LAHORE – Oppositon face and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman challenged federal government’s security policy, while senior government figures accused him of questioning the province’s new administrative arrangement for political reasons.
Fazlur rejected allegations levelled against him, saying his criticism was directed at government policies rather than state institutions. He described the accusations as an attempt to damage his reputation and urged the government to address the country’s security challenges through consultation instead of political confrontation.
The controversy intensified after Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi suggested that a political party chief was unhappy about being denied the KP governorship. Although Naqvi did not name the individual, his remarks were widely interpreted as referring to Fazl, who has publicly opposed the imposition of emergency rule and governor’s rule in the province.
Fazl called for an in-camera session of Parliament to examine the security situation and develop a counterterrorism policy backed by political consensus. He questioned the country’s failure to eliminate terrorism despite years of security operations and political commitments, arguing that the government should investigate the reasons behind the continuing violence instead of attacking politicians who raise concerns.
JUI-F chief maintained that political parties must be treated as partners in the fight against militancy. He said Parliament should provide a forum for examining security decisions, identifying shortcomings and agreeing on a common national response. Fazl also raised a pointed question about the actual authority of elected representatives, alleging that important decisions were being made in Rawalpindi while Parliament was expected to comply.
His remarks reflected his broader criticism of the distribution of power in Pakistan, with the JUI-F leader arguing that the federal government lacked the independence needed to make major decisions.
He said the public deserved an explanation of the policies being pursued in its name. According to Fazl, expecting citizens to support counterterrorism measures without adequately explaining the decisions behind them risked undermining public confidence.
Fazl questioned why Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had been placed under exceptional administrative arrangements, including emergency rule, governor’s rule and the deployment of troops, when Balochistan was also confronting severe terrorist violence. He argued that the federal government needed to explain why such measures were considered necessary in KP and whether the same standards were being applied elsewhere.
Recalling the political history of his family, Fazl said his father had resigned when the government of former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto imposed emergency rule in Balochistan during the 1970s.
He described the recurrence of emergency measures as unfortunate and criticised what he portrayed as a repeated pattern of such interventions. JUI-F chief urged the federal government to develop a common national position on terrorism rather than questioning the motives of political parties that challenged its decisions.
His criticism comes amid a wider dispute over provincial autonomy and the federal government’s authority to intervene in KP’s administration.
The Centre imposed emergency rule and governor’s rule on October 11, citing what it described as the provincial government’s deliberate disengagement from counterterrorism efforts. The move suspended the PTI-led provincial government and transferred the administration to a federally supervised arrangement. The PTI rejected the action as an attack on democratic governance, while opposition leaders criticised the decision.
Fazl also questioned the federal government’s approach towards the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI), asking why it had negotiated with the party if it suspected the former KP ruling party of supporting terrorism.
He pointed out that both the government and PTI had publicly indicated that their negotiations had produced agreement on all points, questioning how those claims could be reconciled with the accusations now being made against the party.
JUI-F chief also defended his party’s record in the fight against terrorism, saying approximately 250 of its workers had lost their lives in terrorist violence.