e – Voice Of Human Rights Watch – e-news weekly
Spreading the light of humanity & freedom
Editor: Nagaraj.M.R….vol.5 . issue.02……10/01/2009
EDITORIAL : GUNS N’ ROSES – international war crimes tribunal
9 / 11 WTC attack , 26 / 11 MUMBAI attack , bomb blasts in pakistan
India, U.S.A , U.K , Pakistan and various other countries
have given birth to & supported various terror outfits, all with the
objective of widening their area of influence, to get hold of
governance of other countries, to loot resources of other countries.
At no time they were bothered about the welfare of innocent people
in those victim countries.
Now, when the Frankenstein monster they fathered TERRORISM
is haunting them , came home to roost in their own backyards , all
these countries are crying foul.
Take for instance Pakistan , it has got enough problems on hand , poverty , unemployment , malnutrition , hunger , illiteracy is rampant in Pakistan. Ordinary Pakistanis are suffering, ordinary Pakistanis does not need neither war nor jihad , what they need is food , healthcare , education for their children.
Take for instance india, it has lot of problems on hand
like starvation, lack of education , health care, etc. The GOI says
it doesn’t have enough funds to solve these problems. These problems
are of pre-independece vintage, increasing multifold after
independence of india. Still the government of india spent crores of
rupees on training , arming of tamil terrorists in srilanka ,
unnecessarily poked it’s nose in east pakistan creating bangladesh,
created terrorist outfits in punjab & northeast to counter the
influence of other terrorist outfits. ALL THE WHILE PREACHING
PANCHASHEEL PRINCIPLES – peaceful co-existance , respect for
neighbour’s boundaries, etc, in the same breath. What ordinary Indians , commonfolk need is food , shelter , healthcare & education.
Take the case of USA , from the beginning since decades , it is the habbit of US administrators, britishers to sow the seeds of discontent between two countries , make them to go to war with each other ( simultaneously selling military hardware worth billions of dollars to those same countries by the way making profit in billions ) & to finally play the role of a truce maker thereby getting a foothold in the newly formed government plus getting reconstruction projects worth billions of dollars leading to profit of billions. Just remember the US invasion of iraq , citing presence of WMDs, finally nothing was found. However USA made billions of profit by business.
The common folk of whichever country , whichever religion you take , does not want war , everybody wants peace. The common folk need food , shelter , healthcare & education. It is the scheming politicians who go on the path of violence. POOJYA BAPUJI’s , MAHATMA GANDHIJI’s principles of non violence , non interference in the affairs of other individuals / other countries , love / compassion for fellow human beings is much relevant today.
Hereby, HRW urges the international war crimes tribunal , to
order the respective governments who aided terrorism ,to pay damages
to victim countries.
Jai hind. Vande mataram
CRIMES OF U.S PRESIDENT
From the day one the government of u.s.a is selfish & violating the rights of other countrymen. During cold war days , to expand it’s influence & to give more business for u.s arms manufacturers , the u.s.a sowed the seeds of terrorism in various countries & nurtured them through arms & finance supply , training. The AL-QUEDA & TALIBAN are it’s own babies.
The president bush of U.S.A was sufferring from low image ratings , the domestic economy was facing a slump , so to improve his own rating & bring more business to u.s industries , he schemed an inhuman ruthless plan. He wanted to take control of afghanisthan & iraq. He needed a ruse to invade them & concocted one murdering his very own countrymen.
human rights watch has doubted the authenticity of 9/11 in it’s articles months ago. it is just a ploy of the bush to divert attention of public from his dipping ratings , domestic problems like unemployment , economic lows and more importantly to find rather fabricate a reason for attacking the arab world , iraq. finally , to help it’s MNCs mint millions in reconstuction , oil contracts, etc. it is a savage act of bush for green bucks.
