The California Jirga on December 22, 2024, has reignited debates about the role of the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) in regional politics. While ostensibly framed as a gathering for Pashtun unity, the event has drawn scrutiny for its overt anti-Pakistan rhetoric and visible influence from Afghan diaspora members, many of whom were allegedly closely associated with the Ashraf Ghani regime before its fall in August 2021. The question arises: Has PTM become a platform for foreign agendas under the guise of ethnic advocacy?
Tracing the Origins of PTM and Evolution
The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement first gained prominence in January 2018, following the killing of Naqeebullah Mehsud, a young Pashtun in Karachi, in an extrajudicial police encounter. What began as a grassroots call for justice under the banner of the Mehsud Tahafuz Movement (MTM) quickly evolved into a broader platform seeking to highlight the grievances of Pashtuns, particularly those affected by the decades-long conflict in the erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).
By mid-2018, PTM had expanded its demands, calling for the de-mining of FATA, accountability for extrajudicial killings, and an end to enforced disappearances. However, the movement’s trajectory soon veered into rhetoric that echoed the long-dormant idea of “Pashtunistan,” with some leaders advocating for increased autonomy for Pashtun-majority areas. This rhetoric revived sensitivities surrounding a historical concept that has been a source of contention between Pakistan and Afghanistan since the mid-20th century. Many critics viewed these demands as indirectly fueling divisive narratives that could undermine Pakistan’s territorial integrity.
This shift coincided with Pakistan’s historic merger of FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) in May 2018—a constitutional move aimed at integrating the region politically and economically after decades of marginalization. The merger, however, faced resistance from both PTM and Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). PTM opposed the merger on the grounds of preserving Pashtun autonomy and local traditions, while TTP rejected it as a direct challenge to their dominance in the region.
Also See: PTM: Protection of Pashtuns or Sub-Nationalist Motives?
A Troubling Parallel: PTM and TTP
PTM’s increasingly controversial role becomes even murkier when viewed in the context of its alleged links with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The TTP, responsible for thousands of fatalities in Pakistan since its emergence in 2007, has long exploited ethnic and sectarian fault lines to fuel its terorrsim. PTM’s refusal to outright condemn TTP actions—combined with its occasional alignment with TTP narratives—raises questions about the movement’s long-term impact on regional stability.
Notably, in June 2018, TTP underwent a strategic shift under the leadership of Noor Wali Mehsud, who adopted elements of Pashtun nationalism into the group’s ideological framework. This marked a significant evolution in TTP’s narrative, as it began to co-opt ethnic grievances to legitimize its agenda and broaden its appeal among disenchanted Pashtun youth. By framing their militancy as a defense of Pashtun identity and autonomy, TTP sought to position itself as a protector of Pashtun rights, even as their actions perpetuated violence and instability in the region.
In 2020, tensions escalated when PTM leaders Mohsin Dawar and Ali Wazir, alongside their supporters, attacked an army checkpost in reaction to the apprehension of TTP abettors who were aiding the group in planting IEDs against security forces. This act not only highlighted PTM’s overt hostility towards state security forces but also underscored its troubling overlap with elements harboring extremist sympathies.
Moreover, also in 2020, PTM leader Mohsin Dawar was criticized for ambiguous statements regarding militant violence in North Waziristan, a region devastated by TTP activities. This ambiguity has been interpreted by some as tacit support, further alienating PTM from mainstream Pashtun voices who reject extremism.
Similarly, in 2022, during a National Assembly session, Mohsin Dawar condemned surgical strikes conducted by the armed forces against TTP, raising questions about PTM’s positioning on national security issues.
The movement’s rhetoric and actions further drew scrutiny when PTM leader Manzoor Pashteen visited the families of slain TTP terrorists, seemingly offering solidarity to individuals associated with militancy. This stance contrasted sharply with the sacrifices made by state forces to root out terrorism. For instance, the April 2019 Hayatabad operation—a grueling 17-hour effort against TTP militants holed up in a residential area—resulted in the martyrdom of one policeman and one commando.
The convergence of PTM’s rhetoric and TTP’s new ideological posture created a complex landscape, where ethnic grievances were weaponized by actors with vastly different objectives. PTM’s focus on a transnational Pashtun identity and its opposition to the FATA merger risked undermining efforts to integrate and develop the region. Meanwhile, TTP’s adoption of Pashtun nationalism under Noor Wali Mehsud blurred the lines between legitimate demands for Pashtun rights and the destructive agenda of militancy.
Also See: Bannu in Chaos: Is PTM, TTP’s Littlefinger?
