The judge Vs the dictator: the law takes on the military

He does not grant interviews, he does not willingly pose for photographs and he declines even to wind down the window of his car to speak with the countless thousands of Pakistanis who pour from their homes to watch his convoy pass.

And yet for all of that Iftikhar Chaudhury has emerged as the most unlikely of challengers to the government of General Pervez Musharraf, America's favourite military dictator and its purported ally in the so-called war on terror. In the space of a few short months, this 59-year-old has emerged as the focal point of a disparate, disorganised opposition encompassing a spectrum that stretches from a liberal judiciary to deeply conservative tribal leaders on the northwest territories bordering Afghanistan. In doing so, the judge has also presented the general with his toughest challenge since the events of 9/11.

Mr Chaudhury served as the chief justice of the country's Supreme Court. But on 9 March, General Musharraf, wearing his military uniform, summoned his chief justice and in the presence of six other uniformed generals, demanded his resignation. The President claimed the judge was involved in nepotism and corruption - a terrible irony given the corrupt histories of most of Pakistan's governments - but in truth he had been angered and upset by the judge's investigations into human rights abuses in the country's Baluchistan province. When he refused to resign, he was fired.

The move backfired spectacularly. Almost overnight the middle-aged man became a popular hero, mobbed by crowds of thousands of ordinary people as he travelled the country giving speeches to lawyers' organisations and seeking to defend the independence of Pakistan's judiciary. Uniquely - and apparently unintentionally - he has also managed to bring together the separate, disjointed elements of the country's political opposition, all demanding Mr Musharraf's removal.

This week, Mr Chaudhury's colleagues in the Supreme Court added their voices. On Monday, one of the 13 robed judges hearing an appeal by Mr Chaudhury against his firing, told the government's lawyer that evidence he wanted to bring to prosecute the case was "vexatious and scandalous". Without revealing the nature of the evidence - believed to include photographs of the judge taken without his permission outside his house - the presiding judge, Khalil-ur-Rahman Ramday, fined the government 100,000 rupees (£800) and suspended the licence of its lawyer. He also ordered that members of the country's intelligence services be barred from court.

How and why did Mr Chaudhury become such a spontaneous rallying figure for those opposed to Mr Musharraf and his regime? "He represented defiance of the military government," his lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan, said.

Mr Ahsan, who previously served in the government of the exiled opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, has been driving Mr Chaudhury to speaking engagements across the country. There have been so many people turning out to catch a glimpse of the ousted chief justice, blocking the road and forcing the convoy to proceed at little more than walking pace, that the journeys have turned into odysseys, some taking days. A Pakistani journalist covering one recent event said he became severely dehydrated and required medical treatment after having been ill-prepared to undertake such a long trip.

"I drove him to Multan last week. Twenty-six hours," said Mr Ahsan. "Twenty-three hours to Faisalbad. Sixteen hours to Abbottabad. [It is] because he refused to give way. The people come in the thousands. If you see the footage..."

Not all of the chief justice's appearances have been peaceful. In May, his attempt to speak in Karachi resulted in riots organised by a political party aligned with General Musharraf. In all, more than 40 people were killed and dozens more were injured during two days of gun battles. The judge was forced to cool his heels at the airport before being flown to safety.

The campaign of Mr Chaudhury appears to have tapped into a readily accessible seam of discontent that exists within different elements of Pakistani society, almost eight years after General Musharraf seized power by means of a coup which ousted the elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in October 1999.

The general had initially promised that he would only rule for a short period and would quickly hold elections to restore democracy, claiming to have seized power purely as a "last resort to prevent any further destabilisation". This was quickly forgotten and in 2002 the new leader organised a referendum - boycotted by the majority of his political opponents - that gave him a further five years as President. Amid widespread claims that the referendum was fixed, General Musharraf himself later apologised for any "irregularities".

