AN event that has attracted a great deal of attention in Pakistan is the remarkable transformation in the attitude of Mr. Lal Krishna Advani, who for half a century personified Hindu extremism, that translated into championing Hindutva at home and opposing rapprochement with Pakistan in foreign policy.

During his recent visit to Pakistan at the invitation of President Musharraf, he not only lauded the peace process initiated in January 2004, but went beyond expectations when he visited the mausoleum of the Quaid-i-Azam in Karachi and hailed him as a great leader who had made history. This came from a man who had been implicated in 1947 in an attempt to assassinate the Quaid.

Political parties in India, specially among the Hindu majority, have ranged in outlook from secular, represented by the Indian National Congress to Hindu extremists, who have stood for a renaissance of Hindu religious and social values, of which the earlier standard-bearer was the Hindu Mahasabha. The impact of the Marxist and socialist movements was also seen in the emergence of ideological parties, that split further owing to global and domestic developments. Hindu extremism was backed by the establishment of militant groups, such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which drew inspiration from Hitler, in fostering racist and fascist tendencies.

Over the years, extremist tendencies have continued to flourish among a large section of the Hindu population in India, notably in the Hindi belt and Maharashtra, home to Shivaji, who is regarded as an icon of Hindu revival. Periodically, communal passions would be aroused, and the average number of riots directed against the Muslims tended to be in the hundreds every year, with the law and order machinery frequently aiding and abetting the communalists.

The RSS was followed by the establishment of other organizations described collectively as the Sangh parivar (Sangh family) such as the Bajrang Dal, that seeks to reconvert minorities to Hinduism, and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP) that takes up matters pertaining to Hindu places of worship, based on the view that numerous Hindu temples had been demolished during the 800 years of Muslim rule in India, and mosques had been built in their place. Another militant Hindu organization, that owed its establishment to Bal Thackeray, a Hindu cartoonist turned revivalist, was the Shiv Sena that emerged as the militant arm of the BJP and proceeded to intimidate and terrorize the Muslim population in and around Bombay (Mumbai).

The VHP programme of restoring temples allegedly demolished during Muslim rule began with the Babri Masjid, built by Mughal emperor Babar in the 16th century at Ayodhya in UP. It was claimed to have been built on the site of a temple in honour of Ram, the Hindu god-king. The Islamic religious organizations took the matter to court, but though evidence was backing that any temple had existed at the site, this failed to discourage the saffron-clad Hindu militants. It was Mr Advani, who toured India in a Rath Yatra (chariot tour) to mobilize the multitudes that pulled down the mosque in 1992 in violation of an order by the Supreme Court. In riots that followed, two thousand persons were killed, most of them Muslims.

The 1990s had witnessed the outbreak of an uprising in Kashmir for freedom and self-determination. The Hindu extremists capitalized on the passions aroused by this movement that took on a religious overtone as Indian forces targeted Muslim places of worship in Kashmir, on the ground that they were being used as sanctuaries by Kashmiri freedom fighters.

After India’s nuclear tests in mid-May, 1998. Mr Advani was among those who demanded that Pakistan should vacate Azad Kashmir now that India had become a nuclear power. Other Hindu militants even called for the annulment partition of the subcontinent. It was only after Pakistan carried out its tests on May 28, 1998, that a realization dawned on Indian strategists that Pakistan had gained by achieving strategic parity, since the imbalance in conventional strength no longer gave India a decisive edge.

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee responded to the changed situation by coming to Lahore in February 1999 for a summit meeting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. In a symbolic visit to Minar-i-Pakistan, he acknowledged the validity of the Pakistan resolution adopted there, and sought to initiate a peace process. The Kargil episode interrupted that process but two years later, the Agra summit followed. Again it was Mr. L.K.Advani who led the opposition to a draft declaration that had been agreed between the foreign ministers and the two top leaders.

The events of 9/11 came while President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee were getting ready to meet in New York to pick up the thread of the Agra process. The declaration of war against terrorism and the identification of Islamic extremists in Afghanistan as the authors of the attacks in New York and Washington was perceived as an opportunity to get Pakistan, which had recognized the Taliban regime, declared a terrorist state.

However, the momentous decision by President Musharraf on September 12, 2001, to join the US in the war against terror changed the context dramatically. Pakistan became the most crucial ally of the US in the operations of the US-led coalition against Al Qaeda and their allies, the Taliban. The period from 9/11 to late 2002 was one of coercive diplomacy by India, to use its military superiority the way Israel was doing in Palestine after the terrorist attack. Following an alleged terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament, on December 13, 2001, India resorted to a series of “punitive” measures.

