FOR a nation and a state what is destiny — geography or economy? In the two articles that appeared in this space in the last two weeks, I suggested that Pakistan should seriously contemplate moving north and west, towards Central and Western Asia. Pakistan cannot, of course, move its landmass. But it could certainly develop an economic strategy that will make it a part of the regions that lie to its north and west. Why would such a move be advantageous for Pakistan?

The two-nation theory apart, Pakistan’s economy increasingly will have less and less common with the economy of its southern neighbour. In terms of population, India is seven and a half times larger than Pakistan. In terms of the size of its economy, it is nine times as large. In terms of purchasing power parity — the measure increasingly adopted by economists to measure the relative strengths of national economies — the Indian GDP in 2000 was estimated at $2.27 trillion. It was among the nine large economies of the world with GDPs of more than a trillion dollars. India has now made it into the big league. It is already the world’s fourth largest economy, after America, China and Japan, but ahead of Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy.

The Indians are aiming for a sustained increase of six to seven per cent a year in the size of their economy. Given their record over the last decade and a half, this growth rate is within their reach provided they are able to put in place an ambitious programme of economic and social reform — and, provided also, they are able to live in peace with their many neighbours, in particular Pakistan. If these conditions materialize, the Indian GDP may increase at the rate of 6 per cent a year and reach $9.7 trillion by the year 2025. If that happens and if we treat Europe not as one but several economies, India will have become the third largest country in the world in terms of the size of its gross domestic product. What will happen to Pakistan in the meantime?

There are two roads that Pakistan could take — a low road and a high road. The low road would mean that the country will continue on the path on which it has been going for the last decade and a half. If that were to happen, Pakistan’s economy will grow at an average yearly rate of no more than 3.5 per cent. In 2025, at that rate of increase, its GDP will increase to $524 billion, from $245 billion in 2000. However, the high road could mean a sustainable growth rate of 5.5 per cent, slightly less than the rate of GDP increase that is likely to propel India to becoming the world’s third largest economy. In that case, the Pakistani economy will be close to the trillion-dollar mark — more accurately $953 billion.

By taking the low road, the Pakistani economy by 2025 will be one-eighteenth the size of the Indian economy. By moving along the high road, the ratio between the sizes of the two economies will be 1:10 rather than today’s 1:9. This would be slightly larger than the gap of today but not as wide as would be the case if Pakistan continues on the low road.

Measuring the relative strengths of different countries by looking at the size of their economies is appropriate. But for the citizens of countries what matter is income per head. For many years — from the mid-sixties to the late eighties — income per head of the Pakistani population was more than that of an average Indian. For Pakistan this was an impressive achievement since in 1947 it was by far the poorest part of British India. But India overtook Pakistan in the ‘nineties. In 2000 — again measured by the purchasing power parity — Indian income per head of the population was $2,245, — 27 per cent more than Pakistan’s $1,765. No matter which road Pakistan takes in the next quarter century, the per capita income gap between the two countries will widen considerably. This will happen not only because of the larger GDP growth estimated for India; demography will also play an important role.

For decades, Pakistan had one of the highest population growth rates in the world. But that, fortunately, may be changing. There are indications that the rate of fertility has begun to decline, which in turn will reduce the rate of population increase. In 1990-2000, Pakistani population increased at the annual rate of 2.5 per cent. The Indian rate of population growth during the same period was much lower, — only 1.7 per cent.

Because of the decline in fertility, the Indian population will most probably grow at the rate of 1.3 per cent a year between now and 2025. This means that India will have 1.4 billion people living within its borders a quarter century from now. The growth rate of the Pakistani population will also decline, the reduction coming much more rapidly than in India. This normally happens. When fertility begins to decline, the initial drop is usually fairly sharp. If Pakistan follows this course as well, the gap between the rates of growth of the Indian and Pakistani populations will narrow from the present 0.8 per cent to a projected 0.3 per cent.

However, even at a growth rate of 1.6 per cent a year, Pakistan’s population in 2025 will increase from 140 million at the beginning of the 21st century to 210 million in 2025. With 1.4 billion people living in India and 210 million in Pakistan by 2025, what will be the average incomes of the citizens of these two countries?

