IT seems that we are well on our way to becoming a ‘hard state’, viewing most challenges through a security-dominated paradigm.

Only time will tell how effective this approach will be. Meanwhile, in the current situation, political parties appear to be losing the capacity to view critical national issues through a political prism. This was evident in the recent discussion on Balochistan in both the National Assembly and the Senate.

In this context, the parliamentary debate on Balochistan revealed rare unanimity, but also the absence of introspection. Across party lines in both the National Assembly and the Senate, lawmakers converged on two broad premises: first, that the grievances of the Baloch must be addressed, without specifying what those grievances are, and second, that terrorism cannot be defeated through condemnations alone. However, from a security-centric outlook, this consensus was rhetorical. The debate ultimately stopped short of engaging with the deeper political and structural causes that have allowed violence to entrench itself in the province.

Several among the parliamentarians pointed to a long-standing failure to address public grievances, particularly the denial of political rights, economic opportunity and meaningful participation for Baloch youth. This governance vacuum, they argued, has been exploited by hostile external actors and violent networks. Questions were also raised about the credibility of counter-smuggling measures, with lawmakers openly asking how oil continues to flow from border regions to major urban centres despite the presence of extensive security and what concrete steps were being taken to curb foreign........

© Dawn