Elements within the executive organ of the state are in a state of war. The Supreme Commander has nominated Gen Awan as Commander, Central Command, Gen Naek as Commander, Tactical Command, and Gen (r) Pirzada as Commander, Strategic Command. Operation "Malign Judiciary" – the generals have deployed their troops and identified their weapons of choice, unit responsibilities as well as unit locations.
Commander, Central Command, has selected his arsenal with great care. Weapons of choice include politicisation of the adversary and making your opponent controversial. Central Command's central motto remains: "As to the juror or the witness, bribe both."
Commander, Tactical Command, is mostly about gaining time – through adjournments and by trying to change horses in midstream. Tactical Command also seeks to attract public support via speeches by the PM. Tactical Command wants to be the highest bidder and its motto remains: "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."
Commander, Strategic Command, commands weapons of mass destruction. Strategic Command's cache includes de-notification of your opponent. Strategic Command's battle cry remains: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."
Central Command has succeeded where many others have failed: the Lahore incident, for instance. Can the weapons used by Central Command bear fruit over the long run? I have my doubts. Tactical Command, in the meanwhile, has won big. Imagine: the NRO verdict was a good 10 months ago. Has Strategic Command hurt or helped the foe? Some say the judiciary's pre-emption has put Strategic Command on the back foot. There are others who disagree with that. I think the jury is still out.
The target of them all has tools of its own. Yes, there is the Constitution that states: "No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the president or a governor in any court during his term of office (Article 248)." But the Constitution is not just the text – it's the text plus judicial interpretations and conventions.
The judiciary has no armaments it can call its own. All it has for weapons is grace, dispassion and non-partisanship. The short order on the 18th Amendment was nothing but undiluted grace – "knowledge is folly, except grace guide it." The short order has, once again, very gracefully, silenced hawks coming out of every rat hole in Islamabad. The short order is living proof that grace, dispassion and non-partisanship can easily subdue Gen Awan's arsenal of choice. The motto on this side of the fence is: "A good judge conceives quickly, judges slowly."
Executive-judiciary battles are not unique to Pakistan. Six hundred years ago, Richard II became king of England at the age of ten. The king named Robert Tresilian, Richard's favourite lawyer, as the chief justice of the King's Bench. The king ordered Tresilian to give out a verdict challenging public opinion. Chief Justice Tresilian was captured and then executed by a mob – executed for his loyalty to the king.
Seventy-five years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States, schemed to "pack the court." The United States Senate, on public demand, intervened and neutralised the president.
In Pakistan, battles will be won and lost. If push comes to shove, the one who has public support will win. And public support shall remain with the judge who has two ears, both alike.

The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com