PTM’s War On National Unity – OpEd
The virtual space organized by PTM USA, on June 16, 2026, under the name of “Voices of the Oppressed Nations: Colonial Oppression in Contemporary Times”, was not a harmless human rights talk. It was a deliberate move towards internationalizing the affairs of Pakistan, with a view to falsifying the constitutional facts and orchestrating a pseudo-block of grievance against the federation. Manzoor Pashteen’s speech was a rehash: Pakistani’s various ethnic groups as distinct ‘oppressed nations’, denigration of the state’s institutions, criticism of Pakistani security measures, and requests for international sympathy against the Pakistani state, which is still battling the fruits of cross-border terrorism. It’s not reformist politics. It is political theatre that is intended to erode the unity, stability and confidence of the institutions at a time when the nation requires it.
The most misleading thing about this story is that Pashtuns, Baloch, Sindhis, Saraikis and other community groups are considered to be outside the national mainstream of Pakistan. This is not the case; it is the exact reverse. These communities are not strangers to the federation, they are the backbone of political, administrative, military, cultural and economic strength of the federation. They have given birth to parliamentarians, Judges, soldiers, civil servants, entrepreneurs, academics and public intellectuals who are still influencing the destiny of Pakistan within the constitutional framework. It is not a representation to reduce this complex national reality to a slogan of “oppressed nations. It is an act of erasure, because it forgets about millions of the citizens of these regions who have faith in a struggle through the constitution, in democratic participation and in the integration of the nation.
This is also evident in PTM’s rhetoric on CPEC and regional security. Western regions of Pakistan have been witnessing the menace of terrorism, smuggling networks and foreign interference and sanctuaries of militants on the other side of the border. So, if the economic environment is such, the economic corridors cannot be taken lightly. Security is important on roads, energy projects, trade routes and development zones because, contrary to what the state claims, they are not there to exploit local populations, but because they have been attacked by hostile actors, including infrastructure, workers and security personnel. When everything is connected to the concept of “colonial occupation”, it becomes clear that what people are after is failing Pakistan’s economic ties, particularly with China. The CPEC is not just a road but also a strategic economic lifeline. Ethicized propaganda is an act of undermining the legitimacy, which is to the benefit of Pakistan’s opponents, not its people.
Otherwise, the state’s limitation of PTM should be seen in the light of the law and the public order. While freedom of expression is a constitutional right, there is no democracy which allows speech to simply be a tool for inciting to secessionist violence, public disorder or collaboration with hostile powers. Article 19 of the constitution of Pakistan safeguards freedom of expression but provides lawful restrictions in the interest of integrity, security, defense and public order of Pakistan. That distinction matters. While it is legitimate criticism of government policy, it is another thing to mobilize ethnic anger against the constitution state. The State, if any organization is constantly infringing on the law, celebrating confrontationalism and providing room for anti-state rhetoric, has both the power and the obligation to address it.
The phrase “colonial” is another rhetorical device used by the powers at be in Pakistan. There is no colonial power in Pakistan, it is ruled by a constitution, elected parliament, courts, province government and statutory institutions. Security forces in conflict areas do so under legal requirements such as constitutional provisions which permit security forces to act in aid of civil power where required for national security. They are not “occupiers” in the areas under threat from terrorism, but they are “protectors.” The actual occupation that citizens face in border areas has been caused by fear, militancy, extortion, targeted killings and extremist intimidation. If any action taken to attack the security response is silent on the subject of “the terrorists” then it is lying.
PTM’s abroad activism serves to highlight the fundamental contradiction of its politics. The language of rights is often used on overseas platforms, with the selective use of “recycled” claims and emotionally driven slogans that are removed from the reality of development and rehabilitation. Such allegations of funding from foreign sources of overseas PTM-related protests, such as financial transfers that may have been made in the lead-up to such protests overseas, should be investigated transparently by competent authorities. These issues should not be taken lightly for foreign sponsorship of the domestic unrest is a grave national security threat. Meanwhile, there’s accountability, presence and courageous leadership to be shown. A representative of the Pashtun community should be subjected to legal political mechanisms, not be amplified by foreign voices and evade responsibility back home.
Perhaps the most damaging silence of the movement is its lack of action on terrorism coming from the Afghan soil. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s western border regions have been taking an enormous toll due to the sanctuaries, porous borders and weak governance in the country. The cross-border terrorism presents a threat to the safety of Pakistan’s people and their territory and Pakistan have an inherent right to defend them against it. There is a difference between intelligence-based operations and policies of the Pakistani government to protect Pashtun families, markets, schools and mosques from return of militant domination and anti-Pashtun policies. A viable rights movement would denounce both excess by the state and acts of terrorism. The selective outrage of PTM undermines their moral argument.
Most crucially, the story of PTM does not mention the investment post-conflict by the state in the combined tribal districts purposefully. The old system of FATA was abolished by the 25th Constitutional Amendment and millions of citizens were brought on the constitutional mainstream. There is still room for improvement and development, but schools, roads, markets, courts, policing and development frameworks are not abandoned, they are imperfect and incomplete. The challenge for Pakistan is to fast-track the reform process, put accountability mechanisms in place, and dispense justice without giving undue leverage to the groups of interests opposed to the State. The response for Pakistan should be the solidness of the law, solidarity and ongoing growth of all Pakistanis in all provinces, irrespective of their differences.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