SEPTEMBER 9/11 WAS PLANNED !!!! VISIT : http://www.neiu.edu/~ayjamess/hmmm.htm#Main
The government of U.S.A thrown all international conventions into wind , lied about weapons of destruction in iraq & invaded a sovereign country iraq. Still , it was unabale to find any weapons of mass destruction in iraq. In it’s greed for power , green bucks , it inhumanly tortured prisoners , took them to 3rd countries for torture , bugged phones of u.s citizens & violated human rights of u.s citizens. In his ego , greed mr.bush has violated all human rights of not only u.s citizens but also human rights of innocent iraqis , afghans , etc & thrown all international laws into winds.
Now, the president himself has acknowledged the intelligence failure in iraq but defended his iraqi invasion. Mr. Bush will be remebered in the history books as a GREATEST LIAR , INHUMAN SCHEMING MEGALAMONIAC & GREEDY OLDMAN.
AMERICA INTROSPECT YOUSELF
By a reader
I agree with you as the issues you have raised are very valid. US was
least bothered about terrorism , when it was hitting other countries.
Terrorism has been there for a long time now in many countries.But
when it affected the US then they came out with this concept of ” War
against Terror”. My question is if they were genuinely interested in
curbing terrorism, where were they earlier. Because of their
policies, which at times are not in the interest of nations or
groups, they are being targeted. Its greed, which is behind these
policies. The greed to contol other places, and become more powerful.
Look at the average American Citizen, he is always in fear about
attacks. Recently during the bomb blast in New Delhi, saw the
Americans fleeing the capital first.
Recently there were some issue in the group about Exploitation and
Slaves. Well, you look at the history, whenever there has been any
supression on individuals, groups or countries, there has been a
revolt. How long can one tolerate the attrocities ? Kashmir is also
related to this problem. Kasmiri Pandits were in control of all the
power and held key positions, and Kashmiri Muslims were neglected,
thus came in this terrorism issue in Kashmir. Coming Back to US, it
never does anything, without their own vested interest. Why did the
US attack Iraq in the first place, was Saddam the real reason? I
guess, no. The UN inspection teams came down to Iraq to look out for
Weapons of Mass Destruction. Did they find anything???? No. US has
very sophisticated technologically advanced intelligence systems,
wherein they keep a tap of everything thats happenning around. Just
think for a moment, if a Company like Google can display defence
establishments and other sensitive information on its website, Google
earth, can you really believe that the US Intelligence would be
lacking anyway behind? They very well knew that there was nothing in
Iraq but still attacked. A couple of days ago there was a news item
which highlighted a former US political figure quoting ” That guy
(Saddam) is sitting on the Oil,and we can’t stand it”.
Where ever they are supporting, something or the other, there must be
some interest at the background. So, what is it in case of the
Gujarat Riots ? I guess we need to find out this first. These were
some thoughts which came to my mind and hence wrote it down.
In the Name of Democracy American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond
by Jeremy Brecher, Jill Cutler and Brendan Smith
Brandon Hughey was a private at Fort Hood when he discovered that his
army unit was about to be sent to Iraq. The eighteen-year-old from
San Angelo, Texas, was desperate-not because he was afraid to go to
war, but because he was convinced that the Iraq war was immoral. He
considered solving the problem by taking his own life. Instead, he
got in a car and drove to Canada. He explained, “I would fight in an
act of defense, if my home and family were in danger. But Iraq had no
weapons of mass destruction. They barely had an army left, and [UN
Secretary-General] Kofi Annan actually said [attacking Iraq was] a
violation of the UN charter. It’s nothing more than an act of
aggression. You can’t go along with a criminal activity just because
others are doing it.” If, as the Bush administration has maintained,
the United States is fighting in Iraq to protect itself from
terrorism, free the people of Iraq from tyranny, enforce
international law, and bring peace and democracy to the Middle East,
then war resisters like Brandon Hughey appear deluded if not cowardly
But what if Private Hughey is right? What if the U.S. operation in
Iraq is “nothing more than an act of aggression?” What if it indeed
constitutes “criminal activity”? What, then, is the culpability of
President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and
other top U.S. officials? And what is the responsibility of ordinary
Americans? Until recently, the possibility that top U.S. officials
were responsible for war crimes seemed to many Americans nothing but
the invidious allegations of a few knee-jerk anti-Americans. But as
more and more suppressed photos and documents have been disclosed,
and as more and more eyewitness accounts from prisons and
battlefields have appeared in the media, Americans are undergoing an
agonizing reappraisal of the Iraq war and the broader war on terror
of which it is allegedly a part.
