Also, wanted to add – Its arguably quite morally lazy to simply sweep the multi-generational struggle of the Baloch for self-determination – if not outright secession, that has repeatedly and consistently raised its voice in speech and in blood over the last 7-8 decades.
Nobody on BP outright denies or pretends that there disaffected secessionist tendencies do not exist in the Sunni Valley. Why then, are we going to pretend that the ‘troubles’ in Balochistan are somehow… inconsequential?
This growing tendency to treat every internal conflict in South Asia as if it were interchangeable with Kashmir (the “Sunni Valley“). This is a mistake, and in the case of Balochistan, a very serious one.
The distinction was once put very clearly to me by Benazir Bhutto herself. In the 1990s, while seeking international advocacy on Kashmir, she was asked by Saddam Hussein a blunt question: If we support Kashmir, why should the world not support Kurdistan? Her reply was immediate and precise. Kashmir, she said, is an international dispute. Kurdistan is not.
That distinction matters, and it still holds.
Kashmir is internationalized by design. It is anchored in UN resolutions, formal bilateral agreements, wars between recognized states, and sustained global diplomatic engagement. It belongs to the same narrow category as Palestine or Cyprus; flashpoints where sovereignty itself is contested between states and therefore cannot be reduced to a domestic matter.
Balochistan does not belong to this category.
Balochistan is not recognized by any international body as a disputed territory. It is not governed by UN frameworks. It is not the subject of binding international mediation. No major power treats it as an open sovereignty question. However severe its internal problems may be, they remain internal. That is not a moral judgment; it is a legal and political fact.
Attempts to equate Balochistan with Kashmir are therefore not acts of analysis but acts of advocacy. They rely on analogy rather than structure, and analogy is the laziest form of reasoning.
It is sometimes argued that Balochistan resembles Khalistan. Even this comparison is limited, but it is at least closer to the truth. Khalistan, like Balochistan, was a domestic insurgency framed retrospectively as a civilizational cause. It failed not because grievances were imaginary, but because the conditions required for internationalization never materialized.
International disputes are not created by suffering alone. They are created by sustained external recognition, legal scaffolding, and the willingness of other states to stake interests on them. Without these, insurgencies remain insurgencies.
What is striking about much contemporary commentary is not its concern for the Baloch, but its analytical laziness. The framework is usually fixed in advance: Pakistan is bad, Pakistan is brittle, therefore Pakistan must be about to break apart. Evidence is then selected to support the conclusion. This is not scholarship. It is confirmation bias with footnotes.
I say this without any vested interest. I am not defending Pakistan as an ideal state, nor minimizing Baloch grievances. On the contrary, I am fervently pro-India when forced to choose. But intellectual honesty requires recognizing that disliking a state does not make every problem it faces existential.
Balochistan is not Kashmir. Treating it as such does not help the Baloch, does not clarify South Asian politics, and does not elevate the discussion. It merely converts serious analysis into moral theatre.
If we want to understand the subcontinent, we must begin by distinguishing between what is internationally contested and what is not. Without that discipline, commentary becomes propaganda; and propaganda, however eloquent, is still false.
See, the thing is all these “UN resolutions” are just words. People just maintain the status quo internationally without acting on it because the LOC is the de-facto international border.
Kashmir is nothing like Palestine and Cyprus, countries which have separate limited recognition and their own systems/currencies.
Kashmiris uses Indian currency, have Indian passports, have Indian aadhars, elect representatives to the Indian parliament etc etc.
No country in the world distinguishes Kashmiris with Indian passports from other Indians.
Heck, even Hong Kong has a different system compared to China.
And post 370 anyone can go into Kashmir and become “Kashmiri” as have many many people who have been living in Kashmir for a while (lower caste valmiki sanitation workers from other states being a key demographic).
And there is no international condemnation etc against them like you have with Israeli settlers because the world doesn’t differentiate between Kashmir and the rest of India.
Sure, you might have the “UN resolutions” but what is the point when no country actually enforces it and considers Kashmiris separate from Indians.
And after Operation Sindoor, even the Indian state have acted similarly. Unlike before when Pakistan thought India would fight within Kashmir itself, it did not.
And of course Balochistan is not Kashmir. It is worse.
The Kashmir movement as an indigenous movement is dead. There are no more hartals, bandhs, calls of azadi from the streets. Geelani is dead. Mirwaiz has mellowed. Yasin Malik will die in jail. Everyone else has joined some party or the other.
And as India gets richer and more powerful and Kashmir more peaceful, the world will forget the Kashmir conflict even more just like it did the Tibet and Xinjiang conflict.
Balochistan is still burning.
You are missing the fundamental point. Kashmir is a DISPUTED TERRITORY. It is not considered to be part of India by anyone except Indians themselves. The entire world uses terms like “Indian-Administered” and “Pakistan Administered” Kashmir.
Balochistan is a province of Pakistan. No country thinks that it is not. No one ever went to the UN and promised the Baloch a plebiscite.
Your (and other Indian commenter’s) obsession with Balochistan just exposes your anti-Pakistan attitude. It’s extremely tiresome at this point.
The comparison between Kashmir and Palestine doesn’t hold (for once I agree with you). Internationally, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are recognized as Occupied Palestinian Territory. Even Israel doesn’t claim that Gaza is part of Israel. Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank are not represented in Israel’s parliament. Kashmiris are represented in India’s parliament.
This is why the world doesn’t use the term “India-Occupied Kashmir”. Pakistan of course does so just as India calls GB and Azad Kashmir “POK”.
Actually it is considered part of India by most of the world (including most of the developed world).
Why were dignitaries from the G20 (including ALL from the USA/UK you like to kang about) were cavorting around in Srinagar during G20?
Why does no one care that Indians from the rest of India can settle down in Kashmir? Why did no one care about the revocation of Article 370?
