The Proscription of (PTM): A Significant Development

In a significant development, the federal government has officially proscribed the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The notification, issued by the Ministry of Interior on Sunday, cites concrete evidence to support the decision, attributing PTM’s involvement in activities that compromise the peace and security of the country.
The notification further alleges that PTM is propagating anti-national narratives and inciting anarchy, thus posing a threat to the nation’s peace and security. It is evident that the grievances expressed by PTM are not the sole concern. Rather, it is the organization’s narrative that may have played a significant role in prompting the government’s action.
PTM has been active for a number of years, indicating that it is not a newly emerged entity that has been swiftly proscribed. This suggests that the state has conveyed a message of “enough is enough.”
While this action could have been taken earlier, the government has exhibited restraint thus far.
In a democratic society, individuals possess the fundamental right to express grievances. However, a clear distinction exists between articulating demands to the state as a citizen and challenging or ridiculing the entire state narrative on various pretexts.
The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) has found itself entangled in the repercussions of its own narrative, as this outcome was foreseeable and seemingly inevitable.
As an ordinary citizen, I began to perceive that PTM was exceeding permissible boundaries. Over time, it became apparent that its narrative had evolved to become excessively confrontational towards the state.
The narrative of PTM on social media was troubling.
There are various ways to make a point or concede a demand in the state, despite the difficulties. The path of wisdom should not be abandoned.
However, when looking at the policies of PTM, it seems like their priorities were not aligned with the state. Their attitude on social media gives the impression that they don’t consider the state as their own, but rather as a rival.
Whenever there was an issue involving Pakistan, these people on social media seemed to take the opposite side, displaying a deplorable attitude towards the state.
How long will the government tolerate this? It was inevitable that the state would eventually take a tough decision, which it did.
PTM still has a legal route, but it should be understood that there is a difference between the government and the state. Criticizing the government and its policies is acceptable, but there should be a sense of loyalty and goodwill towards the state. Problems can only be solved through sagacity , whereas they increase with frustration, serving no one.