According to that referendum he is obliged to face national and regional assemblies for a fresh mandate before the end of the year. He has indicated his desire for that to happen while the current assemblies - many of which are controlled by groups such as his Pakistan Muslim League (PLM-Q) - are sitting, rather than after new assemblies are elected in September.

It is anger over General Musharraf's refusal to reopen the door to democracy - alongside the opportunism of his established political opponents - that Mr Chaudhury's stance has connected with.

Of course, General Musharraf is also facing open condemnation inside Pakistan from those who have little truck with Mr Chaudhury's campaign for the independence of the judiciary.

Yesterday a long-simmering feud with extremist Muslims who operate from the Red Mosque of Lal Masjid in Islamabad and want sharia law imposed throughout Pakistan, finally erupted in violence. By last night, at least nine people were dead- including four students from the mosque - after gunfire broke out between the Taliban-supporting students and security forces who in recent days had taken up positions around the complex.

The violence illustrates the extraordinary tensions that exist within Pakistan and give bloody confirmation of the regime's contradictory mission to modernise while maintaining support from the country's vast and often radical religious constituency.

Of equal significance for the beleaguered general will be reports that in recent weeks even his own core supporters have started to lose patience with him, wondering whether there might be an alternative figure around which to rally.

There have even been rumblings from the army, according to a report in The New York Times. The army is a central institution in Pakistan and naturally the President's strongest base of support. Presumably aware of these mutterings General Musharraf felt obliged last month to call his senior commanders and have them issue a statement of support. It read: "The Corps Commanders and Principal Staff Officers of the Pakistan Army affirmed to stand committed for the security of their country under the leadership and guidance of the President and the Chief of the Armed Services." If the President felt the need to force such a show of support it is of little surprise. While he may have a genuinely modernising vision, he knows that Pakistan's three previous military commanders - Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan - had unhappy times in charge of the country. Two were forced out by fellow officers and one died in a mysterious plane crash.

Pakistani analysts say how the army behaves in the coming months and who its chiefs decide to support will be crucial. "The real issue is whether the politicians have the balls to push him harder and the answer is no. Benazir Bhutto is averse to risk and will not do anything which will rock the boat beyond a certain point," said Ayesha Siddiqa, author of Military Inc - Inside Pakistan's Military Economy. "This is what Musharraf draws his strength from. As long as he doesn't really do anything outrightly stupid after what he has already done, he is pretty safe." She added: "The generals are not likely to put too much pressure on him because he guarantees their interests. He is their man. The institution of the National Security Council created by Musharraf will make sure that they remain engaged with him even if he has to take off the uniform."

One great unknown in all of this had been how the US would decide to jump. Since the attacks of 9/11 when the Bush administration told him he was either "100 per cent with us or 100 per cent against us", the US has provided millions of dollars to the government as well as negotiating an arms deal worth more than $1bn. Much of this was supposed to be in support of Pakistani operations against al-Qa'ida. But in recent months there had been much talk in Washington that the US may be better off adopting "Plan B" and supporting an alternative to Mr Musharraf. It seems, however, the Bush administration has concluded that there is no viable Plan B.

The coming weeks will prove crucial. If the general decides to drop his uniform and his position as head of the armed forces and run for election as a civilian, many analysts believe he would stand a chance, particularly given that his most obvious opponents such as Mrs Bhutto, do not have overwhelming support. Another option is that he may seek survival by coming to some sort of power-sharing arrangement with Mrs Bhutto - an option that both sides have been discussing.

But for all General Musharraf's experience as leader, he shows continued ineptitude as he seeks to deal with the crisis. An attempt to introduce new laws to limit the freedom of the media to report on Mr Chaudhury's speeches sparked a heated backlash. Likewise, the violence in Karachi may have made supporters of Mrs Bhutto - if not the ambitious Mrs Bhutto herself - think twice of an alliance with General Musharraf.

Amid all of this, he can do little to control what Mr Chaudhury does or says and can only watch as the ousted judge continues to tour the country, delivering his speeches and rallying people along the way. Which one of them will blink first?

Interesting? Click here to explore further