SUCH is the sweep of the high and the mighty that once they have expressed their opinion, everyone within hearing distance is inclined to think of themselves as the subject. Thus when Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani extolled the virtues of Constitution in a terse statement he issued on Nov 5, the immediate urge was to find out who it was aimed at.

Soon afterwards, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry took over the centrestage, reminding his followers that if there was anyone in the country willing to hold the uniformed power-brokers accountable, he was the man. It was clearly between two chiefs who had now found it necessary to flaunt their muscles in public.

The decision in the long-running Asghar Khan Case on Oct 19 generated a lot of debate – about its impact on the relationship between the politicians and the Army as also between the Army and the Judiciary. The ruling called for investigation against a former Army chief and an ex chief of ISI over their alleged involvement in financing some politicians to influence a general election.

It was a long-awaited indictment even if the court had on this occasion resisted the temptation to probe the affair through a judicial commission. Though it had put the burden of proving the crime on the shoulders of a government which it had itself pulled up frequently for inefficiency, it appeared not everyone who mattered was willing to take it as relief.

The military and the judiciary had also sparred over other matters. The Supreme Court had repeatedly shown its displeasure over the army’s response to its directives in the Missing Persons Case and over Balochistan just as the military had gone about its work bound by its choice of Pakistan’s national interests. Groups within the country were calling for re-defining of these interests, as they had done all along; their voice as loud as the situation at a particular time allowed. The feeling was the situation right now provided greater room for demands to limit the Army to its role as defined in the Constitution.

Gen Kayani’s statement on Nov 5 was a reminder to all these pro-reform individuals and groups, but primarily it was directed at a Judiciary that was acting – and acting fast – as an arbiter in all past and present disputes.

“All systems in Pakistan appear to be in a haste to achieve something…,” the general said, in changed circumstances, choosing to play a sincere elder and opting against the soldier’s direct tone at the outset. “Let us take a pause and examine the two fundamental questions: one, are we promoting the rule of law and the Constitution; two, are we strengthening or weakening the institutions?”

Then in a more direct reference to the events unfolding around, Gen Kayani put stress on “the trust between the leaders and the led in the army”. He warned: “Any effort to create a distinction between the two undermines the very basis of the concept and is not tolerated. No individual or institution has the monopoly to decide what is right or wrong in defining the ultimate national interest. Weakening of the institutions and trying to assume more than one’s due role will set us back.”

This was a huge moment in the tense relationship between the Judiciary and the Army. Most significantly, Gen Kayani had discovered “effort” to undermine Army’s tradition in his censure. This implied that to his mind all the blame which was being laid at the Army’s door was not a byproduct of some process, but the intended finished article itself.

The metaphors that studded Chief Justice Chaudhry’s statement the same evening were clearly recognisable. He spoke of tanks and missiles and how they no more guaranteed security and stability. He spoke of his court as the ultimate protector of the Constitution. These were telling words, yet not as conclusive as his rulings on the third party in the power equation: the elected representatives. Among the more powerful players, stalemate is quite often the preferred result.