As we enter Pakistan, we cannot undermine its critical role not only in the South Asian theatre but also as a gateway to West Asia and the Central Asian arc. The country’s landscape stretches from the towering Karakoram Pass in the northeast to vital naval routes through the Arabian Sea. Despite this strategic significance that adds to its potential gain, Pakistan has faced significant challenges including internal power struggles, militancy, and proxy conflicts aimed at challenging India, particularly over Kashmir.

These issues persist alongside a pervasive culture of corruption and kickbacks that undermines governance. Additionally, there is a growing social distrust that deepens polarisation within society, shaking hopes for overcoming these obstacles. The absence of a social compact and the need for a credible performance state further complicate the prospects for stability and progress in Pakistan. Recently, Pakistan has dominated news headlines due to the escalating Baloch issue as the disconcerting news of the hijack of the Jaffar express by the Balochistan Liberation Army led to widespread panic in the subcontinent and highlighted on-going tensions in the beleaguered country. We must appreciate the gravity of this situation in the backdrop of global events. While there is a glimmer of hope for a potential resolution to the prolonged Russia-Ukraine conflict, this in no way takes us towards a predictable silver line of respite. It applies to the failed state of Yemen as much as it is evident in the pressing challenges faced by conflict-torn states like Pakistan.

Advertisement

The nation, described as a “garrison state,” confronts a sort of Hobbesian dilemma as it has struggled with chronic ethnonationalism and deepening economic woes for over seventy-five years, ever since its independence. Its policymakers have tended to adopt temporary populist solutions rather than addressing these issues comprehensively. As a result, today there is a significant risk that these unresolved tensions could escalate into more severe conflicts, threatening stability in an already tense neighbourhood where interference of the Chinese Dragon is a matter of concern. It will not be an exaggeration to state that Pakistan’s focus from the very outset has not been on resetting its constitutional framework for balanced power sharing with minorities. Instead, it has relied heavily on two main pillars: first, an overreliance on foreign aid rather than fostering sustainable economic reforms to generate ample domestic revenue; second, it has always overreacted and sensationalised a persistent narrative of insecurity that serves to silence dissent and bolster military authority.

This approach not only undermines democratic inclusion but also weakens public institutions, rendering them incapable of effectively addressing social differences. Furthermore, this strategy perpetuates the hiatus of regional inequalities, particularly between the more prosperous provinces of Punjab and Sindh and the traditionally neglected region of Balochistan. The latter is often subjected to punitive measures as a response to its recurrent rebellions against the state, reinforcing a cycle of marginalization and discontent. The current crisis in Balochistan can be traced to a complex interplay of factors, primarily rooted in the brutal suppression by the Pakistani army and the alienation stemming from policies that have perpetuated underdevelopment in the province.

The lack of meaningful engagement with the Baloch leadership could be seen as a treacherous move on the part of the ruling establishment that exacerbated tensions, while on-going massacres and displacement have led to widespread human rights violations, characterized by what Human Rights Watch describes as a “kill and dump” policy employed by the Pakistani state. Furthermore, the inequitable distribution of economic benefits from initiatives like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has intensified feelings of marginalization among the Baloch people. While building of infrastructure is an imperative for the Pakistani state, the situation is complicated by a scenario of resistance put up by the Baloch tribes coupled with a narrative that often involves blaming India for alleged clandestine involvement in Baloch affairs.

According to some commentators, this strategy is designed to distract attention from the governmental onus to address the root causes of brewing discontent. The cumulative effect of tremendous state repression and torture has deepened the sense of regional deprivation creating a cycle of violence and reprisal that continues to fuel the crisis. A faction of Pakistan’s political elite has repeatedly sought assistance from the American government to classify the Baloch group as a proscribed entity, but the US has declined this request, stating that the group has not engaged in terrorist activities outside Pakistan.

Paradoxically on the other hand, the same Atlantic power has been pressing and cajoling Pakistan to operate on its behalf. This situation is further complicated by Pakistan’s foundational illusion that India’s involvement has intensified the conflict, viewing it as a strategic pressure valve to undermine Pakistan’s support for the Kashmir cause. On the whole, there exists a denial within the Pakistani state regarding the political dimensions of this long-standing issue. Observers of Pakistani politics and sectarian violence, including Christophe Jaffrelot, Ahmed Rashid, and Frederic Grare, might concur on this point that the unrest in Balochistan is fundamentally different from typical sectarian violence. The situation in Baluchistan is complex and cannot be simplistically equated with radicalization leading to terrorist state-bashing. To do so would be a disservice to the nuanced realities of the region. The Baluch cause, rooted in historical grievances and demands for autonomy, stands in stark contrast to the jihadi campaigns that often seek to propagate hatred and violence for ideological purposes. This distinction highlights an unequal turf war where marginalized voices are fighting against systemic oppression rather than engaging in a broader jihadist agenda. Moreover, this scenario does not align neatly with Antonio Gramsci’s concepts of “war of manoeuvre” and “war of position.” Instead, it presents a unique quad of terror characterized by a strong backlash from disenfranchised segments of society. The state’s response has often been marked by paradoxical ambivalence, oscillating between repression and neglect, which further complicates the dynamics at play. Such a backdrop arms the opposition with a potent victim narrative that can galvanize support both locally and internationally.

Understanding Baluchistan requires acknowledging these layers of complexity rather than reducing them to mere comparisons with other forms of conflict. The interplay between imbrication of state actions, societal responses including the implications for women as a conflict ravaged subnationality, and historical contexts creates a distinct environment and saga that necessitates careful consideration with sympathetic engagement and grassroots diplomacy. However, it is a conjecture because the track record of Pakistan points to an ominous future.

The writers are, respectively, Professor and Head, Department of Political Science, S-K-B University, Purulia, and Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Ramananda College, Bankura