logo
India's careful dance with Balochistan's independence hope

India's careful dance with Balochistan's independence hope

India.com20-05-2025

Free Balochistan advertisement on London buses
The recent appeal by exiled Baloch leaders for India's moral, diplomatic, and strategic support in their decades-long struggle for independence has reignited a complex debate. Their plea, drawing parallels with India's role in Bangladesh's liberation in 1971, comes at a time when India-Pakistan tensions are high, particularly after India's Operation Sindoor, which targeted terror camps and military sites in Pakistan. While the Baloch cause evokes sympathy, India must approach this issue with utmost caution, balancing its principles with strategic realities.
The Baloch independence movement is not new. Since Pakistan annexed the princely state of Kalat in 1948, the region has seen five major uprisings, each marked by growing violence but lacking unity. Today, the movement is fragmented, led by tribal leaders, secretive militant groups, and exiled activists like Brahumdagh Bugti and Mehran Marri. Operating from Europe and North America, these leaders have struggled to gain international traction. Pakistan's relentless crackdowns—through raids, abductions, and extrajudicial killings—have further weakened the movement on the ground.
The Baloch leaders' outreach to India, amplified after Operation Sindoor, is less a sign of strength and more a desperate bid for global recognition. They praise India's firm stand against Pakistan and urge New Delhi to back their fight, citing the Bangladesh precedent. However, as experts point out, the two cases are vastly different. 'Bangladesh faced a humanitarian crisis with 10 million refugees flooding into India, creating a moral and strategic imperative for intervention,' notes Amitabh Tiwari, Managing Partner at Ascendia Strategies, in a Moneycontrol report. Balochistan, in contrast, shares no border with India, has a smaller population, and lacks a unified leadership or mass exodus to justify similar involvement.
Supporting Baloch separatists could also backfire diplomatically. Pakistan would seize the opportunity to equate Balochistan with Kashmir, muddying India's position that Kashmir is an internal matter. This could weaken India's global standing, especially after the recent Pahalgam terror attack, which exposed the world's inconsistent support for India's fight against terrorism. Moreover, backing the Baloch cause risks straining ties with Iran, a key partner in projects like the Chabahar port. Iran, which has its own restive Baloch population, has warned against foreign meddling.
Then there's China, Pakistan's close ally. Balochistan is central to China's Belt and Road Initiative, particularly the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Any Indian support for Baloch separatists could be seen as a direct challenge to Beijing's investments in Gwadar, potentially deepening China-Pakistan military ties. This would complicate India's strategic calculus in an already tense region.
On the ground, the Baloch movement lacks the cohesion needed for a sustained uprising. Groups like the Baloch Liberation Army and Baloch Liberation Front carry out sporadic attacks, but they lack broad local support or coordination. Most calls for independence come from abroad, amplified by social media and foreign media rather than a robust domestic base. India would be unwise to pin its hopes on a movement that survives largely on external sympathy.
Yet, India cannot ignore Pakistan's human rights abuses in Balochistan. The Pakistani military's brutal response to Operation Sindoor—marked by a surge in abductions and killings, as reported by human rights groups—has only deepened Baloch alienation. Dr. Shalini Chawla, a Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for Air Power Studies, told Moneycontrol that Balochistan will remain a 'major headache' for Pakistan's army, with the movement likely to gain momentum. India has
India has rightly called out Pakistan's double standards, raising Balochistan's plight at global forums to expose Pakistan's hypocrisy on Kashmir. But highlighting human rights abuses is not the same as endorsing separatism. Supporting Balochistan's independence could set a dangerous precedent in a region already fraught with border disputes.
India's current approach—voicing concern without committing to the Baloch cause—is strategically sound. By maintaining ambiguity, New Delhi keeps Pakistan on edge while avoiding the pitfalls of open support. Backing a fragmented movement could hand Pakistan a propaganda victory, allowing it to deflect from its failures, like those exposed by Operation Sindoor, and refocus global attention on India's alleged interference.
The Baloch struggle deserves empathy, but India must prioritize its long-term interests. Diplomacy, not adventurism, is the way forward. New Delhi should continue exposing Pakistan's missteps in Balochistan while strengthening its own regional partnerships. As Tiwari aptly puts it, 'Global politics doesn't work on emotion alone.' India's restraint is not weakness—it's wisdom.
(Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace & Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany. Contact: girishlinganna@gmail.com )

