Between Victimhood and Vindication
Between Victimhood and Vindication: The PTM controversial stance on militants
Credibility and Selective Criticism
Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) purports to be the movement of the Pashtun people, aiming at getting justice and human rights. Nonetheless, it has a problem with its credibility. The PTM criticizes the state institutions, but it does not voice the violence committed by non-state actors or in this case Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Fidayeen-e-Afghan Khilafat (FAK). This silence creates great ethical questions. Between Victimhood and Vindication The unwillingness of the PTM to speak out against terrorism and violent extremism dismantles its sense to be the real representative of the Pashtun people. By not providing balanced advocacy, PTM runs danger to becoming an instrument of propaganda on one-sided stories, which tell against its moral authority.
Impact of Militancy and silence of PTM
The military outfits and associated militant outfit have wreaked havoc on the Pashtun region over a decade. These terrorists employ some terrorist activities such as suicide bomb attacks and assassination of elderly people of tribes and religious leaders. Entire families have been displaced, children orphaned, and generations traumatized. To this end, the PTM hardly criticizes the violence that has been caused by such militants. This silence cannot be given some excuse to be termed as political incompetence; it seems that it is a betrayal of the same people that PTM is pretending to represent. The PTM also loses the moral advantage by disregarding the brutality of the FAK undermining its activism. Real activism should afford uniformity. It is easy to direct all the blame on the state but blaming non state actors who may have a similar ethnicity or ideology requires one to have his guts. The fact that the PTM is unwilling to do this shows a lack of integrity.
Justice and True Representation Calling
PTM speaks out against mistakes done by governments whereas they remain silent on terrorist activities causing death and hardship to people. The group does nothing as schools get bombarded, the education of girls is curtailed and marketplaces devastated by improvised explosive devices. These are not individual cases but part of a long term terror campaign. However, the PTM has remained focused on what it describes as state excesses and never mentions violence by extremist organizations. The PTM enables such groups to act with impunity by not condemning the FAK. Such restrained-fire voids condemnation of the terrorists and undermines the credibility of the PTM.
Justice cannot be discriminated against. It is impossible to say that one defends human rights and disregards the crimes of those who arouse the same ideology or ethnicity, living on the territory of another state. This selective blindness does not only bring down the demands of PTM but also negates the plight of the Pashtun families injured by militancy violence. The same attention, equality and support should be given to the victims of militant groups as that given to another affected by the activities of the state. Refusing to admit to the fact that entities such as the FAK are terrorists and condemn state acts is not a matter of being balanced, it is regarded as a matter of betrayal. A real resistance movement should be capable of meeting any kind of violence, whether perpetrated with state sanctions or of an extremist nature.
The concentration of the PTM on the state grievances solely distorts the reality of the situation. Through characterizing the armed forces as the only enemy, the PTM is misinforming the people of Pakistan and the rest of the world. This distorted account undercuts the anti-extremism fight on a larger scale. It benefits those who benefit from division and unrest and not the cause of justice.
Then there is the following question: why does the PTM not speak about the FAK? Is it strategy, ideological nearness or fear? It does not matter on what account this is so, the fact remains that this silence of the PTM is only giving more strength to the very extremists that it is supposed to be protesting. The PTM unwillingly covers up these groups by fighting not to eliminate the terrorist threat. Not only is this a political malpractice but morally deplorable as well.
PTM credibility crisis is not in its ability to condemn the state but not condemn the violence of militants. The real justice, all the forces must be judged honestly which has contributed to the sufferings of the Pashtuns both state and other. The PTM cannot afford to say they fight to give people peace and honor and yet turn away from the violence of the extremist organizations. The PTM will continue its existence in the politics of victimhood or maudlin and the reality of victimization until it decides to oppose the FAK and other activities that may take place. They should not just fight injustice on a select basis. Unless the PTM has the boldness to challenge any instance of malpractice irrespective of the identity of the perpetrator, it would lose its moral propriety and credibility.