In the case of India, a GDP of $9.7 trillion assumed for 2025 and with a population of 1.4 billion, income per head in today’s prices will be $7,000. This is quite an extraordinary performance. Within a period of two and a half decades, India will have succeeded in increasing the average income of its citizens more than three-fold. Pakistan’s performance under the two growth scenarios spelled out earlier will be considerably less impressive. If the country proceeds along the low road, the average income of its 210 million people in 2,025 will be only $2,500, slightly more than a third of the Indian average. Following the high road, Pakistan could achieve income per head of $4,500, which will still be considerably less than that of India.

What is the point of these detailed comparisons between the economic prospects of India and Pakistan? Is it to prompt action by Islamabad by instilling envy? Or, is it to suggest that by recognizing the divergent economic routes on which the two countries are currently set, it may be possible to get Pakistan to move on to an entirely different path? It is the second reason why I have dwelt at such length on the arithmetic of growth for Pakistan and India.

It is my strong belief that by moving away from an India-centric approach to policy-making, we could liberate ourselves and our economy in ways that have not received any attention in Pakistan. If we were to accomplish that, Pakistan could move along an even higher road than the high road described earlier. It is not beyond the realm of possibility for the country to achieve an annual growth rate of 7 percent between now and 2025. If that were to happen, Pakistan’s GDP will be 5.8 times the size achieved in 1999. It will reach $1.4 trillion.

Such a sharp upturn in the economy will also produce very positive demographic consequences. The drop in fertility may even be steeper than that envisaged above. Instead of the population growth at 1.6 per cent, the rate of increase may drop to the level assumed for India — 1.3 per cent a year between 2000 and 2025. If that happened, Pakistan will add 53 million people rather than 70 million to its current population of 140 million. With 193 million people and a GDP of $1.4 trillion, income per capita will be $7,250, slightly more than that estimated for India. What will bring about such a dramatic shift in the country’s economic fortune? Are the projections detailed above a product of extreme wishful thinking or are they based on some solid assumptions?

Deep national crises can bring about positive outcomes if leaders are prepared to be bold and innovative. Since September 11, President Pervez Musharraf has displayed an impressive ability to be both. Would he be prepared to approach the field of economics in the same way in which he has completely reoriented foreign and domestic policies? Simply put, is he prepared to get the country to migrate north and west rather than remain anchored in the south? Is he prepared to take Jinnah’s two-nation theory to its logical conclusion and place Pakistan on an entirely different geographic footing? Is he willing to have Pakistan become a part of West Asia rather than stay anchored in South Asia?

In the articles that appeared in this space on January 29 and February 5, I suggested that struggle for accessing material resources needed for economic growth will acquire great salience as China and India become mega-economies. Much of this struggle will be over oil which will remain the main source of energy for the large but still poor economies of China and India. Both countries will look to West Asia for obtaining oil supplies. Readers will recall that in some earlier articles I used a broader definition of West Asia — I included North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia in my definition. This is the Islamic belt that runs from Morocco in the west down to Pakistan in the south-east.

It would be of enormous economic advantage to the countries of this region if they were to link their economies to exploit their two principal resources — oil as well as large and growing populations. Pakistan is deficient in energy resources but it has a very large population which could be developed to provide the skills the region needs. Pakistan also provides access to the sea for the oil and gas in Central Asia. Working together the region could develop an economic strategy that builds on these strengths.

If Pakistan is to become a partner in a regional trading and economic arrangement, it should look to West Asia rather than to South Asia. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation — the SAARC — does not have a future for Pakistan. It would be much more productive to look in a different direction.

INDIA of today with its extraordinary excursions to fringes of lunacy is hardly a country visualized by its founding fathers. It’s a far cry from the nation of Gandhi’s dreams and what Nehru portrayed in his pre-independence electoral pledges. A nation that boasts of its creation on the basis of a non-violent struggle is now mired deep in violence.

A new band of BJP men has given altogether a different shape to the country that runs counter to the vision of the founders, specially Gandhi. They have turned their back on the concept of non-violence expounded so ardently by Gandhi and Nehru and employed assiduously by the former as a tool during the course of the freedom movement. It is now a thing of the past and finds mentions in history books only.

Gandhi at one of his press interviews in 1931 provided an insight into the India of his vision. Standing on the deck of a ship taking him to London as the spokesman and representative of “nationalist” India to the Second Round Table Conference, he was asked by a newspaper correspondent as to what constitution he would bring back if he could help it (Prof. M.V. Pylee).

