Ethno-nationalism has become the dominant language through which Pakhtuns articulate historical grievance, political marginalisation, and collective dignity. It has played a crucial role in challenging state-centric narratives that obscure borderland suffering, erase colonial violence, and normalise militarisation. By foregrounding history, language, and culture, ethno-nationalist discourse has restored a sense of collective visibility and moral claim. These contributions should not be underestimated.

Yet the political maturity of any ethno-national project is ultimately measured not only by its capacity to narrate injustice, but by its willingness to confront internal social realities. Where nationalism functions solely as a language of grievance—where it identifies oppression exclusively outside the community—it risks becoming analytically incomplete and politically stagnant. The central limitation of contemporary Pakhtun ethno-nationalism lies precisely here: its reluctance to address internal structures of power, conflict, and inequality that continue to shape everyday life.

This is not a call to abandon ethno-nationalism, but to deepen it. A nationalism that aspires to dignity must be capable of self-critique. Without an internal reform agenda, ethno-nationalism risks reproducing the very patterns of domination it seeks to resist.

A recurring feature of ethno-nationalist discourse is the assumption that Pakhtun society is internally coherent and morally intact. Social dysfunction, violence, instability, and underdevelopment are overwhelmingly attributed to external actors: colonial powers, the postcolonial state, or global imperial interests. While these forces have undoubtedly shaped the region’s vulnerability, this explanatory framework leaves insufficient room for examining how harm is reproduced internally.

In practice, many of the most persistent sources of insecurity are local and routine. Intra-family and intra-clan conflicts—particularly rivalries among cousins over land, inheritance, water access, or symbolic authority—are widespread. Disputes over minor issues frequently escalate into long-term feuds, producing cycles of retaliatory violence that endure across generations. These conflicts cannot be understood solely as reactions to state neglect or imperial interference. They are sustained by internal norms that normalise retaliation, reward........

© The Friday Times