India Must Recognise Balochistan


The Government of India must formally recognise the newly declared Government of Balochistan. For all practical purposes, Balochistan has severed its ties with Pakistan. The Baloch people never acceded to Pakistani rule in spirit, culminating in their long-awaited declaration of independence on August 11th.

As Pakistan’s principal military quadrant and home to its strategic nuclear assets—now effectively under Baloch control—the changing dynamics in Quetta demand an immediate response. The Government of India’s silence on this unfolding reality is baffling. Pragmatic realpolitik dictates that India takes the lead in rallying international recognition for an independent Balochistan.

Neither the military nor civil writ of Islamabad holds sway over Baloch territory any longer. For decades, the authoritarian, Punjab-dominated military apparatus maintained a heavy-handed grip on the region, suppressing its persistent demands for freedom. Accounting for nearly 350,000 square kilometres—roughly 44 per cent of Pakistan’s total landmass—Balochistan is geographically its largest province. In truth, save for Punjab, no province—whether Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, or Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK)—wishes to remain part of the federation.

History bears testimony to this structural flaw. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, revered as Sarhadi Gandhi, steadfastly opposed the partition of India. Ironically, the ideological impetus for Pakistan originated among Muslims of the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) and Bengal. While Bengalis carved out Bangladesh in 1971, the ideologues from UP chose to remain in India—sparing themselves the plight of the Mohajirs in Pakistan yet causing enduring damage to India’s economic and communal harmony.

One hopes that the liberation of Balochistan serves as a definitive eye-opener for the global community.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Implementation of Four Labour Codes

Four Labour Codes (a) Code on Wages, (b) Industrial Relations Code, (c) Social Security Code, and (d) Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code have come into force from today, i.e. 21st November 2025. These four Codes have subsumed 29 labour laws. The main change is the subsuming of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Absence of disputes implies a harmonious relationship between labour and management. Therefore, every industrial relations legislation necessarily aims at providing conditions congenial to industrial peace. Almost all interruptions are due to industrial disputes. The object of all labour legislation around the world is to ensure fair wages and prevent disputes. From now onward, it will be part of the Industrial Relations Code. Apart from the Industrial Disputes Act, the other two acts which have been subsumed within it are: the Trade Union Act and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders). Not many changes have been made in this code from other labou...
Read more
   Judiciary Must Embrace Technology  A struggle is ongoing among lawyers in Delhi regarding the virtual recording of statements and evidence, especially concerning police personnel, in court. Remarkably, neither the Delhi High Court nor the Bar Council of India has clarified the factual position. The facts are that the three laws replacing the IPC, Cr. P C, and the Indian Evidence Act were passed by the Lok Sabha on 21st December 2023 and the following day by the Rajya Sabha. These laws received Presidential assent on 25th December and came into force as Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) from July 1, 2024. The strike by lawyers in Delhi began in response to a notification issued on August 13, 2025, by Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena, permitting police personnel to testify via video conferencing from police stations. On September 8, 2025, Delhi Police issued a revised circular directing all police pe...
Read more

Peter Navarro's Misuse of 'Brahmin': A Case of Cultural Ignorance and Hostile Rhetoric

During his tenure as a trade adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, Peter Navarro made several controversial remarks, but few revealed his superficial understanding of India as clearly as his use of the word "Brahmins." In a Fox News interview defending U.S. tariffs, Navarro claimed that “Brahmins were profiteering at the expense of Indian people.” This statement was not just a political jab; it was a culturally ignorant and offensive mischaracterisation that drew widespread condemnation, including a demand for his dismissal from American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD). Navarro's remark appears to stem from a flawed comparison with the American term ‘Boston Brahmins,’ used to describe a historical, elite class in the United States. This analogy fails in the Indian context. In India, ‘Brahmin’ refers to a large and diverse community defined by caste, not by a monolithic economic status. The reality is that the vast majority of Brahmins today belong to the middle or ...
Read more