THE MINISTER VS OFFICER

THE MINISTER VS OFFICER

The spat that occurred in public between the Haryana Health minister Anil Vij and the lady IPS officer Sangeeta Kalia has generated considerable debate.  Most people have come out in support of the police officer.

There is no doubt that the Minister was boorish in his behavior.  He had no right to ask the officer to “get out” of a meeting, where the performance of the district police in dealing with sale of spurious liquour was being questioned.  Another mistake committed by the minister was to talk harshly to the officer not only in public but also in the presence of subordinate staff of the district police, thereby corroding her authority.  The earlier generation of politicians would always talk to officers in private whenever they felt like giving them a piece of their mind. Times have changed.  Politicians have become loud mouthed and arrogant in their behavior.

However, the police officer’s behavior was equally truculent and confrontational.  She showed her immaturity by unnecessarily arguing with the minister, who, after all is a people’s representative and had every right to listen to a public grievance.  Allegations in the form of a complaint had been made by a NGO that the police were not doing enough to prevent the sale of spurious liquor. Instead of asking the NGO why they had brought the complaint before the Minister, she should have tried to listen and explain to them what the police were doing in that regard.  Instead of doing that, she tried to prove the minister wrong and indirectly blamed the government’s policies.

Sale of spurious liquour is an important concern not only of the public but also of every state government.  There have been many incidents in different states, where sale of counterfeit liquor has caused deaths and police have been found to be complicit in allowing the sale. It is the state governments which have been asked to explain such incidents in the legislative assemblies.

Every state police act vests the superintendence over the police in the state government.  Section 24 of the Haryana Police Act of 2007 also does that.  Further, though Section 32 of this Act vests the administration of the state police in the DGP and of the police in a district in the District SP, the proviso to this Section allows the State Government to “intervene in the exercise of the powers of administration” by the police officers “in accordance with the prescribed rules, regulations or in exceptional circumstances involving urgent public interest”. The Minister as a part of state government had the authority   to exercise superintendence over the police and ask the head of the district police to explain their performance in an area of immense public interest. No illegitimate order or instructions were being given by him.

The state government did what all state governments do in such cases- transfer the officer. It was puerile on the part of state government’s representative to explain the transfer as a routine administrative decision.  The transfer was nothing but a slap on the wrist, warning the officer to behave.

The Congress lost no time in slamming the state government over the transfer, forgetting the number of times they had transferred an IAS officer called Khemka over much flimsier excuses.  Transfer and suspension are two weapons used by the politicians to punish such officers.

The opposition also attempted to turn the incident into a gender issue, which it was not.  Former Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda said that the minister should have maintained decorum while speaking to a lady officer.  The Congress leader Manish Tewari said the minister acted in a “crude manner” because “you don’t behave with a lady in this manner.”  The Congress spokesperson Shobha Oja went a step further, saying it reflected the “anti women mindset” of the BJP dispensation.  Actually, gender had nothing to do with it. The minister’s behavior would have been wrong even if it had been directed against a male police officer.

Attempts were made by other opposition parties to politicise the incident. The INLD took out a protest march in Fatehabad and burnt the effigy of the minister. A student organization organized a march in Bhiwandi, raising slogans in support of the officer.  The National Commission for Scheduled Castes also jumped in the fray, seeking a report on the incident from Haryana Government to decide if the Minister’s behavior amounted to an atrocity, as defined in the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

This tendency to politicise such incidents reflects on our inability or unwillingness to analyse the relationship between political leaders and police officers on an objective basis. Since we generally have a poor opinion of most politicians, we tend to look at whatever they do with suspicion.  This is not healthy in a democratic society, where the relationship between political leaders and police officers must be based on trust. Such relationship cannot be established if we start questioning political control or intervention in all situations involving the police, irrespective of whether the interference was legitimate or not.


This article was published in the Indian Express dated December 3, 2015

THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA’S COVERAGE OF INDRANI MUKERJEA’S CASE

Excessive  Media Coverage Of Indrani Mukerjea's Case

 A few days ago, the Unreal Times said: “in the last couple of days, even if the Pakistan army had infiltrated into India, right up to Connaught Place, New Delhi………,” you would not have heard about it because the Indian media was busy giving us all the gory details “on the most staggering event that has hit the nation since Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination: The Indrani Mukerjea case.”