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israel attacks Iran: Who are the top Iranian generals eliminated by Israel
Israel attacks Iran: Who are the top Iranian generals eliminated by Israel

Time of India

time38 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Israel attacks Iran: Who are the top Iranian generals eliminated by Israel

In this operation, three top Iranian leaders were killed. The three were Hossein Salami , head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards; Mohammad Bagheri , Chief of Staff of Iran's armed forces; and Ali Shamkhani , former national security chief and senior advisor. The three musketeers Major General Hossein Salami born in 1960, was the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and later in 2019 he became the head of the IRGC. He reported directly to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The IRGC is Iran's most powerful military group. Salami led the IRGC when Iran fired hundreds of drones and missiles at Israel in April and October 2023, as per reports. In Jan 2024, Iranian media showed Salami at an underground missile site linked to those attacks. At that base, he walked over U.S. and Israel flags and viewed 'new special missiles.' He was also the head when the IRGC accidentally shot down a Ukrainian passenger plane in 2020. That crash killed all 176 people on board. CNN analyst Beth Sanner said killing Salami is like killing the U.S. Chairman of Joint Chiefs, a very big deal. Since 2016, Major General Mohammad Bagheri has been the Chief of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces. His office, the General Staff, runs and coordinates all military activities. In 2019, the U.S. punished him with sanctions for supporting terrorism and hurting the rights of Iranian people, as stated by CNN report. In April, Bagheri had a meeting in Tehran with Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman. In that meeting, the Saudi prince warned Bagheri to accept Trump's nuclear deal offer to avoid war with Israel, according to the report by Reuters. Live Events Ali Shamkhani was a trusted advisor to Khamenei, who is Iran's Supreme Leader. He helped Iran and Saudi Arabia become friends again after years of problems. His death was confirmed by Iran's IRINN TV network after Israel's strike. Shamkhani was Iran's top national security chief from 2013 to mid-2023. Before that, he worked in the IRGC and Iran's defense ministry, according to the report by CNN. He was well-known internationally, especially in U.S. and European foreign policy circles. In 2023, he led China-brokered talks with Saudi Arabia which ended years of hostility. But he was suddenly replaced later that year. Analysts say Shamkhani was very ambitious, he even ran for President in 2001. Some experts believed Khamenei thought he was getting too powerful, as per reports. Still, he stayed close to the Supreme Leader and gave advice during Trump-era nuclear talks. In April before U.S. talks, he warned that Iran might expel UN nuclear inspectors if threatened. FAQs Q1. Who did Israel kill in the Iran strike? Israel killed Hossein Salami, Mohammad Bagheri, and Ali Shamkhani. Q2. Why is this attack important? These leaders helped run Iran's army and nuclear plans, so their deaths could weaken Iran's response.

Operation Sindoor And After: India Must Prepare For A Two-Front War
Operation Sindoor And After: India Must Prepare For A Two-Front War

