The British colonial maxim, "Rule the Punjabis, intimidate the Sindhis, buy the Pashtun, and honour the Baloch," reflected a calculated understanding of the subcontinent's diverse ethnic landscape. This strategic recognition of tribal differences proved especially relevant when managing the fiercely independent Baloch and Pashtun populations along the empire's northwestern frontier.
After the disastrous 1842 retreat from Kabul exposed the limitations of direct military control, British administrators pivoted to more nuanced approaches. They employed a sophisticated mix of treaties, financial allowances, strategic blockades, and the exploitation of inter-tribal rivalries to maintain influence without constant military engagement.
The British recognized fundamental differences between these frontier peoples. While both lived by strict tribal codes, the Pashtuns demonstrated deeper religious fervor, whereas Baloch loyalty flowed primarily to land, tribe, and tribal chieftains (Sardars). This distinction proved crucial in developing tailored control mechanisms for each group.
British success in Balochistan stemmed from calculated decisions to elevate certain leaders, particularly the Khan of Kalat, granting him authority over other Baloch Sardars. Geography reinforced this strategy, as Balochistan's vast, sparsely populated landscape naturally isolated tribal territories from one another. By preserving a semblance of tribal independence while bestowing selective "honour," British administrators maintained relative stability despite persistent resistance from tribes like the Marri and Bugti.
Pakistan's independence in 1947 unraveled this delicate framework. The new nation's democratic experiment introduced unfamiliar dynamics and priorities that were often dismissive of Baloch concerns. Nascent Baloch nationalist movements like Anjuman-e-Ittehad-e-Balochistan and the Kalat State National Party gained momentum as many Baloch perceived a threat to their traditional autonomy.
Ambiguities in agreements between Pakistan and Baloch leaders sowed seeds of distrust. The Standstill Agreement's declaration that "the Government of Pakistan agrees that Kalat is an independent State, being quite different in status from other States of India" created lasting confusion. When the Instrument of Accession was subsequently signed, it triggered the first armed Baloch insurgency (1948-50) led by Prince Abdul Karim's Dosht-e-Jhalawan militia.
As Pakistan consolidated its national identity, policies like the "One Unit" scheme further marginalized Baloch interests. This initiative, designed to counter East Pakistan's numerical dominance by portraying West Pakistan as unified, trampled already wounded Baloch sensibilities. Compounding this political marginalization was the exploitation of Balochistan's natural resources with minimal revenue sharing or local investment.
For the Baloch, this represented a profound transition—from being singled out for "honour" by the British to experiencing what many perceived as "plunder" by the Pakistani state. This perceived betrayal fueled a growing insurgency that fragmented into various groups reflecting internal tribal divisions: the Popular Front for Armed Resistance, Parrari, Bugti Militia, and eventually the Balochistan Liberation Force.
Today, the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) leads the insurgency against the Pakistani state. Notable for its relative secularism and inclusion of various Baloch tribes, the BLA has intensified its campaign, with attacks increasing 119 percent in 2024 compared to the previous year. These operations resulted in approximately 225 fatalities, approaching the toll inflicted by the Pashtun-dominated Tehreek-i-Taliban-Pakistan, which caused about 300 deaths according to the Pakistan Security Report 2024.
The BLA's most compelling grievances—"enforced disappearances" and economic exploitation—present significant challenges for Pakistani authorities to counter. These accusations resonate deeply because they speak to fundamental issues of dignity and fair treatment that remain unaddressed.
At its core, the Baloch insurgency represents an unresolved crisis of "honour" and equity. The Pakistani government's predominantly military response has only exacerbated these grievances, creating a cycle of violence that continues to escalate.
Understanding this conflict requires recognizing its historical context: how British colonial strategies, while manipulative, acknowledged Baloch dignity in ways that subsequent Pakistani policies have failed to do. The contrast between British "honour" and perceived Pakistani "plunder" continues to fuel a resistance movement that shows no signs of abating without substantive political and economic reforms addressing these deep-seated grievances.
As the BLA and other militant groups intensify their operations, Pakistan faces a growing security challenge that cannot be resolved through military means alone. Only by addressing the fundamental issues of dignity, autonomy, and economic justice can the Pakistani state hope to resolve a conflict rooted in centuries of tribal identity and resistance to external control.
