A recent article by The Independent’s Namita Singh on the repeated attacks targeting Pakistan’s Jaffar Express paints a grim picture of insecurity — but it also offers an incomplete, and at times misleading, portrayal of Balochistan’s realities.
While the piece highlights the role of the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and Baloch Republican Guards (BRG) in recent train attacks, it fails to explore who fuels these groups, how they sustain their networks, and who echoes their rhetoric online and abroad. Singh reports that the BLA claimed responsibility for the attack, but she leaves out an essential fact — that BLA and BLF are internationally designated terrorist organizations, banned in the United States, United Kingdom, and Pakistan for orchestrating deadly attacks on unarmed civilians, including teachers, rail passengers, and laborers.
Equally problematic is the portrayal of Balochistan itself. The region is not universally gripped by insurgency — as the report implies — but rather challenged by isolated pockets of militancy largely concentrated in certain districts. Across most of the province, ordinary citizens continue their lives, contributing to governance, education, and development. By failing to make that distinction, the article risks stigmatizing an entire province and its people.
Perhaps the most glaring omission is the absence of context about the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) and Dr. Mahrang Baloch, who is amplifying the narratives of banned militant outfits under the guise of “rights activism.” Indian media has frequently presented Mahrang as a “role model” or “freedom icon,” yet her silence on the civilian casualties of BLA attacks — including those killed aboard the Jaffar Express — raises serious questions about the ideological alignment between such activists and the groups Singh describes merely as “insurgents.”
When the Railways Minister pointed to Indian involvement in these attacks, citing networks that back BLA and BLF, The Independent treated it as an unsubstantiated claim — ignoring substantial evidence like the EU DisinfoLab 2020 report, which exposed a vast India-linked disinformation network promoting anti-Pakistan narratives and amplifying separatist causes abroad.
By omitting these realities, Singh’s piece inadvertently sanitizes the image of militant groups and erases the suffering of their civilian victims. Journalism about conflict must go beyond shock headlines — it must confront the uncomfortable truths of propaganda, foreign influence, and the exploitation of youth by those who manipulate identity for violence.
This piece in The Independent is more like a PR for the Terrorists and their sympthaizers.