India’s Role in PTM’s Evolution
The broader geopolitical backdrop reveals another critical actor: India. During Ashraf Ghani’s presidency, India enjoyed unprecedented influence in Afghanistan, investing over $3 billion in infrastructure, education, and development projects. However, its engagement wasn’t purely benevolent. India’s intelligence agencies, particularly RAW, leveraged their Afghan presence to support anti-Pakistan elements, including the TTP and sub-nationalist movements like PTM.
The PTM’s rise coincided with the height of the Ghani-Saleh-Doval nexus, a triad of strategic collaboration between Afghanistan, India, and exiled anti-Pakistan factions. The period from 2015 to 2021 saw an uptick in anti-Pakistan narratives emerging from Kabul, with PTM leaders frequently lauding Afghan authorities while criticizing Islamabad. The emergence of PTM Afghanistan during this period—though short-lived—underscored the transnational dimensions of the movement.
The Afghan Nexus: A Post-2021 Reality
Fast forward to 2021, the fall of the Ghani government in Afghanistan triggered a mass exodus of its political and bureaucratic elite. Many of these individuals resettled in the United States, Europe, and other Western countries, where they found common cause with PTM’s diaspora wing. This alignment has raised serious concerns. Afghan diaspora members—many of whom are beneficiaries of asylum or refugee programs—have used platforms like PTM and initiatives like California Jirga to channel their anti-Pakistan grievances. These grievances stem not only from Pakistan’s alleged role in facilitating the Taliban’s resurgence but also from a broader narrative of historical blame.
The California Jirga exemplifies this shift. What could have been a forum for addressing genuine Pashtun issues instead became a rallying point for anti-Pakistan propaganda. Notably, Afghan participants, many with ties to the defunct Ghani regime, appear to dominate the event. Their speeches, often delivered in Pashto, leveraged Pashtun cultural symbols to mask their true intent—demonizing Pakistan on an international stage.
Diaspora Dynamics, Misplaced Advocacy, and California Jirga
The Afghan diaspora’s disproportionate influence over PTM is particularly concerning. In protests across Europe and North America, Afghan participants have often outnumbered Pakistani Pashtuns. In Germany, for instance, PTM-aligned demonstrators desecrated the Pakistani flag in 2022, a symbolic act that alienated the movement further from its purported grassroots base.
Unemployed and politically marginalized Afghan immigrants have found in PTM a convenient platform to air grievances against Pakistan, often for financial or social gain. This dynamic not only undermines PTM’s credibility but also risks turning it into a destabilizing force for both Pakistan and Afghanistan. By aligning with the Afghan diaspora, PTM inadvertently fuels narratives that strain Pak-Afghan bilateral relations, making it harder for Kabul and Islamabad to find common ground on issues like border management and counter-terrorism.
Towards a Constructive Path
The PTM’s transformation from a movement advocating for Pashtun rights to a tool for foreign propaganda highlights the challenges of navigating ethnic and geopolitical complexities. The Pashtun community, which bore the brunt of the War on Terror, deserves genuine representation and redressal of grievances. However, aligning with foreign entities—especially those with anti-Pakistan agendas—through initiatives like California Jirga distracts from these goals and risks further destabilizing an already fragile region.
To regain credibility, PTM must distance itself from Afghan exiles and adopt a constructive approach to dialogue with the Pakistani state. For Islamabad, addressing the underlying grievances of Pashtun communities—through development, political inclusion, and economic integration—remains critical. Ignoring these issues risks leaving space for movements like PTM to be co-opted by external actors with destabilizing agendas.
The California Jirga serves as a cautionary tale: when ethnic advocacy becomes a pawn in the hands of foreign interests, it loses its legitimacy and risks becoming a liability for the very people it claims to represent.
SAT Commentaries’ are social media threads by various authors, reproduced here for website use. Views are their own.
PTM and the California Jirga: Advocacy or Agenda?
The California Jirga on December 22, 2024, has reignited debates about the role of the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) in regional politics. While ostensibly framed as a gathering for Pashtun unity, the event has drawn scrutiny for its overt anti-Pakistan rhetoric and visible influence from Afghan diaspora members, many of whom were allegedly closely associated with the Ashraf Ghani regime before its fall in August 2021. The question arises: Has PTM become a platform for foreign agendas under the guise of ethnic advocacy?
Tracing the Origins of PTM and Evolution
The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement first gained prominence in January 2018, following the killing of Naqeebullah Mehsud, a young Pashtun in Karachi, in an extrajudicial police encounter. What began as a grassroots call for justice under the banner of the Mehsud Tahafuz Movement (MTM) quickly evolved into a broader platform seeking to highlight the grievances of Pashtuns, particularly those affected by the decades-long conflict in the erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).
