The federal government’s decision to rescind the ban on the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) is a welcome step, though it must be seen through a lens of caution. The demands raised by the PTM, whether related to security, rights, or the socio-economic well-being of the people in conflict-ridden areas, are legitimate concerns that deserve to be addressed. However, while the grievances they highlight are valid, the methods and agenda of the PTM itself remain questionable.

Banning movements that bring genuine concerns to light risks deepening the divide between the state and the people, pushing those who feel unheard further toward militancy. History has shown, especially in regions like Balochistan, that such approaches breed extremism and make it increasingly difficult to distinguish between legitimate voices of dissent and those engaging in violence. In this context, the government’s decision to backtrack from a total ban on the PTM is commendable. It indicates a willingness to address the concerns of the people and gives them a legal avenue to channel their frustrations rather than forcing them underground.

Nonetheless, the government must carefully manage the PTM’s role, particularly in sensitive times and areas. There will be moments when the agency of such movements should be limited, depending on the volatility of the situation. But this must be done through dialogue and engagement, not suppression.

In the long run, a conciliatory approach will ensure that groups like PTM do not evolve into militant factions. By keeping the conversation open, the state can differentiate between those with legitimate concerns and those seeking to destabilise the region. The key to long-term peace lies in engagement, not alienation.