Balochistan: The Black Day That Never Was

On March 27, a day some insist on calling “Black Day,” two civilians were killed and more than a dozen injured in Quetta when a powerful improvised explosive device (IED) ripped through a crowded market. The attack, which targeted a police van, left burning debris scattered across the street as panicked residents tried to clear the area. Suspicion immediately fell on the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), a terrorist group responsible for decades of terrorism, bloodshed, and targeted killings in the province. This was not an isolated event—just days earlier, terrorists carried out coordinated attacks, ambushing a passenger bus and killing people based on their ethnicity.

Yet, in some circles, the very groups responsible for such violence continue to frame March 27 as a day of “oppression,” perpetuating the myth that Balochistan was forcibly annexed, and that it was an independent entity akin to modern-day Bangladesh, and that Gwadar could be a Singapore if only it were separated from Pakistan.

The irony? While they claim to fight for the Baloch people, their actions result in nothing but death, destruction, and instability.

This narrative, amplified by terrorist groups operating in Balochistan and their foreign sponsors, conveniently glosses over history, law, and geopolitics. These assertions may serve certain geopolitical agendas, but they fall apart under historical scrutiny.

The truth is simpler, yet far less convenient for those looking to weaponize it: Balochistan’s accession to Pakistan in 1948 was legitimate, voluntary, and strategically inevitable.

Let’s set the record straight.

The Accession of Kalat: Voluntary, Not Forced

The claim that Kalat was forcibly annexed into Pakistan is historically untenable.

The accession of Kalat to Pakistan, in 1948 was neither a coerced annexation nor a colonial-style takeover. The reality is that the Khan of Kalat, Mir Ahmad Yar Khan, after deliberations, consulting his advisors and realizing that standing alone was not a viable option, signed the Instrument of Accession voluntarily on March 27, 1948. By that time, key Baloch regions—Lasbela, Kharan, and Makran—had already joined Pakistan unilaterally, recognizing the shared future of Balochistan with the newly created country. The Shahi Jirga, a key representative body, had also voted in favor of Pakistan in 1947.

India’s own historical records provide an ironic counter to the forced accession claim. V.P. Menon, a high-ranking Indian official, revealed that the Khan of Kalat had approached India to join the Union—something the Khan himself denied—a request that was diplomatically ignored. When Pakistan accepted Kalat’s accession, India, in a bid to counter Pakistan’s geopolitical gains, pivoted to the propaganda of forced annexation—an argument that was not raised in 1948 but decades later when terrorism in Balochistan became useful as a geopolitical pressure point. Hence, that alone should be enough to put this controversy to rest.

Balochistan is Not Bangladesh

Some narratives lazily equate contemporary Balochistan with 1971 Bangladesh. The analogy is both historically and structurally flawed. East Pakistan’s crisis was rooted in demographic majority, linguistic identity, and an electoral mandate that was denied representation. Moreover, let us not ignore India as a geographical barrier between West and East Pakistan. India’s geographical proximity enabled it to actively intervene, using a shared border to openly arm, train, and launch a full-scale military operation that led to the dismemberment of the East Pakistan.

In contrast, Balochistan’s history is defined by internal fragmentation, not unity. Unlike East Pakistan, which was a relatively cohesive entity with a distinct identity, Balochistan has long been a mosaic of competing tribal interests, regions with differing governance structures, and frequent inter-tribal conflict. This internal complexity makes it impossible to equate Balochistan with the homogeneous situation that led to Bangladesh’s formation.

External Influences and Internal Challenges

But, despite this, India’s involvement in Balochistan has remained a constant. While its role in Bangladesh was overt and public, its actions in Balochistan have been more insidious, operating from the shadows—funding terror groups, stoking separatist violence, and fueling instability through espionage and covert operations. From Kulbhushan Jadhav’s confessions to intercepted intelligence reports, India’s interference is undeniable. Yet, why has the Pakistani state not been able to address this persistent foreign meddling effectively? Why has Balochistan’s grievance been weaponized by external powers for so long?

The question isn’t just about India’s role in exploiting Balochistan’s issues—it’s about the Pakistani state’s response. The consistent external influence on Balochistan raises uncomfortable questions: Has the state been reactive rather than proactive in defending its territorial integrity? Why has Pakistan failed to sufficiently address Balochistan’s internal issues in a way that builds long-term peace and stability, allowing external players to take advantage of these vulnerabilities?

Further complicating the narrative is the misconception that Gwadar, Balochistan’s jewel, could become the “Singapore of the Arabian Sea” if separated from Pakistan. This is a gross misunderstanding of both history and geopolitics.

Historically, Gwadar was part of Oman until Pakistan purchased it in 1958. The region has always been a geopolitical hotspot, but it has never been a unified entity like Singapore, which was a city-state with a singular vision and governance. The reality is that Balochistan’s regions—Makran, Kalat, and Lasbela—have always had differing interests, marked by tribal rivalries, internecine warfare, and shifting alliances. The notion that these fractured regions could seamlessly evolve into a competitive global trading hub, while the rest of Balochistan remains in turmoil, is a naive fantasy—and perhaps a deliberate geopolitical manipulation.

