Balochistan’s conflict is no longer fought only with guns. It is also a contest over narratives, political legitimacy and public trust.
The province’s long-running challenges include weak administrative reach, political alienation, terrorism, resource disputes and questions over representation. Social media has added a new front, while cross-border terrorist networks and foreign interference have further complicated the security landscape.
Balochistan Pulse sits down with former federal minister Fawad Chaudhry to discuss information warfare, Balochistan’s political representation, the BLA-TTP-Daesh nexus, the role of Afghanistan and the argument for Baloch rights within Pakistan.
Information war
BP: How important is information warfare today, particularly when terrorist groups use AI-generated content and coordinated social media accounts to amplify their narratives?
FC: This propaganda is a very old tool of war. You must have seen that we give the example of Hitler’s minister, that you should tell so many lies that they begin to look like the truth. It has always been part of warfare.
Always in Pakistan, whether we take Balochistan or our other issues, the real problem has been that our… every war, as you yourself said in your introduction, is fought on two fronts. One is your military front and our military personnel are, obviously, making sacrifices. The sacrifices being made by the security forces are not hidden from anyone.
They have written a story of love for the country every day and we are indebted to their blood. No nation can ever repay the blood of its martyrs. It can never be repaid. Young men give their lives every day.
The problem Pakistan is facing is that the political front, the narrative war you are talking about, actually has to be fought on the political front. Our political front is very weak and there are many reasons for that. There are also many administrative reasons.
Unfortunately, in 1970 we made some decisions, divisive decisions, the consequences of which we are still suffering. I want to take you a little into history. Balochistan as it exists today did not exist before 1970. These were three different areas. Gwadar was with Oman. We bought it from them.
So you brought four areas together in 1970, which make up 43 per cent of Pakistan. This decision itself was such a huge blunder that it had neither head nor tail and we are still suffering from it.
You brought Lasbela, Makran and Quetta together with all these regions. Then you put Gwadar into it. So a very big governance anomaly was created. One person was sitting in Quetta. For him to go to Gwadar, to Ziarat or to other areas was simply not possible.
Then we also abolished local governments. So an administrative vacuum that was created in 1970 kept growing.
Political vacuum
BP: You trace Balochistan’s governance problems to 1970. What alternative could have been adopted?
FC: The policy the British adopted. Historically, the Balochistan that the British created, the Balochistan we had created until 1955, before One Unit, the British… Look, we criticise the British, but the fact is that if anyone gave a successful governance model in the Indian subcontinent, it was the British.
Whether it was your CRPC, your criminal justice system, or your civil system.
BP: Why did Balochistan become unstable while the other provinces remained comparatively intact?
FC: No, no, no. The other provinces were not like this. Punjab was as it is today. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa only recently saw the merger of the tribal areas. Otherwise, KP had been functioning like this since 1902. Punjab had continued like this. Sindh had also continued like this.
Balochistan is the only province with which we played such a big territorial game. Nothing this major happened with the other provinces.
Now what happened? The problem is that the entire Pashtun area of Balochistan is now under an administrative control in which they have no say. Then, over the Baloch area, everything is administered from Quetta and Quetta itself is a Pashtun city.
So it is simply not possible for the chief minister to go and administer those areas. As a result, when local people are not included in decision-making and decisions are made by people who have come from outside and do not have local influence, the entire political structure is affected.
Foreign interference
BP: You also see foreign interference as a major factor in Balochistan’s conflict. How deep do you believe this interference goes?
FC: Unfortunately, two major challenges are taking place at this time. One challenge is being exploited by the separatists, who are terrorists. They say they have no say in decision-making.
There is another important thing I want to tell you. In Pakistan, because the rhetoric of foreign interference has been used so many times, its actual meaning has been lost. But the fact is that if there is an area where there has been serious foreign interference, it is Balochistan.
