Manzoor Ahmad Pashteen, the leader of the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), called a Pashtun Jirga on October 11, causing concern among Pakistan’s Pashtun people and the wider political establishment. The Jirga’s aim and goal are unknown, although Pashteen’s words indicate that it will serve as a court to determine the destiny of Pashtuns in Pakistan. Given the historical significance of the Jirga system in Pashtun culture, this decision might have far-reaching consequences for Pashtun identity and the regional political environment.
Manzoor Pashteen’s Jirga arrives at a vital time, yet its success is far from certain. Pashtuns have always struggled to remain together, with internal divides worsened by political loyalties and external influences. Pashteen’s goal is to unite a split Pashtun populace, especially given the PTM’s status as a non-parliamentary movement. Established political parties such as the Awami National Party (ANP), Pashtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PKMAP), Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), National Democratic Movement (NDM), Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), and Qaumi Watan Party (QWP) may be hesitant to align with the PTM, a group that frequently opposes state policies and is considered a banned organisation.
Pashteen’s idea of the Jirga as a Pashtun court (“Pashtun Qaumi Adalat”) confuses matters even more. The Peshawar High Court (PHC) recently intervened, stopping the event owing to the contested nature of the land where it was to take place. Because the PTM is a prohibited group under Pakistani law, its operations have been legally limited. This legal pressure, along with political differences among the Pashtun population, throws doubt on the ability of Pashteen’s Jirga to achieve its declared goals.
The PTM confronts serious legal and political challenges. The Peshawar High Court’s stay order has already disturbed the proceedings in response to a petition challenging the constitutional legality of a “Pashtun Qaumi Adalat.” The petitioner said that because the tribal areas were integrated into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province by the 2018 constitutional change, any parallel judicial entity, such as a Pashtun court, would be unlawful. The petitioner also brought up the PTM’s banned status and the contested territory, aggravating the matter.
This legal context poses fundamental questions: Can a Jirga that operates outside of the state’s legal framework effectively fight for Pashtun rights? Will the PTM’s rejection of official authority alienate other Pashtun political figures or rally a dissatisfied population? These issues make the future of Pashteen’s Jirga questionable.
Amidst these hurdles, one possible result appears to be the development of a higher level of consciousness among Pashtuns. Even if the Jirga does not produce real political or legal results, it will undoubtedly spark debate in Pakistan and the wider Pashtun community. Pashteen has continuously emphasised the importance of Pashtuns charting their destiny, a concept that appeals to a part of the people dissatisfied with conventional politics. In this sense, the Jirga might be a symbolic act of resistance, reinforcing Pashtun complaints on a national and international scale, consequently increasing division in the already divided Pashtun community. The potential for increasing divisiveness must be considered. Pashtuns have always struggled with internal differences, and the Jirga’s contentious character might exacerbate these fractures.
