EVERYTHING`S going well. There`s nothing to worry about. Look around and soak up all this `stability`. It`s a recurring theme in the national conversation these days, isn`t it? One I would very much like to buy into, if it wasn`t for the inescapable reality that much of this stability is built upon the foundations of a big lie. A farce imposed upon the 260 million people of this country by a small cadre of powerful men who seem to believe we are not bright enough to see through it. It`s got layers to it the apple`s rotten right to the core but I`d like to focus on what I firmly believe is at the centre: the 26th Amendment to the Constitution.

Before you hear from me about this, you should hear from sitting judges. Over the past week, three letters have been written by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah of the Supreme Court and Justices Babar Sattar and Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan of the Islamabad High Court to their chief justices. They unravel much about the workings of Pakistan`s post-amendment judiciary, and it`s exactly what you`d expect after its independence has been crippled and all its judges placed at the mercy of the politically powerful and those appointed by them. Judges are prohibited from leaving the country without permission. Some are propped up and others sidelined without rhyme or reason.

Challenges to the status quo are ignored, as are clear laws and procedures the courts are bound to follow. And there is nothing anyone can do about it. This amendment was visibly designed to bend or break judges towards submission before political power, and to punish dissent with indifference. Almost a year later, these letters let us know the mission is being accomplished.

In the interest of transparency, I confess to being a bit obsessed with the workings of these courts. The reason you`re seeing me writing in these pages after two years is that I spent the first working in the office of the chief justice of Pakistan, and the second studying constitutional law at a university in the US, where much of my time went to analysing the workings of different supreme courts across the world. The conclusion I reached following both experiences is that none of what we are seeing is normal, nor should we be misled into accepting it as such.

It`s essential to remember that this is not about the individual grievances of judges. While these three happen to be among our country`s most demonstrably brilliant in their judgements, that is not the reason their statements should bear weight to you. For me, the reason is patriotism. Specifically, the variety best artic-ulated by James Baldwin: `I love [my country] more than any other in the world, and exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticise her perpetually`. This is a lot more productive than blind idealisation. According to the laws of this country I insist on being governed by laws, and not the whims of the powerful the people responsible for safeguarding my freedoms are judges. The sole figures empowered to step in if my government wrongs me, or those more vulnerable than I am. If they are not free, neither are we.

The 26th Amendment took a chainsaw to our freedoms with enough thoroughness that the details don`t fit here (rest assured I`ll get into them later). It was passed with such fraudulence that nobody seems to bother defending it anymore. (I recommend reading Salahuddin Ahmed`s petition against it, which like all the others, has still not been fixed for hearing).

The only arguments in its favour seek either to derive some pleasure from the idea of spiting judges, or to defendthe `stability` that it created.

But stability at the expense of freedom is no stability at all. It is repression of the kind predestined by history and logic to one day explode in the face of those who exert it. Living in this country, you grow accustomed to being toldlieslike thisregularly. Occasional glimpses ofthe truth are areminder that not all is lost. But sometimes I wonder: what about those who persist with the lie? Do they understand what they`re doing, and justify it as necessity? Or does convenience mould into belief? Dostoevsky had an answer: `Above all, don`t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.

And having no respect he ceases to love.

To love your country is to speak out when those who run it go astray.

To fail to do so is to accept the steady yet inevitable destruction of everything its people hold dear. Regardless of the lies that those with power tell to us and to themselves, I hope that none of us cease to love. • The wnter is a lawyer and columnist from Okara, based in Lahore.

X: @hkwattoo1