In her op-ed for TIME Magazine, Mahrang Baloch presents herself as a peaceful activist, a modern-day Mandela imprisoned solely for “speaking up for justice.” This carefully curated narrative, designed for Western audiences, paints a picture of a brave human rights defender standing against a monolithic state. However, this portrayal conveniently omits a darker, more complex reality—one in which her activism provides the political and ideological oxygen for a violent separatist insurgency in Balochistan.
The international community, and publications like TIME, must look beyond the poignant prose and scrutinize the dangerous ecosystem Mahrang Baloch and her organization, the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), actively cultivate.
The Selective Condemnation of Violence
Mahrang Baloch claims her movement has “always renounced violence.” This assertion, however, crumbles under scrutiny. While she is quick to condemn state actions, her silence is deafening when Baloch separatists, particularly the designated terrorist organization Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), commit heinous acts of violence.
For instance, where was her condemnation when BLA militants stopped the Jaffar Express train, checked passengers’ national identity cards, and brutally murdered innocent Punjabis and Sindhis based on their ethnicity? Such acts of ethnic cleansing are not isolated incidents but part of a broader campaign of terror aimed at destabilizing the region.
Similarly, Mahrang Baloch has remained conspicuously silent when these same groups destroy schools, hospitals, power lines, and gas pipelines—the very infrastructure essential for the development of the Baloch people she claims to champion.
This selective morality is not an oversight; it is a deliberate strategy. By refusing to condemn terrorist acts and instead framing all BLA violence as legitimate “resistance,” she provides crucial narrative cover. She sanitizes terrorism, repackaging it as a noble struggle for freedom. This is not peaceful activism; it is ideological support for violence.
The Ecosystem of Terror: From ‘Soft’ to ‘Hard’ Power
No insurgency can survive on guns alone. It requires a supportive ecosystem for logistics, recruitment, reconnaissance, and political justification. This is the precise role played by Mahrang Baloch and the BYC. They are the “soft” face of a hard, violent movement.
The BYC’s activities reveal this connection. They are known to receive the corpses of BLA terrorists killed in security operations, holding large funerals that glorify them as martyrs. These events are not mere acts of mourning; they are political spectacles designed to inspire and recruit. Songs celebrating a “free Balochistan” are sung, and separatist rhetoric is amplified, creating a hero-worshipping culture that draws impressionable youth into the orbit of terrorist organizations.
Mahrang Baloch’s activism extends beyond rhetoric. Her network provides logistical support to militants, offering shelter, transport, and a network of sympathizers who facilitate attacks on civilians and security forces. This “soft rebellion” is not a benign expression of dissent; it is the logistical and narrative backbone of the BLA. By framing her actions as peaceful activism, she shields the violent insurgency from scrutiny, allowing it to thrive under the guise of a human rights movement.
A State’s Inherent Right to Self-Defense
Mahrang Baloch questions why she is treated as a threat. The answer is simple: no state worth its name can permit a “soft rebellion” that actively fuels a violent proxy war on its soil. Pakistan is the primary victim of terrorism in the region, facing a sub-conventional conflict in Balochistan sponsored by hostile foreign intelligence agencies. In this context, the distinction between “soft” separatists like Mahrang Baloch and “hard” terrorists like the BLA becomes dangerously blurred. They are two sides of the same coin, working towards the same objective of dismembering the state through violence.
Even the United States, a global champion of free speech, has its limits. American universities have cracked down on the glorification of designated terrorist groups, and the U.S. government has deployed the military to quell riots that threatened national stability. Pakistan, facing an existential threat in Balochistan, has an even greater imperative to act decisively against those who provide ideological and logistical support to terrorism.
The Role of the International Community
The international community must approach the issue of Balochistan with nuance and caution. While human rights abuses must be condemned, it is equally important to recognize the role of separatist groups in perpetuating violence and instability. Publications like TIME have a responsibility to present a balanced view, one that does not romanticize individuals like Mahrang Baloch without examining the broader implications of their activism.
By uncritically amplifying her narrative, the international media risks legitimizing a movement that undermines peace and development in the region. The glorification of figures like Mahrang Baloch not only distorts the reality on the ground but also emboldens separatist groups to continue their campaign of violence. The world must demand accountability not just from states but also from non-state actors who exploit the language of human rights to further their own agendas.
Conclusion
Mahrang Baloch’s carefully crafted image as a peaceful activist is a facade that conceals a more troubling reality. Her selective condemnation of violence, her ideological support for separatist groups, and her role in sustaining the ecosystem of terror in Balochistan make her a key enabler of the insurgency. The international community must look beyond the surface and hold all actors accountable for their role in perpetuating violence and instability. Peace in Balochistan will remain elusive as long as figures like Mahrang Baloch are allowed to operate under the guise of human rights activism while actively supporting a violent separatist agenda.