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar took a similar dig at news channels, saying they are so busy covering a complex murder case that they ignored an event held to celebrate the country’s victory in the 1965 war. The electronic media appears to have gone completely berserk in reporting on this incident. After every few minutes, there is a “Breaking News”, sometimes to tell us that Sheena Bora is the daughter and not the sister of Indrani Mukerjea and at other times to inform us about the relationships between the mother and ex husbands.

Every minor detail in the case becomes a breaking news that is reported simultaneously by all channels, each one claiming it to be exclusive. The motive of crime is discussed threadbare. The discussions are confined not merely to investigations; judgments are being pronounced too. The media as well as TV audience are taking vicarious pleasure in describing Indrani Mukerjea’s past and her various affairs and relationships.

Investigation is still on, trial is yet to start; but all the TV channels have pronounced Indrani Mukerjea guilty of murder and some other offences. Even if Indrani Mukerjea is acquitted, she will not be able to show her face in public the way she has been hounded, derided and scorned by the electronic media. Mr. Julio Ribeiro’s contention that the media has crossed all limits of decency and requesting the chief justice of the Bombay High Court to restrain the “media trial” in the case makes a lot of sense. It appears the police are also playing their part in this sordid affair by releasing information in tit bits, where ever it suits them. Earlier there used to be a provision in the Police Manuals, asking the police to desist from interacting with the media about their investigation work. This allowed them to do their work without being disturbed by the “experts” we see every day on the TV screen.

The police should particularly abstain from appearing on TV. One fails to understand why the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai is interrogating the accused or witnesses in this case. He is a senior officer and has every right to supervise the investigation. But when he becomes a part of the investigating team, the case assumes a bigger profile than it deserves. It is a murder case. Just because the accused happens to be from a rich and elite class, that does not make it a case deserving of special treatment either from the police or from the media. The need on the part of the police to release information to the media is accepted, but such information should never lead to turning public opinion against the accused in a way that results in denial of justice.

Arushi’s murder case to some extent was spoilt due to police often putting their foot in their mouth. The police must inform the public on matters concerning them, but the media as well as police have a responsibility to ensure that the accused has a right to privacy and a fair trial.

The National Police Commission had examined the relationship between the police and the media. They recommended that all police activities should be open, except in four specific areas. These areas are (1) operations, (2) intelligence on the basis of which operations are planned, (3) privacy of the individual citizen, and (4) judicial requirements. It is obvious that the police are crossing this brief, particularly in respect of items (1) and (3).

Excessive exposure of the case on TV channels has the effect of shaping and reshaping public opinion about the crime and accused. There is considerable evidence to prove that “market driven treatment of crime” by the TV channels has the effect of definitely distorting public opinion, often creating excessive fear of crime and leading to demands for harsher punitive measures. There have been some rape cases, where most bizarre and outlandish suggestions to deal with the problem were made, with people demanding chemical castration, death penalty, hanging or burning the accused in public, denying them opportunities to appeal on conviction from the trial court etc. The electronic media played a very prominent role in creating such public opinion.

There is also evidence that public perceptions about crime and criminals affect the professional efficiency of the police. According to a report, commissioned by Rotherham Borough Council, UK, at least 1,400 children were subjected to appalling sexual exploitation in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 and the police failed to investigate the Asian pedophile gang for fear of being perceived as racist. This fear emanates from continuous bombardment of news that focuses on creating such perceptions, often wrongly.

We are all fascinated with stories of crime, particularly crime involving sex. These stories sell. It is therefore understandable that media’s content to some extent will be governed by marketing considerations. However, the question that media should answer is whether such considerations should take complete precedence over all other events, which are equally, if not more newsworthy and whether they should go overboard in reporting such crimes, which may affect the trial.

 As the electronic media has enormous reach and power, it is for the media to function according to a code of ethics that serves public interest

DISHONOURING THE POLICE UNIFORM

Disgracing the Policeman

The other day, the media reported two incidents from Delhi. In one, a foreign woman slapped a policeman after he refused to allow her to enter into an auditorium where a book release function was being held.  In the other, two traffic policemen were beaten up in Delhi by a group of people for stopping an underage person from driving a car.  A traffic policeman lying on the road, with the group beating him and trying to trample over his supine body, presented a very sad and pitiable sight. 

