Once again, the dominant narrative on Balochistan has reverted to a familiar and dangerously convenient explanation: that unrest, alienation, and resistance are primarily the outcome of “foreign hands”, whereas these are a consequence rather than the root cause.

Residents of Balochistan and Islamabad, facing the worst wave of terrorism, while a three-day official Basant Festival (6–8 February 2026) was held in Punjab, are rightly angry. Not because they have any issue with festivity or with Punjabis, but due to the apathy of political and military leadership, and the perpetual failure of the state’s internal security policy.

The article by Amir Rana in Dawn on 8 February 2026, titled Missing Introspection, deserves credit for breaking, if only partially, from this reflexive diagnosis. It candidly points out the central malaise: Islamabad’s flawed approach of viewing Balochistan almost exclusively through a defence-and-security prism, while remaining unwilling to interrogate the deeper political and economic failures that have produced sustained alienation.

However, even this honest intervention stops short of confronting the full implications of that failure. The problem is not merely one of flawed policy choices; it is fundamentally a constitutional and political economy failure.

A state that persistently treats one of its federating units as a territory to be secured, controlled, and recolonised—rather than as a people to be empowered—cannot plausibly claim surprise when legitimacy erodes, and external actors find space to operate. This is a familiar pattern: when the distributive arrangements of a federation cease to be, sovereignty becomes performative rather than substantive.

Defence Prism and the Illusion of Control

Islamabad’s approach to Balochistan has for decades been anchored in a security-first worldview. The province is discussed in terms of insurgency, sabotage, strategic depth, and geopolitical vulnerability.

Pakistan On The Frontline: COP30, Global Injustice, And The Fight For Climate Justice

Development, when mentioned, is framed as an adjunct to security operations—roads to improve troop mobility, projects to “win hearts and minds”, and employment schemes designed more as pacification tools than as vehicles of economic citizenship. This framing is not accidental. It reflects a deeper intellectual failure to appreciate that security cannot be sustainably imposed where constitutional federalism has been hollowed out.

Defence-centric governance inevitably crowds out development economics. Resources flow disproportionately towards coercive capacity, while institutions responsible for service delivery, education, health, and local economic integration remain weak, underfunded, or bypassed altogether. The paradox is stark: policies adopted in the name of defending the federation often end up corroding it from within.

Foreign Hands: Cause or Consequence?

Blaming external actors for domestic unrest is a well-worn trope in Pakistan’s political history. East Pakistan was no exception. In hindsight,........

© The Friday Times