PTM’s Discourse and National Stability

In a recent virtual address, Manzoor Ahmad Pashteen, the leader of the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), launched a vehement critique of the Pakistani state and military, accusing them of systemic oppression against ethnic groups. His narrative painted a bleak picture of national institutions, suggesting that they were inherently hostile to certain communities. Pashteen’s comments, however, overlooked a key aspect of Pakistan’s democratic framework: the freedom that PTM itself enjoys in the country. The movement has been allowed to hold rallies, participate in the political process, and speak freely, including in international forums. Such freedoms are the hallmark of any democratic society, and PTM has enjoyed them fully, despite the accusations it regularly levies against the state. If Pakistan were truly the “colonial state” that Pashteen describes, these rights would not be available to PTM or its leadership. Free speech is not a privilege reserved for the oppressed; it is a fundamental right granted to all citizens. PTM has fully availed itself of this right, making it difficult to reconcile their claims with the freedoms they themselves experience.

While dissent is a critical element of any democratic society, the way in which PTM represents its grievances raises significant concerns. PTM’s portrayal of Pakistan as a land of systemic oppression, without acknowledging the complex security challenges faced by the country, distorts the reality of the situation. Pakistan’s military and security forces are engaged in an ongoing battle against extremism and terrorism, and this context is essential to understanding the state’s actions. While the government and military have indeed made mistakes, it is equally important to recognize the broader picture of national security. How can PTM demand accountability from the state while consistently refusing to acknowledge the threats posed by terrorism and extremism? By focusing only on one side of the story, PTM disregards the sacrifices made by the Pakistani military in protecting its citizens from these dangers. The country fights terrorism every day, and the sacrifices of soldiers who have laid down their lives in this battle should not be erased by one-sided narratives that fail to consider the broader threats Pakistan faces.

Pashteen’s call for the unity of “subjugated nations” also deserves scrutiny. While on the surface, it might seem like a call for justice and equality, a deeper look reveals a more divisive agenda. When PTM calls for the unity of nations that it claims are subjugated, it raises the question: Is it promoting the rights of these people, or is it attempting to rewrite national boundaries using emotional rhetoric? PTM’s rhetoric is often couched in the language of rights and justice, but when you look closer, it becomes clear that their aims go beyond the improvement of the lives of Pashtuns. They are advocating for a reimagining of the national structure, one that challenges Pakistan’s sovereignty. The notion of uniting “subjugated nations” under a single banner may sound appealing to some, but it also fosters divisions within the country. These divisions threaten national stability and undermine the very fabric of the nation. PTM’s rhetoric, therefore, is not simply about defending rights; it is about challenging Pakistan’s territorial integrity and stability.

At the heart of PTM’s narrative is a glorification of resistance, but the movement’s approach to this resistance is fundamentally flawed. While it is true that resistance has played a vital role in many struggles for justice, PTM’s resistance does not seem to respect the constitutional and legal avenues available for dialogue and resolution. By glorifying resistance while disregarding the democratic channels for addressing grievances, PTM undermines Pakistan’s democratic institutions. Progress in any nation is built on its institutions—parliament, judiciary, and media, not on hashtags, slogans, or public protests. These democratic institutions, despite their flaws, provide the space for meaningful change. PTM’s insistence on bypassing these institutions in favor of emotional appeals and public agitation hampers genuine progress. If the country is to move forward, it must rely on the strength of its democratic processes, not on slogans that undermine them.

Another troubling aspect of PTM’s approach is its consistent attempt to undermine Pakistan’s judiciary, parliament, and media. These institutions are the bedrock of Pakistan’s democracy, and while they are not perfect, they offer the only realistic means of addressing the issues that PTM claims to care about. The persistent efforts to erode public trust in these institutions reflect a deliberate strategy to delegitimize the very systems that ensure Pakistan’s stability. PTM’s attacks on the judiciary and parliament are not just criticisms of individual decisions; they are aimed at weakening the entire democratic framework that holds the country together. These institutions may not always be flawless, but they are the only avenues through which real and lasting change can be achieved. When PTM undermines these institutions, it erodes public confidence in the mechanisms that could bring about the very changes it seeks.

Finally, the constant labeling of state actions as “oppression” raises serious questions about how Pakistan can protect its citizens from the true threats it faces. If every action taken by the state to protect its people is labeled as oppression, it becomes impossible to distinguish between legitimate security measures and violations of rights. National security is not tyranny; it is a responsibility. Pakistan faces real threats from militancy, foreign proxies, and disinformation campaigns.

While PTM’s critique of Pakistan’s state and military raises some valid concerns, its approach is fundamentally flawed. By misrepresenting the facts, undermining democratic institutions, and ignoring the real threats the country faces, PTM’s narrative risks destabilizing the country rather than contributing to constructive change. The real path to progress lies in strengthening Pakistan’s democratic institutions, not in undermining them for political gain.