News18

timean hour ago

  • News18

Operation Sindoor And After: India Must Prepare For A Two-Front War

Last Updated: India should prepare for war not because it is imminent, but because peace must always be secured from a position of strength After Operation Sindoor, it has become abundantly clear that the spectre of a two-front war, where Pakistan and China work in tandem against us, is a reality that cannot be ignored anymore. The collaboration may not be overt, through a joint declaration of war, but the alliance of hostile congruence is undeniable. The idea of a collusive China-Pakistan military front against India is not new. Even before the ink dried on the Simla Agreement of 1972, Pakistan had begun cosying up to China. Their relationship, described over the years as 'higher than the mountains, deeper than the oceans", is not just a diplomatic aphorism. It is a strategic reality that has gained menacing proportions in the last two decades. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship of Xi Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative, snakes through territory India claims as its own—Gilgit-Baltistan. This project is not merely an infrastructure endeavour but a visible assertion of China's strategic intent in India's immediate periphery. Add to this, regular joint military exercises, arms sales, intelligence sharing, and even potential nuclear cooperation, and one begins to grasp the nature of the challenge that confronts us. There are those who argue that war is improbable, if not impossible, in the nuclear age. To them, the logic of mutual deterrence ensures peace. But history has shown that even nuclear-armed nations can engage in limited wars or protracted conflicts below the threshold of nuclear engagement. Kargil in 1999, Galwan in 2020, Uri in 2016, Balakot in 2019, and Operation Sindoor (2025) are reminders of this reality. Moreover, one cannot ignore that China is no longer the aloof continental power it once was. Under Xi Jinping, it has adopted an aggressive, almost imperial posture—whether in the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, or along the Line of Actual Control with India. Its claims are expansive, its patience limited, and its contempt for the rules-based international order increasingly visible. On the other hand, Pakistan, emboldened by its nuclear arsenal and sustained by a military that acts with near impunity, has found in China not only a patron but also a strategic mentor. The two have aligned not only militarily but ideologically—in their contempt for India's rise and its civilisational model. The time has, therefore, come to actively prepare to deal with this scenario. National security cannot be a matter of episodic attention triggered by the next skirmish on the border or an election season. It requires sustained investment—intellectual, financial, and diplomatic. In other words, we need to put in place a national strategic and defence policy. What could be its possible elements? Expand alliances with like-minded nations. Strategic autonomy does not mean strategic solitude. The ability to balance our interests with Russia and America is particularly important. Both are important sources of defence supplies. Simultaneously, we must strengthen Quad partnerships, further improve ties with ASEAN, and maintain a functional dialogue with China. Equally, we need to accelerate our ongoing defence indigenisation while selectively sourcing cutting-edge technologies from allies. We must also Invest much more in cyber and space defence, where the wars of the future will be shaped before the first bullet is fired. Our efforts to upgrade our border defence infrastructure must be urgently expedited. Finally, we must ensure internal political stability and social harmony. A nation divided within, cannot be united without. While pursuing the above, there is no need for paranoia. We have certain undeniable strengths, and both Pakistan and China have their obvious weaknesses. Pakistan is a nation on the verge of implosion. It is politically unstable—a sham democracy, ostensibly ruled by an unpopular civilian government, but actually run by an army junta that is fast losing credibility. It is also financially bankrupt, running on international doles, most of which goes to pay off old debts. It is internally facing secessionist threats, including unrest in Balochistan and POK. Its most popular leader is languishing in jail, and his party is under shackles. China's economy is lagging, internal resentments over unemployment are growing, and it lacks the safety valve of a democracy. Moreover, under Xi Jinping, its imperialist posture is creating an increasingly cohesive international pushback. Allying with a failed and unstable state like Pakistan could prove to be a proposition with diminishing returns for the Chinese. As against the above, India is a democratic country with close to 1.5 billion people, the fastest growing economy in the globe, and a nuclear power with one of the finest armed forces in the world. It is also one of the world's largest emerging markets, and an entrepreneurial hub. Yet, India must prepare for a two-front war. Not because war is imminent, but because peace must always be secured from a position of strength. For in the end, as Kautilya wrote in the Arthashastra: 'He who is prepared, is the master of his own destiny.' The writer is a former diplomat, an author, and a politician. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 13, 2025, 17:16 IST News opinion Opinion | Operation Sindoor And After: India Must Prepare For A Two-Front War

Comparing 1971 India-Pakistan war & Operation Sindoor
Comparing 1971 India-Pakistan war & Operation Sindoor

