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 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