LAHORE The 18th Amendment Bill may get stuck in the Senate, as PML-Q has successfully manoeuvred to enlist the support of JUI-F, JI and some members from FATA to oppose Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the Upper House. The Sundays assertion by PML-Q chief Ch Shujaat Hussain that his party would vote against Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the Senate, has put question marks on the fate of 18th Amendment Bill, though National Assembly has already given its approval to the new legislation. Following the PML-Qs opposition to the new name for the frontier province, the JUI-F of Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Jamaat-i-Islami led by Munawar Hassan have also decided to review their earlier stances in this regard in view of series of protest demonstrations in Hazara division over the issue in question. Ch Shujaat Hussain and Senator Talha Mahmood of JUI-F visited Abbottabad on Sunday to express solidarity with the people there who were out on the streets for the last one week or rather more. The spokespersons of the said three parties confirmed to The Nation on Sunday that their parties were all set to oppose the new name for NWFP in the Senate because of the greater resentment expressed by people in Hazara and DI Khan divisions. The combined strength of PML-Q, JUI-F and JI with 21, 10 and 3 Senators each, comes to 34, enough to block the said legislation. The parties forming coalition government in the Centre, the PML-N, independents and nationalist parties, on the other hand, have a joint strength of around 60 members, which means that they are still short of seven members to get the bill passed from the Senate with two-third majority. Talking to TheNation, PML-Q Senator and partys Central Secretary Information, Kamil Ali Agha said that members of constitutional reforms committee belonging to his party had also written a note of dissent regarding new name of the NWFP and majority of its MNAs too had not voted in favour of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He said that it was necessary to address reservations of people of Hazara and DI Khan in this regard. He said it was more an issue of ideology than a name. Agha said majority of people of NWFP had voted against the ideology of Pakhtunkhawa in 1947 referendum, while the supporters of this thought voted against Pakistan. He said it was a serious issue which must be resolved with consensus. Spokesperson for Jamate-Islami, Dr. Farid Ahmad Paracha said that though his party had not opposed the new name for NWFP in the beginning, yet latest developments in Hazara had forced the party leadership to review their stance. He said the concerns of people of Hazara and DI Khan must be taken into account before final vote on the issue. Joint Secretary of JUI-F Riaz Durrani said that though his party had also supported a resolution passed by NWFP Assembly regarding renaming of the frontier province, yet the name, 'Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was not in consonance with that resolution which had recommended the name of 'Pakhtunkhwa only. He said the matter should be referred back to the NWFP Assembly to seek its fresh mandate in view of the new scenario. Durrani said that Senators belonging to JUI (F) would plead for building consensus over the issue when the 18th amendment is tabled in the Senate for debate. He further said that Senators from FATA had also their reservations because after inclusion of the word Khyber in the new name, which symbolizes the entire tribal belt. They could no longer put forward their demand for a new province at any stage in future in this context. He said that Abaseen Pakhtunkhawa as considered in the beginning, should have satisfied the sentiments of the people in Hazara division. In this background, even more alarming are the reports that some Senators sitting on treasury benches and belonging to Balochistan and NWFP have warned that they would not vote for the amendment bill if they continue to be ignored by the government. These Senators have numerous complaints against the government in respect of non-provision of development funds and some other matters. Informed circles also fear that establishment may use these disgruntled elements and the smaller parties to keep the 17th Amendment intact because they dont want to weaken the office of president, which has been a source of strength for them in the past. They want a person of their choice in the Presidency but wont like to make this office a mere rubber stamp vis-a-vis the office of prime minister keeping in view their 'bad experience of the 1997 when they had to confront a mighty prime minister, the sources explained.