There are three sets of questions regarding possible U.S. war crimes
in Iraq. The first set of questions concerns the legality of the U.S.
attack on Iraq under international law. Secretary-General Kofi Annan
of the United Nations stated shortly before the attack that the UN
Charter is “very clear on the circumstances under which force can be
used. If the U.S. and others were to go outside the Council and take
military action, it would not be in conformity with the charter.” He
subsequently stated that the invasion of Iraq was “not in conformity
with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter
part of view, it was illegal.” The U.S. admission that Iraq had no
weapons of mass destruction, and the growing evidence that the United
States fabricated the evidence on which that charge was based, has
provided added weight to Annan’s view.
The second set of questions involves the possible illegality of the
U.S. occupation of Iraq and its conduct. The seriousness of such
questions was recently underlined by the warning of Louise Arbour,
the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that those guilty of
violations of international humanitarian rights laws-including
deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and
disproportionate attacks, killing of injured persons, and the use of
human shields-must be brought to justice, “be they members of the
Multinational Force or insurgents.”
The military technology the United States is using in Iraq, such as
cluster bombs and depleted uranium, may be illegal in itself. Under
Article 85 of the Geneva Conventions it is a war crime to launch “an
indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the
knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or
injury to civilians.” A UN weapons commission described cluster bombs
as “weapons of indiscriminate effects.” A reporter for The Mirror
(United Kingdom) wrote from a hospital in Hillah, “Among the 168
patients I counted, not one was being treated for bullet wounds. All
of them, men, women, children, bore the wounds of bomb shrapnel. It
peppered their bodies. Blackened their skin. Smashed heads. Tore
limbs. A doctor reported that ‘All the injuries you see were caused
by cluster bombs’…The majority of the victims were children who
died because they were outside.”
The third set of questions has to do with the torture and abuse of
prisoners in U.S. custody. This has been a huge but unresolved issue
since it was first indelibly engraved in the public mind by the
photos from Abu Ghraib prison. Cascading disclosures have revealed
that torture and other forms of prisoner abuse have been endemic not
only in Iraq but in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and many other U.S.
operations around the world.
facing the implications
The possibility that high U.S. officials may be guilty of war crimes
and may be preparing to commit more raises questions that few
Americans have yet faced. These questions go far beyond technical
legal matters to the broadest concerns of international security,
democratic government, morality, and personal responsibility. Part IV
presents perspectives from a variety of disciplines and political
viewpoints designed to help us address those questions.
The UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the principles of
international law, while all too often violated, have provided some
basis for international peace and security. What is the likely result
of following the advice of the Bush administration’s John Bolton that
it is “a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international
law”? Is it likely to be greater freedom and security, or an unending
war of all against all? Are the American people-not to mention the
people of the world-ready to abandon the international rule of law
and return to what Justice Jackson called “a system of international
Some of the most difficult issues are faced by those in the military
and the government who may be directly complicit in war crimes. Some
have said no to participation in the war in Iraq and the cover-up of
related criminal activity.
Specialist Jeremy Hinzman of Rapid City, South Dakota, joined the
Eighty-second Airborne as a paratrooper in 2001. He wanted a career
in the military and did a stint in Afghanistan. Then he was ordered
to Iraq. “I was told in basic training that, if I’m given an illegal
or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it. And I feel that
invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do.”
