AGENDA -

The Situation in Balochistan

 INDEX
Topic
1. Letter from the Executive Board
2. Origin and the Overview of the UNSC
3. Nature of evidence
4. Rules of Procedure
5. Overview of the Agenda
Nature and Scope of the Conflict and
6.
Core Dynamics
7. Geographical Context
8. Effects and Remedies
9. Economic Impacts
10. Case Studies
11. Timeline of Events
12. QARMA
LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE
BOARD
Dear Delegates,
It is with incredible delight that we invite you all to the academic simulation of
the UNSC at
DeMUN 2025. We trust this experience improves your public speaking abilities and
that you find out about a squeezing world issue that convolutes the existence of
numerous individuals in our nation just as abroad. Please consider that the
following guide, as the name suggests, is merely to provide you with the
background of the agenda and cannot serve as a credible source of information.
Your real research lies beyond this guide, and we hope to see some strong content
and debate come our way. The agenda at hand is vast and complex and a successful
discussion on it would entail the collective participation of all of you. It shall be
your prerogative to decide where you want to take this committee. The background
guide is designed to help everyone understand the basic things about the agenda,
and we strongly recommend that you research various things on your own. We also
suggest understanding how various rights get affected (legally). Please don't be
taken aback by the research, foreign policy and other details of the allotted
country. Before coming for the meeting, it is vital to break the agenda into more
modest subtopics and pose inquiries to yourself about the plan. Making chits and
directed gathering points previously would give you an edge. That said, we also
want you to understand that a Model UN is more about collaboration and coming
together to solve global issues than a competition and we sincerely hope that the
entire committee comes with the right spirit in this conference. It is also crucial to
enhance your leadership skills and lobbying capacity since we would give equal
importance to overall participation in the committee. We would be using the UNA-
USA rules of procedure to facilitate this simulation.

Take the initiative to research properly. PLEASE READ THE GUIDE. While it is a
clear agenda, it is still open to interpretation and there shall be no direction of
debate that shall be provided by the Executive Board. Delegates are required to
direct the council at all stages unless stagnation occurs. The agenda of an MUN is
a beautiful experience and is not as difficult as it may seem. We hope to see a great
level of effort and enthusiasm from you all so that we all can take back a great
experience.
Co-Chairperson- Parthiv Chakravarty
Co-Chairperson- Mr. Sarkar
Moderator- M.P Sudiksha Chandra
 Origin and the Overview of the
UNSC
The UNSC is often referred to as the pillar of the United Nations and the global
forum, The fifteen members of the UN Security Council seek to address threats to
international security. The UN Charter established the Security Council, which gives
primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security
Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.The Security Council consists
of ten elected members, and five permanent members (China, the United States,
France, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation)Under the Charter of the
United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions. It
calls upon the parties to settle any dispute by peaceful means and recommends
methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can
resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore
international peace and security. The Security Council has five permanent members—
the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom—collectively known
as the P5. These nations possess the ‘veto power’

According to the Charter, the United Nations has four purposes:

to maintain international peace and security;

to develop friendly relations among nations;
to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human
rights;
to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.

All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the
Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to
member states, only the Security Council has the power to make decisions that member
states are then obligated to implement under the Charter. Overall, being the root of the
United Nations, the UNSC represents peace, prosperity and development of the global
nation.

It calls upon all the member states to settle disparities peacefully and promptly to
enhance the global peace of the world. UNSC has one goal, to maintain international
peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving
international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a center
for harmonizing the actions of nations.
 Nature of evidence
Documents from the following reports and documents will be
accepted in committee in cases of any controversial
statements made in the session. Below, some reports will not
serve as proper evidence in committee .

1. Reuters, Al jazeera- Documents and quotations from the

Reuters and Al jazeera news agencies will be widely accepted.
In cases of executive board approval of the accuracy check
on statements that surround controversy which are made in
committee.

2. Official Government documents-: Government official

documents, reports and quotations will also be considered as
evidence or proof of any such statement made during
committee.

3. UN official reports- All United Nations agency reports will

be accepted as adequate evidence and proof. Quotations and
Verbatim from UN charters will suffice as solid proof and
will stand valid.

4. Invalid sources- Evidence and quotations from sources like

Wikipedia will not serve as authentic proof in committee.
Although it is barred to serve as proof, it can be used to
understand the agenda better
 Rules of Procedure
A Model UN is built upon its rules of procedure. With no proper conduct,
we fail the entire point of a mock UN. This section of the Background guide
will cover all the ROPs required to know the basic happenings of a
conference.
1. Research:- Each delegate must research the nation's profile, agenda
background, previous international action and country foreign policy along
with possible solutions that relate to the agenda. These five aspects serve as
the cornerstones of the research made by the delegate.
2. Roll call :- A delegate can vote either ‘present’ or ‘present and voting’.
‘Present’ grants the delegate to abstain from voting upon the draft
resolution whereas ‘Present and voting’ does not grant the delegate the same
power of abstaining.

3. The General Speakers List :- The GSL refers to a speech of merely 90

seconds that talks about the agenda or summarizes one's position paper. It
is to be of relevance to one's nation and the agenda.

4. Time Yields :- If a delegate has an amount of time remaining in their

speech, they may yield their time in the following ways.

Yield to the EB
Yield to the floor for questions
Yield to comments
Yield to another delegate

5. Moderated Caucus :- A moderated caucus refers to speech made to cover

a sub-topic of the agenda. It requires a majority of committee votes to pass.
It requires specific verbatim to make it valid. For example :- “The delegate
of XYZ would like to motion for a moderated caucus on the topic XYZ for a
total time period of X providing X to each speaker.

