Umme Haniya
Pakistan endures a heavy burden in its war against terror: over 84,000 civilians and security personnel have been killed since 2001, with Pashtun soldiers and families among the hardest hit. Against this backdrop, the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) has seized full advantage of Pakistan’s democratic freedoms-holding rallies, speaking to the press, winning parliamentary seats-yet often uses this platform not for reform but for divisive rhetoric that erodes trust in national institutions?.
PTM’s narrative frequently overlooks the sacrifices of those who have laid down their lives in Swat, Waziristan, Bajaur and beyond. Millions bled for stability; PTM prefers to tweet outrage. In doing so, the movement amplifies hostile narratives and, intentionally or not, whitewashes terrorism and undermines public confidence in the security forces that have risked everything to protect Pakistani citizens.
Despite the army’s extensive efforts to clear militant networks from the tribal belt, PTM has often cheered on international criticism instead of acknowledging national security accomplishments. Some voices describe its discourse as echoing propaganda that aligns more with foreign agendas than with genuine reformist aims.
Reports even suggest a reactive alignment between PTM messaging and extremist actions-voice, not gun, but giving moral cover to those who do.
This dynamic is most worrisome when it extends to front-line Pashtun soldiers. Brave men and women form a bulwark against Taliban and TTP resurgence, yet PTM calls them collaborators or oppressors. Pashtun pride is built on service and sacrifice-not slander. This narrative shift insults the very Pashtun communities it claims to represent and ruins the hard-won reputations of Pashtun regiments and their families.
Pakistan’s judiciary, parliament, and media-while imperfect-continue to operate inclusively and democratically. PTM’s persistent efforts to sow widespread mistrust in these institutions serve not reform but erosion. When those institutions falter, so does national resilience?.
The movement’s selective outrage and anti-state posture have not gone unnoticed internationally. PTM activists gained support abroad, but this has only fueled allegations of foreign-aligned influence, raising the spectre of internal factions aiding external designs against Pakistan?.
PTM is entitled to peaceful protest and to highlight grievances. Yet when democratic latitude becomes a cover for psychological warfare against the state, movements cross a dangerous line. Free speech is a hallmark of a healthy republic-but only when used in service of unity, not division. PTM can reclaim legitimacy by acknowledging the sacrifices of both civilians and armed defenders, toning down rhetoric, and supporting-but not supplanting-the institutions that safeguard Pakistan.
The country must neither suppress dissent nor indulge it without responsibility. Pakistan must wrestle with this tension: maintaining democratic openness while resisting those who exploit it to weaken the state. If PTM aspires to become a catalyst for constructive change, it must redirect its mission toward meaningful engagement rather than emotive victimhood. Only then will its voice contribute to-aided, not assaulted-the enduring strength of the nation.
The writer is a freelance columnist.
