The recent events in Balochistan surrounding the BNP-M’s long march and subsequent sit-in reflect the growing frustration of the province’s people with the state’s heavy-handed approach to political dissent. When Akhtar Mengal launched his long march from Wadh to Quetta on March 28, his core demand was simple: the release of Mahrang Baloch and other detained women activists. However, what unfolded was a telling example of how the state often reacts to peaceful political activity with obstruction and suppression.
Instead of allowing the BNP-M to complete its march and register its protest democratically, authorities erected roadblocks and created hurdles that forced the protestors to convert the movement into a sit-in. As of now, negotiations have failed, and although there are murmurs from the provincial government about allowing the BNP-M to reach Quetta albeit not the red zone trust has already been eroded.
This is not an isolated incident. The arrest of the provincial head of the JWP and restrictions on political activity across the province indicate a broader pattern of suppressing dissent. Various political parties have rightly called on the state to lift these restrictions and allow democratic expression to thrive.
In a province like Balochistan, where political voice has been historically stifled and grievances have long gone unaddressed, denying citizens the right to peaceful protest can only escalate tensions. The state must realise that every crackdown adds fuel to the fire of alienation. The distinction between peaceful political activism and militant violence must be clearly made. Equating legitimate democratic demands with anti-state activity is a dangerous conflation that has failed time and again.
Akhtar Mengal and other moderate nationalists represent voices that are still willing to engage through democratic means. Ignoring or sidelining them only emboldens the more radical elements who feed on the state’s refusal to engage politically. By listening to these moderates and addressing their concerns — starting with the release of women activists — the state can initiate a process of reconciliation and trust-building.
The militarised approach may silence dissent temporarily, but it has not resolved Balochistan’s underlying issues. A durable solution lies in dialogue, development, and the creation of political space. Sagacity, not suppression, must guide the state’s policy in Balochistan. If political expression is repeatedly crushed, the disaffection that simmers just beneath the surface could erupt into a more volatile and unmanageable crisis. It is time to replace coercion with conversation and control with compassion.