6. Unmoderated Caucus :- During this caucus, delegates are free to lobby,

discuss future moderated caucuses, make allies, working papers etc. it is
often referred to as informal debate.
7.Points :- There are four points that are used in a conference. They are as
follows
Point of information- POI’s are questions directed to a delegate's speech
in accordance to the agenda and are strictly required to be relevant.
Point of order- Under a point of order a delegate may raise either a
‘logical fallacy’ or ‘factual inaccuracy’
❖ Logical fallacy- When a delegate has mentioned something in their speech
which is logically fallacious we refer to it as a logical fallacy.
❖ Factual inaccuracy- When a delegate has mentioned a fact which is wrong
or
inaccurate of any sort, we refer to it as a factual inaccuracy.
Point of parliamentary enquiry-: A POE may be raised to clarify any
doubts and misunderstandings with regards to the proceedings of the
committee.
Point of personal privilege-: A Point of Personal Privilege must refer to a
matter of personal comfort, safety and/or well being of the members of
the committee.
8. Documentation
Position paper-: Refers to a paper that is to be submitted prior to the
dates of the conference. It contains the stance of your nation and must
answer the following Current position of the nation Past actions Possible
solutions
Draft resolution-: Resolutions are a commuted compilation of the
solution discussed in committee that are presented to the world
community as an actionable or suggestion to curb a certain issue,
Working Paper-: Working papers are an outline of the solutions
proposed. They are usually to be submitted prior to the tabling of the DR.
9. Voting
There are 5 types of voting methods. All being-:----
Yes
No
Yes with rights
No with rights
Abstain
 Overview of the Agenda

The Balochistan insurgency is a deeply rooted conflict

that intertwines ethnic aspirations,
economic grievances, and geopolitical tensions across
Pakistan’s largest province and Iran’s
Sistan and Baluchestan. Driven by Baloch separatists’
demands for control over natural
resources and political autonomy, alongside Islamist
militant activities, this struggle
challenges state authority and regional stability. To
grasp its complexity, we must explore its
multifaceted nature, from its geographic scope to its
historical origins and recent escalations.
This overview traces the insurgency’s evolution,
connecting its past to present dynamics,
and highlights the interplay of local, national, and
international forces. By weaving together
these threads, we set the stage for United Nations
Security Council (UNSC) discussions on
addressing a conflict marked by persistent unrest,
human rights concerns, and cross-border
implications.
 Nature and Scope of the Conflict
and Core Dynamics

At the heart of the Balochistan insurgency lies a struggle for self-determination. In

Pakistan’s
Balochistan, which spans 44% of the country’s territory but holds only 5% of its
population,
Baloch separatists seek greater control over the province’s vast natural resources,
including
gas and minerals, and demand political autonomy from a centralized government.
Similarly,
in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan, Baloch groups resist Persian-dominated rule, echoing
calls
for local empowerment. Yet, the conflict extends beyond separatism, as insurgents have
targeted civilians from other ethnic groups in Pakistan, fueling ethnic tensions and
complicating peace efforts. This multifaceted unrest, blending nationalist and militant
agendas, sets the stage for understanding its broader implications.
Sectarian Dimensions
Adding complexity, sectarian violence has surged, particularly in the 2010s. In Pakistan,
extremist groups’ attacks on Shia communities, though not always tied to the separatist
cause, have intensified unrest, especially in northern and central Balochistan. Meanwhile,
the ethnic insurgency remains concentrated in the south, creating a dual challenge of
religious militancy and nationalist rebellion. This interplay of motives underscores the
need
to address both ethnic and sectarian grievances, a theme that resonates through the
conflict’s history.
Cycles of Rebellion
The insurgency’s persistence is rooted in a series of uprisings in Pakistan, occurring in
1948–50, 1958–60, 1962–63, and 1973–77, with a low-level conflict ongoing since 2003.
These cycles reflect enduring demands for autonomy and resource equity. However,
internal

fractures have emerged, with some separatists accusing their own factions of turning to
crime, including robbery and violence against Baloch women, undermining the
movement’s
original ideals. Despite this, some militants have embraced government reconciliation
efforts,
surrendering arms, highlighting the movement’s diverse motivations. As we explore
further,
economic disparities emerge as a key driver.
Economic Disparities
Balochistan’s economic marginalization fuels resentment. Despite its resource wealth, the
province remains Pakistan’s poorest, with limited infrastructure and opportunities. The
Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), labeled a terrorist group by Pakistan, the United
Kingdom, and the United States, leads the separatist charge, launching deadly attacks on
military personnel, police, journalists, civilians, and schools since 2000. Other groups, like
Lashkar-e-Balochistan and the Balochistan Liberation United Front (BLUF), amplify the
unrest. These economic grievances, coupled with political exclusion, sustain the
insurgency’s momentum.
Human Rights Issues
The conflict is marred by human rights abuses, with both sides facing accusations.
Human
rights advocates point to extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, and torture by
Pakistani and Iranian forces, while insurgents are criticized for civilian attacks and
criminality.
This cycle of violations deepens mistrust, making reconciliation elusive. Transitioning
from
these dynamics, we now examine the geographic context that shapes the insurgency’s
scope.
 Geographical Context
The insurgency unfolds across a vast, rugged region that defines its strategic and cultural
significance. Historical Balochistan spans southern Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan, eastern
Pakistan’s Balochistan, and parts of Afghanistan’s Helmand province, bordered by the Gulf
of Oman to the south. Mountai