Given the total cooperation extended by Pakistan in the war against terror, the rest of the world failed to see the justification for the degree of hostility displayed by the BJP government towards Pakistan. Senior envoys of the Bush administration visited the two countries and took note of the fact that President Musharraf was repeatedly offering a dialogue, without pre-conditions, and, in fact, Pakistan’s ability to conduct counter-terrorist operations was being handicapped by India’s military threat.

In the meantime, the activities of militant Hindus had continued, as highlighted by the anti-Muslim riots in Gujrat, in which more than 2,000 Muslims were butchered, over an incident that courts proved did not take place. Hindu extremism that had been patronized by the likes of Advani and Narendra Modi could not be seen differently from Islamic extremism as a threat to peace, stability, and human rights.

There is evidence that as the Bush administration began to cultivate India as a strategic partner, both as an emerging great power and a potential counterweight to China, it used high-level emissaries to draw the attention of the Indian leadership to cultivating a better image. Members of the Indian diaspora in the West must also have realized that India’s campaign to win the status of a major player would be hurt by Hindu militants whose drive for Hindutva and communal violence against minorities could not be kept hidden. The post-9/11 world made a reshaping and reorientation of Hindu revivalism essential.

As President Musharraf has moved against religious extremism and sectarianism within Pakistan, his own personal standing with the BJP high command has improved, and he met Mr. Advani during his visit to Delhi, inviting him to visit Pakistan. Thus the old Hindutva champion came and during his stay here, played up his commitment to promote a new era of friendship and cooperation between the two countries. It is noteworthy, however, that while paying high tribute to the Quaid, he called him a great secular leader.

Remarkable as the transformation of Mr Advani was, that was further underlined by his readiness to resign as chief of the BJP, following criticism of his laudatory references to Mr. Jinnah, who has been held responsible for the division of the subcontinent, it was not without a purpose. Firstly, the goal was to improve the image of the BJP, and to assist Mr Vajpayee in moving it towards a position compatible with India’s regional and world role. India of tomorrow is expected to be the leading power of the Indian Ocean region.

The second purpose was to take advantage of the situation created in Pakistan by the pursuit of a strategy of “enlightened moderation”, that discourages religious and sectarian extremism. The influence of those who want to stress the image of the Quaid that emerges from his speech to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, as being that of a leader with secular values, is on the rise. They believe that the peace process with India, now seen as “irreversible”, requires focus on economic and social goals, with ideology consigned to the background. But can we afford to downgrade the role of the Pakistan movement, or to ignore the long-term Indian goals?

Far from being charmed and impressed by Mr Advani’s friendly statements, we need to remain watchful, and to pursue the peace process with full awareness of long-term Indian goals that have not changed. While moving forward with various items in the composite dialogue, we need to keep our rights and interests in view, and not exaggerate the significance of statements such as those made by Mr. Advani.

The writer is a former ambassador.

OUR legal system is mainly based on the Law of Evidence for both, the criminal and civil matters. This law in its true perspective is derived from the Holy Quran in a substantial form; whilst the procedure to reinforce the substantial law has been gathered through ‘Ijmaa and ‘Qiyas’ under the various authorities of their time.

The western jurists have based the Law of Evidence on three folds viz. document, credibility of witness and presumptions. We will examine the substantial and procedural form of evidence in the light of the Quranic verses.

Under verse (2:42) Quran says, “confound not truth with falsehood nor knowingly conceal the truth”. The emphasis of Law of Evidence, in its body and soul, either it is English made or the Islamic Qanoon-e-Shahadat, has been laid on the credibility of witness as a pre-requisite of every criterion, when he comes in the witness box. The presumptions emanate thereafter with reference to this verse in its actual purport, the law court or kazi court, take various steps to adjudge the veracity of witness. The character of the witness is firstly tested to ensure that he is not involved under any criminal charge coupled with his involvement in the major sins.

To impeach the credit of witness, the court takes upon itself to ensure that the witness is pious within his religion, belief, prayer and preaching. Before taking his evidence, an oath is administered to him according to his faith/belief. The court watches his conduct and demeanour to testify the recorded version in truth or falsehood.

During evidence, the witness is also put in turning and jolting position with a series of questions raised in the shape of leading, cross, direct and indirect questions for the pieces of ocular, incriminating, circumstantial, hearsay or expert evidence, which the witness is holding in stock either through communication or directly viewing from the occurrence. Such observation imperatively noted by the court is meant for using in the consequent judgment.