In September 2004, Stephen Funk, a marine reservist of Filipino and
Native American origin was tried for refusing to fight in Iraq. “In
the face of this unjust war based on deception by our leaders, I
could not remain silent. In my mind that would have been true
cowardice…I spoke out so that others in the military would realize
that they also have a choice and a duty to resist immoral and
In December 2004, the Hispanic sailor Pablo Paredes reported to his
ship in San Diego Harbor wearing a T-shirt reading, “Like a cabinet
member, I resign.” Refusing to help take troops to Iraq, the Bronx
native said, “I don’t want to be a part of a ship that’s taking three
thousand marines over there, knowing a hundred or more of them won’t
come back…I’d rather do military prison time than six months of
dirty work for a war that I and many others do not support. War
should be an absolute last resort…Never in a million years did I
imagine we would go to war with somebody who had done nothing to us.”
halting war crimes
Under the principles established by the Nuremberg and Tokyo war
crimes tribunals, those in a position to give orders are responsible
for war crimes and crimes against humanity conducted under their
authority. But responsibility does not end there. Anyone with
knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something
about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the
person takes affirmative measures to prevent the commission of the
Crimes are ordinarily dealt with by the institutions of law
enforcement. But those institutions are largely in the hands of
people who may be complicit in the very crimes that need to be
investigated. Can they be held accountable? Or can war criminals
forever act with impunity?
The problem of a government that is ostensibly democratically elected
but that defies actual accountability is one that citizens in many
countries have faced at one time or another. We can take inspiration
from the way citizens from Serbia to the Philippines and from Chile
to Ukraine have utilized “people power” to block illegal action and
force accountability on their leaders. We can similarly take
inspiration from resistance to illegitimate authority in our own
country from the American Revolution to the Watergate investigations
that ultimately brought the Nixon administration to account for its
criminal abuse of power.
in the name of democracy
If war crimes are being committed, they are being committed in the
name of democracy. Their ostensible purpose is to extend democracy
throughout the world. They are committed by a country that proudly
proclaims itself the world’s greatest democracy.
Such acts in Iraq and elsewhere represent, on the contrary, the
subversion of democracy. They reflect the imposition by violence and
brutality of a rule that is not freely chosen. Such acts also
represent a subversion of democracy at home. They represent a
presidency that has denied all accountability to Congress, courts, or
international institutions. As Elizabeth Holtzman puts it: “The claim
that the President…is above the law strikes at the very heart of
our democracy. It was the centerpiece of President Richard Nixon’s
defense in Watergate-a defense that was rejected by the courts and
lay at the foundation of the articles of impeachment voted against
him by the House Judiciary Committee.” It denies the constitutional
constraints that have made the United States a government under law.
It subverts democracy in the name of democracy.
War crimes represent the defiance not only of international but also
of U.S. law. The effort to halt them is at once a movement for peace
and a struggle for democracy.
Three Earthquakes, A Genocide, Three Invasions And A World War
by Aseem Shrivastava November 04, 2005
Civilization is on a mission from God to free the world from the
evil of tyranny and bring democracy and human rights to all peoples
of the planet. Presumably, there is human concern and compassion
behind such a quest, more grand than any conceived in the long and
glorious past of humanity. It is worth contemplating however, the
shape in which this compassion appears. If the early signs in the
twenty-first century are anything to go by, the coming decades look
devastatingly ominous. Let us look at some examples.
Consider this. Four years ago, in October 2001, Western civilization
thought nothing of starving over 7 million poor innocents (themselves
victims of the Islamic fundamentalists) in Afghanistan in order to
exact revenge for 9/11 (and for failed oil negotiations) on the
Taliban. These people relied on food delivered by aid agencies who
were ordered to suspend operations by Washington in order to put
their delivery vehicles out of the line of fire and make the bombing
possible. At the time, Noam Chomsky described what was beginning to
happen as a “silent genocide”, for which the West and its democratic
citizens were morally responsible. Fortunately the bombing campaign
ended soon enough, food deliveries could be restored quickly and
Western societies and their governments were relieved of a
potentially colossal “embarrasment” (though the faithful corporate
media would have ensured that nothing was heard about any genocide
this side of the Suez). Fortunately, compassion did not come into
question (except of course in the case of about 4000 civilian deaths,
caused by US bombing).