Military Response
The Pakistani military’s dominance, perceived as representing Punjabi interests (Punjabis
constitute 45% of Pakistan’s population), is a significant grievance. Baloch communities
often view the military’s political interventions unfavorably, citing a lack of Baloch
representation. The military’s aggressive counterinsurgency tactics have led to a cycle of
violence, with reports describing a “harsh response” that escalates conflict. A Pakistan
Security Research Unit report highlights that Islamabad’s militarized approach has resulted
in widespread human rights abuses, mass displacement, and the deaths of hundreds of
civilians and security personnel. The International Crisis Group notes that attempts to
suppress the insurgency, as in past rebellions, feed Baloch disaffection, alienating moderate
voices through arbitrary detentions and kidnappings.
Human Rights Violations
Human rights issues are a major driver of the insurgency, with both state and militant actors
implicated.The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) has been accused of targeting non-Baloch
civilians, with reports estimating around 800 civilian deaths, including non-Baloch settlers,
since 2006, though specific leadership directives remain unverified
The Economist estimates that around 800 non-Baloch settlers and Baloch have been killed
by militant groups since 2006. Human Rights Watch has documented BLA and Balochistan
Liberation United Front (BLUF) attacks on schools, teachers, and students, prompting
many
educators to flee to safer areas like Quetta or leave the province entirely. Militant groups
have also claimed responsibility for killing journalists, further stifling free expression.
Baloch
separatists have accused each other of human rights abuses, complicating the movement’s
Cohesion.
 Human rights groups estimate between 5,000 and 8,000 enforced disappearances by
Pakistani security forces in Balochistan from 2003 to 2012, though exact figures, including
claims of over 1,000 in 2008, remain disputed. Reports of torture and “kill-and-dump”
campaigns, allegedly by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Frontier Corps (FC),
describe bodies found with signs of severe abuse. A 2013 Human Rights Commission of
Pakistan report identified ISI and FC as perpetrators, though noted recent cooperation
with
local police. The Pakistan Rangers are also accused of violations. No accountability has
been established, with security officials denying allegations and claiming insurgents use
military uniforms to frame the state. A senior provincial official argued that missing
persons
figures are exaggerated, including insurgents, immigrants, and those killed in operations.
Militant groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi have targeted Shia Muslims, killing about 600 in
recent years, while Sunni extremism has driven persecution of Hindus, Shias, Hazaras,
and Zikris, leading to the migration of over 300,000 from Balochistan. The BLA and
Baloch
Liberation Front (BLF) have also targeted Zikri communities.
At a Geneva camp, Baloch Republican Party (BRP) leader Sher Baz Bugti alleged that
Baloch youth, women, and children were held in “torture cells,” with Brahumdagh Bugti
urging the United Nations to address the “Baloch genocide.”
Judicial Investigations
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has investigated over 5,000 cases of forced disappearances
in Balochistan, describing the situation as “out of control.” The court issued an arrest
warrant
for former military dictator Pervez Musharraf and directed the military to operate under
government authority within constitutional limits. In June 2011, the prime minister
reported
that 41 missing persons had returned home, 38 false cases were withdrawn, and others
were traced. A 2011 commission registered 5,369 complaints, claiming to have traced over
3,600 individuals. In 2018, the Balochistan National Party (Mengal) reported 300 missing
persons returned home, and in January 2019, the Voice of Baloch Missing People (VBMP)
suspended protests after dozens returned, providing a list of 110 still missing. In June 2019,
Balochistan’s Home Minister reported recovering 200 missing persons from a list of 250
provided by VBMP.
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Iqbal, ordered subsistence allowances for affected
families and recommended making the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced
Disappearances
permanent, acknowledging the chronic nature of the issue.
 Human rights groups estimate between 5,000 and 8,000 enforced disappearances by
Pakistani security forces in Balochistan from 2003 to 2012, though exact figures, including
claims of over 1,000 in 2008, remain disputed. Reports of torture and “kill-and-dump”
campaigns, allegedly by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Frontier Corps (FC),
describe bodies found with signs of severe abuse. A 2013 Human Rights Commission of
Pakistan report identified ISI and FC as perpetrators, though noted recent cooperation
with
local police. The Pakistan Rangers are also accused of violations. No accountability has
been established, with security officials denying allegations and claiming insurgents use
military uniforms to frame the state. A senior provincial official argued that missing
persons
figures are exaggerated, including insurgents, immigrants, and those killed in operations.
Militant groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi have targeted Shia Muslims, killing about 600 in
recent years, while Sunni extremism has driven persecution of Hindus, Shias, Hazaras,
and Zikris, leading to the migration of over 300,000 from Balochistan. The BLA and
Baloch
Liberation Front (BLF) have also targeted Zikri communities.
At a Geneva camp, Baloch Republican Party (BRP) leader Sher Baz Bugti alleged that
Baloch youth, women, and children were held in “torture cells,” with Brahumdagh Bugti
urging the United Nations to address the “Baloch genocide.”
Judicial Investigations
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has investigated over 5,000 cases of forced disappearances
in Balochistan, describing the situation as “out of control.” The court issued an arrest
warrant
for former military dictator Pervez Musharraf and directed the military to operate under
government authority within constitutional limits. In June 2011, the prime minister
reported
that 41 missing persons had returned home, 38 false cases were withdrawn, and others
were traced. A 2011 commission registered 5,369 complaints, claiming to have traced over
3,600 individuals. In 2018, the Balochistan National Party (Mengal) reported 300 missing
persons returned home, and in January 2019, the Voice of Baloch Missing People (VBMP)
suspended protests after dozens returned, providing a list of 110 still missing. In June 2019,
Balochistan’s Home Minister reported recovering 200 missing persons from a list of 250
provided by VBMP.
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Iqbal, ordered subsistence allowances for affected
families and recommended making the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced
Disappearances
permanent, acknowledging the chronic nature of the issue.
 Effects and Remedies

Development Efforts
The Pakistani government has emphasized industrializing Balochistan
through the 2009
“Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan” package, which includes political
and economic reforms.
Baloch nationalists argue that these benefits have not reached local
residents, as resource
extraction, particularly natural gas, continues without significant
economic gains for the
Baloch. The government plans industrial zones along the Gwadar-
Karachi highway, claiming
they will drive future progress, though skepticism persists due to past
unfulfilled promises.
In 2006, three Chinese engineers were killed and 11 injured in attacks
on a cement factory
project, prompting China to recall its workers. Progress in hydropower
has since been slow.
The region’s nomadic lifestyle, marked by poverty and illiteracy,
persists, with ongoing
violence threatening indigenous communities. Amnesty International
reports that Baloch
activists, politicians, and students face forced disappearances,
abductions, arrests, and
torture.
 Economic Impacts
Violence has driven out skilled workers, including professors, teachers, engineers, and
laborers, hindering development. The Balochistan chief minister warned that such
losses
could set the province back a century, blaming targeted killings. The government has
approved university campuses, medical colleges, and hospitals in Turbat, Mastung,
Naseerabad, and Loralai, but a shortage of teachers limits impact. The killing of rice
traders
from Punjab has increased food prices, with nearly 40 non-Baloch individuals targeted
in
2009.
Development Funding
Balochistan’s annual development budget grew from Rs 13 billion in 2007–08 to Rs 27
billion
in 2010–11, allowing each provincial assembly member a personal development budget of
Rs 180 million, rising to Rs 250 million in 2011–12. Critics argue this funding does not
address political grievances and may incentivize prolonged conflict, as assembly
members
benefit financially. Allegations of corruption, including kickback schemes, further
undermine
Trust.
Energy and Agricultural Initiatives
The Gadani Energy Corridor, announced by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, plans four
coal-fired power plants to generate 5,200 megawatts. Nationalists oppose the project,
citing
lack of consultation and preferring expanded electricity access over capacity increases. A
Rs
4 billion federal subsidy, matched by Rs 3 billion from the provincial government,
supports
tube-well construction for farmers, though corruption may limit benefits.
Educational Investments
In January 2011, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani announced the Army Education City in
Sui,
alongside colleges like the Balochistan Institute of Technical Education (BITE) and
Gwadar
Institute of Technical Education (GITE), producing 1,673 graduates. Approximately
22,786
Baloch students attend military-run institutions, aimed at addressing educational
deficits.
 CASE STUDIES
The Balochistan conflict involves a range of stakeholders, each with distinct interests,
influence, and roles in shaping the insurgency’s trajectory. These actors include regional
powers, international players, and local groups, whose actions impact the conflict’s dynamics
and prospects for resolution. Understanding their motivations—ranging from geopolitical
strategies to economic stakes and ideological commitments—is critical for crafting effective
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. The following analysis examines key
stakeholders, focusing on their historical involvement, current positions, and potential
influence on the conflict’s outcome.
Stakeholder Analysis