By mid-2018, PTM had expanded its demands, calling for the de-mining of FATA, accountability for extrajudicial killings, and an end to enforced disappearances. However, the movement’s trajectory soon veered into rhetoric that echoed the long-dormant idea of “Pashtunistan,” with some leaders advocating for increased autonomy for Pashtun-majority areas. This rhetoric revived sensitivities surrounding a historical concept that has been a source of contention between Pakistan and Afghanistan since the mid-20th century. Many critics viewed these demands as indirectly fueling divisive narratives that could undermine Pakistan’s territorial integrity.
This shift coincided with Pakistan’s historic merger of FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) in May 2018—a constitutional move aimed at integrating the region politically and economically after decades of marginalization. The merger, however, faced resistance from both PTM and Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). PTM opposed the merger on the grounds of preserving Pashtun autonomy and local traditions, while TTP rejected it as a direct challenge to their dominance in the region.
Also See: PTM: Protection of Pashtuns or Sub-Nationalist Motives?
A Troubling Parallel: PTM and TTP
PTM’s increasingly controversial role becomes even murkier when viewed in the context of its alleged links with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The TTP, responsible for thousands of fatalities in Pakistan since its emergence in 2007, has long exploited ethnic and sectarian fault lines to fuel its terorrsim. PTM’s refusal to outright condemn TTP actions—combined with its occasional alignment with TTP narratives—raises questions about the movement’s long-term impact on regional stability.
Notably, in June 2018, TTP underwent a strategic shift under the leadership of Noor Wali Mehsud, who adopted elements of Pashtun nationalism into the group’s ideological framework. This marked a significant evolution in TTP’s narrative, as it began to co-opt ethnic grievances to legitimize its agenda and broaden its appeal among disenchanted Pashtun youth. By framing their militancy as a defense of Pashtun identity and autonomy, TTP sought to position itself as a protector of Pashtun rights, even as their actions perpetuated violence and instability in the region.
In 2020, tensions escalated when PTM leaders Mohsin Dawar and Ali Wazir, alongside their supporters, attacked an army checkpost in reaction to the apprehension of TTP abettors who were aiding the group in planting IEDs against security forces. This act not only highlighted PTM’s overt hostility towards state security forces but also underscored its troubling overlap with elements harboring extremist sympathies.
Moreover, also in 2020, PTM leader Mohsin Dawar was criticized for ambiguous statements regarding militant violence in North Waziristan, a region devastated by TTP activities. This ambiguity has been interpreted by some as tacit support, further alienating PTM from mainstream Pashtun voices who reject extremism.
Similarly, in 2022, during a National Assembly session, Mohsin Dawar condemned surgical strikes conducted by the armed forces against TTP, raising questions about PTM’s positioning on national security issues.
The movement’s rhetoric and actions further drew scrutiny when PTM leader Manzoor Pashteen visited the families of slain TTP terrorists, seemingly offering solidarity to individuals associated with militancy. This stance contrasted sharply with the sacrifices made by state forces to root out terrorism. For instance, the April 2019 Hayatabad operation—a grueling 17-hour effort against TTP militants holed up in a residential area—resulted in the martyrdom of one policeman and one commando.
The convergence of PTM’s rhetoric and TTP’s new ideological posture created a complex landscape, where ethnic grievances were weaponized by actors with vastly different objectives. PTM’s focus on a transnational Pashtun identity and its opposition to the FATA merger risked undermining efforts to integrate and develop the region. Meanwhile, TTP’s adoption of Pashtun nationalism under Noor Wali Mehsud blurred the lines between legitimate demands for Pashtun rights and the destructive agenda of militancy.
Also See: Bannu in Chaos: Is PTM, TTP’s Littlefinger?
India’s Role in PTM’s Evolution
The broader geopolitical backdrop reveals another critical actor: India. During Ashraf Ghani’s presidency, India enjoyed unprecedented influence in Afghanistan, investing over $3 billion in infrastructure, education, and development projects. However, its engagement wasn’t purely benevolent. India’s intelligence agencies, particularly RAW, leveraged their Afghan presence to support anti-Pakistan elements, including the TTP and sub-nationalist movements like PTM.
The PTM’s rise coincided with the height of the Ghani-Saleh-Doval nexus, a triad of strategic collaboration between Afghanistan, India, and exiled anti-Pakistan factions. The period from 2015 to 2021 saw an uptick in anti-Pakistan narratives emerging from Kabul, with PTM leaders frequently lauding Afghan authorities while criticizing Islamabad. The emergence of PTM Afghanistan during this period—though short-lived—underscored the transnational dimensions of the movement.
The Afghan Nexus: A Post-2021 Reality
Fast forward to 2021, the fall of the Ghani government in Afghanistan triggered a mass exodus of its political and bureaucratic elite. Many of these individuals resettled in the United States, Europe, and other Western countries, where they found common cause with PTM’s diaspora wing. This alignment has raised serious concerns. Afghan diaspora members—many of whom are beneficiaries of asylum or refugee programs—have used platforms like PTM and initiatives like California Jirga to channel their anti-Pakistan grievances. These grievances stem not only from Pakistan’s alleged role in facilitating the Taliban’s resurgence but also from a broader narrative of historical blame.