In March 2003 the US, the UK and their string of credulous cronies
launched the morally unconscionable and legally criminal invasion of
Iraq on false pretexts, putting at the mercy of their dreadful “Shock
and Awe” campaign the lives of millions of people who had already
suffered for well over a decade the effect of the murderous UN
sanctions which had led to the deaths of a million people, half of
them children (according to UNICEF). This habit of civilization,
whereby it employs starvation as a means of warfare has hardly ended
in Iraq. BBC reports UN human rights investigator, Jean Ziegler, as
having accused the US and British forces in Iraq of breaching
international law by depriving civilians of food and water in
besieged cities. “A drama is taking place in total silence in Iraq,
where the coalition’s occupying forces are using hunger and
deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian
population,” Ziegler told a news briefing in Geneva a few days ago.
Since the war on terrorism was launched by Washington, 49 months of
the most hectic manhunt in history by the most powerful and wealthy
state known to man have not yielded Osama Bin Laden (something that
truly makes one wonder whether there was ever a clear intention to
get him in the first place!). Meanwhile, taking both the Iraq and
Afghanistan campaigns into account, somewhere between 110,000 and
130,000 people (we cannot know exactly how many since it appears,
after Katrina, that Washington barely keeps track even of its own
dead), who had nothing to do with terrorism have been killed,
hundreds of thousands have been wounded or maimed for life and the
everyday lives of 50 million people subjected to hardship and
hoplessness. As has been said repeatedly by commentators across the
political spectrum, this has led predictably to an exacerbation,
rather than an alleviation, of terrorism.
Iraq had been named in Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech in January, 2002.
So had been Iran. Since the time when the first phase of the war on
Iraq had been completed, Iran has repeatedly been brought up as
Washington’s next target, once again on grounds as suspect as those
on which the Iraq invasion was launched. After getting promising
support from IAEA members, the US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
has recently been jetting around the world trying to convince global
powers why an invasion of Iran is necessary to make the rogue state
behave itself in nuclear matters.
The Western media has made the world forget that Iran suffered a
massive earthquake in December, 2003. Over 25,000 people died and
hundreds of thousands were rendered homeless. Six months later there
was another major earthquake which led to the loss of almost a
thousand human lives. None of this, however, has prevented the West
from seriously contemplating “action” against Iran. Britain, France
and Germany have all succumbed to Washington in applying pressure on
a country that has suffered natural disasters so recently, other than
having to bear the burden of economic sanctions led by the US.
In October 2005 it has been Pakistan’s turn to endure nature’s cruel
fury. In the recent earthquake over 50,000 people have died and at
least 2 million rendered homeless. There was an urgent request made
to rich countries by President Musharraf for helicopters to deliver
relief and supplies to Kashmir. The US could only spare eight from
their obviously more important operations in Afghanistan. Britain
could spare none. (Only some minibuses were sent!) Aid pledges made
by both governments are embarrasingly insignificant and are exceeded
by private collections which are already being sent.
Meanwhile, just yesterday (October 17), The Independent reported that
Tony Blair has ordered a new generation of nuclear weapons to replace
the existing Trident fleet at a cost of billions of pounds. Blair had
also made a peace-making visit to India and Pakistan a few years back
(just before the two countries had engaged in the Kargil conflict in
Kashmir) and returned after selling over a billion pounds of weapons
to both sides (an old empire tradition, welcomed by ruling elites in
the poor countries, and good for the world economy).
Did compassion guide the deals?
Finally, take the case of Darfurs in Sudan, where the ruling Islamic
fundamentalists have been busy overseeing a genocide in which upto
half a million black African farmers and their families might have
already been killed over the past two years in order to clear their
farming land for drilling oil and setting up pipelines. British,
Chinese, Indian and Japanese oil companies are already in the fray.
