The group calling itself Paank has released a dramatic document titled “A Year of Repression: Balochistan 2025,” claiming 1,355 enforced disappearances, 225 extrajudicial killings, and widespread state brutality in Balochistan.
But strip away the emotional language, and a troubling pattern emerges:
This report reads less like neutral human rights documentation and more like political shielding for militant networks. Because its presence is just on X, and is a propaganda account for the banned terrorist organization Baloch Liberation Army.
No Ground Presence — Yet Sweeping Claims
Paank does not have a known, verifiable on-ground presence in Balochistan. It operates from Europe, far from the towns, districts, and conflict zones it describes in granular detail.
That matters.
In an active militancy environment, where propaganda flows as freely as gunfire, credible reporting depends on transparent sourcing and field verification. Without that, statistics become narratives — not evidence.
Affiliations That Raise Red Flags
Paank is widely aligned with the Baloch National Movement (BNM), a soft face for terrorists in is active in Europe. BNM-linked activists engage in coordinated lobbying, protest mobilization, and asylum advocacy abroad.
There are also repeated cases that some Baloch students who travel overseas on scholarships become part of political campaigning networks once outside Pakistan, with figures like Naseem Baloch — including individuals associated with BNM leadership — encouraging asylum narratives and protest participation. Students coming from Balochistan are being diverted towards protests in order to make case for asylum.
The “Indian Chronicles” Shadow
The controversy deepens when seen alongside the “Indian Chronicles” investigation by EU DisinfoLab, which uncovered hundreds of dubious NGOs and media platforms operating in Brussels and Geneva to influence international narratives about Pakistan.
Paank’s operations resemble the kind of remote, perception-focused advocacy networks identified in that investigation — groups that shape diplomatic discourse without transparent local accountability.
At minimum, the overlap in methods raises legitimate questions.
Who Gets Counted — and Who Doesn’t
Paank’s report highlights disappearances and killings. What it reportedly does not do with equal force is document the civilians killed in militant attacks by the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA).
Paank Reported Umair Baloch son of Abdul Rauf resident of Kili Qumbrani Quetta as enforced disappeared. Umair Baloch was a BLA terrorists killed on 2nd February in Kech Balochistan, after clashes with security forces.
Recent attacks across Balochistan targeted markets, schools, banks, and public spaces, killing dozens of civilians. Pakistani authorities say roughly 200 militants were killed in subsequent clearance operations after these coordinated assaults.
Many individuals Paank lists as “enforced disappeared” may include militants involved in those very attacks — yet the report does not clearly distinguish between civilians, political activists, and armed fighters.
When combatants are presented without context, the line between victim documentation and militant rehabilitation starts to vanish.
Terminology That Rewrites Reality
Language is power in conflict reporting.
If an armed fighter is described only as a “missing person,” readers abroad see a victim. If a militant network is never clearly labeled as responsible for mass-casualty attacks, the moral equation shifts.
Paank reportedly avoids explicitly calling the BLA a terrorist group while amplifying allegations solely against the state. That asymmetry doesn’t just reflect bias — it reshapes the story of the conflict for foreign audiences.
Information Warfare in a Human Rights Wrapper
Modern conflicts are no longer confined to mountains and highways. They play out in:
• EU policy circles
• UN human rights forums
• Asylum courts
• International media
Reports like Paank’s don’t just inform — they influence sanctions debates, diplomatic pressure, and global perception. That makes selective reporting a geopolitical tool.
From this perspective, the issue is not whether abuses occur — every conflict zone demands scrutiny. The issue is why only one stream of violence receives sustained documentation, while militant brutality fades into footnotes or disappears entirely.
When documentation appears to shield one armed actor while prosecuting the other in the court of global opinion, it stops being a rights report and starts being conflict advocacy.
