Dear Mahfuz bhai, I read in media that you regretted publishing materials relating to Sheikh Hasina's corruption which were supplied by the military, but which you never verified. I am not shocked or surprised, but saddened because many consider you the ideal Editor. Now we know your relationship to journalism is not about production of transparency but exercise of political power like most others in the sector.

In other words, you are more of a politician than a journalist. You want to help decide who rules Bangladesh and not report on who rules the country and how. I am sure you did what you thought was best but you violated a basic code of journalism and that is succumbing to bias. At that moment, you ceased being an Editor, but rather an assistant to the several power groups that play in our politics. I wish you could realize what damage you did to the profession in the name of "patriotism". You should have let your journalism do those and not conspiracies.

People are asking why you chose to come out now and admit and some have said that the spooks have put so much pressure on you in so many ways that admission is a way out. If the military has put pressure to cut off adverts from Star/Prothom Alo and infringe on freedom of expression, you did the same by taking the side of those who supplied you information and were then in power. All of you played politics and that is not a journalist's job. Like so many others you were not a journalist anymore.

In Bangladesh, three groups come to power as history shows. They are the AL, the BNP and the Army, and most journalists seem to be loyal to one of the three. Journalists and their lobby groups are extensions of political parties in many cases. Some of you thought that the Moeen-Fakhruddin combo was different and genuinely unhappy with the AL-BNP show and so wanted a "third force" as some call it, which in plain English means the military.

However, as events showed, it wasn't very different. If you are paying a price now, that is not because you played a patriotic card but because you didn't. You don't serve media, democracy or the country by publishing materials passed on against a politician or anyone without verifying. Period. You violated that principle in the name of politics.

One of the persons under whom I learnt much about ethical journalism was Ataus Samad bhai. He had been unhappy about some of reports I had published supplied by reporters while running weekly Dhaka Courier. He said, "no matter how tempting it is, never publish unless you are sure. Always question your sources. What is their interest in giving that information to you? And never publish unless you cross check. You will not be a sensational reporter but you will be an honest one." Today, his words have been proven very true by your words.

While working for Daily Star in 2001-2, I had an encounter with the DGFI. Kader Kollol of the BBC had called me for a comment on a BDR chief's transfer, who was involved in the Boraibari incident with India. I had said that I see no reason to be interested in transfer and retirement of army and civil bureaucrats. It should not even be covered by media. The next day after the broadcast, duty darwans of Star told me that several people had come to the office gate and asked about me. So I pushed the issue to the public space. I mentioned it in my weekly column the next day:

"I hear the military is looking for me. Well, it's their job to do so. I hear many who are picked up are tortured in various ways. Well, if that is their job let them do it. I also hear that coke bottles are pushed up people's rectum to get confessions. Well, let that happen if that is the practice. But do please use a Diet coke bottle in my case as I am a long time diabetic."

The piece did the trick and the military contacted me the next day. I was very respectfully taken to their cantonment office and interviewed over a cup of coffee. It can't have taken more than five minutes for them to realize that I was totally useless, and hence harmless. But what they did as we chatted was interesting. They would call up various Editors – three of them – and chat with loudspeaker on. Everyone was very nice to each other and they requested the Editors to write various pieces. The message to me was clear. Your bosses are our friend so who are you? I was dropped back before lunch. I was curious about the requests. All three Editors wrote the requested pieces within the week.

I believe a line should be drawn regarding who can be a source. I have been offered tips from everyone including the "uttarpara" particularly when I was a BBC correspondent but I never took them. Nobody passes on a secret without an objective though doing so is common. The tip off today comes with a request for favour tomorrow.

The journalism code is about impartiality and loyalty to objectivity and facts, not partisan identity or exercising political choices. A journalist and a judge are both professions of the last resort because they have a duty against their will never to take sides in the course of their job. But this is violated again and again. Many journalists think it's their duty to take sides and by doing so are performing "patriotic" duties, like Mahfuz bhai did. Not many want to be an independent journalist. Everyone wants to be an assistant to politics.

I was offered 100 crores last month to start a new English daily. "Daily Star is crumbling. They can never rise again." I was told. I refused and joked, "Come back with 300 crores and I will think about it."

Actually I don't want to be an assistant politician in the name of an Editor. But in the end, that money and much more is available and today or tomorrow someone will take it and do the same. And it began when the Editor decided to play power politics and ceased to be an Editor. If only you had thought that being an Editor was your job, you were an independent voice and not help others choose political enemies and friends.