The PTM has seemingly succeeded in organizing the Grand Jirga despite numerous challenges. To mitigate the impact of previous setbacks, the provincial chief executive was tasked with overseeing the event, while the federal government lifted its ban on the PTM. Previously, the federal authorities had prohibited the Pashtun Protection Movement and classified it as a banned organization. A notification from the Home Ministry issued last Sunday stated that the PTM was banned due to its alleged involvement in activities that threaten national security.

Within the context of our diverse national identity, the Pashtuns represent an ethnic group that has played a significant role in the intricate geopolitical landscape of South Asia over the last seventy-five years, residing on both sides of the Durand Line along the Pak-Afghan border.

The armed movement for an independent Pashtunistan, led by Mirza Ali, also known as Faqir Ipi, emerged in British India from 1936 to 1947, challenging the Afghan king Zahir Shah. This movement faced opposition from the prominent Pashtun leader Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who criticized it as a British proxy. Interestingly, during the final years of his life (1944-1950), Faqir Ipi sought to restore the former Afghan king, Amanullah Ghazi, paralleling contemporary hopes within the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) for the return of Ashraf Ghani.

The book “Saint Warrior” by former Home Secretary Syed Mazhar Ali Shah, which chronicles Faqir Ipi’s struggle, has been banned by the provincial government and is considered a significant historical document. Following the partition of India in August 1947, the Cold War dynamics led to tragic events in which police, under the orders of NWFP Chief Minister Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, killed activists of Bacha Khan’s movement in Babrra Ground, Charsadda. This massacre disillusioned Bacha Khan with national politics, prompting him to advocate for Pashtun “rights” akin to Faqir Ipi’s vision for an independent state. Subsequently, the Awami National Party sought to incite resistance through ethnic nationalism, raising Afghan flags for an independent Pashtunistan at the behest of Afghan authorities and promoting the slogan “Afghans on both sides of the border.” Juma Khan Sufi’s influential work, “Fareeb Natamam,” provides a comprehensive account of this historical narrative.

Following the Soviet Union’s military intervention in Kabul in 1979, amid the tensions between the two dominant global powers, U.S. authorities sought to suppress ethnic movements by fostering a jihadi culture along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. After the Soviet withdrawal from Kabul in 1988, Afghan society faced significant displacement and endured seven years of civil war. Ultimately, in 1995, the Afghan Taliban emerged from this turmoil, establishing a stringent religious regime in Afghanistan. Afghan Taliban restored the order but  positioned Kabul as a hub for global jihadi movements like Al-Qaeda, they also initiated terrorist activities worldwide, including in the Middle East. Consequently, following the events of September 11, the United States justified the deployment of NATO forces in Kabul to combat the Taliban, creating widespread anxiety throughout South Asia.

In 2003, following a prolonged period of silence lasting three years, jihadist groups initiated armed resistance against NATO forces, ultimately regaining control of Afghanistan after a two-decade-long guerrilla conflict. During this period TTP emerged in Pakistan’s tribal areas and started activities against state and its institutions. These activities not only led to the destruction of administrative structures and infrastructure in Pakhtunkhwa but also resulted in the disintegration of a once-cohesive tribal culture. The violence that ensued claimed the lives of numerous tribal elders, who had previously been regarded as the embodiment of the tribal culture, which had been governed by FCR laws for many years.

Meanwhile, prior to the American withdrawal from Kabul, the state sought to meet the expectations of global powers by integrating the tribal agencies in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, thereby exempting them from collective responsibility laws. This move aimed to incorporate the tribes into the broader national framework while maintaining a semblance of psychological cohesion.

In 2013, following President Obama’s principled decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan, the Islamic Emirate of the Taliban established an office in Doha, Qatar. Concurrently, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) emerged in 2014, positioning itself as a defender of the rights of ethnic Pashtuns, a consequence of the prolonged American military engagement. After the U.S. withdrawal from Kabul in August 2021, the TTP, composed of armed tribal youth, initiated a series of violent campaigns across Pakistan. These attacks have primarily targeted police and security personnel, as well as the nation’s administrative structures and infrastructure, severely impacting the region’s rich cultural heritage and causing lasting damage.

To address the challenges posed by the TTP, our government mobilized public sentiment by initiating extensive military operations in the tribal regions adjacent to the western border, as well as in the administrative districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. This approach involved the forced displacement of residents and the restriction of fundamental freedoms at military checkpoints. Concurrently, movements such as the PTM have emerged, driven by accusations of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings targeting rights activists and ethnic leaders. These movements have increasingly criticized the military’s enduring presence within civilian communities. Over time, the PTM has evolved into a significant regional political entity, challenging not only traditional Pashtun nationalist parties but also marginalizing religious groups like JUI from the political landscape of the tribal areas.

The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), an unconventional organization, has significantly altered the dynamics of tribal society by mobilizing thousands for large-scale resistance rallies at its peak, advocating for enhanced state protection. This non-political movement, influenced by the actions of state institutions, is increasingly raising the flags of Afghanistan and promoting the message of “Afghans on both sides of the border.” Such developments, alongside the evolving geographical landscape of the region, may ultimately challenge the Taliban’s grip on power in Afghanistan and contribute to the decline of religious authoritarianism.

Emerging from the southeast, the PTM is well-coordinated with the armed national resistance led by figures such as Ahmad Shah Masood, Amr Saleh, and Ashraf Ghani from the north, all rallying under the Afghan flag. This movement also resonates with the historical aspirations of Bacha Khan for an independent Pashtunistan.

There is no question that during the Cold War, our leaders in the colonial capital suppressed political parties with communist ideologies while fostering religious politics and a culture of jihad. However, in today’s rapidly evolving global landscape, Western powers appear to be constraining the political influence of religious parties and encouraging ethnic movements.

It seems that these global powers are seeking to expand opportunities for Pashtun and Baloch ethnic groups, as well as secular parties, particularly in South Asia, amid this recent shift in paradigms. When we examine the PTM movement within a historical framework, it appears that our authorities, under the influence of global powers, are also promoting the PTM using similar strategies to facilitate the establishment of a more inclusive national government in Afghanistan. This approach seems to be part of a broader plan to entrap the Taliban government, reminiscent of how the British government ensnared the Zahir Shah government in Afghanistan to bolster the Faqir-Ipi movement.

Numerous organizations funded by international bodies, such as the Human Rights Commission, have remained conspicuously silent regarding the genocide of countless innocent children, women, and civilians in Gaza, Syria, Iraq, and Libya. In contrast, they have advocated the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM). In response to the government’s decision, they criticized the ban on a “rights-based movement” that has consistently adhered to non-violence and operated within the constitutional framework to promote its objectives, describing the action as lacking transparency.

Furthermore, it is important to note that since World War II, the United States has often utilized human rights organizations as instruments to intervene in the domestic matters of vulnerable nations globally.