The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), which has increasingly evolved into a movement openly supportive of the Afghan Taliban, has once again sought to advance an ethnic narrative targeting one of Pakistan’s principal national institutions.
The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) emerged several years ago claiming to highlight the grievances of Pashtun communities affected by militancy and counterterrorism operations. At the time, the movement presented itself as a civil rights campaign focused on accountability and justice in conflict-affected areas.
Over time, however, PTM’s narrative and political posture have shifted in ways that increasingly raise questions about its direction. It has been hijacked by Afghan Diaspora in the western capital to advance Afghan Taliban narrative.
Dr. Said Alam Mehsud, among the founding leaders of PTM and someone who presents himself as an intellectual voice within the movement, recently in a video said that because a relatively larger number of officers and soldiers in the Pakistan Army belong to one province, the institution cannot genuinely be described as the “Pakistan Army.” The argument attempts to define a national institution through ethnic demographics rather than through its constitutional role, state affiliation, and national responsibilities.
The premise itself overlooks the way modern states and professional militaries function. Throughout the world, the identity of an armed force is not determined by the ethnicity, language or province of its personnel. Militaries derive their identity from the sovereign states they serve, the constitutions under which they operate, the national flags they salute, and the oaths taken by their officers and soldiers. Their legitimacy comes from constitutional authority and state sovereignty, not from the demographic composition of their ranks.
The Pakistan Army, therefore, is identified as the Pakistan Army because it serves the State of Pakistan, operates under the Constitution of Pakistan, follows the lawful command structure established by the state, and is entrusted with defending Pakistan’s territorial integrity and national interests. Its identity is national and institutional rather than ethnic.
If the logic presented by Dr. Mehsud were applied universally, it would fundamentally alter how military institutions are understood across the world. The armed forces of numerous countries would need to be renamed according to the largest ethnic groups represented within their populations or military ranks. Such a proposition finds no place in serious academic, historical, or military discourse because state institutions are understood to represent nations and sovereign states rather than individual ethnic communities.
Another significant weakness in the argument is the comparison drawn between the Pakistan Army and the British Indian Army. The historical contexts of the two institutions are entirely different. The British Indian Army was a colonial force serving the interests of the British Empire. It was described as “British” because ultimate authority, sovereignty, and command rested with the British Crown. Its loyalty was directed toward a colonial power headquartered in London.
Pakistan, by contrast, emerged as an independent and sovereign state through a legitimate political struggle that ended colonial rule in the region. The Pakistan Army was established to serve that sovereign state. Its officers and soldiers swear allegiance to Pakistan, its Constitution, and its constitutional order. Equating a national institution of an independent state with a colonial military structure disregards the fundamental distinction between colonial authority and sovereign statehood.
The discussion also overlooks the broader reality of Pakistan’s national identity. Pakistan is a federation comprising diverse ethnic, linguistic, and regional communities. Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Baloch, Kashmiris, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, and members of religious minority communities are all integral components of the Pakistani nation. This diversity is reflected across state institutions, including the armed forces.
For decades, personnel from different regions and backgrounds have served together under the same national flag. They have fought on the same battlefields, participated in humanitarian and disaster-relief operations, defended the country’s frontiers, and made sacrifices in the service of the nation. Pakistan’s military history is not the story of a single province, ethnicity, or language group. It is the story of collective national service and shared sacrifice undertaken by Pakistanis from every corner of the country.
This is why the institution cannot be reduced to an ethnic label. It is neither a Punjabi Army, nor a Pashtun Army, nor a Sindhi Army, nor a Baloch Army, nor a Kashmiri Army. It is the Pakistan Army because its allegiance, responsibilities, and institutional identity are tied to Pakistan itself.
The broader significance of this debate extends beyond a single statement. It reflects two competing ways of viewing state institutions: one through the prism of ethnicity and demographic identity, and the other through the framework of constitutional citizenship and national sovereignty. Modern states function on the latter principle. National institutions are designed to serve the state and its citizens collectively rather than any particular ethnic or regional constituency.
Pakistan’s strength, like that of any modern nation-state, lies in a shared national identity that transcends ethnic, linguistic, and provincial differences. Constitutional loyalty, collective responsibility, and common citizenship remain the foundations upon which national cohesion is built. Viewed through that lens, the identity of the Pakistan Army is neither ethnic nor provincial. It is defined by the state it serves, the Constitution it upholds, and the nation it is entrusted to defend.
