Some others might suggest the absence of any kind of rule of law which meant that the powerful could do whatever they wanted with virtual impunity. Then again, some might point to the lack of opportunities or the government's inability to (or unwillingness) to focus on the concerns of the poor.

I would suggest that the worst aspect of pre-January 11 Bangladesh -- and a failing that encompasses many of the above complaints (many of which are inter-connected) -- can be classified under the rubric of lack of human security.

Human security, which can also be understood as freedom from fear, has two components. The first is a simple law and order equation: Can the government of the day ensure my safety and security from non-state actors?

However, far more salient is the second component of human security: Can the government of the day ensure my safety and security from the state (or its representatives) itself? In the context of Bangladesh, this is an especially relevant question, as the bulk of the insecurity that everyday men and women have had to suffer through the years has come at the hands of representatives of the state.

In other words, it is not so much non-state actors but state actors that we need protection from -- i.e. from the police, from Rab, and even when it is non-state actors (e.g. common criminals or mastans) the bulk of the threat comes from those who are politically connected, which again implicates state actors. Similarly, the nexus between criminals and the police and the courts is again a function of the individual being persecuted by the state's actions and inactions.

To me, human security is the bare minimum. The absolute minimum I expect from any government is that it keeps me safe and protects my security. Specifically, I would expect that it keep me safe from its own clutches. This, to me, is the over-riding responsibility of a government. If it cannot keep me safe from non-state actors, then, at the very least, I should not have to worry about my safety at the hands of state actors.

Nor do I think that this is an elite/urban concern. Indeed, I would argue that this concern is heightened the further down the social and economic ladder you go. The less money and status you have, the more vulnerable you are, both to common or garden crooks and also to persecution at the hands of the authorities. You are more likely to have to pay tolls and extortions, to have to worry about physical and sexual assault, and will have even less ability to access the courts and police stations to seek redress for your grievances.

Human security is the corner-stone of existence. If we can be secure in our person and effects, then the rest will follow. If we are not secure in our person and properties, then everything else is evanescent and ephemeral, everything we have can be taken away from us at a moment's notice.

So, when I look at the current government, this is the question I ask: Are we now more secure then we were before January 11? And in judging what comes after the current dispensation, the question that I would ask is the same: Will we be more secure than we were before January 11?

What kind of security should we expect and demand from our government? The security that we will not be killed in cross-fire. The security that we will not be subjected to any extra-judicial punishment. The security that we will not be subject to arbitrary arrest. The security that we will not have to worry about being disappeared. These kinds of abuses were routine prior to January 11, and to the extent that they are still happening and that they may still continue in the future, are serious cause for concern.

Freedom from fear is the most important of freedoms.If you don't have that, you don't have anything. No freedom of the press -- who would dare criticize the government in such a climate? No accountability -- how can one begin to petition for redress if such petitioning earns one a one-way ticket to the slammer? No peace of mind -- how can we enjoy anything if we are constantly looking over our shoulders or weighing every word, wondering whether this will lead to a phone call or a late night visit from the authorities?.

So, whatever we do and whatever else is going on, I would suggest that the most important task before the interim government is to remove this uncertainty and fear from the air. If that were done, then the benefits -- to the country, to the individual, and to the government -- would be incalculable.

At a very basic level, creating a climate of security, free from fear, is simply the right thing to do, and the benefits are self-evident. Life without security is no life. But, beyond that, the pragmatic benefits for the country would be immense.

Think of the creative energy that would be unleashed if the people of Bangladesh were able to feel fully secure in their persons and properties. Think of the knock-on effect to the economy if people didn't have to fear repercussions for whistle-blowing or uncovering corruption.

So let's judge this current interim government by how successfully it is able to create this atmosphere -- and let us look at any future government according to the same lights. If they succeed in ensuring our security and freeing us from fear, then I will think that maybe, at long last, we are getting somewhere as a nation. But if they do not, and all we can look forward to are more years of looking over our shoulders, then it isn't entirely apparent to me how this would be different from where we were on January 10.

Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.