Talking frankly to three “friendly” columnists on a TV channel on Saturday, Mr Nawaz Sharif made it quite clear that he was not prepared to negotiate the issue of the deposed judges with the ruling PPP and that his stance was based on the unchanging “principle” that only an “independent judiciary” would deliver all the solutions, including the political ones. He said that the Zardari government’s obstinacy in ignoring his point of view had caused a “deepening of the political crisis with the passage of time”.Mr Sharif consistently blocked all suggestions that an inter-party understanding could resolve the judges’ issue through what is called the “take-some-give-some” process. It was clear that he did not want to engage in talks with the PPP because that would mean separating from (what he called) a “civil society” movement. However, when the columnists favoured the angle of pragmatic politics and counselled consultations on the reinstatement of Chief Justice Mr Iftikhar Chaudhry, his answer was that he would not accept it even if all the judges were reinstated barring Mr Chaudhry. His attention was also drawn to the more non-partisan principles enshrined the Charter of Democracy of 2006, but he insisted that the reinstatement of the deposed chief justice was a kind of litmus test without which the Charter would lose its spirit. The columnists were aware that the Long March ran two risks: the people had cloyed of the lawyers’ movement and might not be enthusiastic about it; and that in case of violence and vandalism the “third party” might come into action and repeat the past experiences of suspending the Constitution and throwing the political leaders out. But Mr Sharif, who condemned military interventions once again, was not able to provide a convincing answer to the question.The discussion hinted at the politicisation of the judges’ issue on two counts: the “suo moto” idiosyncrasy of the deposed chief justice, which any government riding weak institutions of the state would fear; and the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) whose threat to the PPP made the whole situation political rather than “principled”. The fact that the PMLN and the PPP took part in the 2008 elections — despite advice to the contrary from the lawyers — after the NRO was sub judice at the Supreme Court, and that both got their mandate from an electorate apparently not too exercised morally by the NRO, added to the political dimension of the issue.The fact is that without the two mainstream parties, no general election would be legitimate in Pakistan. (The same situation was encountered by the military rulers of Bangladesh last year, and the generals there plumped for not disqualifying the two mainstream leaders despite ample proof of malpractice.) The NRO may not have a moral basis, but it is definitely a political issue. Similarly, the conviction of Mr Nawaz Sharif in a trial before he left the country is a political issue despite its solid foundation in the eyes of law. Therefore, the prolongation of the legal uncertainties by Mr Sharif by denouncing the current judiciary is not going to make the crisis go away or bend it in favour of the PMLN.Many observers will interpret Mr Sharif’s stance as a clever device to bring about a mid-term election in Pakistan and encash the high popularity graph he enjoys these days. But the numbers are not in his favour. Mr Sharif’s South Punjab connections have not served to convince that champion of realpolitik Pir Pagara into declaring war on the PPP; and the other crucial agent of mid-term elections, the PMLQ, remains unwooed because of Mr Sharif’s offended amour proper. How else but through military intervention will a change occur when the PPP has the numbers to win the confidence vote at the centre, and the PMLN doesn’t in Punjab? *