The number of incidents, in which police personnel are humiliated, abused and even beaten in public has been rising day by day.  Politicians of course do it with brazenness and impunity. The Delhi Chief Minister does not hesitate in calling the policeman a “thulla.” The Samajwadi party’s supremo warns a senior police officer to mend his ways. “Sudhar jao” is a very mild form of threat. A minister in Akhilesh Yadav’s government had threatened to strip “any SHO of his uniform in 24 hours... if he doesn't listen to us." Another minister in the same government warned policemen not to remain on their seats in his presence. Two years ago, a Maharashtra police officer was assaulted by legislators in the Assembly premises.  A few years ago, a Shiromani Akali Dal leader in Amritsar shot dead a Punjab police officer who had protested against his daughter being harassed by the politician and his friends. Similar reports have come from other states.  These are only few of such incidents which have happened in the recent past.

Politicians do not hesitate to disgrace and ill treat policemen in public.  In many cases, it is done deliberately.  The policeman has always been regarded by ordinary citizens as a symbol of authority.  By humiliating him in public, it is easy to disrobe him of his authority and appropriate it yourself.  It becomes an easy means to add to your illegitimate power.  It also enables the politician to function as a middleman to peddle his influence with the police and help some people in getting relief in cases in which they are involved.  It reduces police capability to deal effectively with violations of law in which the politician and his cronies indulge.

What the politicians do does not leave the public untouched.  They also get emboldened and start misbehaving with the policemen.  There have been many incidents where the members of public have often prevented police personnel   from carrying out their duties by surrounding and beating them.

Assaults on police personnel are becoming quite commonplace.  This is happening despite there being fairly stringent provisions in law against such behavior.  According to Section 332 IPC, anyone voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant to deter him from doing his duty is punishable with imprisonment for a term up to three years or with fine or both. If the hurt is grievous, the punishment, as per Section 333, can extend to ten years.  Data indicating number of such cases prosecuted by the police and their trial results is not available.  However, the spurt in such incidents shows that the police are not using such provisions of law effectively, particularly when the accused   happen to be connected closely or even remotely to the party in power.  In other cases, the deterrent effect is mitigated by the enormous time taken by our courts in deciding cases.  All this leads to creating a climate of lawlessness, which further encourages people to take law in their own hands.

  

We in India do not have faith in policemen, particularly those of lower ranks. An argument is often made that the lower ranks by their performance and behavior have not succeeded in dislodging distrust from the public and legislators’ mind.  The argument may be valid, but what have we done to change the system and its culture that contribute to producing this type of performance?

We have not shown a proper understanding of the role of policeman in society and the conditions in which that role is being performed.    He has a poor image that leads to a low status, which in turn perpetuates that image. The vicious circle keeps on widening the existing chasm between the police and the community. This environment produces two results.  One, it contributes to encouraging assaults on policemen.  Two, genuine sacrifices made by police personnel while performing their duty do not receive adequate recognition.  On an average, about 850 policemen are losing their lives every year in line of duty.  A policeman is a symbol of law and state authority and when he dies at the hands of a criminal or gets beaten by  lumpen elements, a part of our system of rule of law gets badly damaged.  Every such incident leads to the erosion of state authority and that is what must not be allowed to happen as easily and as frequently as it is happening now. 

Assaults on police personnel lower not only their morale, but also lessen their ability to handle confrontations with public with professional calm and competence.  The incident where a traffic policeman in Delhi was shown throwing a brick at a woman rankled many in the public, but most of the peer group of that constable felt that what happened was regrettable, but could be explained as a response to a fairly abusive and aggressive offender, who had clearly violated traffic laws and who later turned out to be liar too. 

It is generally said that the public think very poorly of the policeman on the street.  This is true, but it is also true that an average policeman has an equally poor opinion of the community he serves.  What is needed is to find ways and means of removing this distrust and bringing the two closer to each other.

IS INDIA EMERGENCY PROOF?

CAN EMERGENCY OCCUR AGAIN?
                               
Mr. L. K Advani’s observations that the forces that can crush democracy are stronger and emergency can happen again have stirred up considerable controversy.

