Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, is one of those extraordinary judges who have tried very genuinely and hard to make Lahore and Pakistan better with their judicial pen. His judgments on fundamental rights, environmental issues and local government are a credit to Pakistan’s judicial system. We are lucky to have a judge like him in this country where these things often are neglected and shoved under the carpet. Therefore when on August 2 CJ LHC’s courtroom was invaded by rowdy lawyers in an attempt to shield an accused contemnor from Lahore High Court Bar Association Multan, other lawyers from Lahore and elsewhere came together to condemn it. This led to the formation of a loosely knitted group of lawyers who fashioned themselves Advocates for Rule of Law (ARL). ARL published a public statement of condemnation to which this writer was also a signatory. A meeting was held in Lahore where a number of speeches were made, with senior members of ARL professing their faith in rule of law and constitutional means. One of them, a very senior luminary at law, offered a translation of German dissident and anti-Nazi preacher Martin Niemoller’s famous quotation “then they came for the Jews”. A few days later came the news of that unfortunate statement by Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar about the Hindu community that I wrote about in my previous article. A number of members wanted to collectively issue a statement at the very least seeking a clarification from the highest judicial officer in the land on that. The senior members of the group, including the person who had quoted Niemoller, refused point blank. The reason cited was that the group was not constituted to redress every ill in Pakistan. Obviously this did not make any sense. CJP’s statement at the very least poses a very direct threat to the rule of law,as one normally understands the term. The only plausible reason for this was that these senior members of the bar did not want to offend the CJP by questioning his statement publicly. Rule of law and the rights of Hindu citizens of Pakistan could go to hell. Obviously it is up to any group or association to determine its agenda but it surprises me that in this country even the most accomplished professional lawyers who are otherwise known to take for the most part a progressive stance on issues are deathly afraid to criticise the top judiciary where it ought to be criticised. To think that other than quoting Niemoller, these gentlemen had also invoked the memory of the founding father when they wrote “Pakistan was founded by one of the great lawyers of history. And whenever rule of law has been threatened here, it is the lawyers who have stood guard.” Somehow these noble sentiments do not extend to standing up for a small minority in the country, numbering a few million at most in a country of 210 million people. The great lawyer of history they referred to, Mr. Jinnah had told MSM Sharma shortly after partition that he would act as the “Protector General of the Hindus in Pakistan”. Nor was Mr. Jinnah scared of taking on the judiciary. When Bombay Bar Association sought to organize a meeting to celebrate the award of knighthood to Justice Davar, the judge who had convicted Bal Gangadhar Tilak for sedition, Mr Jinnah not only refused to attend but also publicly condemned the Bar Association for having arranged such a function. This led to souring of his relations with both the bench and the bar, but it did not stop him for standing independently for what he believed in, fearlessly and unwaveringly. The founding fathers could have adopted the green Muslim League flag as the flag of the new nation but they added a white strip as a reminder that Pakistan, albeit a Muslim majority state, is not just for Muslims but for Non-Muslims as well The best attribute of a lawyer is his or her integrity and fierce independence. A lawyer must value and cherish these above all else. Everything else, including financial consideration and careerist ambitions, must be secondary. This is what made Mr Jinnah the great lawyer that he was. An independent lawyer strives for rule of law through constitutional means. Rule of law does not mean only orderly conduct of judicial business. It means in real terms a commitment to due process and equal rights. That very due process is under threat if the chief judge of the country makes a statement prima facie prejudicial to a class of people living in that country. It is the responsibility of every independent lawyer who believes in rule of law to come forward and ask the question. That is our clearest duty as officers of the court standing guard on the constitutional and fundamental rights of the citizenry of Pakistan. This is the power we wield and the power we should not sheepishly surrender to anyone. The Constitution of Pakistan, for all its faults, promises equality of citizenship to every citizen regardless of whatever his or her religion might be or gender might be. This is the fundamental guarantee, which is the real grundnorm of our nation state, contained in Articles 4 and 25. Article 20 grants every citizen freedom of religion. Hindus, whatever their number, are a class of citizens in Pakistan, as Pakistani as any Muslim. The flag of Pakistan has a white strip precisely for minorities. The founding fathers could have adopted the green Muslim League flag as the flag of the new nation but they added a white strip as a reminder that Pakistan, albeit a Muslim majority state, is not just for Muslims but for Non-Muslims as well. It is time we began living up to the idealism with which we started off 70 years ago. Somewhere along we lost the way but we must find our way back so that the posterity would not condemn us for having proved ourselves bigots and reactionaries. The writer is a practising lawyer. He blogs at http://global legal forum.blogspot.com and his twitter handle is @therealylh Published in Daily Times, August 211st 2017.