Gandhi’s reply was: “I shall strive for a constitution, which will release India from all thralldom and patronage, and give her, if need be, the right to sin. I shall work for an India in which the poorest shall feel that it is their country in whose making they have an effective voice, an India in which there shall be no high class and low class of people; and an India in which all communities shall live in perfect harmony. There can be no room in such India for the curse of untouchability or the curse of intoxicating drinks and drugs. Women shall enjoy the same rights as men.

“Since we shall be at peace with all the rest of the world, neither exploiting nor being exploited, we should have the smallest army imaginable. All interests not in conflict with the interest of the dumb millions will be scrupulously respected, whether foreign or indigenous. Personally, I hate distinction between foreign and indigenous. This is the India of my dreams.”

The Indian National Congress party that spearheaded the freedom struggle of Hindu India preached no less noble ideals in its run up to independence. For instance, a glimpse into its manifesto released on the eve of elections to provincial legislatures in 1946 will be of interest to today’s perplexed observes of the subcontinental scenario. It said, inter alia, “In international affairs the Congress stands for the establishment of a world federation of free nations. Till such time as such a federation takes shape, India must develop friendly relations with all nations, and particularly with her neighbours on the East, the West and the North.

“In the Far East, in South-east Asia and Western Asia, India has had trade and cultural relations for thousands of years and it is inevitable that with freedom she should renew and develop these relations. Reasons of security and future trends of trade also demand these close contacts with these regions.

“India, which has conducted her own struggle for freedom on a non-violent basis, will always throw her weight on the side of world peace and cooperation. She should also champion the freedom of all other subject nations and people, for only on the basis of this freedom and the elimination of imperialism everywhere can world peace be established.”

Instead of throwing its weight on the side of the world peace, India embarked on the path of expansionism and arm-twisting of its neighbours. The thirst of free India for interference in internal matters of its neighbours intensified by the day. India is the only country in South Asia which expanded its geographical boundaries after independence in 1947. It merged Goa as its province in 1959 and Sikkim in 1974. It has boundary claims at strategic points with Bangladesh and China. While locked in the long-running Kashmir dispute with Pakistan, it occupied part of Siachin in the early 1980s.

Gandhi’s dream of India being at peace with rest of the world and having the smallest army imaginable was swept under the rug by free India. At present India has a 1.2 million-strong army that is the fourth largest in the world after China, America and Russia. The size of its air force and navy is about 150,000 and 60,000 personnel respectively. Indian air force has over 800 combat aircraft. Besides arming its armed forces to the teeth, India has nuclear devices and missiles to bolster its offensive capability.

India increased its defence spending by 28 per cent and 14 per cent in the past two years raising the total outlay to Rs 620,000 million. In fact, strengthening the defence machine of the country remains the one-point agenda of the BJP government since it came to power in 1998. It has nothing else to offer on the domestic front especially to over 350 million people living below the poverty line.

India’s relations with all its immediate neighbours have remained strained right from the beginning. It deploys its armed forces against its neighbours at the drop of a hat. It moved its armed forces along the border with Pakistan on trivial excuses last month. At present the armed forces of Pakistan and India are locked in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation on the border. India imposed a two-month long economic blockade of the land-locked Himalayan kingdom of Nepal in 1989. The only Hindu kingdom in the world has often faced India’s ire for not toeing its line. A year before in 1988, India sent its troops into Maldives on the pretext of saving the government from a crises.

Another neighbour Sri Lanka is facing insurgency from India-trained and inspired Liberation Tamil Tigers Eelam (LTTE). Not only was India responsible for exporting terrorism to Sri Lanka but it also moved its forces into this small island state in the name of peace-keeping in 1987. Close to a 100,000-strong force stayed in Sri Lanka for over one year. In the violent death of its former premier Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 India in a way harvested the seeds sown in the shape of LTTE. Ironically, the suicide bomber who killed Rajiv Gandhi and herself was a Sri Lankan Tamil girl.

Thus free India lost no time in turning its back on its promise of championing the freedom of all other subject nations and people by subjugating the Kashmiris. It followed the roadmap of establishing its own brand of imperialism and playing the bully in the region. It is hand-in-glove with nations like Israel that symbolize the worst form of state terrorism. The Gandhi dream is buried deep.

HAD the equivalent of September 11 occurred in a country other than the United States, would there be a war against terrorism with everything thrown in apart from nuclear bombs and the kitchen sink? One seriously doubts it.

It was the fact that terrorists were able to reach their targets in New York and Washington DC that converted terrorism into a global threat. September 11 inflicted a deep wound on the American psyche and it enraged its people and bruised its national pride.

