Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Chief Minister (CM) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Secretary-General Pervez Khattak has brokered a reconciliation between PTI Chairman Imran Khan and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Fazlur Rehman.

Khan and Fazl shook hands during the All Parties Conference (APC) on Monday and exchanged pleasantries. Both politicians had locked horns since last year and were claiming to win majority votes in KP.

Both leaders have used derogatory language against each other. Fazl had accused Khan of being a Jewish agent during the by-election campaign in KP. Khan responded in the same language, stating that in presence of Fazl, whom he called “Mullah Diesel”, there was no reason for the Jews to install an agent in Pakistan as Fazl was there to look after their interests.

Khan had also served a defamation notice on Fazl, telling him to offer a public apology for labeling him as a Jewish agent, failing which a civil suit would be filed in court under defamation law seeking damages amounting to billions of rupees.

A source privy to the recent developments told Pakistan Today that on the sidelines of the recently held All Parties Conference (APC), Khattak met Fazl and expressed remorse over the rift between the two leaders, saying it may reflect badly on the peace initiative with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

According to the source, Khattak told Fazl that Khan is a sincere but simple politician whose naïve political aides had created misunderstandings between him and the JUI-F leader.

Khattak told Fazl that he had urged Khan to reconcile with the JUI-F chairman as any tussle between the two pro-peace leaders could scuttle the peace process and the people and government of KP would have to face a Taliban backlash in case the two leaders remained at loggerheads.

According to the source, Khattak told Fazl that he had convinced Khan that the JUI-F chairman had immense influence within the Taliban circles, adding that he himself did not agree to Khan’s doctrine on the Taliban and had asked him not to press his demand to use force against militants involved in sectarian violence.

The KP CM told Fazl that Khan was ill-advised by some “Lahore-based intellectuals” who wanted Khan to adopt a strong stance against outfits like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and other militants allegedly involved in sectarian violence.

Khattak said he convinced Khan that, as KP’s ruling party, the PTI should not get involved in controversies due to which it may have to face more violence and hatred and also may have to lose the government and public backing.

Khattak sought Imran’s permission to tackle the affairs of KP according to the local traditions of the province as Lahori intellectuals could not comprehend the political dynamics of KP and the country’s tribal areas.

Khattak told Imran not to get involved in the peace initiative with the Taliban and to allow the KP government to deal with the issue, adding that as Fazl was leading the government’s peace initiative, he might ignite the Taliban’s anger towards the KP government if Khan kept infuriating him.

It was learnt that Khan agreed to Khattak’s viewpoint and allowed him to play peacemaker between him and Fazl.

Khan also met Fazl during the APC and congratulated him on his speech. Fazl reciprocated the gesture, saying Khan’s arguments were valid and that the PTI chairman might provide ample help in the peace talks.

When contacted, JUI-F Spokesman Jan Ali Achakzai confirmed the easing out of tensions between the two parties, adding that common friends had contacted both parties for reconciliation.

“We have told the negotiators that the JUI-F will only reciprocate the efforts if the PTI withdraws the defamation notice sent to Fazl,” he said adding that once the notice is withdrawn, the JUI-F will publicly adopt a stance on the matter.


  1. Does that mean that sale of diesel,in black market,resumes now? Pervez Khattak has been able to convince Imran that it should be acceptable due to forthcoming talks with Taliban.Sir,respected Pervez Khattak,where would this nation be without you?

Comments are closed.