That Sheikh Hasina may find things to criticise this writer and the editor of Prothom Alo either for what is published in the papers we edit or for our columns is natural. As a citizen, as a reader, and of course as a leader, she has every right to take issues with us and even to publicly criticise us. This, we not only humbly accept and whole-heartedly welcome, even encourage. That is not our point today.

Our point deals with something far more fundamental. It deals with the basics and universal values of truth and lies. What we find extremely disconcerting is that in criticising us the AL chief threw facts to the wind and took recourse to fiction. Her accusation that we had mediated the case between Dr Debapriya Bhattacharya of CPD and Mr Mahmudur Rahman of BoI and that we visited the residence of the US Ambassador for that purpose is downright false. So is her accusation that this writer took two Ambassadors to the Election Commission on the night of election result in 2001. (What she is trying to imply by this only she knows. But I can make a guess, and my reaction is -- is it another example of how she weaves fiction to justify her own biases and prejudices?)

Why does a leader of her stature have so little respect for truth? Why does she listen to gossip in making her comments? Why does she not verify her facts before she goes public with a statement? Most importantly, what does it say about somebody who was our prime minister once and may very well be again if her party wins the coming election? Can statements full of such non-facts (I am not calling them lies only to show respect) increase public confidence in her leadership abilities?

Sheikh Hasina compared our fictional visit to the US Ambassador's house with her general secretary's going to a tea party there with the purpose of meeting his BNP counterpart to discuss the initial steps for the two-party dialogue. Mr Abdul Jalil himself has said to the press, TV and to BBC that if the BNP secretary general is sincere about the dialogue, then he should come to the US Ambassador's tea party. So, it was not an ordinary tea party, in fact a very crucial one. So the question is, are the two comparable? For the sake of argument, even if we had visited the US Ambassador's house (which, I repeat, we did not), can the visit of two editors, on a matter of such a limited scope, be comparable to Jalil-Bhuiyan visit to the US Ambassador's residence whose scope was the future of the coming elections with all its severe and far-reaching implications?

There is also the question of timing. Go ahead and have as many tea parties you want and in as many ambassadors' houses you like. The question of propriety arose when the venue was chosen as the initiating ground for the all-crucial dialogue on the very day the two secretaries general were supposed to talk about it.

So, first the story of the visit was false, second the timing was disastrous, and third even if it had taken place, the incidents are not comparable by any stretch of imagination. So, why did Sheikh Hasina suddenly decide to go public with this accusation against the two editors? Simply, in our view, because she did not want to admit that she had made a blunder by agreeing to join the tea party at that crucial moment.

This is the crux of all our problems. Our leaders, both Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, never want to admit that they make mistakes, and if and when somebody points them out, they start making public attacks on them, true or false, mostly false.

A little respect for truth would help the nation immensely.