Ethnic venom in political discourse has always been a troubling factor in Pakistan. It is adding to the prevailing chaos in terror-affected areas of KP province, where local pressure groups like Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) are hell on viewing all issues through an ethnic lens. PTM’s initial take-off looked like a grassroots campaign, especially in the context of the alleged encounter of a Pashtun youngster, Naqeeb Mehsood, in Karachi.
Later, this group portrayed itself as the sole flag bearer of Pashtun rights. Its founding slogan, “Da Sanga Azadi Da?” (“What kind of freedom is this?”), struck a chord with young Pashtuns and families who have suffered from the conflict. Yet a more detailed look at the movement’s development shows that it has moved away from its original purpose and become increasingly linked to intricate ethnic politics, external influences, and narratives that challenge Pakistan’s sovereignty and national cohesion.
The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) initially highlighted human?rights concerns and called for accountability, citing the complex aspects of growing terrorism in Pakistan. Over time, under Manzoor?Pashteen’s leadership, its messaging shifted toward a narrative of ethnic victimhood, framing unrest in Khyber?Pakhtunkhwa as a “deliberate targeting of Pashtuns by a Punjabi?dominated state.” This portrayal overlooks the province’s security challenges stemming largely from its porous border with Afghanistan, a route used by terrorists to attack Pakistan.
Pashtuns undeniably contribute to Pakistan’s defence and nation?building, and their legitimate grievances should be addressed through constructive and authentic constitutional channels.
Unbiased critics opine that Pashtuns are well represented in Pakistan’s military and political institutions, playing a key role in national defence. By emphasising a selective ethnic story, PTM may erode national unity and increase mistrust, potentially serving interests that aim to destabilise the country. Its growing distance from domestic politics is illustrated by events like the 2025 “Texas Jirga,” held under Afghanistan’s flag and dominated by Afghan participants, raising questions about whether internationalising internal grievances truly benefits Pashtuns in Pakistan. Similarly, the PTM claims to stand for the security and well-being of Pashtun communities, yet their actions often raise questions about the sincerity of this acclaimed commitment.
Despite the ongoing violence that affects the KP province, the movement has been notably silent or ambiguous when it comes to condemning banned terrorist groups like the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, who have inflicted significant harm on Pashtuns and the wider Pakistani society. Ironically, the pressure group’s persistent rejection of established borders such as the Durand Line – recognised internationally as Pakistan’s frontier with Afghanistan- raises serious concerns about their allegiance to the country.
If Pakistan is indeed their homeland, then why do they seek to challenge its constitutional framework and national sovereignty? Such contradictions reflect that PTM’s agenda may extend beyond advocating for rights and venture into undermining the very unity and stability of the state. Narratives pushed from PTM platforms repeatedly cast the Pakistan army as exploiting Pashtun communities for controversial strategic ends, ignoring the fact that Pashtuns have long served alongside other citizens in the military and security forces. By focusing solely on the role of security forces, PTM overlooks the ongoing cross?border militant threats that also cause suffering in Pashtun regions. The ongoing backing of local Pashtun tribes for Pakistan’s security forces never corroborates the divisive narratives of PTM.
Real progress for Pashtun rights will arise from rejecting separatism, participating in democratic dialogue, and standing together against terrorism and instability. This prompts the question: is the movement genuinely advocating Pashtun welfare, or has it become a tool for division that erodes the unity it claims to protect? Pashtuns undeniably contribute to Pakistan’s defence and nation?building, and their legitimate grievances should be addressed through constructive and authentic constitutional channels. Obviously, gaps in governance have contributed to frustration and disillusionment among Pashtun communities, underscoring the need for the government and stakeholders to revisit the implementation of policies with an intent to eradicate the sense of deprivation.
PTM’s growing emphasis on ethnic polarisation, coupled with external influences and challenges to Pakistan’s sovereignty, risks deepening divisions rather than fostering progress. Revival of long-term peace, development, and justice for Pashtuns can only be achieved through a unified constructive approach embedded with national interests.
The writer is a student.