The Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) began as a grassroots initiative advocating for the rights of the Pashtun people, catalyzed by the tragic killing of Naqeebullah Mehsud, who was allegedly murdered in a staged police encounter in Karachi. The movement’s early momentum stemmed from legitimate grievances, particularly the call for justice, accountability for missing persons, and the removal of military checkpoints in the tribal areas. For a time, the PTM was seen as a voice for a community that had long been marginalized, especially in the aftermath of the US-led War on Terror, which devastated the Pashtun homeland.
The movement initially garnered widespread sympathy. Even those who disagreed with its tactics recognized that the Pashtuns had borne the brunt of the war against terrorism, with their villages turned into battlegrounds between the military and militant groups like TTP. For many, PTM was a necessary voice, articulating the concerns of those affected by decades of conflict.
However, as time passed, tone of PTM’s message began to shift. What started as a movement for justice increasingly adopted a more radical posture. Anti-state rhetoric became a hallmark of PTM rallies, with the focus shifting from constructive criticism of government policies to a more aggressive stance against the military. While holding state institutions accountable is a crucial element of democracy, PTM’s blanket accusations against military have raised concerns. The question that many are now asking is whether PTM remains a movement for the rights of Pashtuns or if it has morphed into something more extreme.
Recent developments have only deepened this uncertainty. One such development is the announcement of a ceasefire by TTP to facilitate a PTM jirga. This has raised eyebrows across the country, given TTP’s notorious history of violence and its responsibility for some of the worst terrorist attacks in Pakistan’s history, including the horrific massacre of schoolchildren at APS in Peshawar. The very notion that TTP, which has terrorized Pashtun community for years, would cooperate with PTM is troubling. It raises legitimate questions about the nature of the relationship between PTM and TTP.
Moreover, PTM’s silence on condemning TTP’s actions is deeply unsettling. The TTP has not only killed thousands of innocent civilians but has also systematically targeted Pashtun society. Tribal elders, religious gatherings, funerals, and even mosques have been attacked by this group. The TTP has sought to dismantle the traditional tribal system, a pillar of Pashtun identity, and has brought chaos to a community already devastated by conflict. By
failing to publicly distance itself from TTP’s atrocities, PTM risks being perceived as an organization that provides implicit cover for those responsible for much of the suffering in the region.
Another key issue is PTM’s demand for removal of military checkpoints in tribal areas. While these checkpoints may be an inconvenience for civilians, their role in maintaining security and preventing resurgence of militant activity is critical. Army has fought a long and difficult campaign to push back TTP and other terrorist groups. Removing these checkpoints without considering the potential security vacuum this would create could pave the way for militant groups to regroup and renew their campaigns of terror. PTM’s insistence on this demand, without acknowledging the broader security implications, either reflects a lack of understanding of the situation or a deliberate disregard for the potential consequences.
Additionally, the increasingly anti-Pakistan sentiment that has become common at PTM rallies is another concerning development. While it is the right of every citizen to protest, there is a fine line between criticism of the state and questioning its very legitimacy. Most Pashtuns, like other Pakistanis, are patriotic and deeply connected to the country’s future. PTM’s shift from a movement advocating for rights to one that seems willing to undermine the state has alienated many Pashtuns who supported its original cause.
Moving forward, PTM must recalibrate its strategy if it hopes to regain credibility and remain a force for positive change. Firstly, PTM must unequivocally condemn TTP and other militant groups for their actions against Pashtuns. Failing to do so will only fuel suspicions about PTM’s true motivations. Secondly, PTM needs to shift away from its anti-state rhetoric. Constructive criticism of state institutions is essential for democracy, but inflammatory language that seeks to divide the country does not serve the interests of the Pashtun people or Pakistan as a whole. PTM should focus on engaging with the government in a manner that emphasizes solutions, rather than simply airing grievances. Thirdly, PTM must refocus its efforts on addressing the real issues facing the Pashtun community, such as economic development, education, and healthcare. These are the concerns that matter most to ordinary Pashtuns and addressing them will do more to uplift the community than any amount of rhetoric.
In conclusion, PTM stands at a crossroads. If it can return to its roots as a movement for justice and accountability, it has the potential to bring about meaningful change. However, if it continues down its current path of radicalism and antagonism, it risks losing its legitimacy and becoming yet another force of instability in the region. The choice is PTM’s to make.