Mr Advani, when questioned on this subject later in a TV programme, was not very convincing in explaining his remarks. He felt like this because there was no sense of atonement either on the part of the Congress or Gandhi family for the Emergency and no assurance that it would not happen again.  It is true that the Congress has not expressed any regrets for imposition of Emergency.  But even if they atone for this unjustifiable act, how does it ensure that it will not happen again?

One fact must be recognised clearly.  Emergency was not merely imposed wrongly; it survived and remained in operation for about nineteen months. This was one of the darkest periods of post Independent India during which thousands of citizens were arbitrarily arrested, untold atrocities were committed by people in positions of power and citizens were deprived of their fundamental rights. It happened not merely because of the presence of an authoritarian leader at the helm of affairs, but because the entire system had been subverted. Before the Emergency was imposed, Indira Gandhi had succeeded in propagating and promoting the idea of an unswervingly loyal bureaucracy and a committed judiciary.  The culture of sycophancy in the Congress had already established that “Indira is India and India is Indira.”  The way media caved in, it is clear that they had lost before the battle began.  Even the judiciary, including the apex court, fell in line.  In such an environment, it was easy not merely to impose Emergency but also to sustain it.  The President could sign the Emergency proclamation even when the Cabinet had not discussed, what to talk of approving, it.

The only official record of what happened during the Emergency was the report of the Shah Commission of Inquiry, which was destroyed on the orders of Smt. Indira Gandhi when she returned to power in 1980. The Commission studied the circumstances prevailing at the time the Emergency was imposed. Of the various special features gleaned by the Commission from official records, four need to be mentioned here.  One, on the economic front, there was nothing alarming at that time.  Two, the Home Ministry had received no reports from the state governments indicating any significant deterioration in the law and order situation in the period immediately preceding the proclamation of Emergency.  Three, the Home Ministry had not sent any report to the Prime Minister, expressing its concern about the internal situation prevailing in the country.  Four, the decision to impose Emergency was taken in a hush hush manner.  While the Director, I B, the Home secretary, the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretary to the Prime Minister did not even know about it, R K Dhavan, the then Additional Private Secretary to the Prime Minister had been associated with the promulgation of  Emergency from the early stage.

It is thus obvious that the circumstances prevailing at that time did not warrant the imposition of Emergency.  Much worse law and order disturbances have been witnessed in the country since those dark days. What is remarkable is not the imposition of Emergency, but the ease with which it could be enforced.  This ease was acquired because the system had been subverted and important institutions failed to respond. The role of institutions like the media and judiciary has received considerable attention, but the responsibility of one important institution in enforcing Emergency i.e the police has not been adequately debated.

The police was one agency that was highly misused.  The police and the magistracy did all that they were asked to do without bothering about the legality of orders given by their political masters.  They fabricated warrants and records to carry out illegal arrests and detentions under MISA and other laws.  The Shah Commission viewed with anguish the “evidence of patent collusion between the police and the Magistracy in denying the citizens their basic freedoms by arrests and detentions on grounds which were now admitted to be non-existent or deliberately invented.” The Commission felt that “employing the police to the advantage of any political party is a sure source of subverting the rule of law” and the government must therefore take steps to insulate the police from the politics of the country. The National Police Commission’s recommendations on the subject and the Supreme Court’s famous judgement of September22, 2006 did not help in redeeming the situation.

 The way the CBI was manipulated and misused during the Emergency is now a part of history, but its record since then has not been praiseworthy.  It has functioned as a parrot on more than one occasion.  So far as the state police performance is concerned, it again does not inspire any confidence.  Even the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs in April, 2002 admitted that “today we have a police, which is politicized and politically polarized.  For it has become a pawn in the hands of its masters.” It is here that the seeds of future danger lie

To prevent Emergency from occurring again, what is required is to create circumstances where it cannot be enforced with the ease with which it was done.  It is in this background that the need for a reformed police force becomes obvious. The police, as Gary T Marx, a social studies scholar has  said,  can be a major threat to democracy just as it can be a great support to it. According to him, the “Police are a central element of a democratic society. Indeed one element in defining such a society is a police force that 1) is subject to the rule of law, rather than the wishes of a powerful leader or party, 2) can intervene in the life of citizens only under limited and carefully controlled circumstances and 3) is publicly accountable “   If these conditions are not met, the threat of Emergency will continue to loom large.

