“Nationalism at the expense of another nation is just as wicked as racism at the expense of another race. In other words, good patriots are not nationalists. A nationalist is a bad patriot.” — William Sloane Coffin, American clergyman and peace activist.
Nationalism is a geopolitical-cum-cultural phenomenon shared by people of the same ethnicity, language, norms, and religion. A nationalist is someone who upholds high moral values while critically analysing issues concerning any ethnic group to which they either belong or empathise with. Depending on geography and circumstances, various types of nationalism have emerged throughout history, such as ethno-nationalism, racial nationalism, diaspora nationalism, pan-nationalism, and religious nationalism. Pakistan itself was founded on religious nationalism when the All India Muslim League stood as the only political party committed to preserving the identity of Muslims in the northwestern parts of the subcontinent.
Though Pakistan emerged as a unique state in 1947, geographically distant yet ideologically bound by the teachings of Islam, its internal fragmentation began the same day. Urdu, which played a fundamental role in unifying Muslims after the 1867 Urdu-Hindi controversy, was declared the national language, igniting tensions that later escalated in 1952 and persisted until the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971. Similarly, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (then NWFP) witnessed movements led by Bacha Khan (founder of Khudai Khidmatgar) and Faqir of Ipi. The 1947 Bannu Resolution demanded a third choice from the British, but due to the resistance of tribal leaders like Faqir of Ipi, this proposal was rejected, forcing the region to choose between Pakistan and India.
After Pakistan’s independence, some revolts against the newly formed government arose under the banner of Pashtunistan. However, over time, local interest waned, and a sense of harmony with the Islamic state prevailed, eventually burying these campaigns. Due to its border with Afghanistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, including its merged districts, shares linguistic, cultural, and ethnic ties across the frontier. Consequently, any significant shift in Afghanistan’s political landscape directly impacts these border areas. Events such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, tribal conflicts, the rise of the Taliban, and the post-9/11 “Global War on Terror” significantly altered the situation in Pashtun-majority regions. Strategically, the tribal areas have historically served as gateways for empires such as the Mughals, British, and Germans. The 1980s Soviet expansion, countered by the U.S. through jihadist training in these regions, left a long-lasting gun culture among the local populace.
The only viable solution is to ensure their secure future by discouraging anti-state sentiments and fostering dialogue through mutual understanding. Leadership must engage in open debates with student societies and rights activists to rebuild trust
Historically, tribal people showed little interest in national affairs, with local chieftains (Malik) acting as intermediaries—a system inherited from British colonial rule. However, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan shifted the power dynamics, bringing religious clerics to prominence. Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Pakistan played pivotal roles in this transformation for religious, geopolitical, and security concerns, respectively. When Soviet forces retreated in 1989, leaving Afghanistan in turmoil, the Taliban eventually gained control. After 9/11, the conflict escalated, with military operations causing mass displacements and devastating consequences for tribal and urban areas alike. Local disputes further fueled militancy, with many joining insurgent groups to consolidate power.
This brings us to a crucial question: Why do anti-state sentiments persist among people who were once considered the unsalaried soldiers of the soil? The primary reason is the continued neglect and lack of governmental interest in addressing their concerns, such as economic alienation, resource rights, and the quest for peace and stability.
Political parties with nationalist agendas have failed to earn public trust, particularly during the militancy crisis. Unlike the U.S., where a bipartisan system allows voters to align with clear political goals, Pakistan has over 160 political parties, causing ideological fragmentation. This lack of unity has prevented Pashtun leaders from standing together, especially during military operations against insurgents. Many locals claim that these operations did not primarily target militants, leading to significant civilian casualties. While internal conflicts fueled by proxy interests are more insidious, external wars have defined boundaries where enemy military zones are explicitly targeted.
The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), led by Manzoor Ahmad Pashteen, recently claimed in a Jirga that over 80,000 locals, including religious scholars, elders, and teachers, were martyred during these operations—a figure denied by the government and institutions such as the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad. Resource rights and regional peace have been key electoral issues, most recently highlighted in a three-day gathering in District Khyber. This traditional Jirga, attended by political parties, social organisations, and student associations, presented 22 points on October 13, which gained national attention. The event broadened perspectives on nationalism, particularly among the youth, who increasingly resonate with nationalist ideologies.
The recent insurgency in southern zones has further raised concerns about national security. While some align with the government’s stance, others argue that official representatives do not truly reflect the local sentiment. The question remains: Why have people, once regarded as patriotic defenders of the land, turned against the state? The answer lies in the “actions of distraction.” While residents are kept in the dark, critical decisions are made by a select few. Despite intelligence-driven operations, militancy has not been eradicated. Social media has played a crucial role in raising awareness, urging youth to demand accountability from political leaders.
In conclusion, while the modern world prioritises technological advancement over warfare, our youth have been exploited for political gains. The only viable solution is to ensure their secure future by discouraging anti-state sentiments and fostering dialogue through mutual understanding. Leadership must engage in open debates with student societies and rights activists to rebuild trust. Moreover, those with grievances should be allowed to voice their concerns rather than being forcibly silenced, as suppression only breeds further resistance. As the philosopher Epictetus aptly stated, “We should live in harmony with nature and treat others with kindness, understanding that their actions often stem from ignorance rather than malice.”