Afghanistan

Afghanistan has historically supported Baloch separatists, providing sanctuary and training
during multiple periods. In 1948 and the mid-1950s, it offered refuge to rebels, and under
President Mohammed Daoud Khan in the 1970s, it established modern training camps in
Kabul and Kandahar for Baloch insurgents. These camps, supervised by Republican guards,
aimed to destabilize Pakistan. Daoud’s government also supplied arms and aid, though
support waned after the 1975 Panjshir uprising and his peace overtures to Pakistan in 1976
and 1978. After Daoud’s 1978 ouster, Nur Muhammad Taraki’s communist regime resumed
support, reopening camps.
WikiLeaks cables from 2010 revealed that President Hamid Karzai sheltered Brahumdagh
Bugti, a key separatist leader, in Kabul, causing tensions with Pakistan. Bugti, who fled to
Afghanistan in 2006, was accused by Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf of planning attacks from
Afghan soil. Afghan officials initially denied his presence but later admitted it. Bugti moved
to
Switzerland in 2010, where his asylum request was denied in 2017 due to links to terrorism.
In 2012, Pakistan’s Frontier Corps chief reported over 30 militant camps in Afghanistan
supporting Baloch insurgents. Afghan officials and media confirmed that separatists,
including BLA commander Aslam Baloch, resided in Kandahar for years. Aslam and six BLA
commanders were killed in a 2018 suicide attack in Kandahar, and another attack in 2019
targeted Baloch insurgents, highlighting Afghanistan’s role as a militant hub despite risks to
separatists.
India
India’s alleged involvement in Balochistan has been a point of contention. In the 1970s,
Indian intelligence officers reportedly provided money and arms to Baloch and Pashtun
militants, collaborating with Iraq and Afghanistan to counter Pakistan and Iran’s alliance.
Groups like Pashtun Zalmay conducted attacks in Pakistan, straining India-Iran relations. By
2008, Indian officials were reportedly engaging Baloch militants, with some receiving medical
treatment in India under assumed identities. For instance, a BLA commander from Khuzdar
was treated in Delhi in 2017, and Aslam Baloch was allegedly treated in New Delhi.
Pakistan has accused India of supporting the BLA since a 2004 Gwadar attack that killed
three Chinese engineers. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2016 remarks criticizing
Pakistan’s human rights record in Balochistan were welcomed by separatists but sparked
protests in Balochistan. Pakistan arrested Kulbhushan Yadav in 2016, alleging he was an
Indian naval officer tasked with destabilizing Balochistan, though India denied his
involvement, claiming he was a businessman abducted from Iran. No conclusive evidence of
Indian support has been provided, with US officials like Richard Holbrooke dismissing
Pakistan’s claims in 2011.
Baloch leaders like Brahumdagh Bugti have expressed willingness to accept Indian aid,
while others, like Karima Baloch, argue Pakistan uses India as a scapegoat to deflect from
its own abuses. Indian-based Baloch activists, such as Naela Quadri Baloch and Mazdak
Dilshad Baloch, advocate for the Baloch cause, though their proposals, like a
government-in-exile, face opposition from other separatists.

Iraq
Iraq’s involvement in supporting Baloch rebels in the early 1970s was a significant episode
that highlighted its geopolitical maneuvering against Pakistan and its ally, Iran. The discovery
of Iraq’s covert activities in 1973 led to a major diplomatic fallout, revealing its intent to
destabilize Pakistan through support for separatist elements. This section elaborates on
Iraq’s actions, motivations, and the consequences of its involvement in the Baloch
insurgency.
Elaboration
In 1973, Pakistani security forces raided the Iraqi embassy in Islamabad, uncovering a
stockpile of weapons intended for Baloch rebels. This incident exposed Iraq’s clandestine
efforts to arm insurgent groups, likely the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) or similar
factions, to fuel unrest in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. The raid prompted Pakistan to
take swift action, expelling Iraqi diplomats from the country. Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
accused Iraq, along with India, Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union, of forming a coalition to
undermine Pakistan’s national unity. Bhutto’s accusations framed Iraq’s actions as part of a
broader conspiracy to weaken Pakistan’s territorial integrity. Iraq’s support for the Baloch
rebels was driven by its intense rivalry with Iran, a key ally of Pakistan at the time. By
backing separatist movements in Balochistan, a region bordering Iran, Iraq aimed to create
instability that would indirectly challenge Iran’s regional influence and divert its attention from
their bilateral tensions. This strategy reflected Iraq’s broader geopolitical ambitions to counter
Iran’s dominance in the region while exploiting Pakistan’s vulnerabilities to advance its own
interests.
Implications
India
India’s alleged involvement in Balochistan has been a point of contention. In the 1970s,
Indian intelligence officers reportedly provided money and arms to Baloch and Pashtun
militants, collaborating with Iraq and Afghanistan to counter Pakistan and Iran’s alliance.
Groups like Pashtun Zalmay conducted attacks in Pakistan, straining India-Iran relations. By
2008, Indian officials were reportedly engaging Baloch militants, with some receiving medical
treatment in India under assumed identities. For instance, a BLA commander from Khuzdar
was treated in Delhi in 2017, and Aslam Baloch was allegedly treated in New Delhi.
Pakistan has accused India of supporting the BLA since a 2004 Gwadar attack that killed
three Chinese engineers. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2016 remarks criticizing
Pakistan’s human rights record in Balochistan were welcomed by separatists but sparked
protests in Balochistan. Pakistan arrested Kulbhushan Yadav in 2016, alleging he was an
Indian naval officer tasked with destabilizing Balochistan, though India denied his
involvement, claiming he was a businessman abducted from Iran. No conclusive evidence of
Indian support has been provided, with US officials like Richard Holbrooke dismissing
Pakistan’s claims in 2011.
Baloch leaders like Brahumdagh Bugti have expressed willingness to accept Indian aid,
while others, like Karima Baloch, argue Pakistan uses India as a scapegoat to deflect from
its own abuses. Indian-based Baloch activists, such as Naela Quadri Baloch and Mazdak
Dilshad Baloch, advocate for the Baloch cause, though their proposals, like a
government-in-exile, face opposition from other separatists.