And you are the one obsessed with India posting multiple articles a day.
And Balochistan insurgency is a reality with violence and casualties far beyond Kashmir in the present day. Remember, Bangladesh was also not a “disputed territory”.
East Pakistan was an integral part of Pakistan. You are correct. But at that point, neither India nor Pakistan had nuclear weapons.
In the current scenario, you all cannot even attempt to break Pakistan. You don’t want to test a nuclear armed state.
Current Balochistan and KPK say otherwise.
Thank you for this post.
The fundamental point is that Kashmir is a Disputed Territory. The LOC is a ceasefire line and not an International Border.
Balochistan can be compared to Nagaland. Both are domestic insurgencies within Pakistan and India respectively. Pakistan has no locus standi to get involved in Naglaland. India has no locus standi to get involved in Balochistan.
Ur welcome ..
“Locus Standi” according to whom? There is no divine decree that needs to be followed.
India attacked Sindh and Punjab (and KPK too with drones tbh) when Pakistan conducted a terror attack in Kashmir.
Balochistan was the only one spared. Guess it really is not a part of Pakistan.
You are missing the basic point. Either you are not very smart or you are being disingenuous. Frankly, I hate disingenuous arguments more than stupid ones.
Balochistan is Pakistan’s internal problem. Nagaland is India’s internal problem. Neither is comparable to Occupied Kashmir which is a Disputed Territory (in the eyes of the entire International Community). Not a single country thinks the LOC is an international border. It is a ceasefire line. As far as Pakistan is concerned, the border between Pakistani Punjab and Jammu is also a Working Boundary.
“Pakistan conducted a terror attack”– No credible evidence was presented in front of the international community. India can throw around whatever accusations it likes. At this point, no one takes you seriously. India’s own analysts have pointed out that the only countries fully on India’s side in May were the Taliban and Israel.
Any violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty will be responded to with full force. This is a red line for Pakistan–as it is for any other nation-state.
Internal according to whom?
Pakistan’s “sovirginity” was violated multiple times in May. No “full force” happened. Or maybe that limp dick performance was Pakistan’s “full force”.
Also countries treat LOC as international border, considering there is no differentiation of Kashmiris wrt to Indians from other parts of India.
“Internal according to whom?”– Now, you’re being disingenuous again. This is really getting tiresome so I’m going to cease responding to you.
Balochistan is not a Disputed Territory. It is a province of Pakistan. India has no business getting involved. Nagaland is a state of India. Pakistan has no business getting involved.
Occupied Kashmir is Disputed Territory. Is that clear enough for you?
“countries treat LOC as international border”– Every country is clear the Kashmir Dispute remains on the agenda of the UN. By definition, a “line of control” is not a border but a ceasefire line.
This point is clear even to children. So clearly you are being willfully obtuse.
Business according to whom? Which divine entity will enforce these rules.
If Pakistan are up to mischief in Kashmir, Indians will do so in Balochistan in greater degree.
And it is already happening.
Once again, territorial integrity is a red line for all nation states.
You don’t seem to understand how nation-states work.
Balochistan is not a Disputed Territory.
Beta, Balochistan mai to hum hungame kar hi rahe hai. Aur karenge.
Pakistan Army will deal with all your proxies. Don’t worry about it.
Only thing Pakistan Army is dealing with now is arranging coffins for its soldiers.
And trend lines suggest it is getting way way worse.
Considering Balochistan/KPK/Afghanistan TFRs, you guys are screwed.
@X.T.M–
Do you consider this comment appropriate? This is gloating about the deaths of Pakistani soldiers. This is anti Pakistan trolling.
If I were to write something similar about the deaths of Indian soldiers, all hell would break loose.
.
Complaint upheld; calm pls
Any discussion on the secessionist issues of the subcontinent is incomplete without taking in to account the geopolitical milieu that informed and shaped those specific situations.
Kashmir is internationalized in no insignificant measure because Nehru believed the UN was a good faith actor that would try to solve the problem. It is another matter that he was manipulated in to doing so by Mountbatten and the Brits and discouraged from taking back PoK by the British C-in-C of Indian army in ’48. The calculus was to avoid any land connection between India and USSR to prevent access to the Indian Ocean region to the Soviets.
Having said that, I do not fully disagree with you XTM. My limited point is that if internationalization is the only differentiator then the the said internationalized itself is fundamentally hollow. Of course, outside the Indian context, there are many examples that may contradict this too – Tibet, being a great case in point.
Excellent comment – thank you
when pakistan was ‘winning’ in kashmir, it was parroting the slogan ‘right of self determination’. now that the boot is on the other foot, this slogan is not being shouted loudly. if pakistan really believed in ‘idea of self determination’ it should be happy about bangladesh.
Pakistani parroting of ‘self-determination’ should first start at home.
Unless that happens, nobody on the planet really cares no matter how loud the shrieking emanating from Islamabad/Rawalpind gets – at the UN or elsewhere.
“if Pakistan really believed in ‘idea of self determination’ it should be happy about Bangladesh”.
All of you really don’t understand the distinction between DISPUTED TERRITORY and an integral part of a nation-state.
East Pakistan was an unequivocal part of Pakistan. What happened there was not “self-determination” but secession. Secession is a red-line for any nation-state.
Kashmir is Disputed Territory. The LOC is a ceasefire line. India’s tallest leader (Pandit Nehru) went to the UN and promised the Kashmiri people a plebiscite.
Kashmir is fundamentally different from Bangladesh or Balochistan. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
“A Peace Conference on Kashmir Highlights New Delhi’s Unfulfilled Promises”
By Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprashasta
https://thewire.in/politics/a-peace-conference-on-kashmir-highlights-new-delhis-unfulfilled-promises