Time of India

time2 hours ago

  • Time of India

Comparing 1971 India-Pakistan war & Operation Sindoor

Dr. Prashant Prabhakar Deshpande has post-graduated in Economics with a Gold Medal in 1976 and was awarded a Ph.D in Social Sciences from Nagpur University in 2007. Introduction In the aftermath of the Operation Sindoor Congress has been highlighting Pakistan's surrender to India in 1971 Bangladesh war during Smt Indira Gandhi's premiership. However, according to experts, the exercise is futile. According to them, while both achieved their respective objectives, they differ significantly in context, scale, and impact and should be viewed within their distinct historical and strategic frameworks. According to experts, the 1971 war was a full-scale military conflict triggered by widespread human rights violations and a massive refugee crisis in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, where the Pakistani army persecuted the Bengali population, forcing nearly 10 million refugees to flee to India. In response, India initially provided humanitarian aid and extended support to the Bengali resistance force, the Mukti Bahini. When Pakistan launched an attack on both eastern & western fronts, India declared a full-scale war, engaging across land, air, and sea, achieving a decisive victory, leading to the liberation of East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, leading to a significant territorial and political shift in South Asia. According to experts, Operation Sindoor in contrast, was a precision military strike launched to dismantle terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) to avenge the massacre of 26 Indian tourists in J&K's Pahalgam on 22nd of April, 2025 destroying 9 terror hideouts using advanced technology, including drones, satellite imagery, and precision-guided weapons. The operation was aimed solely at terrorist infrastructure avoiding civilian or military targets, the objective being to curb terrorism and deliver a strong message to Pakistan without escalating into a full-scale war. After Pakistan's retaliatory strikes, however, India responded firmly that culminated into an agreement to hold fire & military action on May 10, 2025. Comparing 1971 & 2025 According to military experts, comparing the 1971 war with Operation Sindoor is not appropriate, as both had vastly different objectives and contexts. While the 1971 war resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, Operation Sindoor was a limited but targeted military action aimed at dismantling terrorist infrastructure. While the 1971 war reshaped South Asia's political landscape, Operation Sindoor sent a strong message to Pakistan and the terrorist groups it backs, without escalating into a broader conflict. Achievements of Operation Sindoor Operation Sindoor reportedly targeted terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and PoK, resulting in the destruction of two terrorist headquarters, reportedly killing several terrorists, including 2 designated by the United Nations and 8 on India's most-wanted list. Operation Sindoor highlights a shift towards a proactive defence strategy adopted by India, ensuring national security and regional stability. The destruction of terror camps and Pakistani military assets has sent a strong message to adversaries, reinforcing India's commitment to counter-terrorism. India's precision strikes under Operation Sindoor showcased a modern military doctrine targeting terror camps and Pakistani military installations without engaging in prolonged warfare. India's approach focuses on economic dominance, strategic deterrence, and controlled military engagements, underscoring India's long-term vision, ensuring national security without compromising economic growth under the Viksit Bharat Vision. India agreed to the Pakistani DGMO's request to halt firing & military action only after it achieved its objective to destroy terrorist camps, forcing Pakistan's military to plead. India's actions demonstrated its firm stance against terrorism and cross-border aggression. The country demonstrated its military prowess neutralising half a dozen US and China-made fighter jets along with hundreds of Turkish and Chinese drones deployed by Pakistan in addition to destroying 9 terror camps, eliminating 100+ terrorists, including masterminds behind the Kandahar hijack and 26/11 Mumbai attacks & causing significant losses estimated at $10 billion+. Operation Sindoor demonstrates a decisive shift in India's counter-terrorism strategy, aimed at delivering swift and targeted responses, rather than issuing warnings . Reasons behind India's agreeing to Pakistan's request to hold fire & military action According to experts in today's world, military confrontations are not solely about territorial gains but about economic stability, precision strikes, and global influence. Unlike 1971, when full-fledged warfare was the only viable option, today's geopolitical landscape demands calculated actions that align with economic and strategic priorities, according to them. A prolonged war with Pakistan would derail India's economic growth, disrupt Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs), and slow down job creation, negatively impacting the country's development trajectory. As global manufacturing shifts away from China, a prolonged conflict could prevent India from emerging as a key manufacturing hub, securing Beijing's economic dominance. Unlike traditional warfare, modern conflicts focus on precision military operations that weaken adversaries without engaging in prolonged war. Economically fragile and politically unstable Pakistan has nothing to lose from prolonged military engagements. However, China and the US Deep State have vested interests in India's prolonged involvement as: – Pakistan serves as a front for major global powers to sell weapons and destabilize India. – A long military conflict would weaken India's global position, similar to how the West pushed Russia into a multi-year war with Ukraine. Opposition's Nefarious design to play politics on Operation Sindoor Indian opposition parties, including India's grand old party, Indian National Congress, which was in power at the Centre which remained passive after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, are now pushing for war to: Disrupt the government's economic policies by forcing it into a long military conflict, and; Create public discontent if the government refuses to escalate the war, labelling it as weakness. These parties do not realise or do not want to realise that they are playing into the hands of India's adversary, Pakistan, which has been since long harbouring terrorists, doing a disservice to the nation, discrediting & demoralising the country's Armed forces. Epilogue India's recent military operations highlight a shift towards proactive defence strategies & by destroying terror camps, sends a strong message to adversaries, reinforcing India's commitment to counter-terrorism. According to experts, while the Shimla Agreement signed after the 1971 war was aimed at diplomatic resolution, India's modern defence approach underscores the necessity of military deterrence in safeguarding national interest, considering it futile to compare 1971 war & Operation Sindoor. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store