Iraq
Iraq’s involvement in supporting Baloch rebels in the early 1970s was a significant episode
that highlighted its geopolitical maneuvering against Pakistan and its ally, Iran. The discovery
of Iraq’s covert activities in 1973 led to a major diplomatic fallout, revealing its intent to
destabilize Pakistan through support for separatist elements. This section elaborates on
Iraq’s actions, motivations, and the consequences of its involvement in the Baloch
insurgency.
Elaboration
In 1973, Pakistani security forces raided the Iraqi embassy in Islamabad, uncovering a
stockpile of weapons intended for Baloch rebels. This incident exposed Iraq’s clandestine
efforts to arm insurgent groups, likely the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) or similar
factions, to fuel unrest in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. The raid prompted Pakistan to
take swift action, expelling Iraqi diplomats from the country. Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
accused Iraq, along with India, Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union, of forming a coalition to
undermine Pakistan’s national unity. Bhutto’s accusations framed Iraq’s actions as part of a
broader conspiracy to weaken Pakistan’s territorial integrity. Iraq’s support for the Baloch
rebels was driven by its intense rivalry with Iran, a key ally of Pakistan at the time. By
backing separatist movements in Balochistan, a region bordering Iran, Iraq aimed to create
instability that would indirectly challenge Iran’s regional influence and divert its attention from
their bilateral tensions. This strategy reflected Iraq’s broader geopolitical ambitions to counter
Iran’s dominance in the region while exploiting Pakistan’s vulnerabilities to advance its own
interests.
Implications
The 1973 raid and subsequent expulsion of Iraqi diplomats severely strained Iraq-Pakistan
relations, marking a low point in their diplomatic ties. The incident not only disrupted Iraq’s
covert operations but also brought international attention to its role in supporting Baloch
separatism. Bhutto’s public accusations underscored the perceived threat of foreign
interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs, particularly in the strategically important
Balochistan region.

Israel
Israel’s involvement in the context of Baloch separatism is primarily linked to the activities of
the
Baloch Society of North America (BSO-NA), which sought Israeli support for Baloch
independence in the early 2000s. While no direct evidence confirms Israel’s active engagement,
the outreach by Baloch activists highlights Israel’s perceived strategic interest in regional
dynamics involving Pakistan. This section elaborates on the BSO-NA’s efforts to engage Israel,

the motivations behind this outreach, and the subsequent shift in the organization’s objectives.
Elaboration
The Baloch Society of North America (BSO-NA), founded in 2004 by Dr. Wahid Baloch,
actively
sought Israel’s support for the cause of Baloch independence from Pakistan. The organization
alleged that Pakistan was committing genocide against the Baloch people, framing their struggle
as a human rights and self-determination issue. BSO-NA’s outreach to Israel was likely
motivated
by Israel’s strategic rivalry with Pakistan, a nuclear-armed Muslim-majority state with which
Israel
has no diplomatic relations. By engaging Israel, BSO-NA aimed to leverage international
support
to pressure Pakistan and amplify the Baloch separatist cause on a global stage. The pursuit of
Israeli backing suggests an attempt to align the Baloch struggle with Israel’s geopolitical
interests, particularly its concerns about Pakistan’s regional influence and its ties to adversarial
states or groups. However, in 2014, Dr. Wahid Baloch disbanded BSO-NA and established the
Baloch Council of North America, marking a significant shift in strategy. The new organization
focused on advocating for democratic rights for the Baloch within Pakistan’s framework,
moving
away from the earlier goal of outright independence. This change indicates a strategic pivot,
possibly due to limited success in securing foreign support like Israel’s or a reassessment of the
feasibility of secessionist objectives.
Implications
The BSO-NA’s outreach to Israel underscores the complex international dimensions of the
Baloch separatist movement, where diaspora activism sought to draw in global powers to
challenge Pakistan’s authority. While the attempt to engage Israel did not result in documented
support, it highlights the perception of Israel as a potential ally against Pakistan due to their
strained relations. The shift to the Baloch Council of North America and its focus on
democratic
rights within Pakistan suggests a pragmatic adjustment, reflecting the challenges of sustaining a
separatist agenda through foreign backing. This episode illustrates the interplay of diaspora
advocacy and geopolitical rivalries in the Baloch issue, with Israel remaining a peripheral but
symbolically significant stakeholder.

Soviet Union

During the Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989), the Soviet Union’s alleged involvement in supporting
anti-Pakistan activities in Balochistan was part of its broader Cold War strategy to counter
Western influence in the region. While some reports suggest Soviet interest in exploiting Baloch
unrest, claims of direct involvement in forming the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) lack
concrete evidence. This section elaborates on the Soviet Union’s rumored support for
anti-Pakistan groups in Balochistan, the motivations behind such actions, and the implications
for
Pakistan’s territorial integrity.
Elaboration
During the Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989), some reports suggest Soviet support for
anti-Pakistan groups in Balochistan, but no evidence confirms direct involvement in forming
the
Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). These reports, as noted by Selig S. Harrison in his 1981
work
In Afghanistan’s Shadow: Baloch Nationalism and Soviet Temptations, indicate that the Soviet
Union had an interest in exploiting Baloch unrest to weaken Pakistan, a key U.S. ally that
supported Afghan mujahideen against Soviet forces. Operating from southern Afghanistan,
which
borders Pakistan’s Balochistan province, the Soviets were strategically positioned to potentially

aid insurgent activities. Such support, if it occurred, would likely have involved providing arms,
logistical assistance, or safe havens to anti-Pakistan elements, though the extent and nature of
this involvement remain speculative. The Soviet Union’s motivations were rooted in its Cold
War
rivalry with the United States, aiming to undermine Pakistan’s stability and divert its attention
from
aiding anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan. By fostering unrest in Balochistan, the Soviets sought
to
weaken a pro-Western state and bolster communist influence in the region, aligning with their
broader geopolitical objectives in South Asia.
Implications
The Soviet Union’s rumored support for anti-Pakistan groups in Balochistan, while not
conclusively linked to the formation of the BLA, contributed to Pakistan’s concerns about
foreign
interference in its internal affairs. The proximity of southern Afghanistan to Balochistan made
it a
potential hub for such activities, heightening tensions between Pakistan and the Soviet Union
during the Afghan conflict. These allegations, even if unproven, reinforced Pakistan’s
perception
of external threats to its territorial integrity, complicating its efforts to maintain control over
Balochistan amid the broader Cold War dynamics.

