There is brazen-facedness not only about the manner in which it happened but also the way it has been handled at the fall-out stages. The murderous assault of trigger happy goons, gone livid with a defeat-demurring anger, upon victory celebrations of the newly elected AL ward commissioner at NawabganJ read like an open book — in its origin as well as in the knowledge of who perpetrated it.

And, no political party worth the salt, particularly when it is the ruling one, can own them, think of associating with what happened. Given the dastardliness ■ of the act. unleashed in open disregard of minimum civilised norms, where the sullen were carrying lethal weapons in public view and even a couple of sitting ducks on a rooftop fell to their bullets, it was more than remorse that the citizens expected from the government political leaders. But even remorse went by an unintended default as the sequence of responses proved. Most people felt they have been given a ride through gullibility they were too much in the know of things to accept.

It is hardly expected from this government that it should have fallen for the old pattern of things that we regard as a closed, discredited chapter. What then has changed? Why did the Press Note have to gloss over wnat was an attack and term it as clashes' and the official media were obliged to project it as such. This slant must prove counterproductive on two counts: it has militated against the right to know in a matter of grave public concern; and two. it gave a wrong signal to the perpetrators and even the law enforcers — those in the first category feeling shielded in wrong-doing while the law-men felt unnecessarily circumscribed.

The persistent charges of rigging and counter-rigglng have been an ipcitement to trouble. Our point is why not leave it to the Election Commission to deal with. if. and after, the complaints have been filed with that statutory authority. Meanwhile accept the defeat or victory in as good a grace or magnanimity respectively, as you are capable of, without making any incendiary issue of it. But at the same time, why infringe on a party's right to celebrate a victory while a defeat is quietly evaluated at the other camp. Have respect for popular verdict.

About unnecessarily fuelling the fire we wouldn't mince words to put a question here; why the ruling party's ministers chose to visit the victims at the DMCH so closely on the heels of the carnage? At any rate, given their expected maturity, now could they be so naive to think it would not invite some fresh trouble?

The suddenness of the brush-fire may have been unanticipated. But if police and BDR had accompanied the victory procession, rather than being rushed to attend to the mayhem, posthaste, their timely presence could nave prevented the dastardly incident.

A murder case has been filed, visits paid to the victims and a strong resolve expressed to catch aijd punish the culprits. Everything in the book has been done so far, including some arrests. But unless the government does really something, rising above party affiliation, and out of the ordinary, by meting out the severest punishment to the killers, its legal, we dare say, political.

• obligations will not be met. It is also easily done because the perpetrators are not dark horses — they are very much known.