He wrote this after the arrest of Sheikh Hasina. "Down or Up the Slippery Slope?" was the title of Mr. Millam's comments.

Since the winds of reforms began blowing, a favorite formula on the mind of the reformers and aided by the government was to drop the two matriarchs of Bangladesh politics. This was as idealistic and naive as eliminating corruption or ending poverty in Bangladesh. The ideas are great but are not feasible at this point. For example, world peace is highly desirable -- but how? If I had a magic wand I would convert all the nuclear bombs into huge bouquets and cluster bombs into delicious food items for the poor and medicines for the sick. These are dreams (which I cherish secretly). But how do I wish away the Bushes and the Blairs of the world? They are the big players we have to work with.

By pursuing a "minus two" formula the government created a sense of uncertainty that Ambassador Milam calls "ambiguity." The exile plan did not work but the government has not given up. But the strategy of tackling the two influential leaders is neither practical nor necessary.

Politics is the art of possible, not the agenda of desirable. Politicians and policy makers must have dreams drenched in hopes and the poetic language to express them. However, real politics is more prosaic.

By pursuing a "plus two" formula the government could give some semblance of stability which they need to complete their anti-corruption drive. Political house cleaning is not like demolishing an old brick and mortar house so that a new structure can be built in its place. If you do that, the residents become homeless and unstable for the time being. A more appropriate strategy would have been more like re-doing a thatched house where you take out the roof, put a new one, change the wall one at a time and finally you change the poles one by one so that the house still remains standing through out the process. The residents of the house have a shelter and a sense of stability. The latter would have been a more pragmatic strategy.

Why kill the birds? Clip the wings and the birds will meet the fate of the Dodos.

The worst possible strategy has been "minus one." In doing that, the government has muddied the water. Popular columnists like Mr. Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury who has been an ardent cheerleader of the post-1/11 CTG has now started to doubt the real motive for the take over. According to Mr. Chowdhury -- in the Janakantha of July 25 -- and the analysts he refers to, 1/11 was an attempt not to bail out a nation but to save the BNP-Jamaat alliance government against the secular, liberal forces of the 14-party alliance led by Sheikh Hasina.

This view, with growing disenchantment with the present administration, will gather popularity. This is not an arm-chair conspiracy theory and thus cannot be dismissed easily. The 1/11 was, in this view, launched not to remove the BNP-Jamaat regime but to salvage that regime by removing the indefensible culprits. It was not a revolution; it was a reform of the old regime. It was a triage. You sacrifice some that are not worth saving so that you as a team can win at the end.

The onus is on the CTG to remove these allegations by their deeds and not words.

All charges of corruption must be investigated, but there should be some logic to it. The corruption of 2001-2006 must get precedence over 1996-2001. At least that's what common sense suggests. Sheikh Hasina was the indefatigable leader who led the 14-party alliance to challenge the BNP-Jamaat regime. How can we forget it so fast? Yes, many people complained about strikes at that time. These are people who had no problem with the organised corruption of Khaelda Zia regime. Those who accuse Hasina of creating chaos in the last days of BNP rule in effect endorse BNP rule. The charge of unrest if stretched a little bit far would be comparable to accusing the freedom fighters of committing violence.

Those who opposed the sham election of February 15, 1996 (where Mrs. Zia won against Bangabandhu killer, Major Rashid) were heroes -- especially, the civil servants of the Janatar Manchaa. That sham election was a low point, a moment of shame in the political history of Bangladesh.

The four advisers who quit the early CTG refusing to be part of a puppet administration with a diabolical agenda should be seen as national heroes. They acted in the public interest and followed their conscience. The rest of the pre-1/11 CTG should be investigated for colluding with a cabal.

Public interest is not always popular. Majoritarian rule is not democracy -- it is mobocracy. You don't decide whether to impose tax by vote.

When Awami League leaders such as Dr. Mohiuddin Alamgir were thrown behind bars, some thought of it as collateral damage that the Awami League has to take in the greater interest of fighting corruption and housecleaning. However, putting Hasina behind bars is more than collateral damage, it changes the entire game.

This week's Economist (July 21) wrote: "In most countries, ambitious generals and unelected governments have a poor track record of delivering democracy." Let's hope Bangladesh becomes an exception. For many non-partisans, the military backed CTG was a hope against hope -- let that hope does not fall down the slippery slope to nightmare.

The author is a sociologist.