobile but they did not attend the calls. They also did not reply to the text messages sent to them.