And this interference is not recent. It dates back to 1921. What happened in 1921 was that a meeting of the Russian Politburo took place. If you look at the resolution of that meeting, it says that if we want to reach warm waters, we have to intervene in Balochistan.
First, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated in an alliance between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. After that, all this intervention was carried out by the Soviet Union. Now India is doing it and the entire network of Kulbhushan Jadhav was caught.
So there is no difference of opinion that there is foreign interference in Balochistan. But you have to stop it. You have not taken the administrative actions required. Second, you have not been able to stop their funding.
Representation gap
BP: Critics question whether Balochistan’s political leadership has genuine popular legitimacy. Do you agree?
FC: Your point has weight, absolutely. And the point made by people such as Sarfraz Bugti and Anwaarul Haq Kakar is also that the same people were representing before and the same people are representing now. So it is not correct to say that the representation there is not local.
And I must say there is weight in this argument. What you have said also has weight, that they are local people.
But look at the problem. The problem is that your narrative is that these people did not come through votes and therefore there is a trust deficit in our electoral process and our assembly.
Unfortunately, another problem at this time is that your Balochistan narrative, except for these two people whose names I mentioned, Bugti and… the rest of the people do not even talk about this, although they should. What is the governor doing? I have never heard the governor speak about this. Mr Mandokhail… So the government needs to make its own counter-strategy on this.
Look, whatever the propaganda is, you will respond to it through counter-propaganda or counter-argument. An argument must be answered with an argument. If there is no argument, then you have no answer.
Empower districts
BP: You have called local government the real problem. How can it address Balochistan’s grievances?
FC: And then the local government, which is the real problem, is not the assembly’s problem. The real problem is the local government problem.
You have written in Article 140-A of the Constitution that the provincial government shall devolve administrative and financial authority to the districts. Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh, no government has done this.
Look, it is simple. For example, whether it is Ziarat, Gwadar, Quetta or any other area, I know that the share of my tax money has come to my area. Then I and my mayor know what to do.
Until we solve this primary problem and give people this sense… Look, it is very easy to give people the impression that outsiders have occupied our resources, this has happened and that has happened.
But once you establish district governments and there is a Provincial Finance Commission, the money goes to you. You know your work. You are responsible for it. It is not my responsibility to spend it.
Even now, if you look at it proportionally, Balochistan is getting a much bigger budget than Punjab per capita. If you look at the per capita figure, Balochistan’s total is much greater than Punjab’s in population terms.
And if you look at the budget and see where the money is going, this misuse of funds will be controlled through local government and work will be done through local participation.
On Sarfraz Bugti
BP: How do you assess Chief Minister Sarfraz Bugti’s performance?
FC: Look, Sarfraz Bugti is doing whatever he can, at least. I like one thing about Sarfraz Bugti: he has clarity.
The administrative reforms he should have carried out, he has not done. In my view, what he really needs to do is establish local governments there or establish a Provincial Finance Commission. He has not done that.
But I would say that this clarity of thought is present in the leadership, and Sarfraz has it.
Security challenge
BP: A BLA-TTP-Daesh nexus appears to be emerging in Balochistan. How do you assess the threat?
FC: The first thing is what I told you: historically, there has been foreign intervention in Balochistan and most of that intervention has taken place through Afghanistan.
In between, people have said that it has also taken place through Iran. But frankly, I do not know how much of Iran’s conflict is involved in this and how much is not. But Afghanistan’s role is very evident.
Earlier, it was happening through the Soviet Union. Now it is happening through India. And where are the headquarters of these three organisations? They are in Afghanistan.
And when the Afghan government came to power, Pakistan was saying at the time that you should eliminate them. Let me tell you that the main discussion we had with America there was also in Doha.
The Taliban said that they would give America a guarantee that their territory would not be used for terrorism against America or any country. And to the credit of Pakistan’s Foreign Office, we said that this cannot be the case. You should not write only America. You will write that our land will not be used against any third country.
So the Doha Agreement, as a result of which the Taliban government came to power, says that they will not allow any terrorist group to operate against any third country.
