However, even more shocking is the suggestion, at the end of one editorial, that it was time for Delhi to act firmly. What does it mean "Delhi should act firmly"? Are we to understand that Delhi was acting all along but softly and now it is time for it to be firm. How does India come into the picture? Does the paper believe that it is India's prerogative to act 'firmly' or 'softly' on Bangladesh's internal matters according to its wishes? We would urge the newspaper to refrain from pursuing the brand of journalism that breeds misunderstanding and misgivings between two neighbouring countries.

Coming back to the charges levelled against Khaleda Zia, it is not known, as no source is quoted, how the newspaper is so convinced that she masterminded the carnage. For The Statesman, it might have been a wild guess, but for us the situation is very disturbing. The two major parties have failed to maintain a working relationship which has created great political uncertainty.

The enormity of the crime perpetrated against the AL is hard to describe. But what citizens of Bangladesh cannot afford at this moment is to indulge in, or entertain, unrestrained speculations which can be extremely detrimental to the interest of the nation.

The media in Bangladesh has been playing an assertive role against terrorism of every denomination. We would like to assure all concerned that in this case also we will continue to perform our job until the killers are brought to justice. We expect the press in neighbouring countries to contribute in a positive way to our fight against terrorism. They must refrain from doing anything that may send wrong signals, especially refrain from making comments that appear to suggest getting involved in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries.