A Response to PTM’s Texas Jirga Rhetoric

A Response to PTM’s Texas Jirga Rhetoric

In October 2025, Manzoor Pashteen, leader of Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), gave a speech at the so-called “Texas Jirga” in San Antonio, Texas. With Afghanistan’s tricolor, blending ethnic grievances with accusations against Pakistani institutions, he walked a fine line between agitation and advocacy.
While claiming to fight in the name of the Pashtuns, his message was packed with more profound meaning and a challenge to Pakistan’s sovereignty and an attempt to internationalize its domestic issues. However, upon closer examination of his arguments, the contradictions and intentions of his rhetoric become evident.

Ethnic Framing and National Reality

Pashteen’s claim that instability in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) is the consequence of “orders from Punjab” harms his basic understanding of the geographical realities that make KP prone to terrorism. The province is surrounded by restive Afghanistan and, therefore, the front-line region in Pakistan’s battle against militancy. In Pakistan alone, there were an average of 450 terrorist incidents in the year 2025, 162 of which occurred in KP. Therefore, clearly indicating a geography, not ethnicity.
By reflecting ethnic victimhood, this reality is distorted by PTM, turning a national security challenge into an ethnic grievance. It does not take into consideration the fact that Pashtuns are part of Pakistan’s defense forces and political leadership. Although the cost of terrorism is framed as a Punjabi-Pashtun conflict, PTM divides the nation who have paid the price for peace together.

The Cross-Border Narrative and the analytics of the “Durand Line”

Pashteen’s call to Pashtun unity “across the Durand Line” is indicative of PTM’s political agenda. Afghanistan’s borders allow a range of ethnicities to run through it like Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Turkmen, but he only used the Pashtun identity to challenge the sovereignty of Pakistan.
This transnational solidarity obsession is not only contrary to the territorial integrity of Pakistan, but it is also the repetition of foreign narratives. Forcing foreign agendas rather than bolstering local communities’ autonomy, ‘Greater Pashtunistan’ has been a foreign idea from the outset. Indeed, PTM’s failure to condemn transboundary attacks based on shared ethnicity works directly to the advantage of those who profit from regional instability. Education and inclusion are the path to progress, not separatism.

Texas Jirga and the Pashtun National Jirga 2024

The Texas Jirga’s defense of the 2024 “Pashtun National Jirga” was framed as the extension of a rights movement. In fact, its 24-point document is a parallel constitution of governance which runs against the Constitution of Pakistan. Chants of demolishing the border fence, setting up “a united province” and “independent Jirga courts” are a direct attack on the sovereignty of the nation.
Speaking in the name of a foreign power only enhanced the perception that PTM was playing on foreign strings. Most of the participants were non-Pakistanis, including some Afghan nationals, so this was not a grassroots Pashtun meeting but the forum for anti-Pakistan propaganda.

Pashteen’s accusation that Pakistan’s military is a “maker of terrorism” is an insult to decades of sacrifice. As the Taliban conquered Afghanistan, militant groups including TTP sought refuge across the border and targeted civilians in Pakistan. Pakistan’s attacks were not offensive but defensive responses to prior attacks. Expecting the State to protect its citizens while allowing terrorists to go unpunished is political opportunism.

Over 94,000 Pakistanis (civilians and soldiers) have lost their lives to the war against extremism. The silent behavior of PTM in the face of Afghan and Indian sponsored terrorism, while it attacks the Pakistani soldiers, is indicative of double standards.

Appointment of Remote Delegates and Suspect Representation

A movement that claimed to represent Pakistani Pashtuns decided to rally under the Afghanistan flag and be hosted by individuals totally detached from the realities of Pakistan. When the Texas Jirga called for “international mediation” in the affairs of Pakistan, it made clear its desire to internationalize domestic affairs and open the door to foreign intervention.
No state can allow other actors to mediate its internal politics. By parroting the poisoned talking points of antagonistic capitals, PTM destroys the diplomatic position of Pakistan and smears the sacrifices of its defenders of unity.

PTM’s Silence on Militancy

While PTM condemns counterterror operations, it is quiet about the atrocities of TTP. The same militants who are blowing up schools and mosques in KP are hardly represented in PTM’s speech.
By not denouncing terrorism, PTM sacrifices its moral legitimacy. Truly the supporters of Pashtun rights would speak against government oppression and against terrorist brutality. PTM’s selective pity, mourning when the state does but ignoring terrorist violence, is an indication of its political positioning.

Pakistan’s Pashtuns, A Process of Integration

Contrary to the narrative given by PTM, Pashtuns are well integrated with the national fabric of Pakistan. They have been provincial heads, generals of the armed forces, businessmen, sportsmen and government officials. The 18th and 25th Amendments to the Constitution guaranteed resource control and local government to all provinces.

The real Pashtun strength lies in unity, service, and sacrifice but not in foreign-funded narratives that seek to divide Pakistan along ethnic lines.

From Jirga to Propaganda

The Texas Jirga was not a rights thing so much as it was a relevancy thing. Its tone, language and symbolism indicated hostile propaganda in which Pakistan is singled out without mentioning the background of transnational terrorism. In fact, Pakistan’s struggle against militancy is internal, but PTM’s rhetoric, which is geared towards foreign audiences, tends to distort the reality.
Pakistan’s enemy is not Pashtuns, it’s terrorism. PTM’s effort to conflate the two undermines the sense of unity in the country and emboldens third parties that have an interest in division.

Unity Over Division

Pakistan is a country with diversity, which is its strength. Pashtuns, Punjabis, Sindhis and Baloch not only have a common homeland, but a common future too. The democratic process is still evolving the institutions of the state by protecting the rights of minorities. For democracy, such things as critical debate are helpful, foreign-influenced provocation is harmful.
PTM will have to choose whether it wants to reform itself through dialogue or remain a tool for divisive agendas. The key to the future is to be united, not a victim.
Manzoor Pashteen’s speech at the Texas Jirga, delivered on a foreign stage under a foreign flag, was not for human rights but more for political point scoring. Even his claims disrespected Pakistan’s sacrifices, distorted its security realities and sought to rip apart its social fabric.
The true Pashtun fighters are not the ones waving a foreign flag but the ones rebuilding the schools in Waziristan, the ones serving in the armed forces and the ones guarding the border against the militants who attack their own. Though PTM’s divisive narrative may appeal to people elsewhere, to Pakistanis the Pashtun spirit remains strong, resilient, and solidly united with the cause of the nation.