On 27 March, groups like the Baloch National Movement (BNM) once again push a familiar claim — that Pakistan “occupied Balochistan” through Kalat.
This narrative is not only historically inaccurate, but also part of a broader, politically motivated disinformation campaign.
First, Kalat was not a sovereign country. It was a princely state under British paramountcy, like hundreds of others in the subcontinent. Its defense, foreign affairs, and communications were controlled by the British. Kalat had autonomy, but not sovereignty.
When British rule ended in 1947, princely states were given two options: join India or Pakistan. Independence was not a recognized legal option under the Partition framework.
Second, most of Balochistan had already joined Pakistan before Kalat’s accession. British Balochistan, including Quetta, Pishin, and Sibi, became part of Pakistan through a legal process. Similarly, Lasbela, Kharan, and Makran — historically linked to Kalat — voluntarily acceded to Pakistan in 1947–48.
By the time Kalat signed the Instrument of Accession in March 1948, the majority of present-day Balochistan was already part of Pakistan. This directly contradicts the claim that Pakistan “occupied Balochistan through Kalat.”
Third, Kalat itself was internally divided. The accession was not a simple case of “Baloch versus Pakistan.” The Khan of Kalat signed the accession legally. Several Baloch sardars and political elites supported the decision.
Resistance came from a small faction led by Prince Abdul Karim, who lacked broad public support and acted under external influence, particularly from Afghanistan.
Fourth, even nationalist arguments fail logically. Kalat did not represent all of Balochistan. Other regions had already acceded independently. So claiming that Pakistan occupies all of Balochistan because of Kalat is factually incorrect.
At most, the dispute concerns one princely state — not the entire province.
Fifth, Kalat was never recognized internationally as an independent state. It had no UN membership, no diplomatic recognition, and no status under international law. Without sovereignty, the claim of “occupation” has no legal basis.
Sixth, this narrative is largely retroactive. It gained traction decades later, especially after the 1970s and again after 2000. It is often used to build grievance-based messaging, justify militancy, and attract international sympathy through simplified storytelling.
Seventh, accession does not mean colonization. The same legal process was used across the subcontinent. If Kalat’s accession is called “colonization,” then by that logic, India would also be “occupying” states like Hyderabad and Junagadh. This selective argument exposes its political nature.
The issue has also taken on an international dimension. Investigation published in 2019, the EU DisinfoLab uncovered a massive operation targeting international institutions and serving Indian interests. “Indian Chronicles” – the name given to this operation – resurrected dead media, dead think-tanks and NGOs. It even resurrected dead people. This network is active in Brussels and Geneva in producing and amplifying content to undermine – primarily – Pakistan,highlighted how certain platforms and organizations were used to promote anti-Pakistan narratives in global forums, including Geneva. Groups such as BNM have been linked to these broader influence campaigns.
Accession was a standard legal process applied across the subcontinent during Partition. Similar mechanisms were used in the integration of princely states in both India and Pakistan. Selectively describing Kalat’s accession as “colonization” reflects a political interpretation rather than a consistent historical or legal standard.
The claim that Pakistan “occupies Balochistan” is historically flawed, legally weak, and logically inconsistent.
What exists today is not a question of occupation, but of governance challenges, development gaps, and the impact of sustained propaganda.
The narrative of deprivation itself has been exaggerated and, in many cases, deliberately shaped into a tool of indoctrination.
Understanding the difference between history and propaganda is essential — especially on a day like 27 March, when distorted narratives are pushed the most.