But it did reveal, for the first time, that there was such a thing as organized terrorism that had an international reach and that the Al-Qaida was real and not something out of a James Bond film. September 11 also made the world security conscious. In doing so, the world has become more insecure for effective security must be done, not seen to be done.

The 19th Winter Olympics began in Salt Lake city amid tight security. It is estimated that over $3 million will be spent to make the Games safe from terrorists, that there will be more security agents present than participants and those travelling to Salt Lake city by air will have their aircraft land at an airport outside Utah where the credentials of the pilots will be checked, the baggage re-examined.

Over a range of 45 miles, Salt Lake city will be a no-fly zone and any aircraft that shall not satisfactorily respond to a challenge from the ground will be shot down. I cannot say whether these precautions are necessary but clearly no chances are being taken, eternal vigilance being the price of freedom.

But how long will this kind of high security alert last? In other words, when will an all-clear be sounded so that people can go back to leading their normal lives, without looking over their shoulders, without waiting for the other show to fall? The main aim of the terrorists is to spread terror and it would seem that they are succeeding.

I do not know what life is like in the United States these days. September 11 has certainly not been forgotten and not a day passes when the people are not made aware of the tragedy that struck that country. Even in the Winter Olympic Games, the Stars and Stripes (Old Glory) from the World Trade Centre which has travelled to Kandahar, the World Series in New York, the Super Bowl in New Orleans was carried into the Rice-Eccles Stadium for the opening ceremony by an honour guard of firefighters and police officers. It became the emotional high point of the Games which, in theory, transcend nationalism.

In the meanwhile, one sincerely hopes that Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal correspondent will have been recovered and returned to his family, unhurt, by the time this column appears in print. I don’t recall this country has ever launched such a massive manhunt ever before. There seems to be an open season on the coverage of this kidnapping and conflicting stories are appearing daily, likely suspects are being hauled up. It is very mystifying.

The suspicion has fallen on certain ‘Islamic extremist’ groups. One finds it difficult to determine what any group or organization has anything to gain from this kidnapping. It seems utterly senseless and all one knows is that despite the best and untiring efforts of the authorities, and the FBI has also got into the act, Pakistan once again finds itself in the news for the wrong reasons.

But it has become such a high-profile kidnapping that President George Bush has been on the telephone to President Musharraf. Daniel Pearl came to Pakistan, along with his young wife who is pregnant, ostensibly to meet a militant leader in order to interview him for his newspaper. This seemed straightforward enough. But, it went horribly wrong and there have been hoax e-mails and telephone calls, all duly reported and the management of his newspaper had made appeals for his release.

It is impossible to tell whether it is a political kidnapping linked to the war on terrorism or simply a kidnapping for ransom. The demands made so far have lacked credibility and have not been taken seriously. If the kidnappers are espousing any kind of a cause, it should have been apparent to them that far from furthering the cause, they have done immense harm to it.

In situations like this, the authorities come under immense pressure and can easily pick up the wrong persons. The glare of publicity should have been avoided and daily bulletins avoided. There is danger too that the kidnappers could panic. It has become a messy kidnapping.

Everyone I have spoken to has shown sympathy for Daniel Pearl who appears to have become a pawn in some bigger game. And nobody seems to know what this ‘bigger game’ is, that is, if there is any motive in what otherwise is a senseless act.

All that it has achieved so far is that Pakistan is not a safe place for foreigners and would vindicate the stand of the West Indian Cricket Board who insisted on playing against Pakistan on a neutral venue because their players did not feel safe in Pakistan. Daniel Pearl had come to Pakistan to carry out a professional assignment. I don’t think that he bargained for getting kidnapped in the course of fulfilling his duties.

Journalists covering war run the danger of getting in the cross-fire. But interviewing a militant leader would not normally carry any high risk. But it would appear that the war on terrorism has become a total war and there are no rules of engagement. One thing is clear that trading on human misery is fast becoming an industry.

We learn that some warlords in Afghanistan are demanding money to release Pakistani prisoners who are in their captivity and George Bush has said those nations that “don’t hold the values we hold dear,” would now be on a new US “watch list.” It’s not that the war on terrorism is getting curiouser and curiouser but its getting messier and messier and we are living in a surreal world.

NO one has been accused of criminal wrongdoing in the Enron fiasco — so far. But that doesn’t mean that Americans don’t want the perpetrators to be punished.

