One’s choice to act presumes one’s freedom to choose. One’s freedom to choose entails the choice of actions, for one, really can’t just choose within his/her mind and take that as an exhibition of freedom, just as how freedom of speech is always epitomised in genuine free speech. The choice of actions leads to a decision of responsibilities. One chooses a particular set of actions because of the knowledge of what it entails and then acknowledges that he/she is the one choosing this particular set of actions to get to what is entailed. Like in doing nothing, despite everything one pick something. To abridge freedom entails choice; choice necessitates action, which resultantly demands responsibility. Whatever you do is anticipated outwards, afar your control. It conceivably brings outcomes beyond rational calculations. Although Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights proclaims everybody has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. However, different approaches to the concept have been witnessed around the globe. The US has customarily been where the constitutional protection of free speech is vivaciously defended, and yet even there numerous confinements on free speech do exist, such as those against speech that incites “imminent lawless action” or to say a discourse that impels inevitable rebellious action. Likewise, in Canada, various laws at the federal, provincial and territorial levels impose restrictions on the freedom of expression granted by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Political realism has always emphasised the role of nation-states, driven and motivated by national interests Political realism has always emphasised the role of nation-states, driven and motivated by national interests. All states seek to preserve their political autonomy and territorial integrity, which ultimately constitute fundamental levels of national interest and what Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) is doing, is challenging both in the guise of free speech. On numerous occasions, different PTM leaders and Manzoor Pashteen himself made claims and portrayed the movement as constitutional and social human rights movement for the Pashtuns of KPK but raising secessionist flags by Pashteen himself and the bellicose and the warmongering rhetoric by their elected parliamentarians like Ali Wazir and Mohsin Dawar speak volumes otherwise. Moreover, the language used by Ali Wazir and their other leaders is no different from the one once used by the TTP in more or less the same area. Although the PTM started their journey with legitimate demands, which encompassed the issue of the landmines, missing persons and extrajudicial killings. Now, PTM has a laundry list of demands, some of which are undeniably enormous asks, for example, requesting the military leave Waziristan or to evacuate its check posts. These could undermine the well-deserved and hard-earned security accomplishments the area has made against the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) throughout the years by giving precious lives of our Pashtun brothers and sisters and the armed forces. Unfortunately, this has been the fate of many movements throughout history that they have been hijacked and thus undermining the rightful demands and jeopardising the security landscape of the region. Another intriguing reality is the Afghan government, which usually refrains from commenting on Pakistan’s domestic politics, has applauded Pashteen’s movement. President Ashraf Ghani, who has worked closely with the CIA, shared many tweets regarding “Pashtun March” last year; trusting it would prevail with regards to “uprooting and eradicating terrorism from the region.” But the question that arises here is, what would be the fate of Afghan support base to the PTM if Afghan Peace Process gets its conclusive end, very likely by next year? Similarly, there is another reality check. Pashteen made claims that the Pashtuns have been treated as second class citizens in Pakistan. Even though Pashtun dissenters have found themselves at loggerheads with the Pakistani army, a significant number of the military’s cadres involved in the operations against insurgents in the “tribal” belt are ethnic Pashtuns. The group has historically maintained a prominent representation in the country’s political and military institutions. Estimates indicate roughly the Pashtun representation in the army is between 15 per cent and 22 per cent among officers, and between 20 per cent and 25 per cent among the rank and file, despite Pashtuns constituting only 16 per cent of the country’s overall population. Out of the 11 chiefs of the Pakistan army, four have been Pashtuns – Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Gul Hasan Khan and Waheed Kakar – leading the institution for a total of 18 years. Manzoor Pashteen, the Chairman of PTM, has called for armed revolt against the military; yet another demand that is neither constitutional nor justifiable. As according to Hegel, freedom is not the capacity to do as one liked but is the alignment with a universal will towards wellbeing. The state is the culmination of moral action where freedom of choice has led to the unity of rational will. The state, thus, reserves the right to take all the necessary action to keep intact its sovereignty, political autonomy and territorial integrity. Since the time this movement has gained its momentum, PTM has been using various cloaks to hide behind its actions, starting from Naqeeb Ullah Mehsud, an aspiring model who was shot dead in Karachi allegedly by Rao Anwar to Arman Loni and then, the minor Farishta, but every time their propaganda is shunned when the families of the grieved ones showed complete trust in the authorities and state institutions. Considerably more mortifying and inexcusable is PTM and its leaderships’ attitude towards the whole situation. Despite being the elected members of parliament the honourable parliamentarians Ali Wazir and Mohsin Dawar resorted to anti-state and anti-military opinion pieces for international publications rather than to stage their grievances on the floor of the parliament. Last but not least, Pashtun nationalism has been based on ethnicity, clan loyalties and commitment to the Pashtunwali code, which is the way Pashtun society functions. And one of the code’s paramount principle is to settle the dispute within the ‘Chaar Dewaari’ or fence rather than to reach out to those who want to undermine their genuine cause. In a nutshell, Pashteen might have the best of intentions for Pashtuns, but he doesn’t have the same for Pakistan. In these socially and economically trying times, what we need is national harmony and what we need to avoid is the national discord. The writer is an independent researcher