PTM’s Geneva Drama
A small, self-exiled pressure group continues to pose as the voice of Pashtuns while remaining completely cut off from the people it purports to represent, as demonstrated by PTM’s most recent performance in Geneva. The events that took place in Switzerland were neither “advocacy” nor a sincere quest for human rights. Because PTM and its affiliates’ message is unpopular in Pakistan, it was a predictable recitation of the same anti-Pakistan rhetoric that they have made a career out of overseas. The Geneva stage gave them an uncontested platform to dramatize complaints, exaggerate their significance, and promote narratives that reflect foreign agendas rather than local realities, something local communities never have.
It’s hard to miss the irony. Representatives of the PTM can travel to Europe and give lectures to Pakistan on justice, rights, and governance, but they are unable to effectively operate in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Balochistan without facing rejection from the Pashtun community. Their activism is, at best, performative and, at worst, opportunistic due to their disconnection from the very communities they appeal to. They speak loudly both domestically and internationally, but where legitimacy is gained through service, credibility, and democratic competition, their silence is deafening.
Their Geneva spectacle only served to highlight what Pakistanis have known for years: PTM relies on outside attention because it is unable to gain internal trust
These activists favor European conference halls over Pakistani constituencies for a reason. They can pose as “international representatives” overseas, protected from the scrutiny of people who would raise the awkward questions that their whole story depends on. However, they would have to engage in political competition within Pakistan, which they appear unwilling and incapable of doing. The foreign stage provides them with a safe haven, a sanitized setting where their complaints can be dramatized without accountability and where applause is assured due to the audience’s preexisting sympathy for anti-Pakistan narratives rather than any truth or substance.
The most obvious inconsistency in PTM’s activism may be their steadfast refusal to denounce the TTP terrorists, who are based in Afghanistan and have caused the most suffering to Pashtuns. These militants have caused years of violence, displacement, extortion, and targeted killings for entire communities in KP and the tribal districts. However, despite claiming to support Pashtun rights, PTM is unable to confront this basic danger. Their selective outrage, which only targets Pakistani institutions while cautiously avoiding criticism of TTP networks based in Afghanistan, reveals an alignment that no statement or dossier could more accurately depict. In this instance, silence says a lot.
In the meantime, PTM’s obsession with providing foreign diplomats with “files,” “reports,” and carefully chosen anecdotes is unmatched by any assistance to the Pashtun areas they use as rhetorical fodder. Pakistan continues to invest in hospitals, universities, roads, and security infrastructure throughout the northwest through its national and provincial institutions. These are real advancements that have a noticeable effect on people’s lives. PTM, on the other hand, only adds to online agitation and foreign spectacle. Their activism garners support overseas but yields no results domestically.
They only provide political theater intended for external consumption; they do not provide a development agenda, a roadmap for governance, or institutional engagement
When PTM tries to claim the mantle of representing “millions of Pashtuns,” this becomes even more problematic. These claims are not only baseless, but they also minimize the actual political participation of the Pashtun community throughout Pakistan. The armed forces, civil services, judiciary, business community, and mainstream politics all have a strong Pashtun presence. They don’t need a foreign-leaning fringe pressure group to represent them. Therefore, PTM’s assertion of exclusive representation is not only irrational but also offensive to Pashtun citizens’ democratic agency, as they have long been actively involved in Pakistan’s institutional framework.
The group’s purported “international representation” is really just a group of activists using anti-Pakistan soundbites to gain attention. Because their activism starts with preconceived notions rather than solid research or sincere community involvement, it lacks intellectual integrity. Fundamentally, human rights work demands integrity, honesty, and moral consistency, all of which are lacking in a movement that deliberately ignores all other players in a complicated regional conflict while criticizing just one. Criticism stops being activism and turns into propaganda when it turns into biased support for “foreign attention.”
The more PTM and its affiliates rush overseas to disparage Pakistan, the more they expose their own agendas. Genuine political movements interact at home, form alliances, bargain with institutions, and look for answers through communication and governance. Instead, PTM cultivates audiences distant from Pashtun realities by seeking praise in foreign capitals.
Their obsession with making Pakistan look bad abroad is a sign of a motivation that has more to do with the agendas of those who stand to gain from weakening the Pakistani state than it does with justice or human rights
A straightforward fact is illustrated by PTM’s Geneva tour: when a movement is unsupported domestically, it looks for relevance overseas. However, international photo ops and selfies taken in UN buildings cannot create political credibility. Development, policymaking, institutional strengthening, and community leadership are used to address real issues impacting Pashtuns, such as economic difficulties and security. None of these is provided by PTM. Rather, it provides theatrics without responsibility, accusations without answers, and noise without substance.
PTM’s most recent international performance highlights its basic paradox: a group that purports to speak for Pashtuns in Pakistan while looking for approval everywhere but among Pashtuns. Politics ceases to be representation and transforms into a tool that serves agendas distant from the people it appeals to when it is based on foreign acclaim rather than domestic legitimacy.