The Quranic verse provides directory form to give truthful testimony by the witness; whereas the procedure provides how the said testimony is gathered for ultimate presuming with reasons to hold its credence. Frequently, the justice in a criminal case could be effectually imparted provided the evidence comes with credence. The criminal trial is based on oral evidence; whilst the civil dispute is resolved through a documentary reference. Under Verse (3:282) it is said “O ye who believe! When ye contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing between you in (terms) of equity. No scribe should refuse to write, and let him who incurreth the debt dictate, and let him observe his duty to Allah, his lord, and diminish naught thereof. But if he who oweth the debt is of low understanding, or weak or, unable himself to dictate, then let the guardian of his interests dictate in (terms) of equity.

“And call to witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will cause her to recollect. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. Be not averse to writing down (the contract) whether it be small or great with (record of) the terms thereof. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah and more sure for testimony, and the best way of avoiding doubt between you; (first part)

The verse contemplates the monetary transaction enforceable through documentation. The way and manner as to execution of document under the number of attesting witnesses is also provided. The transaction of money lending under some contract with sense of proportion / jurisprudence and responsibility of the witness (both male and females) to act as witness in case of summon by the court, is also envisaged in a substantial manner.

Patently, the crux of holy verse solicits the number of the statutes to respond in a procedural activation. For instance, the borrowed amount or money lending is provided under Money Lending Act. The execution of any document as a seal of the contract is provided under the Evidence Act and Contract Act.

Any violation of the contract is enforceable under the Specific Relief Act. Binding of the scribe for writing leads him in equity, which attracts the law of Equity. Weakness of the person to understand the transaction or taken for dictation through his guardian, will invoke the Guardianship Act. Classification of witness as one male and two females connotes status and standing of female in her proportion, approaches to the law of Inheritance or Succession.

In a nutshell, the statutes were enacted to provide procedure to comply the verse in its substantial form. Notwithstanding that the prospect of presumption is also found in the verse, which is evident from rest part of the verse: “Save only in the case when it is actual merchandise while ye transfer among yourselves from hand to hand. In that case it is no sin for you if ye write it not. And have witnesses when ye sell one to another, and let no harm be done to scribe or witness. If ye do (harm to them) Lo! It is a sin in you. Observe your duty to Allah. Allah is teaching you. And Allah is Knower of all things.”

Under this part of verse, the writing is not a pre-requisite of the contract as a whole. Nevertheless, when controversy erupts the presumption will stand in favour of oral contract. The credence of oral evidence cannot be discarded frequently. Sir James Fitz, the author of Indian Evidence Act, 1870 distinguishes the presumption reinforceable on both the law and facts. According to the author “the grounds on which the presumptions of law rest are various. Some of these presumptions are natural presumptions which the law simply recognizes and enforces. But in most of these presumptions the inference is only partially approved by reason.”

The presumption virtually is gathered from the Islamic source of law “Qiyas” which is based on reason. The use of reason for exercise of independent judgment subject to the dictates of the Holy Quran and guidance of the traditions had the approval of the Prophet (PBUH) himself. There is a well known tradition on the point.

Mauz was sent by the Prophet as Governor of Yemen and was asked as to how he would decide any question which he failed to find any assistance from the Holy Quran and Hadees. The Prophet expressed his approval when Mauz replied that he would try to decide according to his reason after he failed to discover solution of that question from Holy Quran and Sunnah.

TO return to America after an absence of six months is to find a nation sobered by reality. The reality of debt and lost jobs. The reality of rising China. Above all, the reality of Iraq.

This new sobriety was exemplified by President Bush’s speech at Fort Bragg last Tuesday night. Beforehand, as the camera panned across row upon row of soldiers in red berets, the television commentator warned us that the speech might last a long time, since it was likely to be interrupted by numerous rounds of heartfelt applause from this loyal military audience.

In fact, the audience interrupted him with applause just once. Once! Lines that during last autumn’s election rallies drummed up a certain storm (“We will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins”) were now met with a deafening silence. Stolidly they sat, the serried soldiers, clean-shaven, square-jawed, looking slightly bored and, in at least one case that I spotted, rhythmically chewing gum.

Bush ploughed on with his sober, rather wooden speech, wearing that curious, rigid half-smile of his, with the mouth turning down rather than up at each end. A demi-rictus. The eerie silence made him look, at moments, like a stand-up comic whose jokes were falling flat; but of course this was no laughing matter.

