02-May-04

This will surely break the camel's back. There is no way that the Americans and British can walk away from Iraq with pride. For all the tom-tomming about Human Rights [the US doesn't like the way Governments in very many countries treat their own citizens], the behaviour displayed by some of their soldiers is abhorrent. Yes, soldiers in war may sometimes behave badly. That happens when the captors have been at the receiving end earlier or have some misconceived notions about their superiority. However, the captors here shouldn't have had any such issues. A mere court martial of half-a-dozen or so members of the Armed Forces wouldn't suffice. If Iraqi pride has been severely damaged,shouldn't Bush apologise ? Yes, Bush should say "sorry".

In the long run, America will lose it's pre-eminent image as the "keeper of freedom and human rights". Not only isn't it handing power back to the Iraqi people as promised but has abused them in the process of being conquerors. As I said shortly after Bush started responding to the WTC terrorist attack, this is the beginning of the end of USA.

Even the British Empire did contribute a Railway system to the rest of the world after mistreating and looting from their subjects. What has USA done in it's numerous military incursions in other countries since the end of WW-II ?

Apparently, many people are unaware of the restrictions on Export/Import of Indian Rupees. These have been around for a long time [I do not know when they were instituted].

Mustafa Centre here in Singapore does a lot of business trading in Indian Currency notes [buying and selling]. These notes either come from innocent travellers from India who are unaware of the restrictions or may even come from parallel / hawala markets. Note : Singapore does not have restrictions on trading in currency. So buying/selling INR is not illegal in Singapore.

Reserve Bank of India :

See http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040412&fname=bestbakery&sid=1
Never in the history of criminal jurisprudence had an order for retrial and reinvestigation been passed when both the trial court and the High Court had acquitted the accused in a case. But the Supreme Court has done just that and more: by transferring the case to Maharashtra and pulling up the prosecutors, it has shown a ray of light to the victims who had perhaps lost all hope of justice.

Text of the Supreme Court's judgement allowing the appellants in the Best Bakery Case

Full text of pages 1 to 58 from the Judgement of April 12, 2004 by Justices Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 446-449/ 2004
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 538-541/ 2004)
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. … Appellants Versus State of Gujarat and Ors. … Respondents
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 450-452/ 2004 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1039 – 1041/ 2004)

http://www.outlookindia.com/specialfeaturem.asp?fodname=20040414&fname=bestbakery&sid=1

Quoting the first paragraph :
The present appeals have several unusual features and some of them pose very serious questions of far reaching consequences. The case is commonly to be known as "Best Bakery Case". One of the appeals is by Zahira who claims to be an eye-witness to macabre killings allegedly as a result of communal frenzy. She made statements and filed affidavits after completion of trial and judgement by the trial Court, alleging that during trial she was forced to depose falsely and turn hostile on account of threats and coercion. That raises an important issue regarding witness protection besides the quality and credibility of the evidence before Court. The other rather unusual question interestingly raised by the State of Gujarat itself relates to improper conduct of trial by the public prosecutor. Last, but not the least that the role of the investigating agency itself was perfunctory and not impartial. Though its role is perceived differently by the parties, there is unanimity in their stand that it was tainted, biased and not fair. While the accused persons accuse it for alleged false implication, the victims' relatives like Zahira allege its efforts to be merely to protect the accused.

I came across the Website of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq http://www.cpa-iraq.org/

I did find it condescending. The first line on the "Who we Are" -- Overview page is

"The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is the name of the temporary governing body which has been designated by the United Nations as the lawful government of Iraq until such time as Iraq is politically and socially stable enough to assume its sovereignty. "

"Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, III was named Presidential Envoy to Iraq on May 6, 2003 and in this capacity is the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority. "

Hullooo ! If the CPA has been designated by the UN which President has named Paul Bremer his "Ambassador" ?

In fact the Overview page is actually "bremerbio.html" not "overview.html".

{Aah ! But we forget .... it is USA that is occupying Iraq, not the UN. The UN has not yet been allowed by USA

or .... has USA invited the UN and the UN blessed the CPA but not entered Iraq. ... Now I am *really* confused}

Navigate to a few pages {e.g. "Regions" or "Weekly Construction Status Reports" from "Home"}

and the Page title {the one that appears at the top of the MSIE Browser window}

switches from "CPA Iraq" to "Long Live the New Iraq !"

It is like the British in India saying "Long Live Bahadur Shah Zafar" and later, "Long Live the Indian National Congress".

Navigate to "Iraq One Year Later". The first paragraph is that Amabassador Bremer made a speech. We'll let

the "Ambassador" pass. The third paragraph is that "President Bush said ..." Hold on. George W Bush is

Click on "Partners" and you go to USAID. It becomes obvious that the CPA mandate is provided by the US,