Everywhere you go, you hear how angry people are. What do you do to someone who has stolen your pension, lied about their books, created shell companies that eventually drove the stock into the ground and caused investors to lose their shirts?

I’ll tell you how mad they are. Millsap, who lost his life savings, said, “I think we should throw the baby out with the bath water.”

“That’s as punitive as you can get,” I said.

“The liars, cheaters and embezzlers don’t deserve anything less. I say, let them choke on their own natural gas.”

“Good idea,” I said. “But don’t you think they should get a fair trial and be defended by the most expensive criminal lawyers that money can buy?’

“Of course I do. I believe a victimizer deserves all the help he can get. This means an honest judge and 12 men and women who will give the person that stole my life savings a chance to tell his side of the story.”

“And then what?”

“Then we throw out the baby with the bath water.”

“I don’t think the court will do that.”

“I’m not talking about a baby. I’m talking about a grown up man who took money from all of us.”

“What if the person is found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?”

“Then we send him to Guantanamo Bay for the rest of his life,” Millsap said.

“Wow. Will he have to share his cell with al-Qaida terrorists?”

“No. The Afghan terrorists will be locked up on one side of the base and the Enron participants will be on the other side. We won’t let them mingle.”

“But isn’t incarcerating someone who lost a billion dollars violating the Geneva Convention?”

“They will be considered ‘unlawful combatants,’ not POWs. In spite of what they did to others, they will be humanely treated and allowed to write home once a month.”

“If we find that the accountants at Arthur Anderson are also guilty of fraud, should they be sent to Guantanamo Bay as well?” “Why not? They can balance the books there.”

I asked, “Have you discussed this idea with anybody yet?”

“No, but we have the bath water — now we must find the people who should be thrown out with it.”

As I said, there are a lot of angry people out there, and this is one of many solutions to a vexing problem. It’s catching on, particularly in Congress, where so many congressmen are trying to find out how many foxes got into the chicken coop. —Dawn/Tribune Media Services

THE rule of law is now a trait common to every civilized and orderly state. This was not always the case. In 1725, Voltaire, then the literary hero of France, was sent to the Bastille for a poem he had not written, of which he did not know the author, and with the sentiment of which he did not agree. What is worse, Voltaire was unable to obtain either legal or honourable redress because France was ruled by royal arbitrariness and caprice.

When we say that the supremacy of law or the rule of law is a characteristic of our Constitution we mean that no man is punished or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a specific breach of law established before the ordinary courts of the land. Secondly, when we speak of the rule of law, we mean not only that no man is above the law but that every person, whatever his rank or status, is subject to the law of the land and to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.

Today Pakistan is not at war. There is no civil commotion in the country preventing the judges from going to courts. Civil courts are functioning normally. And yet, in a major departure from the established legal notions, President Musharraf amended the anti-terrorist law providing that anti-terrorist courts, now manned exclusively by judges, will, henceforth, include army officers not below the rank of lieutenant colonel as members. They will be nominated by the federal government and the High Courts will have no say in the matter. The induction of military in the courts has altered the basic structure of the judiciary and has undermined the confidence of the people in the independence and objectivity of courts. It has also made a mockery of the concepts of rule of law and separation of powers.

With the induction of military personnel in the courts, the judiciary will become subservient to the executive and the rule of law will be replaced by rule of man. When that happens, no enumeration of fundamental rights in the Constitution will be of any avail to the citizen because the courts of justice would then become government courts.

Nothing better illustrates the determination with which judges in England have always maintained the rule of regular law, even in periods of revolutionary violence, than Wolf Tone’s case. In 1798, Wolf Tone, an Irish rebel, took part in a French invasion of Ireland. The man-of-war in which he sailed was captured, and Wolf Tone was brought to trial before a court martial in Dublin. He was sentenced to be hanged.

He, however, held no commission from the French republic. On the morning when the execution was about to take place, an application was made to the Irish king’s bench for a writ of habeas corpus. The ground cited was that Wolf Tone, not being a military person, was not subject to punishment by a court martial — which, in effect, meant that the officers who tried him were attempting illegally to enforce martial law.

When it is remembered that Wolf Tone’s substantial guilt was established, that the court was made up of judges who detested the rebels, that in 1798 Ireland was in the midst of a revolutionary crisis, it will be admitted that no more assertion of the supremacy of the law can be found than the protection of Wolf Tone by the Irish bench.

