We can be just as sarcastic, taunting, vicious and vitriolic in our reply as the Prime Minister was in her falsely based accusation against us on the floor of the parliament. However, we will, as is our habit, be most respectful and dignified befitting our paper as well as the person and the office of the Prime Minister.

The first point that needs to be established is WHO asked the question regarding the President's resignation? The Prime Minister claims we did, and we say that we did not. People have the "Right to Know" who is right. This particular incident happened in the latest press conference of the Prime Minister. More than 30 journalists were present along with Bangladesh Radio, BTV, ETV and perhaps foreign TV media also. So why not ask these people. Why not call the Dinkal reporter Mukhlesur Rahman and ask him whether or not he asked the question. It is as simple as asking just one

person. Another way would be to see the video footage of the session and settle the question.

It is customary that when an accusation turns out to be false, an apology is extended to the 'victim.' But then we would be living in a fool's paradise if we were to expect something even remotely similar. That right we forsake. But then there is the point of historical record. The Prime Minister's speech will now form part of the proceedings of the Parliament in which this falsehood will remain for all the future generations. So can we, as a mark of respect for history, for the truth and for the Parliament itself, expect that this record will be set right?

What we find extremely worrisome is that the Prime Minister made a wrong statement in the Parliament six days after the event. So what did her press office do in the meantime? What the press office failed to do, her other office should have corrected. Or was this deliberately fed to her to poison the he ^afty ^tar

PM's mind about the Star? Or, more seriously, embarrass the PM publicly. It cannot add to the PM's credibility if her statements are discovered to be based on wrong information. So we repeat the request we made yesterday. If not to be fair to us, at least to protect herself from such incidents in the future, the PM should take her press office to serious task for feeding her this falsehood and embarrassing her so.

So far we have dealt with establishing the FACT that we did NOT ask the question under discussion that angered the PM so much. But now we turn to a more important journalistic issue. Why is the PM so angry about a journalist's routine responsibility? It is our job to ask all sorts of questions to all members of the cabinet, especially the head of the government. In fact, it is our duty to probe and go behind the official posturing. So the question by the Dinkal reporter, which was triggered by a report in the tabloid Manab

Zamin about the possibility of the President resigning, was in no way out of place. It was a very simple question which sought the PM's comments about the press reports on the subject. The PM could have simply said, "I don't know anything about it". In fact that would have been the most appropriate answer because the President never expressed his wish to resign, nor did he give any hint to anybody. The Manab Zamin story was a speculative story, which is also an integral part of journalism. The international press is full of speculative stories all the time, and we are not immune to that trend.

So the problem here is not the question but the answer. Why did the PM said what she did? It is her answer that created the controversy for which she is now blaming the press. The post of the President is a ceremonial one. Because it is ceremonial, every aspect of it is full of rituals and protocols. It is not for nothing that the national anthem is

played every time the President goes to attend a function. Therefore, by the same logic, commenting about the President has also to follow certain protocols and mannerisms. He is not part of our everyday politics and as such he cannot be referred to as we talk about others. When that protocol or mannerism is broken by no less a person than the Head of the Executive branch then IT MAKES NEWS. Forget the President, if the PM talks about one of her ministers and says, "It is entirely up to him. He is free to resign," immediately it will make news as it will be seen as a signal from the PM. It is for that simple reason that every newspaper gave the PM's comments such comprehensive coverage the following day.

And it is for the same reason that the Star wrote its editorial. It saw it as an ominous signal from the PM to the President. If our editorial was wrong then the simple thing would have been for her press office to say

that "the Star editorial had misinterpreted the PM's intentions and that its views are not correct." Throughout the democratic world governments are constantly issuing contradictions, clarifications and explanations to newspaper reports and editorials. Never are they subjected to such vitriolic attack on the floor of the parliament.

What was confined to a press conference became a matter of national and international news when she attacked the Star and repeated her comments about the President in the parliament. The President was, once again, quite unnecessarily brought into a public debate -- and again by the comments of the PM.

The President is being dragged into further controversy by what we think is a most foolish statement by the Leader of the Opposition. Her comments to the effect that Justice Shahabuddin will continue as President if the BNP comes to power is perhaps the most inappro-

priate thing Khaleda Zia could have said at this point in time. Sheikh Hasina is right when she raises questions of about the genuineness of BNP's sudden love for the President.

We conclude by appealing to both sides to refrain from dragging the President into any further controversy. We have already done enough damage. We are lucky to have a man like Justice Shahabuddin as the President and we need him during the next caretaker government to ensure that the nation gets free and fair elections.

As for the PM's attack on the Star we would like to assure her that we will do, without FEAR and FAVOUR, what we think is our patriotic duty. We know that the PM quite often finds our editorials and commentaries to be "preaching" and "advising" ("Shob Samai Gnayan Dan Kore"). We would humbly recall that over the last ten years our positions have been against hartals, against boycotting of the parliament, against

divisive and acrimonious politics, against criminalisation of politics, against using students a cannon fodder for partisan politics, and against patronisation of criminals by political leaders. We wrote strongly in favour of transparency, accountability and responsible leadership. We wanted democratisation of our political parties. We campaigned to Save the Buriganaga and the city lakes from the encroachers. We launched the Save Dhaka, Clean Dhaka campaign. We have fought hard to stop the culture of bank default and grabbing of the government lands. Most of all we wrote tirelessly about giving our

younger generation a future that they deserve. If saying these were "preaching" and "advising," then we proudly plead guilty. These we consider to be the duty of a socially responsible and patriotic newspaper, especially one that is rooted in the ideals of our Liberation War.