by Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal

In an age where information travels faster than truth, the case of Baluchistan has increasingly become a theatre not merely of conflict, but of narratives—some grounded in fact, others carefully constructed to serve vested interests. It is, therefore, imperative to examine with sobriety and discernment the claims propagated by separatist elements and their external patrons, and to place before the world a clearer picture of realities as they exist on the ground.

There is little doubt that certain separatist factions operating in Baluchistan draw sustenance not from indigenous grievances alone, but from the calculated encouragement of hostile actors beyond Pakistan’s borders. Misguided elements in India and Afghanistan, long opposed to Pakistan’s stability and cohesion, have extended financial, logistical, and propagandistic support to these groups. Their intent is neither concealed nor benign; to foment discord, weaken the federation, and tarnish Pakistan’s image in the councils of the world. Through orchestrated campaigns, often amplified on international platforms, these actors seek to construct a narrative of alienation and oppression, divorced from the complexities and truths of the region.

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 organisations 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 organised 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 recognised 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 organisations 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 recognise the role played by certain organisations 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 demand transparent and accountable mechanisms. In this regard, the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances reflects the state’s commitment to due process and judicial oversight. Thousands of cases have been examined and resolved through legal channels. It is also a matter of record that many reported cases involve individuals who have either joined militant groups, absconded, or are subject to lawful detention under anti-terrorism laws. Allegations of widespread abuses, including mass graves or systematic extrajudicial actions, remain unsubstantiated by independent verification.

Far from neglecting the human dimension of the conflict, Pakistan has undertaken initiatives aimed at addressing its root causes. The establishment of rehabilitation and deradicalisation centres in Baluchistan represents a forward-looking approach, seeking to reintegrate individuals influenced by extremist ideologies into society through education, counselling, and skill development. Such efforts underscore a commitment not merely to security, but 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 delegitimise 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.

Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer

Few countries have experienced the persistent entanglement of religion and power quite like Pakistan. Since its inception, the state has oscillated between competing centres of authority the barracks and the pulpit each shaping the country’s political trajectory in ways that continue to reverberate. The uneasy alignment between military dominance and religious influence has defined not only governance but also the national imagination. At independence, Pakistan’s founding vision was neither theocratic nor militaristic. Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s early speeches suggested a constitutional state where religion would remain a personal matter. Yet, the fragility of political institutions, combined with early security anxieties, created fertile ground for the military’s rise. Over time, the armed forces came to see themselves not merely as defenders of borders but as custodians of the state’s ideological frontiers.

Parallel to this ascent was the growing influence of religious actors. The mosque, as a social and political space, gradually evolved into a powerful platform capable of mobilising public sentiment. While religious scholars had initially played a limited role in the nationalist movement, their significance increased as successive governments sought legitimacy through Islamic symbolism. This convergence was neither accidental nor entirely organic. It was, in many ways, a product of deliberate policy choices. The state, in moments of political weakness, turned to religion as a unifying force. The Objectives Resolution of 1949 marked an early step in embedding religious principles into governance. While framed as a compromise between modern statehood and Islamic ideals, it opened the door to future contestations over the role of religion in law and policy.

The military’s involvement deepened this dynamic. During periods of direct rule, generals often invoked religious narratives to justify their authority. The most pronounced example came during the regime of General Zia-ul-Haq, whose Islamisation policies left an enduring imprint on Pakistani society. Laws were reconfigured, educational curricula reshaped, and public discourse reframed in explicitly religious terms. The mosque, in this period, was not merely a place of worship but an extension of state power. Yet, the relationship between military and mosque has never been entirely harmonious. It is marked as much by cooperation as by tension. Religious groups have often been both allies and adversaries. At times, they have been instrumentalised for strategic purposes, particularly in regional conflicts. At other moments, they have challenged the state’s authority, questioning its commitment to Islamic principles.

This duality has had profound consequences. On the one hand, it has enabled the state to harness religious sentiment in pursuit of political or strategic goals. On the other, it has empowered actors whose agendas do not always align with state priorities. The result is a complex landscape where lines of authority are blurred and accountability is often elusive. The impact on democratic development has been particularly stark. Civilian governments, already constrained by institutional weaknesses, have found themselves navigating a delicate balance. Efforts to assert parliamentary sovereignty are frequently overshadowed by the enduring influence of the military establishment. Simultaneously, political leaders often invoke religious rhetoric to bolster their legitimacy, further entrenching the mosque’s role in governance.

This interplay has also shaped public discourse. Questions of identity, citizenship, and rights are frequently framed in religious terms, limiting the space for pluralism. Minority communities, in particular, have borne the brunt of this dynamic, as debates over faith and belonging intersect with political power. The promise of equal citizenship, envisioned at independence, remains unevenly realised. Education and media have not been immune. Narratives constructed over decades have reinforced a particular understanding of Pakistan’s ideological foundations, often privileging religious identity over civic values. This has contributed to a societal environment where dissenting voices can be marginalised, and critical inquiry discouraged.

Yet, it would be reductive to view Pakistan solely through the prism of military and mosque. The country is also home to vibrant civil society movements, an assertive judiciary, and a resilient, if contested, democratic tradition. Periodic transitions to civilian rule, though imperfect, reflect an ongoing struggle to recalibrate the balance of power. In recent years, there have been signs of both continuity and change. The military remains a central actor in national affairs, though its role is increasingly scrutinised in public debate. Religious groups continue to wield influence, particularly at the grassroots level, but their political appeal is not uniform. Urbanisation, technological change, and a growing youth population are reshaping the contours of political engagement.

The challenge for Pakistan lies in redefining this relationship in a manner that strengthens democratic institutions while respecting the country’s religious sensibilities. This requires a careful disentangling of state authority from both military overreach and the instrumental use of religion. It calls for a renewed commitment to constitutionalism, where power is exercised within clearly defined limits and accountability is upheld. Equally important is the need to reclaim the mosque as a space of spiritual reflection rather than political mobilisation. Religion, in its essence, offers ethical guidance and social cohesion. When subsumed into the machinery of power, it risks losing its moral authority and becoming a tool of division.

The path forward is neither simple nor linear. It demands political will, institutional reform, and societal introspection. Pakistan’s history offers ample lessons on the costs of imbalance whether in the form of authoritarian rule or ideological rigidity. The task now is to forge a more inclusive and stable order, where neither the barracks nor the pulpit overshadow the will of the people. Ultimately, the story of Pakistan between military and mosque is one of negotiation between power and principle, authority and faith. How this negotiation unfolds will determine not only the nature of the state but also the aspirations of its citizens. In that sense, the question is not merely about institutions, but about the kind of society Pakistan seeks to become.