United States

The United States has maintained a complex stance on Baloch separatism, balancing its
support for Pakistan’s territorial integrity with concerns over human rights and strategic
frustrations. While officially opposing Baloch secessionist movements, the U.S. has faced
allegations of indirect involvement and shifting policy considerations, particularly in the
context of its broader regional objectives. This section elaborates on the U.S.’s position,
actions, and the nuances of its approach to Baloch insurgency.
Elaboration
The United States has consistently expressed support for Pakistan’s territorial integrity,
rejecting Baloch secessionist movements as a threat to national unity. It has urged peaceful
political resolutions to address grievances in Balochistan, emphasizing dialogue over
violence. However, the U.S. has also voiced concerns over human rights abuses in the
region, calling for Pakistan to address issues like extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances. In 2010, Abdulmalek Rigi, leader of the Jundallah group, claimed U.S.
support for operations targeting Iran, but the U.S. firmly denied these allegations, and no
evidence has emerged to suggest U.S. backing for anti-Pakistan activities by Baloch groups.
In 2011, some U.S. congressmen, frustrated by Pakistan’s ties to the Afghan Taliban,
proposed supporting Baloch insurgents as an alternative to the U.S.’s Af-Pak strategy. This
proposal, however, lacked broad support within the U.S. government and did not translate
into official policy. In 2019, the U.S. designated the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) as a

global terrorist organization, reflecting its commitment to counterterrorism and aligning

with
Pakistan’s efforts to curb militant activities in Balochistan. This designation underscored
the
U.S.’s prioritization of stability and security cooperation with Pakistan over supporting any
separatist agenda.
Implications
The U.S.’s stance on Baloch separatism reflects a delicate balance between supporting
Pakistan as a strategic partner and addressing human rights concerns. The 2011
congressional proposal, though not adopted, highlighted tensions in U.S.-Pakistan
relations,
particularly over Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan. The BLA’s terrorist designation in 2019
reinforced U.S. support for Pakistan’s efforts to combat militancy, signaling a clear rejection
of Baloch separatist violence. This position has shaped U.S.-Pakistan cooperation in
counterterrorism while navigating the complexities of regional geopolitics
 Timeline of Events
1666: Khanate of Kalat founded by Mir Ahmad, establishing Baloch political identity.
1758: Under Nasir I, Kalat’s boundaries extend from Dera Ghazi Khan to Bandar
Abbas.
1839: British invade Kalat, killing the Khan, initiating colonial influence.
1869: British agent Robert Groves Sandeman solidifies control, administering tribal
areas.
1931: Anjuman-e-Ittehad-e-Balochistan formed, advocating for independence.
1939: Kalat State National Party banned; leaders exiled, spurring new political
groups.
1947: Kalat’s status debated; standstill agreement signed, recognizing autonomy but
binding Pakistan to British treaties.
March 27, 1948: Khan of Kalat accedes to Pakistan, sparking resistance.
1948–1950: First uprising led by Prince Abdul Karim; guerrilla attacks fail due to
limited support.
1955: One Unit policy reduces tribal representation, fueling discontent.
1958–1959: Second uprising under Nawab Nauroz Khan; rebels arrested, five
executed, Nauroz dies in captivity.
1956: New constitution formalizes One Unit policy, deepening Baloch alienation.
1963–1969: Third uprising led by Sher Muhammad Bijrani Marri; insurgents demand Sui
gas revenue, ceasefire in 1969.
1970: One Unit policy abolished; Balochistan recognized as a province, including
Gwadar.
1973–1977: Fourth uprising after Bhutto imposes martial law; Balochistan People’s

Liberation Front fights, subdued with Iranian aid.

1928: Iran’s Reza Shah targets Baluchistan; Dost Mohammad Khan defeated, later
executed.
2000: Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) begins attacks on Pakistani military,
civilians, and schools.
2003: Low-level insurgency in Pakistan intensifies, marking fifth uprising.
2003–2012: Jundallah kills 296 in Iran, including 18 in 2007 Zahedan bombing, 20 in
2009, 43 in 2009 Pishin, 27 in 2010 Zahedan, and 38 in 2010 Chabahar.
2005: Assault on doctor at Sui gas facility sparks Bugti tribe uprising in Pakistan.
December 2005: Frontier Corps officials wounded in Kohlu helicopter attack
 August 2006: Nawab Akbar Bugti killed in clashes with Pakistani army, alongside 60 soldiers
and 7 officers.
April 2009: Three nationalist leaders abducted, killed, triggering riots in Balochistan.
August 2009: Khan of Kalat Mir Suleiman Dawood declares independent Balochistan.
2010: Jundallah leader Abdolmalek Rigi killed; Jaish al-Adl (JAA) and Harakat Ansar Iran
(HAI) emerge.
2012: US Congress holds hearing on Balochistan, drawing global attention.
October 2012: HAI’s Chabahar suicide bombing kills two Basij officers, injures civilians.
October 2013: JAA kills 14 Iranian border guards in Rustak; Iran executes 16 Balochs.
2014: Baloch population in Iran estimated at 2 million; infighting weakens Pakistan
insurgency.
2018: Pakistan uses Islamist militants to counter Baloch separatists.
February 16, 2019: Two Frontier Corps killed in Loralai, Pakistan.
February 17, 2019: Four Frontier Corps killed in Panjgur, Pakistan.
October 15, 2020: 14 security personnel killed in Ormara convoy attack.
December 27, 2020: Seven soldiers killed in Harnai Frontier Corps post attack.
2020: Balochistan records 215 fatalities (84 civilians, 94 security personnel, 37 militants).
2021: 81 terrorist attacks in Balochistan kill 136, with 71 by nationalist groups killing 95.
January 18, 2022: IED in Bolan injures five.
January 20, 2022: Lahore bombing by Baloch Nationalist Army kills 3, injures 20.
January 25, 2022: Militants in Kech kill 10 security personnel.
January 28, 2022: Dera Bugti blast kills 4, injures 10.
January 30, 2022: Jaffarabad grenade attack injures 17, including 2 policemen.
February 2, 2022: 9 militants, 12 soldiers killed in Panjgur and Nushki attacks.
February 4, 2022: Chaman grenade attack injures 6.
February 8, 2022: Dera Murad Jamali blast kills 1, injures 2.
March 2, 2022: Quetta explosion kills 3, injures 25.
March 8, 2022: Seven security personnel killed in Sibi.
March 15, 2022: Sibi IED kills 4 Frontier Corps, injures 6.
February 7, 2024: Twin bombings kill dozens before Pakistan’s general election.
2024: Iran’s Baloch population estimated at 4.8 million; Iran and Pakistan agree to counter
insurgency.
January 2024: Iran and Pakistan conduct cross-border strikes on separatist targets.
August 26, 2024: BLA attacks kill over 70 in Pakistan.
November 9, 2024: BLA suicide bombing at Quetta railway station kills over 30.
March 11–12, 2025: BLA hijacks Jaffar Express train, kills 59; 346 hostages freed, 33 insurgents
killed.
January 2025: Maulana Fazlur Rehman claims Pakistan lost authority in parts of Balochistan.
On 9 May 2025, Mir Yar Baloch declared Balochistan’s independence from Pakistan,
urging the United Nations and India to recognize the ‘Democratic Republic of
Balochistan as a sovereign state
Recognition of a State
According to International Law, Recognition is the formal acknowledgment of the status of an
independent State by other existing states.Every State has to have some essential features, called
attributes of statehood, in order for other States to recognize the State as independent. When possession
of these attributes in a state is acknowledged by other existing states, it is known as recognition of states.

