A common refrain from within the conservative commentariat during the TLP’s protests is that the country’s liberati do not call out the “anti-state” speeches of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) but elaborately point them out in case of the TLP.
Before one goes on to point out how this comparison is not apt, I would also mention here that in the case of the TLP, not all the conservative talking heads on TV (maybe not even a sizeable minority) were supporting them this time. They didn’t have an Ansar Abbasi the way the Taliban used to. Though TLP apologism was muted even during their gig at Faizabad last year, but this time round, it was nigh invisible. And for the establishmenty types within the conservative commentariat, the deal was pretty much sealed when the army chief was named specifically from the Labbaik stage.
Similarly, there are many socially liberal commentators who are not at all enamoured by the PTM. Many of the sleek english medium types on PTV World certainly don’t like them, nor do many of the dolled-up, beefed-up pretty-little-thing analysts on the second-tier channels, who are at least socially liberal.
Back to the original comparison. Liberal defence of the PTM centres around pointing out differences between the two movements. The TLP is downright violent, whereas the PTM is expressly non-violent. The speeches of Manzoor Pashteen, Ali Wazir and Mohsin Dawar are replete with this vows of non-violence. In fact, those within the PTM community organisers who also happen to be ANP members (much to the party’s chagrin) have a practice of observing how Ghaffar Khan-like Pashteen’s personal disposition is. Whether or not it is a reasonable likening, as a talking point, there is plenty of usage of the term “non-violence” in Pashteen’s speeches.
Some of the critics of the PTM, firmly ensconced in traditional semblances of patriotism, might take exception to their slogans against the country’s armed forces, but in the TLP’s case, they are incitements to violence. The former is allowed under free speech laws, the latter isn’t.
My contention, however, is that those differentiating the two movements should not start with the differences. Their argument should be that the two movements are not merely different, but completely opposed to each other. That they are on the exact different ends of a spectrum.
You see, the TLP’s principle argument centres around not accepting the court’s verdict, not even calling it a mistrial or contesting the specifics of the judgment, but simply notaccepting what the judiciary has to say.
On the other hand, it is specifically a respect for the judiciary and the judicial process that is driving the PTM. Due process and an adherence to the rule of law is what has been motivating the movement thus far. The PTM’s argument is not that the individuals apprehended by the law enforcement agencies, military and paramilitary forces should be released. It is that they should be tried in the court of law. They want more transparency in the process, rather than families not having a clue regarding the whereabouts of their loved ones.
One hears from certain quarters that it remains the PTM, not the TLP, that worries some within the security apparatus. And it should. Whereas leadership of the TLP would refuse any opportunity to debate the judgment with a legal expert on television, it would be difficult for even the most qualified of lawyers to debate the PTM on their basic demands.
