The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), which emerged in the war-torn tribal region of Pakistan, promised a path of peace and justice for the people of Pakhtunkhwa. These people are believed to have been marginalized for years, given the decades-long war against terrorism. During the movement’s formative years, it gained attention through platforms such as the Aman Pasoon.

PTM’s refusal to condemn terrorism against security forces manifests a troubling situation.

Through these platforms, PTM raised issues such as extrajudicial killing (an unresolved, long-standing issue), enforced disappearances, and unnecessary military presence in urban centers. However, as the movement entrenched, its sloganeering became anti-state. Presently, PTM stands at the crossroads, given the silence, it has opted in the wake of growing militancy.

A deep analysis suggests that PTM has now shifted its focus from genuine activism to troubling alignment with those who sympathize with militants and stand against the national fabric. Though the PTM began as a genuine movement, it has now been hijacked by those who advocate a foreign agenda and act as a destabilizing force.

The most concerning fact related to PTM’s approach is the movement’s selective outrage. While the movement condemns the state’s approach toward counter-terrorism, the movement opts for silence when it comes to condemning terrorist activities. For example, PTM didn’t condemn recent drone strikes conducted by different terrorist organizations. Also, PTM seems to be following ‘under the carpet’ formula for anti-state actions committed by the Ittihad-ul-Mujahideen Pakistan (IMP)- the so-called movement that demands greater autonomy for Pashtun people.

Spokesperson of the IMP, Mahmud-ul-Hasan, believes that drone strikes on security forces are a success for the people of KP. It remains interesting to note that PTM didn’t release any statement on the recent actions of the terrorist groups, which seems like a calculated strategy of the PTM.

PTM seems to be playing foul by supporting terrorism sympathizers and opposing military actions.

The movement’s refusal to condemn terrorism against the security forces manifests a troubling situation. Security experts believe that PTM’s approach to terrorism in KPK has changed recently, and, unlike in the past, PTM now appears to support terrorism sympathizers. Given this situation, it appears that PTM is governed not by principle rather by politics.

Since the formation of PTM, the strength of this group has remained, portraying the Pashtun people as victims of state domination. Although at many instances, the state adhered to the movement’s valid apprehensions, time and again, PTM denied opportunities for constructive engagement with the state. For example, despite being members of the Parliament, the leadership of PTM opted for the furtherance of the conflict on many occasions. Such developments are suggestive of the fact that PTM, which emerged as a genuine call now furthers manipulative narratives.

By exploiting victimhood, PTM pays little attention to increasing militancy in the region. Not only does it ignore the recent upsurge in drone strikes, but it also seems to be picking sides. The recent statements of PTM officials posit that the group seems to be playing foul when it comes to terror operations. PTM has started painting, Pakistan Army as an oppressor, while in reality, it is the only force fighting for peace and security in KP.  The duality of PTM is not only hypocritical but also dangerous, as it is creating space where terrorism is not only justified but also tolerated.

Another worrying factor is the posturing of PTM leaders against violence. At different public meetings, PTM higher-ups seem to share space with terrorism sympathizers. This trend is though the latest but undermines the very narrative of the Aman Pasoon march. The protest arranged by PTM is loudest after the military operation, but not after the terrorist incident. By any means, such an approach by a large movement can be termed as activism rather than political opportunism.

The duality of PTM is hypocritical and dangerous, justifying and tolerating terrorism.

The present trajectory followed by PTM seems not to be serving the Pashtun people. In recent times, the situation in KP has become more threatening, and in this situation, opposing military action against perpetrators of violence would serve anti-state actors. Such actions would only strengthen terrorists and would widen the rift between the state and PTM activists. In recent times, PTM’s actions seem to undermine the very fabric of the state; therefore, security analysts now cite that, given the compromised agenda PTM has been following recently, the movement cannot be termed as a reformist voice.

PTM that emerged as a voice of the oppressed classes of KP now seems to fulfill political agendas. The group remains busy in militant appeasement; therefore, it cannot be termed a legitimate voice. The misrepresentation of the Pashtun struggle suggests that the group has strayed from its real path and is now following a line of fire that, if left unchecked, would ignite a new strife between the state and the Pashtun people.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.