MANZOOR Pashteen has emerged as a demagogue from the Pashtun National Jirga, announcing measures such as cheap electricity for Pashtuns, an end to the customs of Swara and Wani in Pashtunwali, and the resolution of a six-decade sectarian conflict in the Kurram tribal district. Among his controversial claims was the formation of a Pashtun “Lashkar,” a direct violation of Article 256 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which prohibits private armies. He also issued an ultimatum demanding that the Armed Forces withdraw from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) within two months.
These actions validate the federal government’s ban on the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) as a justified security measure, revealing it as a potential threat. Pashteen even threatened to sabotage national power transmission lines, contradicting the movement’s previously non-violent stance and exposing its leadership to legal repercussions. Despite not participating in parliamentary politics, Pashteen continues to propose political solutions and interfere in government affairs, signaling his opportunism. Reports suggest he pushed for the creation of a “Pashtun Lashkar” against the wishes of Pashtun National Jirga delegates.
PTM lacks both legal legitimacy and democratic values, as the constitution already provides for elected governments at both federal and provincial levels. By relying on illegal jirgas, PTM undermines the true representatives of the public. Traditional jirgas are notorious for human rights violations, extrajudicial punishments, and the suppression of women. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared such jirgas unlawful due to their incompatibility with the constitution, international human rights conventions, and best judicial practices. While jirgas may hold social value, they are not meant to interfere with state functions. The federal and provincial governments have enacted laws for alternate dispute resolution to reduce the judiciary’s burden and curb illegal jirgas. However, these laws are under judicial review due to their complexities, and the Supreme Court will resolve the matter in accordance with the constitution.
Manzoor Pashteen seeks to position himself as the de facto ruler of KP by exploiting ethnic sentiments. Despite terrorist atrocities, PTM did not use the Pashtun National Jirga to denounce Khwarij (TTP) commanders, missing an opportunity to address the radicalization of Pashtun youth. TTP’s temporary ceasefire during the jirga, benefiting PTM, indicates a shared agenda. Pashteen’s derogatory remarks against security forces align with the Khwarij’s objectives, as he calls for the removal of counterterrorism measures in KP, opposes visa regulations, and weakens border control, facilitating terrorist and smuggler activity. PTM’s stance on national identity documents and visa policy contradicts international law and norms. The Pashtun National Jirga’s demand for the government to surrender sovereignty to Afghanistan is a clear violation of Pakistan’s interests, and PTM’s protests abroad suggest an invitation for foreign intervention in domestic matters. While PTM calls for the removal of Pakistan’s Armed Forces, it simultaneously encourages foreign interference, exposing the movement’s hypocrisy.
The rebranding of the Mehsud Tahafuz Movement as the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement to broaden its influence has shifted PTM from an anti-war platform to one that stokes sub-nationalist unrest. By raising issues such as the exploitation of natural resources, PTM is attempting to mask its true agenda, which could lead to a power vacuum strengthening terrorist groups. PTM’s stance against development projects targeting natural resources only serves to keep the Pashtun masses impoverished, continuing the damage inflicted by TTP’s terrorism in KP. The movement’s criticism of security operations and selective use of facts aim to inflame ethnic tensions, further violating Pakistan’s laws and undermining national stability.
—The writer is a freelance contributor on the issues of violent extremism and militancy.