WEALTH & CELEBRITY DRIVEN JUSTICE

Justice Can Be Influenced

The judiciary, and that also higher judiciary, has been very much in the news during the last few weeks.

 First the Salman Khan case, where it takes the lower court 13 years to   hold the actor guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in a hit and run case, but it takes the higher court only three hours to suspend the sentence and release him on bail.  Then the Jayalalithaa case, where the trial court convicts the lady of possessing disproportionate assets and sentences her to four years imprisonment and Rs 100 crore fine on September 27, 2014 after the case dragged on for 18 years.  The High Court disposes off the case on May11, 2015.  The public prosecutor appointed at the eleventh hour says that he was not given an opportunity to present his case.

These are not the only cases that have created an impression in the public mind that the criminal justice system in this country is wealth and influence driven.  Sanjay Dutt has been let out on parole on numerous occasions. Lalu Prasad is out on bail even after being convicted in a corruption case.  Now Ramalinga Raju has also been released on bail.  Some earlier cases that immediately  come to mind are those of underworld don Babloo Srivastava, who was convicted for life term on July 3, 2006, whose appeal was heard by Delhi High Court on July 12, 2006 and who was acquitted on February 23, 2007.  Ansal brothers were convicted for 2 year jail term on November 21, 2007, but secured bail on November 23, 2007 and finally the High Court reduced the jail term to one year on December 20, 2008.

These cases  show that the rich and influential people either get bail after being accused of committing crime or are acquitted of all charges. There is nothing wrong on being released on bail.  Bail and not jail, they say, is the principle on which the system of legal jurisprudence is based.  If that is the principle, why is it that out of 3,85,135 jail population in the country on January 1, 2014, as many as 2,54,857 (66.2% of total inmates) were undertrial prisoners?   A majority of them were inside because they were either denied bail or failed to post bail bond.   A study done by the Law Commission of India on Law Relating to Arrest in November, 2000 showed that the percentage of undertrial prisoners in the country was unusually high and most of them were there because they were too poor to post bail or furnish securities.

What about the appeals, which in some cases are heard with speed, while in others it takes umpteen number of years for cases to be heard.    On 31.3.2014, about 2.79 crore cases were pending with different courts in the country at the end of the first quarter of 2014.  Out of these, 2,73,60,814 cases were pending with District and Subordinate Courts, 4,47,903 with High Courts and 65,970 with the Supreme Court.   A large number of cases pending with higher courts are appeal cases.

All these cases and statistics merely prove what the Committee on Draft National Policy on Criminal Justice appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had reported in July 2007: “An equally disturbing perception of the people is about the role the money and influence play in criminal justice administration. In common man’s perception, there are two standards of justice in the country, one for the rich and powerful and the other for the poor and underprivileged sections.”

The farcical working of the courts in this country with antiquated laws and procedures have been brilliantly shown in the recent national award winning Marathi film called “Court.” Despite all the material that exists in the reports of commissions and committees and also films (even those with catchphrase like ‘tareekh pe tareekh’), the justice system has remained one of the most neglected areas of governance in the country.  It appears that good governance has remained merely a political slogan.

While talking of politics, a side issue concerning Jayalalithaa’s case needs to be discussed.  Immediately after the acquittal order became public, the PM Narendra Modi was the first political leader to congratulate her on her release.  Whatever might have been the political considerations behind this move, a question that needs to be asked is: was it proper for the Prime Minister of the country to congratulate a person who till a few hours ago was a convict in a corruption case? The High Court’s judgement is not the end of the case. The Karnataka government or the petitioner can appeal against the judgement in the apex court.

When a congratulatory message is sent, it stands not merely for courteous behavior; it also indicates a feeling of sympathy for the person who is being congratulated.  Along with Jayalalithaa, the Prime Minister also appears to have heaved a sigh of relief on her being acquitted. It appears that he had carefully considered what Edmund Burke had advised long ago: “The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.”
   

I AM A CHARLIE BUT NOT A BAGA

I AM A CHARLIE BUT NOT A BAGA

The world witnessed two major incidents of terrorist violence during the first fortnight of this month.  The global response to the two tragedies was entirely different.