The accepted criteria of statehood were laid down in the Montevideo Convention (1933)Which provides
the Legal Criteria of Statehood.The State as a person of international law should possess the following
qualifications:

(a) a permanent population;

(b) a defined territory;
(c) government; a stable political community supporting a legal order in a given area.
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other States
Theories of Recognition

Recognition of a State is more of a political concept than a legal concept because there are no specific
rules for recognition of a State.There are two popular theories laid down for the purpose of
understanding the nature of recognition:

Constitutive Theory
Declarative or Evidentiary Theory

Constitutive Theory

According to this theory, personality of a state is created not by fact but through recognition by other
states. In other words, an entity does not become a state by possessing essential attributes of statehood.It
becomes so by when it is recognised by other states. Meaning thereby, other states constitute the
personality of a state by granting recognition. So, recognition is a necessary condition for statehood and
personality. It is a process by which a political community acquires personality and becomes a member of
the family of nations. A State comes into existence through recognition only and exclusively

Constitutive theory suffers from a number of defects, they are;

1.When a state comes into possession of all the attributes of statehood, it is not necessary that its
existence is recognised by other states simultaneously. The timing of recognition may be different from
one state to another. China was recognised by the US in 1979, Bangladesh was recognised by Pakistan
much later.And this is the case with most of the states.So, if we accept Constitutive theory it would mean
that a state exists for some states and does not exist for others.
2. recognition is a political act of a state.So, if we accept Constitutive theory, it would mean that
the fate of the new states would be in the hands of other states.And it is not desirable to give
discretionary rights to the existing states.

3. Recognition is political and diplomatic but not legal. This theory imposes an obligation on all
member states to recognize a State. Practically, no state wants to do something on
obligation.There is no law that obliges established states to recognize new States.Recognition of a
State can be done by few States and others might refuse. According to this theory, the recognition
should be done by all the States.
Declarative Theory or Evidentiary Theory

According to this theory a state comes into existence in IL as soon as it acquires all the attributes
of statehood.By having all the attributes, an entity exists in fact.Recognition by other states
supplies the evidence of this fact.This theory states that declaration is a mere formality and has
no legal effect as the existence of aState is a question of fact.
Every new state becomes a member of the family of nations ipso facto by its coming into
existence. Recognition only provides the evidence to this fact.

Genocide Convention

Balochs have to create an intense international pressure on China to support a multinational

action against Pakistan within the scheme of International law. A sporadic demonstration or a
surprise mention by Indian Prime Minister alone will be not sufficient to defeat Pakistani
atrocities in Balochistan.

The case of genocide and its continuance in Balochistan is another matter that must draw the
attention of the world community. UN General Assembly in the resolution 96/1946 defined that
“genocide is a crime under international law , contrary to the sprit and aim of the United Nations
and condemned by the civilized world”. The General Assembly unanimously adopted on 9th
December, 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(hereinafter referred as ‘Genocide Convention’). The Genocide Convention entered into force on
12th January, 1951. As many as 142 countries had become parties to this Convention so far.

The Convention broadly reflects the customary international law. In the Barcelona Traction,
Light and Power Co. Case (Belgium v/s Spain), the International Court of Justice observed that
“such obligations derive, for example, in contemporary international law, from the outlawing of
acts of aggression and of genocide as also from the principles and rules concerning the basic
rights of human person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination. Some of the
corresponding rights of protections have entered into the body of general international law;
others are conferred by international instruments of a universal or quasi-universal character.”
Balochistan movement supporters should seriously think over taking this matter under Article-I
of the Genocide Convention to the International Court of Justice.

Article-I of the Genocide Convention, 1948, therefore, provides that the contracting parties
confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under
international law which they undertake to prevent and punish.
Under Article- III of the Convention following acts are punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy
to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit
genocide; and (e) Complicity in genocide.
Article- IV of convention provides that persons committing genocide or any of the other acts
enumerated in Article-III shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers,
public officials or private individuals.

Pakistan ratified the Genocide Convention on Oct 12, 1957 and, therefore, it is legally bound by
the provisos of this Convention. Balochistan movement supporters should seriously think over
taking this matter under Article-I of the Genocide Convention to the International Court of
Justice. This is one remedy available to them under international law. If Pakistan is pronounced
guilty of committing genocide, it will eventually lead to the dilution of its claim on Balochistan.
This might well open up new possibilities for the redemption of Balochi nationalistic aspirations.

Remedial Secession in State Practice

In the un Charter era, non-colonial state creations have been predominantly consensual, with the
emergence of the new states not constrained by claims of territorial integrity by parent states.
However, there are also examples of state creations in this period that might potentially be said to
correspond to the logic of remedial secession, including the creation of Bangladesh, the
dissolutions of the sfry and of the Soviet Union, and the secession of Kosovo.

International law neither permits nor prohibits “secession” explicitly. But, by the principle of
equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations,
all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status
and pursue their economic, social and cultural development (UN General Assembly, Declaration
on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States
in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970, A/RES/2625 (XXV)).
Every State must respect this right under the provisions of the Charter. However, constitutional
and voluntary secession are not addressed by international law. If a new state is formed based on
the consent of a parent state, the international law tends to provide favorable conditions to
recognize the new State. That clearly shows that; states may waive their territorial integrity and
sovereignty without conditions.
However, there is no explicit legal rule which prohibits a third state/body/international
organ from directly interfering or coercing through various means on a parent state to
agree with the secession of an integral part of their territory. However, there is an implied
provision from the unfriendly relations declaration of 1970, article 5 (8) which holds that
every state shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the
national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country. ICJ interprets this
provision as every state shall refrain from affecting the territorial integrity of another state.
The friendly relations declaration does not prohibit internal revolt of groups to self-
determination; rather, it forbids the third countries threat to the sovereignty of another
state. That means the friendly relations declaration nor any other international law have a
stand on prohibiting any domestic revolt or protesting to claim secession as a remedy for
internal grievance against grave human rights violation. The U.N. declaration on
indigenous people’s rights insertion of the right to self-determination does not imply the
recognition of external self-determination or secession.

