Balochistan, Pakistan's slipping grip and India’s tender spot

Raju Korti
When the world has become a headquarter of all geopolitical hotspots, its branch offices, by default, also have to vie for the attention and importance they desperately seek. I am referring to Balochistan which expectedly turned into a fire from a frying pan when it found the opportune time .

The largest province, not to speak of its mineral-rich terrain, has deteriorated sharply, marked by coordinated, series of assaults from the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), leaving hundreds of civilians, security personnel and militants dead in the last two months. By all accounts, this is the fiercest stage of their uprising encompassing 14 cities amidst claims and counter-claims, pushing the region to a potential collapse.

(The green hotspot)

Pakistani forces, as only expected, have responded with counter-measures to smother the BLA attacks but the damages are also beyond military operations, spilling over to hit essential services like internet and electricity. In the run up to the Balochistan’s case for self-determination, what strikes me is the strange situation Pakistan finds itself in. It is poetic justice if an antidote is served to you for the very poison you spread. This is what will result. Later if not sooner.

True to Pakistan’s political posturing, where confessions are usually made later in the day, Defence Minister Khwaja Asif's candid admission in the National Assembly highlights the core challenges and establishment’s helplessness: Balochistan's vast geography, spanning over 347,000 square kilometers, makes it a "gigantic task" to manage, especially compared to more densely policed provinces like Punjab and Sindh.

There is an obvious resigned note in Asif’s submission. The insurgents' advantage in terrain, their possession of advanced weaponry while Pakistani security forces face shortages of comparable gear. That this escalation stems from longstanding grievances rooted in economic exploitation and political marginalisation is already known.

Balochistan holds immense mineral wealth, including 5.9 billion tons of copper-gold ore and untapped rare earth elements potentially worth 6-8 trillion dollars, yet locals receive only 2 percent royalties from mining deals. Enforced disappearances, poverty, and the perception of the province as "collective property" mismanaged by Islamabad fuel separatist sentiment.

The insurgency, mostly in the form of skirmishes, has been ongoing since the 1940s following Balochistan's contested accession to Pakistan. It has, however, evolved into a low-scale but persistent conflict involving nationalist groups demanding autonomy or independence. The reason is not far to seek. What has flared up the issue is the recent violence disrupting key projects like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), threatening Beijing's investments and prompting fears that instability could spill over into neighbouring regions.

For all their professed bravado, as is its wont, Pakistan's military, already stretched by economic woes and threats in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, appears handicapped, with Asif's remarks signalling a crisis of resources and strategy. Then there are predictable accusations of backing from Afghanistan and India, but these only serve to deflect from internal failures. Or so Baloch activist Mir Yar Baloch believes.

Pakistan's response reveals a trajectory toward resignation rather than resolution. Security operations continue, with over 200 militants reportedly killed in retaliatory actions, yet the insurgency's decentralised, networked tactics, hit-and-run assaults, propaganda via satellite uplinks, and transnational linkages, evade traditional control.

The state's writ has eroded to the point where military patrols avoid nighttime operations in 80 percent of the province, and attacks have reached government secretariats. Chief Minister Sarfraz Bugti's assertion that solutions lie with the military rather than dialogue further entrenches alienation, as enforced disappearances and human rights abuses drive youth, women, and elders into the fray.

It needs no expert view as this deadlock leaves the conflict stalled on the battlefield. It is not altogether surprising that there have been no territorial gains but only rising fatalities, reported at whopping 60 percent increase in incidents in 2025 alone. Islamabad has lived up to its well-guarded reputation of living in denial; economic strain be damned. It only points to a creeping acceptance of diminished control, risking provincial fragmentation if unrest persists.

Anything that happens or concerns Pakistan, India cannot be kept out anywhichways. Wittingly or unwittingly, India occupies a pivotal yet cautious position in these dynamics. Baloch leaders, including Mir Yar Baloch, president of the Free Balochistan Movement, have repeatedly appealed for New Delhi's moral, political, diplomatic, and economic support, viewing India as a counterweight to Pakistan's occupation since 1948.Mir Yar Baloch has emphasised mutual benefits in technology, economy, and peace, while rejecting accusations of Indian backing as Pakistani propaganda to cover failures. This probably hurts Pakistan more than the Baloch uprising per se. Baloch claims his forces could liberate the province in a week with fighter jets and weapons, and has invited international scrutiny, including from India, to expose alleged abuses like mosque bombardments and mass graves. Notably, same suicide bomber practices that have become popular after the LTTE gave it international recognition. No surprises that Pakistan, in turn, accuses India of sponsoring terrorism, with Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi citing evidence of support for Baloch militants. However, these claims lack independent verification and align with Islamabad's pattern of externalising blame.

For India it is a tricky and cautious situation where engagement must balance strategic interests with risks. The insurgency threatens CPEC, a Chinese initiative India opposes due to its passage through disputed territories, potentially weakening Pakistan's western flank and diverting its military focus from the eastern border. Yet direct involvement could escalate tensions, inviting accusations of interference and straining relations with global powers wary of regional balkanisation.

A "Greater Balochistan" narrative, encompassing parts of Iran and Afghanistan, adds complexity, as US strikes on Iran could further destabilise the area, creating ungoverned spaces that benefit militants and endanger Central Asia. India should prioritise non-military avenues: amplify Baloch voices in international forums like the UN, push for investigations into human rights violations, and offer humanitarian aid through multilateral channels. Economically, fostering ties with Baloch diaspora and exploring post-conflict partnerships in resources could position India favourably, but only if pursued diplomatically to avoid direct confrontation. Supporting dialogue between Islamabad and Baloch representatives, while condemning violence, would align with India's democratic ethos and long-term stability goals in South Asia. Much will depend on the walk India talks.

I suspect, in the final analysis, India's restraint could pressure Pakistan toward concessions, preventing a full surrender but that might only invite broader chaos.