PASHTUN Tahafuz Movement (PTM) emerged in 2018, when Pakistan had significantly contained terrorist threats and hopes for peace were very high. Security forces almost defeated the main terrorist outfit, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), causing the remaining militants to flee to Afghanistan. Society regarded PTM as a peace movement and state authorities also actively engaged its leadership to diminish the social influence of violent extremist and terrorist ideologues. Unfortunately, PTM leaders started toeing a very extremist line; their hate speech and illegal activities disappointed pro-peace forces in Pakistan. A very heavy opposition to counter-terrorism measures by security forces and derogatory language against the national security institutions became its hallmark; therefore, TTP chief Noor Wali Mehsud showered praise on PTM leaders in 2018. They crafted a false narrative of survival for Pashtun ethnicity and PTM became a complementary movement to violent extremist and terrorist outfits.
Manzoor Pashteen, the leader of PTM, portrayed himself as an anti-war peace activist, yet he exhibited undemocratic attitudes, hate speech and racist sentiments. Despite positioning itself as a peace movement, PTM’s negative and derogatory approach has hindered its ability to garner significant societal support. The movement’s myopic focus solely on Pashtun victims of violence demonstrates a lack of inclusiveness, contrary to democratic principles. While militant groups have claimed the lives of over 84 thousand Pakistanis in terrorist attacks, PTM leadership’s failure to address the broader impact of terrorism on all ethnic communities reflects a skewed perspective.
Ironically, PTM’s leadership has been unable to confront the Taliban, despite their oppression of Pashtun identity by associating it with terrorism. The Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, predominantly Pashtun, continue to perpetrate violence, yet PTM has not actively opposed them. Instead of advocating against the Taliban, PTM leaders like Manzoor Pashteen, Ali Wazir, and Mohsin Dawar have failed to mobilize efforts to raise awareness against terrorism in society. This failure to address the broader spectrum of terrorism and its perpetrators undermines PTM’s credibility as a genuine peace movement.
PTM has a myopic view of terrorism as a global threat, but its leadership considers it only a Pashtun community problem. Moreover, it does not make a distinction between terrorism and counter-terrorism measures, which renders it ineffective in the war against terrorism. The international community took extraordinary measures to deal with terrorism threats and countries like the United States resorted to discriminatory physical searches of airports for homeland security. On the other hand, PTM leadership is stubborn about the removal of anti-terrorism mechanisms in the KP’s tribal districts and they joined TTP in its demand from security forces to vacate these areas. As a matter of fact, PTM’s use of harsh and derogatory language for security institutions in Pakistan and its soft tone towards the Taliban are dubious and, therefore, unacceptable for peace-loving people in the country.
PTM leaders could not address the issue of terrorist outfits recruiting Pashtuns and they avoided responding to questions about Pashtun susceptibility to violent extremism. It demonstrates a lack of awareness of the actual problem as well as a lack of sincerity and courage to challenge the Taliban. The TTP exploited the culture of vengeance and carrying arms to promote terrorism in the Pashtun heartland and the PTM did not make efforts to spread healthy conduct in this regard. In fact, PTM has failed to appreciate Pashtun sacrifices, as patriotic Pashtuns are part of the Pakistan Army in large numbers to protect their motherland, following the culture and tradition of bravery. As a result, people have rejected criticism of PTM for the defence forces and law enforcement agencies’ efforts in the war against terrorism.
The inability of PTM leaders to recognize modern state-based international relations and their subversive agenda is a real problem. The use of Pashtun ethnic identity by the PTM and Afghan Taliban as well as a dismissive view of Pak-Afghan border limits, demonstrate that both movements are complementary. The international community is emphasizing the Afghan Taliban’s efforts to make the interim government inclusive by embracing representatives of other ethnic groups in Afghanistan, while people in Pakistan demand that the PTM shun discrimination among the country’s violence victims.
Against this backdrop, the PTM leadership occasionally creates law and order situations and authorities have to take legal action against them. Like every civilized state, Pakistan has laws to punish those who defame the defence forces and PTM is always breaking these laws. Hence, legal action becomes necessary against PTM leaders for causing trouble for security forces. Although a few of its leaders have rightfully attained positions in the National Assembly as a democratic prerogative, individuals like Ali Wazir and Mohsin Dawar have failed to advance the country’s peace agenda. Consequently, the movement’s rhetoric of unrest conflicts with its professed aspirations for peace.
—The writer holds an M.Phil degree in International Relations from Quaid-e-Azam University and specializes in issues of violent extremism and militancy.
