Putting Armed Forces to test

From elation to regrets, reservations to consensus, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan's constitution has been amended, unopposed, for the 21st time in the country's history. The just passed bill to amend the article 175 of the constitution states the gravity of the problem. "Extraordinary situation and circumstances exist, which demand special measures for speedy trial of certain offences...there exists grave and unprecedented threat to the integrity of Pakistan." Desperate times do call for desperate measures.
Before moving on, let us admit the 21st amendment has divided opinions amongst lawmakers, law-practitioners and public at large. Consensus on eradicating terrorism is one thing, military courts are entirely another. The fact that PTI and two main religious parties abstained from voting, and PPP voted with regrets, will create divided opinions in the masses. Some suggest that PPPs endorsement can haunt it in the longer run.
Leaving this debate aside, now that military courts will soon be a reality, one has to look how it will pan out. The idea of parallel judiciary will not go along easily with the higher courts and the lawyers community. The fact that some of the fundamental rights would cease to exist as a result, would definitely mean the amendment will be challenged in the Supreme Court.
The ball will be in the court's court sooner than later and pundits suggest it would be a tricky affair. Having come a long way since the Musharraf era, judiciary may well feel hard done by. The bar associations too, who were the heart and soul of the lawyers movement, would feel equally disturbed. But these are no ordinary times, and the judiciary may well resist the temptation of knocking the amendment down.
It is easier said though. Just like the parliamentarians, it would be a bitter pill to swallow for the judiciary too. The chequered history of armed forces intervention does not make a good reading either. But then the argument goes that what good are judiciary and democracy, when the very existence and integrity of the state are under threat.
Some opine the public pressure after the Peshawar tragedy is too intense to ignore. The public sentiment seems clearly tilted towards anything and everything that is intended at curbing terrorism. What goes without saying that this is a do or die situation and the executive must wake up from the slumbers and do whatever it takes to strengthen the civilian courts.
From judge's protection to witness protection, whatever international models need to be followed must be followed. Just passing the buck to the army, may work in the short run, but this is clearly not the solution. Having voted for military courts indirectly relates to finally waking up to the reality of the inefficiencies in the judicial system. Efforts to fix it must start now.
Two years is an ample time. Even if now they don't take it seriously, then the two years this amendment is intended for, could become twenty and then complaining why democracy has not flourished would not sell. Hoping, these distressed times yield something meaningful for the country.
There is no gain going into history. The idea of strategic depth; creation of Talibs from Madarasas; using these Talibs (students) to gain ground first in the West and later on the Eastern front; the dogma of good or bad Taliban after the 9/11 attacking America and now having a change of mind once again after going, albeit reluctantly into North Waziristan is all history now.
The 20 points to holistically attack the scourge of terrorism in reality puts the Army to a test, for which it says, needs legal cover. Let us provide it. But in the meanwhile, address the capacity issues hampering the civil dispensation for achieving peace in the long term.