The California Jirga exemplifies this shift. What could have been a forum for addressing genuine Pashtun issues instead became a rallying point for anti-Pakistan propaganda. Notably, Afghan participants, many with ties to the defunct Ghani regime, appear to dominate the event. Their speeches, often delivered in Pashto, leveraged Pashtun cultural symbols to mask their true intent—demonizing Pakistan on an international stage.
Diaspora Dynamics, Misplaced Advocacy, and California Jirga
The Afghan diaspora’s disproportionate influence over PTM is particularly concerning. In protests across Europe and North America, Afghan participants have often outnumbered Pakistani Pashtuns. In Germany, for instance, PTM-aligned demonstrators desecrated the Pakistani flag in 2022, a symbolic act that alienated the movement further from its purported grassroots base.
Unemployed and politically marginalized Afghan immigrants have found in PTM a convenient platform to air grievances against Pakistan, often for financial or social gain. This dynamic not only undermines PTM’s credibility but also risks turning it into a destabilizing force for both Pakistan and Afghanistan. By aligning with the Afghan diaspora, PTM inadvertently fuels narratives that strain Pak-Afghan bilateral relations, making it harder for Kabul and Islamabad to find common ground on issues like border management and counter-terrorism.
Towards a Constructive Path
The PTM’s transformation from a movement advocating for Pashtun rights to a tool for foreign propaganda highlights the challenges of navigating ethnic and geopolitical complexities. The Pashtun community, which bore the brunt of the War on Terror, deserves genuine representation and redressal of grievances. However, aligning with foreign entities—especially those with anti-Pakistan agendas—through initiatives like California Jirga distracts from these goals and risks further destabilizing an already fragile region.
To regain credibility, PTM must distance itself from Afghan exiles and adopt a constructive approach to dialogue with the Pakistani state. For Islamabad, addressing the underlying grievances of Pashtun communities—through development, political inclusion, and economic integration—remains critical. Ignoring these issues risks leaving space for movements like PTM to be co-opted by external actors with destabilizing agendas.
The California Jirga serves as a cautionary tale: when ethnic advocacy becomes a pawn in the hands of foreign interests, it loses its legitimacy and risks becoming a liability for the very people it claims to represent.
SAT Commentaries’ are social media threads by various authors, reproduced here for website use. Views are their own.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
When Insurgents Rule: The Taliban’s Crisis of Governance
The Taliban’s confrontation with Pakistan reveals a deeper failure at the heart of their rule: an insurgent movement incapable of governing the state it conquered. Bound by rigid ideology and fractured by internal rivalries, the Taliban have turned their military victory into a political and economic collapse, exposing the limits of ruling through insurgent logic.
The Great Unknotting: America’s Tech Break with China, and the Return of the American System
As the U.S. unwinds decades of technological interdependence with China, a new industrial and strategic order is emerging. Through selective decoupling, focused on chips, AI, and critical supply chains, Washington aims to restore domestic manufacturing, secure data sovereignty, and revive the Hamiltonian vision of national self-reliance. This is not isolationism but a recalibration of globalization on America’s terms.
Inside the Istanbul Talks: How Taliban Factionalism Killed a Peace Deal
The collapse of the Turkiye-hosted talks to address the TTP threat was not a diplomatic failure but a calculated act of sabotage from within the Taliban regime. Deep factional divides—between Kandahar, Kabul, and Khost blocs—turned mediation into chaos, as Kabul’s power players sought to use the TTP issue as leverage for U.S. re-engagement and financial relief. The episode exposed a regime too fractured and self-interested to act against terrorism or uphold sovereignty.
The Indo-Afghan Arc: Rewriting Pakistan’s Strategic Geography
The deepening India-Afghanistan engagement marks a new strategic era in South Asia. Beneath the façade of humanitarian cooperation lies a calculated effort to constrict Pakistan’s strategic space, from intelligence leverage and soft power projection to potential encirclement on both eastern and western fronts. Drawing from the insights of Iqbal and Khushhal Khan Khattak, this analysis argues that Pakistan must reclaim its strategic selfhood, strengthen regional diplomacy, and transform its western border from a vulnerability into a vision of regional connectivity and stability.
Legitimacy, Agency, and the Illusion of Mediation
The recent talks in Turkey, attended by Afghan representatives, exposed the delicate politics of legitimacy and agency in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. By rejecting the Taliban’s proposal to include the TTP, Pakistan safeguarded its sovereignty and avoided legitimizing a militant group as a political actor, preserving its authority and strategic narrative.