Afterwards, the same television commentators who had warned us to expect rounds of applause speculated, with an equally authoritative air, that the White House had suggested restraint to this audience, so it would not look as if the president was both requesting blanket coverage from the television networks and exploiting the nation’s military for the purposes of a party-political rally.

But then perhaps soldiers who actually risk their lives for Bush’s policies in Iraq, and have lost comrades there, would not have been in a great mood to applaud anyway. Afterwards, as he mingled with the troops in the hall, their faces showed little more than mild curiosity at the prospect of meeting their commander-in-chief.

Bush’s Fort Bragg speech once again presented Iraq as part of the global war on terror — the Gwot. He mentioned the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks five times; weapons of mass destruction not once. We have to defeat the terrorists abroad, he said, before they attack us at home. As freedom spreads in the Middle East, the terrorists will lose their support. Then he made this extraordinary statement: “To complete the mission, we will prevent Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban — a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends.”

Consider. Three years ago, when the Bush administration started ramping up the case for invading Iraq, Afghanistan had recently been liberated from both the Taliban and the Al Qaeda terrorists who had attacked the US. There was still a vast amount to be done to make Afghanistan a safe place. Iraq, meanwhile, was a hideous dictatorship under Saddam Hussein. But, as the United States’ own September 11 commission subsequently concluded, Saddam’s regime had no connection with the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not then a recruiting sergeant or training ground for jihadist terrorists. Now it is.

The US-led invasion, and Washington’s grievous mishandling of the subsequent occupation, have made it so. General Wesley Clark puts it plainly: “We are creating enemies.” And the president observes: our great achievement will be to prevent Iraq becoming another Taliban-style, Al Qaeda-harbouring Afghanistan! This is like a man who shoots himself in the foot and then says: “We must prevent it turning gangrenous, then you’ll understand why I was right to shoot myself in the foot.”

In short, whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a crime, it’s now clear that — at least in the form in which the invasion and occupation was executed by the Bush administration — it was a massive blunder. And the American people are beginning to see this. Before Bush spoke at Fort Bragg, 53 per cent of those asked in a CNN/Gallup poll said it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Just 40 per cent approved of how he has handled Iraq, down from 50 per cent at the time of the presidential election last November.

Contrary to what many Europeans believe, you can fool some of the Americans all of the time, and all of the Americans some of the time, but you can’t fool most Americans most of the time — even with the help of Fox News. Reality gets through. Hence the new sobriety.

I don’t want to overstate this. One is still gobsmacked by things American Republicans say. Take the glorification of the military, for example. In his speech, Bush insisted “there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces”. What? No higher calling! How about being a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, an aid worker? Unimaginable that any European leader could say such a thing.

Nonetheless, here are a few indicators of the new sobriety. First of all, neocons are no longer calling the shots. As a well-informed Washingtonian tells me, the nominations of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank and John Bolton to be ambassador to the UN actually show they have been kicked upstairs. There is little talk now of proud unilateralism and America winning the Gwot on its own. Everyone stresses the importance of allies. Bush quoted with approval Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, on our shared interest in a stable Iraq, and proudly averred that “Iraqi army and police are being trained by personnel from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Australia and the United Kingdom”.

The state department, under Condoleezza Rice, is setting out to repair old American alliances and to forge new ones. One of America’s most dynamically developing alliances is with India, a country in which America is also much loved. If anyone in Foggy Bottom (the wonderfully named neighbourhood of the state department) feels a twinge of schadenfreude at the crisis of the EU, they are not showing it. They want a strong European partner too.

On Iran, which even six months ago threatened to become a new Iraq crisis, the US is letting the so-called E3 — Britain, France and Germany — take the diplomatic lead. Even with the election of a hardline Iranian president, military options are not being seriously canvassed. And if the European diplomacy with Iran does not work, what is Washington’s plan B? To take the issue to the United Nations! What a difference three years make.

Schroeder is right, of course. It would be suicidally dumb for any European to think, in relation to Iraq, “the worse the better”. Jihadists now cutting their teeth in Iraq will make no fine distinctions between Washington and London, Berlin or Madrid. Any reader tempted to luxuriate schadenfreudishly in the prospect of a Vietnam-style US evacuation from Baghdad may be woken from that reverie by the blast from a bomb, planted in Charing Cross tube station by an Iraq-hardened terrorist. But it is a fair and justified historical observation that American policy has got better — more sober, more realistic — at least partly because things in Iraq have gone so badly. This is the cunning of history.—Dawn-Guardian News Service