Daily Times

Ideological differences aside, the contrast in their physical appearances grabs your attention too: one tall and lean, the other short and round; and one modern, fashionable and western, the other simple, traditional and conservative.

Politically speaking, if one holds the other responsible for financial irregularities and monetary misconduct, the other fires back by blaming the former for moral corruption and debauchery. If one accuses of using the party’s strength for personal benefit, the other calls him the ‘agent of Zionism’, working in the interest of enemies of Pakistan, carrying an agenda against Islam. If one tends to collaborate with the party holding power in Islamabad, the other prefers to sit in the opposition. The former, therefore, risks to be labelled as the one having no principle except ‘show me the money and I will change my mind,’ while the latter seems to take pride in being considered as reckless and selfish, a person who could destabilise the whole democratic process to seize power.

Even so, both Imran Khan, Chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and the leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman, share a lot more in common than they realise or are ready to accept in public. For example, both of them keep a ‘cosy relationship’ with the establishment, trying their best to stay in the good books of ‘relevant authorities’. At the same time, both of them quite ingeniously maintain a safe distance from the agencies by criticising their role here and there for plausible deniability. Both realise that though their strategy of ‘sleeping with the enemy’ may irk a small minority of constitutionalists, it will pay long-term dividends. First, it will establish their patriotic credentials, and second, it will provide them a moral high ground from where they can demean the non-conformists, people who want to limit the role of agencies in politics.

Not impressed? Let me recall the first few years of the former chief of the army staff, General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf. After orchestrating a successful coup d’état he needed both political face-saving and constitutional back-up to continue to rule for an extended period. One by one, both Khan and Rehman stepped up to help the former dictator in reaching these goals. Maulana, then a leader in the opposition voted in favour of Musharraf to get the constitutional amendment approved and avoid a treason trial, while Khan galvanised the public to support Musharraf in the referendum. He hoped that by doing so he would clench the nomination of the prime minister of Pakistan.

Still not convinced? Tell me, how do the JUI and PTI differ in policy on drone strikes? Both of them oppose them arguing that the attacks cause more harm than benefit killing innocent civilians. Just a few years ago, the JUI pronounced Hakeemullah Mehsood — the former leader of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and the enemy number one of Pakistani people — killed in a drone attack as a martyr. According to Rehman, anyone killed by Americans, even if it happened to be a dog, was a martyr. For the PTI too, Mehsud was the ‘last hope’ to bring peace in Pakistan. The party protested against them holding America responsible for our inability to establish law and order in the tribal areas. Following the same line, last week, the spokesman of the PTI, Naeem-ul-Haq called Mullah Mansur, a martyr, disregarding deaths of innocent Afghans killed in suicide attacks by the Taliban. Moreover, both Khan and Rehman disapprove of US invasion of Afghanistan, considering it to be the reason for instability in Pakistan, and both opposed the operation in Islamabad against the Lal Masjid radicals.

In addition, both Khan and Rehman have led a coalition government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by forming an alliance with the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the party that held close ties with the al-Qaeda in Pakistan. The alliance of the JI with JUI was a formal one, named as Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), while the partnership between the PTI and JI is not as formal. But it is almost as strong, or may be a little more, since a significant number of PTI members served in the JI before they joined the PTI. The five-year tenure of the MMA concluded with the Taliban taking over Swat. Compared to that, how the current tenure would end, we do not know yet. Let us pray that it ends differently; however, looking at JI’s past record, I will not be surprised if it created another Frankenstein for Pakistanis to deal with later.

Need more evidence? Both Khan and Rehman take inspiration from a specific brand of Islam in politics. For them, it is the major driving force to bring change both in the lives of individuals, and to help nations trudge out of corruption and economic dependence. Finally, both of them want to bring a sort of soft revolution in the country while staying within the framework of the constitution. Which is why neither one of them hesitates to accommodate the most corrupt turncoats in their parties, some of whom jump parties more often than we change pants. In that regards the PTI, of course, leaves the JUI far behind.

The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com