The philosopher and playwright William Shakespeare once said about Denmark: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” The current state of Contradiction Land (Tazadistan) is no different. The black-robed elite here hold the ultimate power over the nation’s fate, yet they quarrel like children on a street, turning against their own leader, who, in turn, is furious with his colleagues. These black-robed figures, whose decisions were meant to guide and illuminate the nation, are themselves incapable of making clear choices. Much like Denmark, conspiracies are rife within their halls. The institution is visibly divided, and these pillars of justice and wisdom can’t even summon the courage to sit with their colleagues in neighbouring chambers to resolve this crisis.

By pushing the nation onto the cross of ego, fame, and so-called principles, these black-robed figures parade around the halls of power, cheered on by sycophants. Isn’t there even one among them who dares to tell the others that their infighting has plunged the entire Contradiction Land into a deep pit? Either their hollow principles will remain, or uncontrolled power will prevail. In either case, the people of Contradiction Land will lose. History will undoubtedly ask these black-robed figures why they shoved the nation into this abyss.

In Contradiction Land, the black-robed elite enjoy a status akin to that of a son-in-law, or more fittingly, a ‘live-in son-in-law,’ unaccountable and untouchable. Not a single one of them has ever been held to account. Even if a black-robed figure is found guilty of wrongdoing, they simply retire to a comfortable and honourable life, while politicians, generals, and bureaucrats have all faced jail time. These ‘live-in sons-in-law’ have always been coddled and nurtured by the powers that be. It is astonishingly easy to enter the inner circle of the black-robed elite. If a chief of theirs favours you, you can swiftly ascend to the ranks of those making critical decisions for the country. Everyone must address you as “My Lord.” When you walk, courtiers announce your arrival like Mughal emperors, clearing the way. For seventy years, the black-robed elite have been in cahoots with the military elite, endorsing every decision made in their own interests. They legitimised the cutting down of elected representatives and their assemblies with a stroke of their pens. Yet even that wasn’t enough. The black-robed elite fell in love with the allure of power.

Like Shakespeare’s character Macbeth, the desire for power began to surface, with the earliest signs appearing during the tenure of Chief Justice Afzal Zilla. But it was during the reign of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry that this lust for power became blatant. Since then, the black-robed elite have openly challenged every institution in the country. In a mere minute, five unelected judges can dismiss a Prime Minister elected by millions. In doing so, they interpret the constitution and law in ways so arbitrary that even the lawmakers themselves become helpless. Laws made by the supreme parliament are reshaped at will, their meanings twisted under the guise of interpretation.

For seventy years, Contradiction Land bore the overreaching actions of the black-robed ‘live-in sons-in-law’ with patience because, at the time, they had the backing of the military elite. No one dared to challenge their transgressions. But divine intervention has now caused a rift between the military and the judiciary. The military elite, too, have grown weary of the judiciary’s lust for power, and the two are now locked in a battle.

The role of the black-robed elite is to apply wisdom and find solutions, but instead, they seem to favour this so-called ‘final battle’ or revolution that will drag the nation into such depths from which recovery will be difficult. One must ask the judiciary: while you have interfered in politics for so long, have you ever tried to address the stains on your own institution’s past? You’ve declared Bhutto’s execution a mistake, but what about the judges who handed down that wrong decision? Couldn’t you at least have removed their portraits from the Supreme Court walls? Has anyone ever summoned Iftikhar Chaudhry and asked him how he was able to run the entire country beyond the bounds of the constitution? Has anyone ever questioned Saqib Nisar, asking on what authority he toured the country issuing orders? Was he a Prime Minister, or had he assumed the powers of a President? Has anyone ever summoned Justices Khosa, Azmat Saeed, or Ejaz to question their decision, which seemed driven by hate and opposition, a decision that was clearly unconstitutional? And has anyone asked Justice Bandial and his colleagues how they first declared Imran Khan’s dissolution of the assembly illegal, only to later oppose Shahbaz Sharif’s government? Was it under pressure that they initially dismissed Imran Khan? And then what changed, prompting them to go after the new government?

This isn’t ambition, then what is it? Based on past experiences, it can be said with certainty that the black-robed elite will never hold their predecessors accountable because doing so would pave the way for scrutiny of their own ambitions.

One might call this adherence to principles of constitutionalism, or frame it as a matter of public mandate and democracy, but the truth is that the judiciary is angry right now. Both sides are locked in a fierce battle. The famous philosopher Benjamin Franklin once said: “What begins in anger, ends in shame.” Similarly, Neil Peart remarked about rash decisions: “Quick decisions made in anger often lead to misunderstanding, where ignorance, bias, and fear walk hand in hand.” The recent decisions made in haste and anger won’t hold lasting significance. These judgements won’t find a place in the golden halls of history but will rather be consigned to the dustbin.

In conclusion, it appears that this decisive battle’s outcome will emerge within days. If the majority of the Supreme Court judges prevail, it will spell the end of the Election Commission, cast doubt on Shahbaz Sharif’s government, and lead to questions about the current parliament. On the other hand, if parliament overrides the judiciary’s decision, the government and establishment may refuse to implement the judiciary’s rulings. In both scenarios, Contradiction Land will suffer. Over 75 years, we have built a constitution and institutions that still carry some semblance of respect. The world recognises that semblance. But this conflict will shatter that illusion. Whether the establishment or the judiciary weakens, in either case, the nation will lose. One can only hope that the wise on both sides find a way out.

Note: This is the translation of my Urdu column published in Jang