What Motivates the Pakistan Army to Conduct Airstrikes in Balochistan?

New Delhi, Sep 10 (NationPress) Balochistan has been a stage for insurgency since 1948, the year following Pakistan's establishment when the princely state of Kalat was forcefully annexed against the will of its inhabitants. This marked the beginning of a relationship characterized not by collaboration but by coercion.

Multiple uprisings—in 1958, during the 1970s, in the early 2000s, and currently—have been driven by systemic oppression, the exploitation of natural resources, and the denial of political representation for the Baloch people. The most recent surge, spearheaded by the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and other factions, has proven particularly resilient as it now includes educated Baloch youth who have taken up arms, transforming the struggle into a modern, decentralized insurgency. This has placed the Pakistan Army in a precarious situation: despite being among the world's largest militaries with extensive resources, it struggles to suppress a populace that is determined to resist occupation.

Recently, the Pakistan Air Force's fighter jets reportedly executed strikes in parts of Mach, located in Balochistan's Bolan region. Such actions do not reflect the behavior of a legitimate government, but rather the desperate measures of a regime that has failed to gain the allegiance of its citizens.

By deploying airpower against its own people, Islamabad reveals its moral bankruptcy and its failure to govern through consent. The use of military aircraft is not a demonstration of strength; it is an admission of weakness. The rulers of Pakistan, primarily influenced by the Army, have shown themselves incapable of addressing grievances through dialogue, inclusion, or justice, opting instead for bombs and bullets.

These airstrikes aim not merely to defeat insurgents, but to intimidate entire communities into submission. In doing so, the government abandons even the semblance of democracy and reveals itself as a predator against those it claims to govern.

The Pakistan Army's dependence on airstrikes arises from its repeated failures on the ground. Despite deploying tens of thousands of troops and operating a comprehensive intelligence network, the Army has faced significant losses.

According to the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, over 120 insurgent attacks occurred in Balochistan in 2023 alone, resulting in casualties among security personnel. The Bolan region, home to Mach, has turned into a burial ground for convoys ambushed by the BLA. Even urban centers have not been spared—high-profile attacks in Karachi and Gwadar illustrate that the insurgency has surpassed the Army's control.

Each of these incidents chips away at the Army's image of invincibility, demonstrating that its soldiers are not liberators but unwelcome occupiers in Balochistan.

It is not solely the Army's incompetence that is evident, but also its blatant disregard for human life. Airstrikes in populated areas are almost guaranteed to kill civilians, yet Pakistan continues to utilize them.

Independent journalism is frequently suppressed through media blackouts, yet human rights organizations consistently highlight widespread civilian casualties in previous operations.

The state dismisses these deaths as 'collateral damage,' a term that underscores its dehumanizing attitude towards the Baloch people. When a government bombards its own citizens, it forfeits its claim to legitimacy. Every strike fuels resentment, ensuring that new generations join the insurgency. The Pakistan Army may kill with impunity, but it cannot extinguish the idea of freedom that fuels the resistance.

The economic exploitation of Balochistan further exposes the predatory nature of the Pakistani state. This province contributes a substantial portion of Pakistan's natural gas and holds rich deposits of copper, gold, and other minerals. Yet, the Baloch people live in poverty.

Literacy rates hover around 40%, significantly below the national average, while poverty levels exceed 40% in many districts. Basic amenities like healthcare, clean water, and electricity remain scarce.

Wealth generated in Balochistan is siphoned off to benefit elites in Punjab and Sindh, leaving the local populace impoverished.

This economic exploitation, safeguarded by the Army's force, is not development; it resembles colonial extraction in all but name. Airstrikes in areas like Mach should be recognized for what they are: acts of state terrorism aimed at securing control over resources, rather than protecting ordinary citizens.

The reliance on airpower also highlights the deep-seated issues within Pakistan’s civil-military dynamics. Civilian governments wield little real influence in Balochistan; the Army dictates policy. Decisions regarding security, development, and negotiations are monopolized by military leaders, while legislative bodies are relegated to mere bystanders.

Airstrikes require high-level military approval, serving as a stark reminder of who truly governs Pakistan. Far from functioning as a democratic state, Pakistan operates as a military dictatorship in everything but name. The Army presents itself as the custodian of national unity, yet in Balochistan, it acts as a foreign occupier, destroying villages and terrorizing residents into silence.

From a theoretical standpoint, Pakistan is venturing into perilous territory. A state that governs through bombs rather than ballots ceases to be a protector and becomes a predator. Political theorists like Charles Tilly have long maintained that legitimacy hinges on a state's ability to provide security and justice to its citizens. In Balochistan, Pakistan provides neither. Instead, it seeks compliance through fear.

The imagery of fighter jets bombing Baloch villages will not foster loyalty to the state; it will exacerbate alienation and reinforce the nationalist narrative that Pakistan is an occupying force.

Rather than suppressing rebellion, such brutality guarantees its persistence. Proponents of the airstrikes argue that they are essential for national security and the protection of infrastructure projects, especially those associated with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). However, this argument falters under scrutiny.

Security cannot be established through oppression; every airstrike renders Balochistan more unstable, not less. Investors perceive not safety but unpredictability.

Even China has repeatedly urged Pakistan to pursue political solutions, aware that economic projects cannot flourish in a conflict zone. History has shown that the Baloch insurgency cannot be extinguished through military means. Previous uprisings were subdued only through political compromise. By rejecting dialogue and doubling down on force, Pakistan ensures that this insurgency will endure for decades.

The alternatives are clear, yet remain willfully ignored by Pakistan’s leaders.

Dialogue, resource-sharing, and authentic provincial autonomy could address Baloch grievances. However, the military establishment confuses compromise with defeat, opting instead to rule through fear. This mentality condemns the people of Balochistan to endless cycles of violence, with ordinary soldiers and civilians bearing the consequences.

The Army's generals, however, remain insulated, enriching themselves through land confiscations, business ventures, and control over state resources. For them, Balochistan is not a homeland with rights-bearing citizens but a territory to be subdued and exploited. The recent airstrikes in Mach must therefore be viewed not as isolated incidents but as part of a long-standing pattern of state violence.

They reflect the Pakistan Army’s failure to defeat the Baloch resistance on the ground, its contempt for civilian life, and its desperation to uphold a crumbling narrative of control. By deploying fighter jets against its own populace, Pakistan reveals the true nature of its governance: it rules not by consent, but by coercion. A state that bombs its own citizens has already forfeited the moral right to govern them.

In Balochistan, while the air force may dominate the skies, the yearning for freedom runs too deep to be extinguished by bombs. Each strike only reinforces the belief that Pakistan is not a homeland but a colonizer, and that liberation, not subjugation, is the only viable path forward.