Balochistan: Between truth and propaganda |
IN an age where information travels faster than truth, Balochistan has increasingly become a theatre not only of conflict but of competing narratives—some grounded in fact and others shaped by vested interests. It is therefore essential to examine, with sobriety and discernment, the claims advanced by separatist elements and their external patrons in order to present a clearer picture of realities on the ground. Certain factions operating in Balochistan are believed to draw support not only from indigenous grievances but also from encouragement beyond Pakistan’s borders, where elements in India and Afghanistan are alleged to provide financial, logistical and propagandistic backing. Their objective is to foment discord, weaken national cohesion and project a distorted narrative of alienation and oppression, often amplified through coordinated campaigns on international platforms and detached from the region’s complex realities.
Pakistan, however, has not remained oblivious to these machinations. Through diplomatic engagement and the presentation of evidence, it has succeeded in drawing international attention to the role of externally sponsored terrorism in Baluchistan. Indeed, several of the organizations involved have been designated as terrorist entities by multiple states, a testament to the credibility of Pakistan’s position and the gravity of the threat posed.
The recent remarks made by Mexican human rights lawyer Ms. Ana Lorena Delgadillo Pérez at a conference organized by the Baloch National Movement in Geneva on 27 March 2026 exemplify the dangers of one-sided narratives. While Pakistan holds in high regard the mandate of international human rights mechanisms and remains committed to constructive dialogue, it must be stated, with due respect, that such interventions, when predicated upon selective information and unverified claims, risk distorting reality rather than illuminating it.
Baluchistan is and has always been an integral part of Pakistan. This is not merely a constitutional assertion but a fact recognized by the international community in accordance with the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity enshrined in international law. The security measures undertaken by Pakistan in the province are not acts of repression, but lawful responses to a persistent threat of terrorism. They are conducted within the framework of domestic law and in consonance with international obligations, including the inherent right of self-defence.
According to authentic and credible findings, Groups such as the Baluchistan Liberation Army and the Baluchistan Liberation Front have been responsible for heinous acts of violence against civilians, security personnel and critical infrastructure. Their actions betray not a struggle for rights, but a campaign of terror that undermines peace and development. The designation of these groups as terrorist organizations by countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom further reinforces the legitimacy of Pakistan’s counter-terrorism efforts. International bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, have likewise condemned attacks in Baluchistan and called for cooperation in bringing perpetrators and their sponsors to justice.
It is equally important to recognize the role played by certain organizations operating under the guise of advocacy. The Baloch National Movement and its affiliates, including elements associated with some particular Committee, function as the political and propagandistic extensions of militant outfits. By glorifying militants as martyrs and manipulating the sensitive issue of missing persons, they seek to blur the distinction between legitimate grievances and terrorist agendas. Numerous instances have come to light where individuals reported as “disappeared” have later resurfaced as active participants in militant activities, exposing the deliberate misuse of humanitarian concerns for political ends.
Pakistan acknowledges that issues such as enforced disappearances are serious and require transparent and accountable mechanisms. In this regard, the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances reflects the state’s commitment to due process and judicial oversight, with thousands of cases examined and resolved through legal channels. It is also noted that many reported cases involve individuals who have either joined militant groups, absconded or are under lawful detention in accordance with anti-terrorism laws, while allegations of widespread abuses, including mass graves or systematic extrajudicial actions, remain unsubstantiated by independent verification. Beyond this, Pakistan has also sought to address the human dimension of the conflict through rehabilitation and deradicalization centres in Balochistan, aimed at reintegrating individuals influenced by extremist ideologies through education, counselling and skill development, reflecting a broader commitment not only to security but also to human dignity and sustainable peace.
At the heart of the matter lies a fundamental distinction; between genuine human rights concerns, which Pakistan is willing and prepared to address through dialogue and institutional mechanisms and orchestrated propaganda designed to delegitimize the state and embolden violent actors. To conflate lawful counter-terrorism measures with human rights violations is not only misleading but also unjust to the thousands of innocent Pakistanis—civilians and security personnel alike—who have fallen victim to terrorism.
Pakistan remains steadfast in its adherence to the rule of law and its obligations under international human rights frameworks. It continues to engage constructively with the United Nations and other international partners, while firmly rejecting narratives that are selective, unverified and politically motivated. The path to peace in Baluchistan lies not in the amplification of divisive rhetoric, but in the collective resolve to confront terrorism, promote development and uphold justice.
Finally, the truth about Baluchistan cannot be reduced to slogans or soundbites. It demands a balanced understanding, an appreciation of context and a commitment to fairness. The international community must, therefore, exercise caution in distinguishing between advocacy and agenda, between fact and fabrication. Only then can it contribute meaningfully to the cause of peace and stability in a region that has long endured the consequences of both violence and misrepresentation.
—The writer is Director General Research, National Assembly Secretariat, Parliament House, Islamabad.