US companies want their share of the booty, though a law passed under
Clinton (remember he ordered the bombing of the pharmaceutical
factory in 1998) prohibits trade with Sudan. This situation is
changing since Condoleeza Rice took over the office of Secretary of
State this year and US oil companies are beginning to do business in
Sudan. So, even if Rice’s predecessor, Colin Powell (under pressure
from Christian and African-American groups in the US) had designated
what has been happening in Darfurs as a “genocide”, no military
intevention has been forthcoming from the Western powers (just like
in Rwanda) to stop it. Compassion somehow always gives way to oil
As their leaders scrape the depleted barrels of their humanity,
citizens of democratic societies in the West urgently need to ask
themselves why they tolerate such open hypocrisies from their elected
representatives. At present it is mostly the inhabitants of poor
countries who pay the price for these mass-deceits. But the time is
hardly far when citizens of Western democracies will be footing
increasing portions of the bill too. In fact, this is already
happening, if one takes into reckoning the growing burden of war
taxes, lives lost to war and terrorism, the pressure of immigrants
from regions of the world impacted by war, poverty and tyranny, a
rapid erosion of democratic rights (in the form, among other things,
of anti-terror legislation and the muzzled media, not to speak of the
various forms of thought control exercised on and within the academy)
and, not the least important, the corrosion of the moral sense which,
two world wars notwithstanding, has thus far sustained these
societies in the past.
It is a matter of unspeakable astonishment that when so much stands
to be lost in the West, most people are numbly going about their
daily business, not paying much heed to the happenings of the world.
The alternative to a serious internal reckoning by the West is the
mounting nihilism and narcissism of consumer society which, in a
world as interconnected as ours (in which, for instance, the
availability of products ranging from lipsticks to Jaguars relies on
an on-going supply of cheap oil and resources from other countries)
is not merely solipsistic thoughtlessness about the sufferings that
billions go through in order for the posh and privileged to go on
with their indulgent ways. It is ultimately a recipe for catastrophe.
This is no time for compassion fatigue. Even vaguely enlightened self-
interest should suggest large-scale collective action to re-
democratize the democracies.
Nobel-prize winning Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore had written in
1916, in the midst of World War I: “the West must not make herself a
curse to the world by using her power for her own selfish needs.”
However, he also wrote that “in the so-called free countries the
majority of the people are not free, they are driven by the minority
to a goal which is not even known to them.” By the time he was on his
death-bed in 1940, in the midst of World War II, more evidence had
appeared of the declining human condition in the West. Tagore then
wrote that “the failure of humanity in the West to preserve the worth
of their civilization and the dignity of man which they had taken
centuries to build up, weighs like a nightmare on my mind.” The
holocaust in Germany and the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
fours years after Tagore’s death, made the nightmare visible to the
If the US instigates an invasion of Iran – either by using a staged
attack on Israel as a trigger or by blaming Iran for its self-created
mounting mess in Iraq or by simply aiming to stall its nuclear
programme, and all, in the end, only to regain control over Iran’s
oilfields that the 1979 revolution took away – then all bets are off.
Whether the world stands or falls after that is anyone’s guess.
Of one thing one can be sure. They who claim the guardianship of
civilization today are its worst traitors and can know nothing about
compassion. For that they have to achieve the impossible feat of
humbling themselves to the level of those two school-teachers in
Muzaffarabad, Kashmir who, when the earth below them was trembling
with rage ten days ago, stood in the way of a falling wall and
sacrificed their lives to save the many children who would otherwise
all be dead today.
Aseem Shrivastava is a free-lance writer. He can be reached at
Judging the Indian Judges – citizens of india vs supreme court of india
Crimes Chief Justice of Supreme Court Of India , Union Home Secretary
& Director-General of Police for Karnataka – RTI Act violations ,
constitutional rights & Human rights violations
The above stated public servants have failed to provide full
information to us ie HRW as per RTI Act , thereby covering up the
criminals. The requested informations were no state secrets , no
defense secrets but the accountability of above stated public offices.
The information was requested for public welfare , to secure
equitable justice to public , to stop corrupt practices in public
service , in exercise of my FUNDAMENTAL DUTY as a citizen of India.
However the above stated public servants preferred to violate law
themselves & to protect the criminals.