First, the incident that is very well known.  On Wednesday, the 7th of the month, two Islamic terrorists stormed the office of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, known for its cartoons lampooning established institutions and religions, including Islam and killed 12 staff members of the weekly. Later five more civilians lost their lives.  It led to one of the biggest deployment of security forces in France to hunt the killers and other terrorists holding hostages in a market.

The country mourned and received condolence messages from all over the world. There was a huge outpouring of sympathy for victims and anger against the deed and the doers.  The incident also gave rise to some racial hatred, with Twitter going viral with the message “kick them out”.

“I am Charlie” became a sign of defiance and shared aims.  The eventful week ended with an estimated 3.7 million people marching on the streets in a show of unity and solidarity. The world leaders from more than 40 countries, including the British Prime Minister, German Chancellor, EU President, Israeli Prime Minister, Palestinian President and Jordan King participated in the unity march, enthusing the French President to declare “Today, Paris is the capital of the world.”  The event became so big and important that the US administration felt sorry for not sending a higher ranking representative to the unity march.

Now, come to the second incident that occurred in Nigeria.  Boko Haram, a well known Jihadi insurgent group operating in that country, stormed a small town called Baga and indiscriminately killed civilians. According to Amnesty International, 2000 persons were killed in the attack that began on January 3, making it the “deadliest attack in the militant’s six-year insurgency.”  The town was virtually "wiped off the map."

The tragedy of Baga was thus much bigger that what happened in Paris.  Now, how did the world react?

Compared to Paris, the calamity of Baga was virtually ignored by the governments in almost all countries.  One did not hear of many condolence messages being received by the government or people in Nigeria.  In fact, the funniest part of the episode is that while the Nigerian President sent condolence message for the victims of Paris, he is alleged to have remained silent on the depredations of Boko Haram in Baga. The Nigerian government has failed to deal with the insurgent group effectively and has often been accused of hiding its failure by reducing the intensity of Boko Haram’s violent activities and the resultant loss of life and property suffered by its people.  This lack of transparency was also noticed in the handling of the incident of kidnapping of school girls. Does it, however, mean that the quality of state involvement in dealing with a crisis situation will determine how the rest of the world will react to it? It is for the governments in the advanced countries to answer this question.

Differences in the incidence and frequency of such incidents is probably an important factor in showing how the world will respond.  What happened in Paris was an occasional incident as compared to the violence by Boko Haram, which occurs often enough to be considered normal and routine.

Besides the governments, the international media also did not pay adequate heed to what happened at Baga.  If Paris saw a deluge of media coverage, Baga suffered a draught, which led someone to raise a very pertinent question: “Is one massacre more newsworthy than another?”  If one is guided by the scale of disaster suffered by two places, Baga should have received more media coverage than Paris, but that did not happen. Why?

 One explanation given is that Paris is easily accessible, has enough communication facilities and is less risky as compared to Baga.  This argument is not very convincing, as journalists have reported from more inaccessible and risky areas than Baga. In fact, some of the best media reportage has come from war zones and conflict ridden spots. We also talk of the present world as a globalised and a shrunk place. In such a world, one cannot regard any area as isolated and neglect one’s professional duty to cover events there.

How then does one explain the neglect by the international community and the media to the ugly tragedy of Baga as compared to the way they treated the event at Paris?  In my view, there are two main explanations.  One is that response to the violence in Paris was inspired by the lofty principle of freedom of expression, which is an important pillar on which the democratic world rests.  Any negligence towards upholding this principle shakes its very foundations. That is why all the debate that took place in different countries following the Paris massacre focused mainly on the need to espouse and defend the right to freedom of expression. No such exalted code triggered off the violence at Baga.

While the first explanation sounds admirable, the second one is somewhat base.  An unbiased examination leads to an unavoidable conclusion that an element of racism did play a part in shaping the response to the two events. As someone commented rightly: “Nigerians are black Africans. French are predominantly white Europeans. Somewhere in those two statements is an explanation as to why there was much more concern over the death of 17 people in Paris and zero concern over the deaths of 2000 people in Baga.” This bias was supplemented by the rich and poor or the strong and weak divide that existed between the two countries.