Playing the Victim While Undermining the State

Pakistan’s struggle against terrorism and separatist violence has never been confined to the battlefield alone. Increasingly, it is being fought in courtrooms, on social media timelines, and through carefully curated narratives that seek to recast militancy as resistance and the state as an occupying force. The recent discourse surrounding Imaan Mazari is a textbook example of how this distortion operates.

At the center of the controversy are statements that go far beyond criticism of policy or advocacy for rights. Accusations portraying Pakistan as a colonial occupier in Balochistan, claims of genocide, and assertions that “peaceful resistance is not an option” are not neutral expressions of dissent. They are ideological framing devices that mirror the language of proscribed terrorist groups, designed to morally legitimize violence while absolving its perpetrators.

No serious state, democratic or otherwise, tolerates public rhetoric that justifies armed resistance against itself or glorifies banned organizations. Western democracies enforce similar red lines under counter-terrorism and hate speech laws. Yet in Pakistan’s case, enforcement of these boundaries is routinely recast as authoritarianism, while those crossing them are rebranded overnight as champions of free speech.

The misuse of the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) as a rhetorical punching bag is central to this narrative. Every PECA charge is declared a “free speech crisis,” every conviction an “attack on democracy,” regardless of the facts of the case. This deliberate flattening of context serves one purpose: to erase the distinction between lawful dissent and unlawful incitement. In Imaan Mazari’s case, courts did not rule on opinions critical of the state, but on repeated violations involving dissemination of content that courts found echoed propaganda of proscribed groups and contributed to radicalization.

Equally telling is the selective outrage cycle. When terrorists of the BLA are neutralized, organizations like the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) emerge to block roads, attack hospitals, and attempt to seize bodies of militants, acts that directly challenge state authority and public order. When BYC activists are arrested for these actions, the noise escalates. When Imaan Mazari is arrested or convicted, the narrative machine fully activates. Each step is framed as proof of repression, never as a response to escalating disorder.

This ecosystem does not operate in isolation. The nexus between Baloch Students Council (BSC) Islamabad and Imaan Mazari is well documented in the public domain, where anti-state messaging has been amplified under the guise of student activism and rights advocacy. Platforms meant for debate are instead used to normalize separatist talking points, blur the line between grievance and insurgency, and gradually desensitize audiences to calls for violence.

Perhaps the most damaging consequence of this strategy is the international image it manufactures. By relentlessly portraying Pakistan as a colonial, genocidal entity while ignoring constitutional structures, provincial representation, and ongoing development and reconciliation efforts, these actors export a narrative of victimhood that militants eagerly exploit. It weakens Pakistan’s diplomatic position, undermines genuine human rights advocacy, and hands adversarial states a ready-made propaganda toolkit.

State strength does not lie in silencing criticism, but neither does it lie in tolerating unchecked incitement. Law, order, and security are the preconditions for any meaningful political process. Activism that crosses into glorifying violence, endorsing separatism, or delegitimizing the state’s very existence is not dissent; it is a political weapon.

The conviction of Imaan Mazari and her husband under PECA was not the collapse of democracy it is being portrayed as. It was the assertion of a basic principle observed worldwide: freedom of expression ends where the justification of violence and promotion of banned groups begins. Playing the victim may generate applause on social media, but it does lasting damage to Pakistan’s stability, credibility, and the very democratic space genuine dissent depends on.

Also See: When Advocacy Aligns With Proscribed Narratives