The idea of a monolithic, independent Balochistan is deeply flawed. It overlooks the historical complexities and intra-Baloch conflicts that have shaped the region for centuries. Moreover, any effort to portray Balochistan as a victim of a “humanitarian crisis” follows a well-worn script that has been used globally to justify foreign interventions. But Balochistan’s struggles are not a mirror image of Bangladesh’s independence movement. The difference lies not just in geography, but in the underlying causes and external forces at play.

Balochistan’s challenges are real, but they are rooted in internal fragmentation, geopolitical maneuvering, and external interference—not a simple case of oppression akin to East Pakistan’s experience in 1971. Therefore, attempts to equate Balochistan with Bangladesh are not only misleading—they distort the complex and multi-dimensional reality of the region’s history. But as the world turns its gaze to the situation in Balochistan, it is worth asking: will Pakistan’s state continue to react, or will it take decisive steps to address its own vulnerabilities and end the exploitation of Balochistan’s issues?

Geopolitical Exploitation and the ‘Humanitarian’ Framing

The unrest in Balochistan has never emerged in isolation; it has thrived in the fertile ground of external patronage. From the Cold War to the post-9/11 world order, Baloch militancy has often been a pawn in greater geopolitical games.

The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and similar groups have roots in regional and extra-regional interference. Over the decades, evidence has surfaced linking these groups to Indian intelligence (RAW), Afghan intelligence (NDS, before the Taliban takeover and now the Afghan Interim Government in the context of the mergers of terrorist groups from Balochistan into TTP), and even Western policymakers with a penchant for disrupting China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

The recent shift from armed militancy to human rights advocacy is no accident but a well-thought-out strategic pivot. Figures like Mahrang Baloch, Farzana Majeed, and Sami Deen Baloch represent a transition from insurgency to international lobbying, a playbook that has been used in many other separatist movements worldwide. The objective remains the same—but the methodology has shifted to media optics, diplomatic pressure, and legal maneuvering.

From BSO’s radicalization of students to BLA and BLF’s militant campaigns, the insurgency has now moved into the arena of international advocacy, leveraging human rights platforms to exert pressure on Pakistan. The push for recognition in United Nations circles, engagements with Western think tanks, and carefully curated media narratives all serve the same objective: to frame Pakistan as an oppressor and legitimize separatist demands.

This evolution from militant action to a media-driven “humanitarian” cause highlights the changing face of geopolitical conflict, where the battlefield has expanded beyond physical confrontation to influence and public perception.

Balochistan’s Geopolitical Hotspot Status: A Magnet for External Interests

Balochistan’s strategic location—bordering Iran, Afghanistan, and the Arabian Sea—makes it a prized geopolitical chess piece. Regional and extra-regional players, including India, have long sought to destabilize the province as a means of weakening Pakistan. The exploitation of Baloch grievances is not driven by concern for human rights but by cold geopolitical calculations.

The Indian factor is well-documented—Kulbhushan Jadhav’s confessions and extensive RAW involvement in Balochistan confirm external interference. However, India is not the only player in this game. Western narratives on Balochistan often align with broader efforts to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), given Gwadar’s centrality to CPEC. An unstable Balochistan serves multiple interests: it disrupts trade routes, weakens Pakistan’s economic stability, and keeps the region perennially volatile.

Yes, Grievances Exist—But Who is Exploiting Them?

Let’s be clear: Balochistan has legitimate grievances. Issues of underdevelopment, resource distribution, and political representation need serious policy attention.

However, those amplifying these grievances on international platforms are not necessarily interested in solving them; they are interested in weaponizing them. Their solutions do not involve development, integration, or empowerment—they involve balkanization, external dependency, and perpetual conflict.

While Balochistan’s concerns are valid, they exist within a constitutional framework that has progressively included Baloch politicians, seen increased economic investments, and garnered greater federal attention in recent years. The 18^th Amendment is holds significance in this regard. Therefore, the path forward for Balochistan lies not in separatist agitation, but in genuine, inclusive governance. Pakistan must address local grievances, invest in infrastructure, and ensure development benefits are felt by the people. However, as we pursue these goals, we must remain vigilant against those who seek to manipulate these grievances for geopolitical advantage.

The world has seen this pattern before. A local issue is exaggerated, internationalized, and eventually weaponized to justify interventions that suit geopolitical interests. If history is any guide, the people who suffer most in these conflicts are the very communities that these so-called “activists” claim to represent.

Also See: The Balochistan Unrest: Who Pulls the Strings Behind the Chaos?

Final Thought: No More Manufactured Black Days

March 27 is not a “Black Day.” It is a day when historical realities prevailed over temporary uncertainty. Balochistan’s future is tied to Pakistan—not because of coercion, but because of historical, economic, and geopolitical realities.

The challenge now is not to debate old accession treaties but to ensure Balochistan’s rightful place in Pakistan’s economic and political future. The way forward is not through myths of forced annexation or illusions of an independent Gwadar but through development, political representation, and stability.

Balochistan’s real story is not one of oppression—but of opportunity. Let’s write that story instead.