By Khalid Khan
In Pakistan, perhaps no political leader has been the subject of as many jokes and satirical remarks as the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). He has even earned the nickname “U-turn Khan,” which he once proudly described as a hallmark of any progressive political leader. However, the dictionary defines it as “going back on one’s word.” Regardless of the justification, every U-turn he has taken has ultimately led him into a dead end.
Not long ago, the founder could not stop extolling the virtues of Military Courts. His close aides, too, went to great lengths in their rhetorical support, praising the importance, effectiveness, and unique necessity of such courts. Ironically, many critics frequently upload old video clips on social media to remind the public of these past endorsements, turning them into evidence for future reference.
Yesterday’s “halal” military courts are now considered forbidden by the founder and his fugitive allies. How swiftly the tides turn!
Speaking of the broader picture, Pakistan’s armed forces, while leading all other security institutions, are presently fighting multiple battles to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty, paying a heavy price with their lives. External enemies have never been a match for Pakistan’s military strength. However, what hurts the most is when internal elements, acting on foreign agendas, auction off national integrity, survival, and unity in broad daylight.
Since its inception, Pakistan’s existence has been thorn in the eyes of both internal and external adversaries. While Hindus vehemently opposed its creation, some of Pakistan’s own misinformed elements danced to India’s tunes. It wasn’t just outsiders—neighboring Muslim brother Afghanistan also refused to recognize Pakistan initially.
Even before I was born, and immediately after my birth, my very existence was denied without reason or justification. For 75 years, attempts have been made to erase me. After each slap, I offered flowers, but my humanity was mistaken for weakness. Enough is enough.
As a Pakistani, I can no longer tolerate such indulgence. From now on, I will respond to every brick with a stone. The lions will roar in response to jackals’ howls. External enemies will be hunted down in their own homes, while their internal collaborators will be politically paralyzed and dragged to military courts by their necks.
Why? Because no one here has ever prioritized national interests. Everyone has remained self-serving. Yesterday, military courts were constitutional when they served personal interests, but today, they are labeled as cruel and inhumane simply because they stand as a barrier against malicious designs. What hypocrisy!
In Pakistan’s 75-year history, no one has ever prioritized judicial reforms. Today, the judicial system is used more as a threat than a means of justice. Common phrases such as “I’ll see you in court” and “I’ll drag you to court” reflect this reality. From the registration of FIRs to investigations and from endless delays to the dismal conviction rates, the system speaks for itself. Now, ask yourself—can Pakistani courts ensure fair, transparent, and timely trials for terrorists? Absolutely not.
National security, survival, and stability are the legal, moral, and human grounds that justify the establishment of military courts worldwide. Special circumstances always call for special measures.
While internal critics oppose military courts, the European Union (EU) has also expressed concerns over Pakistan, sentencing 25 civilians through these courts recently. The EU claims that trying civilians in military courts violates international conventions on civil and human rights, to which Pakistan is a signatory.
According to the EU, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees every citizen the right to a fair trial in an independent and impartial court. It also mandates public hearings, proper defense, and transparent rulings.
Similarly, the British Foreign Office released a statement criticizing the use of military courts to prosecute civilians involved in the May 9 incidents. While acknowledging Pakistan’s sovereignty in legal matters, it warned that such trials lack transparency and infringe on fundamental rights to justice.
The statement urged Pakistan’s government to fulfill its obligations under the ICCPR and uphold international standards.
Meanwhile, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) clarified that the suspects involved in attacks on key military installations—including the Corps Commander House in Lahore, PAF Base in Mianwali, Punjab Regiment Center in Mardan, Bannu Cantonment, Chakdara Fort, Multan Cantonment Check Post, GHQ, and ISPR Office in Faisalabad—were sentenced only after thorough investigations and legal proceedings.
The ISPR emphasized that all legal requirements were fulfilled, ensuring the accused were granted full legal rights. Justice, it added, will only be complete when the masterminds and planners behind the May 9 incidents are brought to justice under the constitution and law.
Military courts were also established after the 2014 terrorist attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar, which claimed the lives of 152 children, as well as the school principal and a teacher.
In response to this tragedy, the National Action Plan was launched, and Pakistan’s National Assembly legislated the creation of these courts on January 21, 2015, to ensure swift justice. Initially, these courts were formed for two years but were later extended through various amendments.
The then-spokesman for Pakistan’s military, Major General Asif Ghafoor, stated that 717 cases were presented in these courts. Of these, 345 criminals were sentenced to death, 56 of whom were executed, while the remaining cases were delayed due to appeals in the Supreme Court.
It is worth noting that the establishment of military courts and commissions for the swift dispensation of justice is not unique to Pakistan. Several countries, including the United States, have adopted similar measures to counter-terrorism.
According to researcher Shabbir Durrani, the first military courts in the U.S. were established during the American Revolution by General George Washington, who sentenced a British Major, John André, to death for espionage.
During the U.S. Civil War (1861–1865), Native Americans fighting against the state were also executed through military courts.
After the 1898 Spanish-American War, the U.S. set up a military commission in the Philippines.
During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt established military courts to execute eight German spies under “Operation Pastorius.” Six were executed in electric chairs, while two were later released.
The infamous Guantanamo Bay prison, operating under the Military Commissions Act, has also faced severe criticism from international human rights organizations.
Similarly, Egypt established military courts after its revolution, retaining controversial provisions for civilian trials without amendments. Egypt’s new constitutional drafting committee, comprising 50 members, approved these provisions with 41 votes in favor. These courts have since issued rulings against hundreds of extremists.
In India, the 2007 Armed Forces Tribunal Act led to the formation of military courts inaugurated on August 8, 2009, by the then-President. Regional branches were set up in cities like Chandigarh, Lucknow, Kolkata, Guwahati, Chennai, Kochi, Mumbai, and Jaipur, transferring over 9,000 cases from high courts.
Despite criticism from politicians and human rights groups, military courts remain a necessary evil in times of national crises.
While military courts may not be ideal, they become unavoidable when nations face internal and external threats, economic instability, political turmoil, and administrative failures.
When national institutions face conspiracies, judicial systems lack credibility, and the country is effectively at war, military courts become indispensable.
In exceptional circumstances, extraordinary measures are like oxygen for a nation’s survival, and we cannot allow anyone to stifle our breath.
Note: Khalid Khan is an accomplished poet, journalist, author, and writer based in Peshawar, Pakistan. With decades of experience in media and literature, he is a prominent voice in highlighting socio-political challenges in the region. Through his thought-provoking analyses, he advocates for progressive reforms and pragmatic policymaking to ensure a better future for Pakistan.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article/Opinion/Comment are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk (DND). Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk News.
The author Dr. Attia Anwar is a consultant family physician with a postgraduate degree from the Royal College of GP UK. She is a strong advocate of health and well-being and wants patient participation in decision-making regarding health.
