One of the consequences of living in a globalized world is receiving such attention -- due or undue. Rather than displaying knee-jerk reactions, it would be wiser to take the evaluations of Bangladesh by the rest of the world in stride. In the past, the elected governments would take a predictable line: they would deny it first, and then criticize the critics.

However, when Bangladesh was occasionally praised, they would use the positive evaluation as a badge of honour. Such a contradictory position vis-à-vis the international community's evaluations often went ignored. Whenever the evaluations were negative (but true) the government of the day would take all kinds of measures, from banning the particular issue of the magazine, suing the magazine, and arresting or barring the correspondent, in addition to issuing the routine denials.

Remember when Bertil Linter wrote that "cocoon of terror" article in the Far Eastern Economic Review (April 4, 2002), or the Time magazine (October 14, 2002) article by Alex Perry. How did the BNP-led coalition government react? Another example was the response to Transparency International's rating of Bangladesh as the most corrupt country insofar as public perception was concerned.

The Senators' letter called for lifting emergency in Bangladesh and a return to democracy. These demands are reasonable. Yet the letter, despite its due praise for the CTG, fails to show a clear understanding of the circumstances that led to the declaration of the emergency.

The response to the letter of the US politicians, first by veteran diplomat Farooq Sobhan and later by Dr. Iftikhar Chowdhury the advisor in charge of foreign affairs, marked a sharp departure from the past. Their responses were suave, diplomatic and astute, reflecting the sophistication of the present caretaker government. Rather than taking an unrealistically hyper-nationalist and defensive position, the high caliber Bangladeshi diplomats took a decent, pragmatic and positive stance.

The Economist's story (Asia, May 12), "Hasina Resurgent," seems to suggest that Hasina is going to be the next prime minister of Bangladesh, but a closer reading indicates that the story, rather than praising her, vilifies her. Is it not puzzling that international pressure (which came from respected politicians, EU representatives, and so on) should be applied on behalf of someone who is presumably so unworthy?

Hasina, a former prime minister and the leader of the 14-Party alliance, was successful in galvanizing popular support and leading a movement against the government of Begum Zia to foil the scheme of a rigged election. Regrettably, the agitation, when challenged by rival parties, turned violent.

By mid-December most of the political parties outside the ruling coalition joined Hasina in a grand alliance, which paved the way for the emergence of a new administration backed by the military.

Hasina, along with members of the grand alliance, attended the inauguration of the new administration on January 11. The new administration took quick, decisive, and popular actions to fight corruption, which netted people across the political spectrum, including some party men of Hasina as well. Yet, she promised to ratify all the actions of the present administration if her party won the next election.

The so-called murder charge against her was not initiated by the present administration headed by Dr. Fakruddin Ahmed, who is reputed to be a man of integrity. A citizen filed the case on the sad and brutal death of a person that resulted from the violence that marked the mass upheaval on October 28, 2006.

On that day Prime Minister Khaleda Zia's tenure ended, and the fourteen-party alliance organized a mass rally to protest the attempted rigging of the next election. On the same day, the retiring government also organized a huge rally of its supporters. The violence on that day was almost predictable. Whether such a mob action can be attributed to a political leader is something for the court to judge.

The decision of the present administration to prevent her return from abroad, according to many analysts, was misguided, and gave her additional publicity. The government's decision to withdraw the restriction was timely and wise. It proved once again that this government is not an ostrich; it can mend its errors. On the whole, the political developments in Bangladesh since late October 2006 portend more hope than despair.

What is unfortunate is not the gaze of the international community, but that often the comments are based on superficial understanding of the political developments in Bangladesh. This aspect, perhaps a sad legacy of orientalism, needs amendment.

The author is a sociologist at Zayed University, UAE.