The Dawn editorial on the Balochistan government’s latest notification requiring families to report missing relatives or those who have joined militant groups raises some valid concerns, but it ultimately presents a one-sided view that ignores the realities on the ground. By framing the directive as if it presumes “every household is a potential accomplice to terrorism,” the piece mischaracterizes both the intention and the scope of the policy.
The truth is that not every family in Balochistan is viewed as a potential facilitator of militancy. The directive targets only those who knowingly shelter, conceal, or enable individuals linked with banned groups such as the BLA, TTP, or other proscribed outfits. To suggest otherwise risks dismissing the very real threat that sleeper cells and support networks pose in the province. For years, militant violence has destabilized communities and robbed families of their security; any serious attempt to curb it must address not just those carrying arms, but also the networks of support that allow them to operate.
One crucial element that the Dawn editorial overlooks is how this directive directly addresses a long-standing criticism against the security forces: enforced disappearances. Some groups accuse security forces of arbitrarily detaining or disappearing individuals, yet in many cases, there has been no formal record of the missing person ever being reported to the authorities. This has created an environment of suspicion and blame.
By requiring families to report disappearances within seven days, the directive helps differentiate between those who are truly missing and those who have voluntarily joined militant organizations. This is not an attack on families but rather an opportunity for them to ensure their loved ones are officially recognized as missing persons, rather than left in limbo.
When Families Look Away
The risks of silence or neglect are not hypothetical. There are documented cases where families failed to report, monitor, or even deliberately concealed the activities of their children. Take the case of Sufiyan Kurd, a student at UMT Lahore who joined a terrorist outfit and was later killed in an operation, with the BLA openly owning him. Why did his family not report his trajectory? Or the case of Adila Baloch, who was coerced into participating in an attack by the BLA but was ultimately rescued by security forces. A timely report and intervention by her family have prevented her being used by terrorists.
Ignoring these realities does a disservice to the debate. The directive is, at its core, about accountability — encouraging families to stay engaged with the lives of their loved ones and to alert the authorities if they suspect coercion, blackmail, or recruitment by terrorist networks.
The notion that such measures unfairly burden ordinary families also overlooks the real and present danger posed by facilitators embedded in professional and social circles. Just last month, the Counter-Terrorism Department arrested Mir Khan Lehri, a government prosecutor accused of aiding the banned Baloch Liberation Army. Earlier, Dr. Usman Qazi, a lecturer at BUITEMS University, was detained for allegedly facilitating a BLA operative who masterminded the Quetta Railway Station attack. These are not isolated incidents. They reveal the alarming penetration of extremist influence into civilian life.
Without mechanisms to hold families, communities, and institutions accountable for those they shield, militant groups will continue to exploit these networks to destabilize the province. The directive, therefore, is less about suspicion and more about prevention — cutting off the support base that allows terrorists to thrive.
Rather than treating this initiative as an infringement on rights, it should be seen as a step toward clarity and responsibility. It creates a formal process through which families can report disappearances, protect themselves from accusations of complicity, and help security forces distinguish between genuine victims and voluntary recruits.
To present this only as a burden on families, as Dawn does, is to ignore its practical benefits in an environment where terrorism, coercion, and propaganda are everyday realities. The policy is not person- or organization-specific; it applies universally to all banned groups. It aims to dismantle support networks, protect vulnerable individuals from coercion, and bring transparency to a longstanding issue that has haunted Balochistan.
