And what were the two letters about? Let us address each of them separately.

Let us take the one that has been written by several US Senators, in fact fifteen of them, which, in spite of the fact that it has not yet reached the addressee in Bangladesh, the chief advisor (CA), has nevertheless found wide coverage in our media. The fifteen US Senators wanted the CA to specify the date of parliamentary election in Bangladesh and to lift emergency.

Not only that, they wanted the government to give a timeframe of all the events related, and leading up to, the next election, and sought from the caretaker government (CTG) an idea of the road map to the political dénouement, that too within the next two months. I, for one, am very uneasy when I get to hear talk of "roadmaps" coming from the Americans. Look at the Middle East "roadmap" which has gone totally awry, or for that matter the "roadmap" for Iraq that they drew up, of which there is very little of the road left, and nothing of the map, to talk about, alas!

However, what one is surprised at is that this letter came in the wake of the CA's special emissary's mission to the US, which was ostensibly to update our American friends on the CTG's future plans, including the holding of elections by end 2008. It was either that our US friends were not convinced enough (although the letter was not from the US government, these senators carry lot of weight in the corridors of power in their country) by our arguments, or that the purpose of the visit was other than what we have been given to understand.

It elicited comments from our foreign advisor, although the communication was not in our government's hand. But we can assume that his comments were what the response would have been had the letter been received, and had the contents been the same as that which appeared in the press. It is a pity that we will never know what the detailed response would have been, but the initial response does not comfort us very much.

If the foreign advisor sees it merely as a demonstration of a very friendly inertest in our affairs, sometimes that interest can become overbearing and too demonstrative for the comfort of the friend. Sometimes too much interest can prove to be harmful for us.

It is not the first time that the GoB has received letters from US senators, and the perception of it is as had been in other cases also, that it is but a nuanced way of putting pressure on the friend, motivated by God knows which quarter. We expect our friends to be more aware of the various compulsions that the CTG is facing, and be more sensitive to the fact that there are several obligations that it has to fulfill before the people's demands can be fully met.

The fundamental task for the CTG to fulfill is the election. And as we have said before, not any election will do. If the January election was postponed, our friends had not a very small part to play in bringing to bear all sorts of pressure on various forces to see that a sham election was not held.

And it was to the great relief to the people, and one presumes even to the main political antagonists who were quickly losing control of the situation, that matters turned out the way they did. The CTG should be beholden to the people of Bangladesh and to no one else, and see that it does not abdicate its primary responsibility.

Admittedly, the CTG has taken upon itself various reform plans, which are perhaps more than easy to handle. But we would like to believe that it is not the lack of sincerity, but the capacity of the government, with the inherent constraints in delivering on all the proposals that are interlinked in the process leading up to the election, which has prevented the expected progress of work in these areas.

The government has initiated a program of action which must be allowed time to be completed, and we need not remind the US Senators that it was one of their presidents who had said that there are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.

We all want that action on the two fronts, political and administrative, should move faster. The cleansing operation should be hastened, including the fight against corruption, which brings us to the second letter in question.

Another US Congressman, and a founder co-chairman of Congressional Bangladeshi Caucus, pleaded on behalf of a Bangladeshi businessman who preferred to leave the country rather than furnish the account of his wealth and property to the ACC.

Let the law of the land be the judge of the innocence or guilt of the gentleman, who apparently has a lot to answer for the way he acquired his wealth; but for a US lawmaker to advocate special treatment for a "controversial businessman" is, at best, double standards.

Aren't we dispensed homilies regularly by our friends and our development partners about transparency and honesty, and getting the system and, indeed, the country freed from the corrupt and the dishonest? And now, when we have started to go after the suspects, we face opposition from abroad.

I believe that the reply of the ACC chief to the Congressman is worth every penny of the postage. The anti-corruption drive is very closely linked with the other reforms that the government is trying to implement. And if the corrupt and the crooks, who have been largely controlling the politics of the country, aren't made ineffective there is very little of good politics that we will get to see in Bangladesh. The ACC chief is on a personal crusade against corruption; that is well taken.

There are many components of the fight against corruption; many of them will take time to be put in place before they can yield results. But for the immediate watertight cases must built up, and the individuals in custody on corruption charges proceeded against on the basis of foolproof evidence. Delay in doing so may sap the confidence in, as well as the credibility of, a body in which the people have reposed great faith.

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.