But unfortunately, they are not fulfilling it. And that is why Pakistan’s situation here is bad.
And in terms of terrorism, I think in the current situation, we have to end their supply lines. That is where the real focus should be.
Our current situation is that we have gone into a defensive war. Although I must say that the attacks we have carried out against Afghanistan and the BLA have been very effective. They have been extremely powerful.
But I do not know whether we can take this into a full-fledged operation or not. Because that is something I do not know. I am not privy to it.
Counter the narrative
BP: Terrorist groups also operate through student and other “soft” fronts. How important is it to counter these networks?
FC: Look, this is precisely the work you people are doing and it is commendable work that you are doing.
As I said to you, an argument must be answered with an argument. You have to do that.
Our failure is on this front. I would say that this is the failure of our politics, that our political parties are not standing in such a way with our military and security institutions that they consider this war their own and fight it.
Tell me, how stupid is the narrative that we will make a country with a population of 2.5 million or three million? What does that mean?
What does it mean that you will have an area that will basically provide a sanctuary to terrorists from the entire region?
They will sit there and operate against China as well. Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Russia, which country, even India, will allow you to establish this sanctuary?
So India is using this to destabilise Pakistan. But even they are not so mad as to say that Pakistan should break apart for this reason. Who will manage Afghanistan? We will create another 2.5 or three million population area.
I am talking about the practical aspect at this time. Practically, it is not possible.
Even if we have to fight for another 75 years, we will fight. But we will not allow such an area to be created in our neighbourhood or here, over which even the Baloch will have no control.
What they are saying today, that Balochistan will now become independent, would be such a mistake in which the Baloch would have no role at all.
There would be a role for international powers. They would come here and plan and fight their own wars from here.
So if I am a Pakistani, I would fight to the very end. It is just like if India stops our water, then we have to fight.
Rights and violence
BP: Separatists claim to fight for Baloch rights but target ordinary Baloch people. How do you explain this contradiction?
FC: Look, a terrorist organisation invents its own morality. They say that we have to secure our end and the means do not matter.
So look at why they are not receiving public sympathy at this time. When Punjabis are taken off buses and martyred or our soldiers are martyred…
If you look at rights movements, they are not violent. Whatever they are, rights movements are not violent.
When Mahatma Gandhi started the movement for the rights of the people of India, what was the first principle? Non-violence.
When Bacha Khan started his movement, what was the first principle? That you would do it through peace.
When Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah talked about rights, he fought for constitutional rights.
The major movements in the world, the rights movements, their first principle is that they will be peaceful. They will not be violent.
The violent struggles, the revolutions that have been fought, every one of them has failed.
For the Baloch, this slogan of independence is a suicide slogan.
The rights of the Baloch population of Balochistan are secured with Pakistan.
As far as rights are concerned, I understand that just as Punjabis, Sindhis and Pashtuns have the right that their local resources and their local elected leadership have the right to use them, Balochistan should have the same right.
On PTI’s policy
BP: Sarfraz Bugti has blamed the former PTI government’s policy for worsening terrorism. How do you respond?
FC: Let them do their own politics. It is petty politics.
BP: How do you read this?
FC: This is obviously their petty politics. It is clearly a foolish statement.
If you look at who has caused the most damage to Balochistan recently, it is his party. The People’s Party, which in 2008 reversed what Musharraf had done, when he had brought the entire Balochistan under control, declared it a Class A area and expanded the jurisdiction of the police. They reversed it. After that, all the terrorists were released.
So the biggest damage was caused by Mr Bugti’s party, the party he belongs to today.
BP: Did the PTI government’s policy allow the TTP greater access to KP and Balochistan?
FC: Not at all. The three years that PTI was there were the same peaceful years and ultimately you have to go there. It is a far more complex thing than the way PTI’s opponents describe it. It was an institutional decision. It was also a decision of the military, it was also a decision of PTI and, in my view, ultimately you will go there.
