Ban hammer

Published October 8, 2024

THE decision to ban the PTM under the Anti-Terrorism Act is yet another ill-advised move by the state. Although the government has said the movement poses a threat to national security, many see the decision as an attempt to suppress dissent. History has shown that such heavy-handed moves fail to achieve their desired goals. Rather than quelling unrest, they often exacerbate tensions, pushing marginalised groups further away from the state. If the government has concrete allegations against the PTM or any individuals associated with it, there should be transparent legal proceedings against the suspected lawbreakers. Proscribing the group will only alienate the community that supports it. The fact that two PTM-associated members were elected to parliament without the PTM label is a telling example of how the movement cannot be diminished through repressive actions. It is not the PTM name that resonates with the people, but the issues the movement has highlighted. Targeting it in such a manner will only exacerbate the anger and sense of marginalisation felt by its supporters. In fact, this move could push more people into the arms of radical elements who thrive on state-induced resentment.

Moreover, conflating a rights-based movement with violent terrorist groups is counterproductive. The state must realise that these actions, far from restoring order, will only result in more tension. Over the years, the Pakhtun population has voiced concerns about neglect and discrimination, alleged state violence and enforced disappearances. The PTM served as one avenue through which these grievances were being articulated. By banning it, the government is silencing voices that operated within the constitutional framework. This is not only unjust, it is short-sighted. Instead of bans and violent crackdowns — as was witnessed recently with the dismantling of a protest camp in Khyber — the government should be focusing on addressing the root causes of discontent. The issues of missing persons, alleged state violence, and the lack of political representation need to be resolved through dialogue and reforms. In the same vein, the PTM must hear out state institutions’ objections about the way it conducts its politics. Delegitimising a group through bans has never been a solution, and it never will be. If the state genuinely seeks peace and stability, it must listen to the concerns of the people, rather than stifle their voices.

Published in Dawn, October 8th, 2024

Opinion

Editorial

Token austerity
Updated 11 Mar, 2026

Token austerity

The ‘austerity’ measures are a ritualistic response to public anger rather than a sincere attempt to reform state spending.
Lebanon on fire
11 Mar, 2026

Lebanon on fire

WHILE the entire Gulf region has become an active warzone, repercussions of this conflict have spread to the...
Canine crisis
11 Mar, 2026

Canine crisis

KARACHI’S stray dog crisis requires urgent attention. Feral canines can cause serious and lasting physical and...
Iran’s new leader
Updated 10 Mar, 2026

Iran’s new leader

The position is the most powerful in Iran, bringing together clerical authority and political and ideological leadership.
National priorities
10 Mar, 2026

National priorities

EVEN as the country faces heightened risks of attacks from actual terrorists, an anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi...
Silenced march
10 Mar, 2026

Silenced march

ON the eve of International Women’s Day, Islamabad Police detained dozens of Aurat March activists who had ...