The induction of military personnel in courts established by law is violative of the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Clause (1) of Article 4 of the Constitution provides that to enjoy the protection of the law and to be treated in accordance with the law is the inalienable right of every citizen. Clause (2) of the same Article flays down that in particular no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation, or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with the law.

Since military courts or quasi-military courts in which military personnel participate do not fit in within the framework of the Constitution, if a person is to be deprived of his life by means of the execution of a death sentence awarded by such a court or tribunal, the action will be violative of the fundamental right contained in Article 9 of the Constitution.

In the case of Mehram Ali and others, a full bench of the Supreme Court enunciated the following legal propositions:

1. That Articles 175, 202, and 203 of the Constitution provide a judicial framework: the Supreme Court, the High Court of each province and such other courts as may be established by law.

2. That the words “such other courts as may be established by law” used in clause (1) of Article 175 of the Constitution relate to subordinate courts referred to in Article 203 thereof.

3. That our Constitution recognizes only such specific tribunals to share judicial powers with the courts which have been specifically provided by the Constitution itself. It must follow that any court or tribunal which is not founded on any of the Articles of the Constitution cannot lawfully share judicial power with the courts referred to in Article 175 and 203 of the Constitution.

4. That the hallmark of the Constitution is that it envisages separation of the judiciary from the executive in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary.

5. That the courts/tribunals which are manned and run by executive authorities can hardly meet the mandatory requirements of the Constitution. When the matter came up before the Supreme Court in Liaquat Hussain’s case, it was contended that the federal government which promulgated the Pakistan’s Armed Forces Ordinance 1998 did so with the object to punish terrorists.

No patriotic person can have any sympathy with terrorists who deserve severe punishment, but the only question is which forum is to award punishment — whether a forum as envisaged in the Constitution or by a military court or a court with the participation of military personnel which does not fit in within the framework of the Constitution.

There is no doubt that when a terrorist takes the life of an innocent person, he is violating Article 9 of the Constitution, but if the terrorist is to be executed in accordance with a mechanism other than the due process of law, it will also be violative of Article 9.

It was further contended that the establishment of a military court was a temporary phenomenon necessitated by the grave situation created by terrorists and, therefore, the establishment of such courts should not be regarded as a supercession of the normal judicial process and that the temporary departure would cease as soon as the present situation is brought under control. On these premises, it was further contended that the setting up of military courts was to be viewed in this perspective and treated as a step to support or revamp the judicial system which had lost its effectiveness in the prevailing circumstances.

It was held by the Supreme Court that a government established under the Constitution must not deviate from the constitutional path and must find solution to all problems within the framework of the Constitution. Therefore, to justify the establishment of courts with the participation of military personnel, support must be found from the provisions contained in the Constitution which does not countenance the take-over of judicial functions by the armed forces at the direction of the federal government.

No circumstance exists in the country which indicates the breaking down of the judicial organ, necessitating the setting up of military courts. It is imperative for the preservation of the state that the existing judicial system is strengthened and the principle of trichotomy of power is adhered to by following, in letter and in spirit, the constitutional provisions and not by making deviation therefrom on any ground whatsoever.

It follows from the above:

1. That the right to have access to justice through independent courts is a fundamental right and therefore any law which makes a civilian triable for a civil offence, unrelated to the armed forces or the defence of the country, by a forum which does not qualify as a court in terms of the law enunciated in Mehram Ali’s case (PLD 1998 SC 1445) will be violative of Articles 9, 25, 175 and 203 of the Constitution.

2. That the armed forces can be called in aid of civil authority but that does not mean empowering the substitution or replacement by the armed forces of civil power.

3. That the Constitution does not countenance the take-over of judicial functions by the armed forces at the direction of the federal government.

4. That the amendment of the anti-terrorist law is a thinly disguised attempt at introducing martial law and establishing military courts “by other means”.

5. That any court which has a military officer as one of its members is not a court within the meaning of Articles 175, 202 and 203.

6. That any sentence awarded by such a ‘court’ will be illegal and not executable.

7. That all members, civil or military, who participate in the proceedings of such a ‘court’ will, in effect, be engaged in illegally enforcing martial law and will, thereby, render themselves liable to legal action.

8. That the impugned ordinance, insofar as it allows the participation of military personnel in anti-terrorist courts for the trial of civilians charged with offences mentioned in Section 6, is unconstitutional, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

The lesson of history is that when the rule of law gives way to the rule of man, the dykes of law and justice break and revolutions begin.