There is no clear precedent in the international legal system that allows directly exercising
the right to remedial secession. However, the “right to self-determination which enshrined
in many international covenants, gets a narrow interpretation by the General Assembly of
United Nations to avert colonization (GA Res. 55/141 of 8 December 2000). For instance,
the reports of the General Assembly of the United Nations” 3rd Committee adopted a
resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, which seeks to
provide support to “peoples under colonial, foreign or alien occupation” and to “sovereign
peoples and nations”. Moreover, the general assembly’s resolution in 1999 was also
reluctant to express the wording of “human rights problem” for the involvement of the
U.N. interim peacekeeping mission in Kosovo (UN General Assembly, Situation of human
rights in Kosovo: resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, 29 February 2000,
A/RES/54/183). Indeed, the political motives are presented as justifications for state
recognition in the guise of remedial secession rather than the legal basis. It has been
observed in Kosovo, Palestine, and Somaliland cases.

Even though there is no precedent in the positive validation of remedial secession in

international law, there are precedents regarding the criteria, thresholds, and processes of
remedial secession in international tribunals and domestic judicial interpretations such as
Aaland Island, Kosovo and Quebec.

The second Commission of Rapporteurs on the Aaland Island Vs Finland case specified
while there was no general right to secede, the

“Separation of a minority from the State of which it forms part and its incorporation into
another State may only be considered as an altogether exceptional solution, a last resort
when the State lacks either the will or the power to apply just and effective guarantees.”
(Meller, 2012)
It shows that the process and reasons used by the League of Nations about why the
Aaland Island does not secede from Finland contained elements of remedial
secession doctrine (Steven, 2016). Hence, if the State is unwilling or unable to
guarantee just and effective internal self-governance and human rights protection,
the minority in that State may exercise secession unilaterally. Furthermore,
secession would be used as a last resort to solve the lack of reasonable and adequate
rights protection. Thus, it is the first precedent regarding the threshold of remedial
secession.

ICJ advisory body’s statement skips the question: Is the unilateral declaration of
independence recognized by international law by the Provisional Institutions of
Self-Government of Kosovo. The process and the advisory body’s indication about
the authors’ identity of the declaration of independence (G.A. Res. 63/3, U.N. Doc.
A/RES/63/3 (Oct. 8, 2008)) can be taken as a precedent for the condition of
unilateral secession. Indeed, the entire and statement of ICJ’s advisory body cannot
be considered a precedent to the legality of remedial secession in international law.

The African Union seems to be more concerned with the territorial integrity of
states than remedial secession of ethnic/tribal groups. For instance, Africa Union
denies recognition of the de-facto State of Somali land, which declared
independence from Somalia in 1991 because of former Somalia’s Ziadbare regime
violation of fundamental human rights to the people of Somaliland. The A.U.’s
reluctance to provide legitimacy for Somaliland seems that it is concerned not to set
a precedent for other secessionist groups in Africa.

To summarize, there are no international law and judicial precedent to allow

remedial secession yet. On the contrary, the independence of states in recent world
history and the reaction of international law and judicial machinery indicate the
de-facto validity of unilateral secession.

New Delhi:

The Balochistan Assembly, on June 4, passed the Counter-Terrorism (Balochistan

Amendment) Act 2025, a new law that gives sweeping powers to security forces
operating in the province. The legislation has been met with strong criticism from
rights groups, legal experts, and civil society, who warn it could further fuel
repression and unrest in the region.
What Does The Law Say?

The legislation allows military and intelligence agencies, including the Pakistan Army and ISI, to
detain individuals for up to 90 days without filing any formal charges or presenting them in court.
This can be done purely on the basis of suspicion, with no requirement for judicial oversight.

Joint Investigation Teams (JITs), composed of police and intelligence operatives, have been handed
expanded authority to issue detention orders, conduct ideological profiling, and carry out searches
and seizures without prior judicial approval. Military personnel will now also have a formal role in
civilian oversight panels.

Why Is It controversial?

Critics warn the law blurs the line between civil policing and military operations, paving the way for
mass surveillance and state repression, particularly targeting the ethnic Baloch population.
Human rights organisations, including Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, and local watchdogs, have slammed the legislation, calling it a
clear violation of constitutional protections and international law, particularly Article 10 of Pakistan's
Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The Baloch Context

Enforced disappearances have haunted Balochistan for decades. Numerous families continue to
search for missing loved ones, some unaccounted for after 15 to 20 years, allegedly abducted by state
forces.

Activists argue that this new law effectively legitimises these practices, turning Balochistan into what
they describe as a "legalised detention zone."

The Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), a civil rights group, issued a sharp statement against the law,
calling it a step toward the militarisation of civilian life.

"Such provisions constitute a grave violation of fundamental rights, including personal liberty, due
process, and protection from arbitrary detention," the BYC said.

"This echoes the collective punishment tactics seen in some of the darkest chapters of modern
history, including Nazi concentration camps and the internment of Uyghur Muslims in China," the
group added.

What The Pakistan Government Says

The government has defended the law, arguing that it is necessary to strengthen counter-terrorism
operations. A provincial spokesperson stated that the bill targets only those involved in anti-state
activities and that law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear. The law comes at a time of heightened
tensions in Balochistan, where separatist insurgency, political alienation, and military crackdowns
have fuelled long-standing unrest.
 QARMA
1.Do the Balochi insurgency possess a viable legal claim to
remedial secession?
2.Legal status of Balochistan amid territorial disputes
3.Determining the jurisdictional pathways for adjudication of
human rights violations and extrajudicial killings in Pakistan
4.Examining the tension between the principle of non-
intervention and the international community’s commitment to
protect fellow countries from mass abuse of human rights in
the context of alleged atrocities in Pakistan and its
applicability
5.The legality of BLA and other insurgency group’s actions
within the Balochistan territory
 QARMA
1.Do the Balochi insurgency possess a viable legal claim to
remedial secession?
2.Legal status of Balochistan amid territorial disputes
3.Determining the jurisdictional pathways for adjudication of
human rights violations and extrajudicial killings in Pakistan
4.Examining the tension between the principle of non-
intervention and the international community’s commitment to
protect fellow countries from mass abuse of human rights in
the context of alleged atrocities in Pakistan and its
applicability
5.The legality of BLA and other insurgency group’s actions
within the Balochistan territory