Asif Mahmood 

Baluchistan has become a battlefield, and the lines of confrontation are now unmistakably clear. On one side stands the security and integrity of Pakistan. On the other stand India, Israel, and their proxies. This is not the time for ambiguity or hesitation. The state and society must unite in confronting terrorism. This is no ordinary conflict. It is a war imposed upon Pakistan’s bright future. Whether Pakistan rises to its potential or falls short of it will be decided here. The words of Charles Dickens seem particularly apt: “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. It was the season of light; it was the season of darkness. It was the spring of hope; it was the winter of despair.” If one observes carefully, Baluchistan has received unusually sustained attention in the international media in recent years. A closer look reveals that media outlets known for their pro Israel inclinations have been especially active. Within Israel itself, Baluchistan has become a recurring subject of discussion, from right wing publications such as The Times of Israel to The Jerusalem Post. At times, articles in publications like Jerusalem Tribune focus on Pakistan’s valuable mineral resources and offer advice to the United States on how China might be distanced from Pakistan. At other times, institutions such as the Middle East Media Research Institute highlight the supposed advantages of expanding Israeli influence in Baluchistan through local proxies. It should be remembered that the Middle East Media Research Institute is a strategic communications organization currently headed by a former Israeli intelligence official. None of this is happening without reason. Indeed, it is no longer even concealed. A cursory look at Israeli newspapers is enough to show that terrorism in Baluchistan has become a regular subject of discussion, one that is increasingly being presented as a significant strategic opportunity for Israel. Three objectives recur repeatedly in Israeli commentary. The first objective is Pakistan itself. The argument being advanced is that the armed groups operating in Baluchistan are natural allies of Israel and can be used to serve Israeli interests. The rationale offered is that these groups are secular, do not possess a religious orientation, pose no threat to Israel, and pursue a local agenda. Consequently, Israel is encouraged to work with such elements in order to expand its influence in the region. Articles are being written arguing that such a strategy could pressure Pakistan into retreating from its support for the Palestinian cause. The second objective is Iran. Israeli commentators have increasingly begun to discuss the possibility of expanding Israeli influence in Baluchistan through proxies in order to monitor Iran more closely and create strategic difficulties for it. The third objective is CPEC. In other words, both Pakistan and China are in the crosshairs. Baluchistan is of critical importance. A glance at the map makes it clear that much of Pakistan’s geostrategic significance rests on Baluchistan. Whether one speaks of Gwadar, critical minerals, or the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, Baluchistan lies at the centre of the discussion. It is Pakistan’s lifeline. If that lifeline comes under attack, and if unrest is deliberately fomented there, then this is a matter that goes beyond qualifications and caveats. There is no room for ambiguity, hesitation, or confusion. When war is imposed upon a state, that war must be fought. At such a moment, all other considerations become secondary. The point to understand is that what is happening in Baluchistan is not merely terrorism. It is an insurgency. Terrorism is only one of its many manifestations. Under the cover of politics and human rights advocacy, this insurgency is also receiving facilitation and support. In other words, alongside the insurgency itself, a post insurgency narrative is also being advanced. Its purpose is to keep society confused, to create doubt and uncertainty, and to provide intellectual and political cover for the insurgency while keeping the public distracted and divided. Late though it may be, Pakistan now appears to be recognising that the solution lies in responding with clarity and determination. Zero tolerance is essential. Undoubtedly, Baluchistan has its fault lines, and there remains considerable room for improvement in governance. However, neither of these factors can serve as a justification for terrorism or insurgency. Administrative shortcomings exist everywhere and should certainly be addressed, but such issues are resolved through parliamentary politics, not through the barrel of a gun. Pakistan today is in a far stronger position, both militarily and diplomatically. Furthermore, the United States has been brought on board regarding Pakistan’s valuable mineral resources, creating a degree of strategic cooperation. Alongside China, the United States also has little interest in seeing continued instability in Baluchistan. Pakistan should therefore address this challenge with complete focus and determination. To reiterate, this is not the time for ambiguity or hesitation. The state and society must unite in confronting terrorism. This is no ordinary war. It is a war imposed upon Pakistan’s bright future. Whether Pakistan rises to its potential or falls short of it will be decided here.