The public servants & the government must be role models in law
abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a
mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the
teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the same
mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught , legally punished &
reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go
scot-free under his patronage. even if a police , public servant
commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought
by the aggrieved.
just think , if a judge himself that too of apex court of the land
itself commits crime – violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights &
human rights of public and obstructs the public from performing their
constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?
it gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power ,
criminals in public service to commit more crimes. that is exactly
what is happening in india. the educated public must raise to the
occasion & peacefully , democratically must oppose this
criminalization of judiciary , public service. then alone , we can
build a RAM RAJYA OF MAHATMA GANDHI’S DREAM.
Our motherland India & our democracy faces greater threat to it’s
unity , integrity , national security , economy , from our internal
enemies – corrupt public servants.
In India no constitutional authority is supreme or unaccountable.
Citizens of India are supreme an every constitutional authority is
accountable to them. Here with whole hearted respects to all
constitutional authorities , we request the honourable chief justice
of India to study all articles in this news paper in detail & to
answer all questions in public. Questionnaire is available at
name : ………………………NAGARAJ.M.R.
Address : ……………….LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP
WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL , MYSORE – 570017 INDIA
professional / Trade Title : e-Voice Of Human Rights Watch ( Adverb not
noun form )
Trade description : I am a human rights activist , a watchman of human
rights ie humanrightswatch. I am voicing my opinions , concerns ,
appeals through this electronic media , so it is e-voice of
humanrightswatch. THIS NAME DENOTES THE WORK I DO . it must be
understood not as a noun but as an adverb.
Note : we do not have any relations whatsoever with US based MNC HUMAN
RIGHTS WATCH ( HRW ) or it’s associates . In their case , HUMAN RIGHTS
WATCH or HRW means their copyright protected name , a noun. In our
case , e-voice of humanrightswatch denotes not the name , but the work
I do , the cause I work for , an adverb.
Just as a person doing wood work is called by trade name
carpenter , person doing iron work is called by trade name blacksmith
, I am being called by my trade name humanrightswatch. In US & other
western countries there is the practice of naming individuals ,
organizations by trade names ( although not doing those trades ) used
in the society , like Mr.Carpenter or Mr.Blacksmith or Carpenter Inc or
Blacksmith Plc & gets their names copy right protected . does that
mean no wood worker / carpenter should be addressed as carpenter , no
iron metal worker is to be addressed as blacksmith , it will be ridiculous.
Warning : we do not have any relations whatsoever with US based MNC
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH ( HRW ) or it’s associates . If some body assumes
that we are related to them , it is at their own risk. In the past if
some body assumed that we are related to them without seeking
clarifications from us , without reading the paper in detail , it is his / her own fault. In future also , if any body needs clarification about us they are always welcome. Wherever term HRW or human rights watch is used in our e newspaper since it’s inception till date , it refers to my professional title of a human rights watchman ie humanrightswatch , but doe not refer to US based HRW or HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH the big MNC organization.
periodicity : WEEKLY
circulation : FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION ON WEB
donations : NOT ACCEPTED. Self financing . Never accepted any
donations , subscriptions either for ourselves or on behalf of other
organizations / individuals .
monetary gains : nil , never made any monetary gain by way of
advertisements on my websites or web news paper or otherwise.
Social commitment : every human being is endowed with certain human
rights by virtue of birth , one of those rights , right of expression
. we don’t need any government’s or authorities or court’s or any so
called MNC organization’s approval & confirmation of our human rights.
In exercise of those human rights I am doing this duty of a human
rights watchman & voicing my concerns to authorities , seeking justice
to the oppressed.
owner/editor/printer/publisher : NAGARAJ.M.R.
nationality : INDIAN
home page : http://hrwpaper.blogspot.com/ ,
cell : 0 9341820313
I ,NAGARAJ.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are
true to the best of my knowledge & belief.
date : 06/01/2009…………………………..your’s sincerely,
place : India…………………………………Nagaraj.M.R.
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJ.M.R. @ #LIG-2 / 761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSORE – 570017 INDIA … cell :09341820313
home page : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw , http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper/ ,
https://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com/ , http://indiapolicelaw.blogspot.com/ , http://hrwpaper.blogspot.com/ , http://naghrw.tripod.com/evoice/ ,
contact : firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com