However, I could not help detect the bias of the editor against the BNP as seems to be the case in a lot of editorials and commentaries that he has been writing lately. The editorial starts condemning the BNP for its decision to lay siege to the Shudha Bhavan and, surprisingly, the editor tells us that the country is brisling with the prospect of " imminent danger of an unprecedented scale" . What the editor seems to be missing in criticising the BNP is a lack of perspective on the matter of cause and effect. The BNP's decision to lay siege to the Shudha Bhavan comes as a consequence to the AL's decision to siege the Hawa Bhavan. After all, it just does not make sense to expect that the AL would be undertaking a series of measures, most of them unconstitutional and illegal, while the BNP would just sit back and allow themselves to be pushed against the wall.

Coming to the differences that the editor has made to make the case against the BNP, there are a few points to be made that would show that the distinction made is not that simple. First, the Shuhda Bhavan is not the official residence of the Leader of the Opposition but one she owns personally. Second, some of the activities carried out from the Shudha Bhavan are, like those for which the Hawa Bhavan is being blamed, unconstitutional and illegal, like planning hartals. Therefore, to expect that the BNP would let this AL decision to siege the Hawa Bhavan go unchallenged is expecting two standards; one that allows the AL to adopt unconstitutional means for a political objective while disallowing the BNP the same.

Unless the AL gives up its agitation and destructive politics, and works within the system, there will be no respite for Bangladesh. Blaming BNP for our national misfortunes would be putting the cart before the horse.