IT seems that we are well on our way to becoming a ‘hard state’, viewing most challenges through a security-dominated paradigm.
Only time will tell how effective this approach will be. Meanwhile, in the current situation, political parties appear to be losing the capacity to view critical national issues through a political prism. This was evident in the recent discussion on Balochistan in both the National Assembly and the Senate.
In this context, the parliamentary debate on Balochistan revealed rare unanimity, but also the absence of introspection. Across party lines in both the National Assembly and the Senate, lawmakers converged on two broad premises: first, that the grievances of the Baloch must be addressed, without specifying what those grievances are, and second, that terrorism cannot be defeated through condemnations alone. However, from a security-centric outlook, this consensus was rhetorical. The debate ultimately stopped short of engaging with the deeper political and structural causes that have allowed violence to entrench itself in the province.
Several among the parliamentarians pointed to a long-standing failure to address public grievances, particularly the denial of political rights, economic opportunity and meaningful participation for Baloch youth. This governance vacuum, they argued, has been exploited by hostile external actors and violent networks. Questions were also raised about the credibility of counter-smuggling measures, with lawmakers openly asking how oil continues to flow from border regions to major urban centres despite the presence of extensive security and what concrete steps were being taken to curb foreign involvement.
In sum, the parliamentarians raised each and every issue of Balochistan, which was also reflected in the resolutions passed by both Houses, and they unanimously condemned the recent terrorist attacks and praised the security forces, as well as called for zero tolerance, improved intelligence coordination and stronger border security. The resolutions projected institutional convergence among the executive, political leadership and the security apparatus.
Viewing Balochistan’s issues through a single prism gives no room to diverse perspectives.
Dissenting opinions, particularly calls for political engagement and reconciliation, were absent from the final consensus, though some voices were raised in this regard by a few opposition figures, including the NA opposition leader Mehmood Achakzai and Senator Jan Buledi in the Senate, who called for political engagement and reconciliation to address the long-standing issues in Balochistan. The overwhelming impression one was left with was that the ruling alliance has concluded that coercive power, rather than political reconciliation, is the only viable path forward.
These resolutions also reflected concurrence with the country’s power elites under the perceived paradigm of a hard state. While we are not entering into an academic debate on the concept of the hard state, one major flaw is evident in the approach: it becomes fixated on a narrow vision, viewing issues through a single prism and losing the ability to accommodate diverse perspectives, which is the essence of political processes.
This approach is manifesting itself at multiple levels, but Balochistan remains its prime victim, as the space for resolving the province’s complex issues through a political process has steadily diminished.
Baloch and Pakhtun nationalist parties, most notably Akhtar Mengal’s Balochistan National Party (BNP), Dr Abdul Malik’s National Party (NP) and Achakzai’s Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP), continue to advocate political reconciliation. Although Sardar Akhtar Mengal has recently adopted a more hard-line stance to protect his political space, these parties have historically built bridges between the federation and Balochistan.
Mainstream political parties, particularly the PML-N and PPP, have at times listened to these voices, even though they ultimately failed to resolve Balochistan’s problems. The PTI is now politically aligned with PkMAP and occupies a similar position. However, once in power, these mainstream parties have done little; despite being aware of the ground realities in Balochistan, they have often avoided addressing them and instead followed the preferences of security institutions.
A few political analysts justify the actions of the mainstream parties by arguing that Balochistan has only a few constituencies and is rife with political landmines, and that they have left the province to security circles in exchange for a few seats and a share in the provincial government. Sometimes it is hard to accept such arguments, as the situation in Balochistan is worsening by the day, and another challenge is that the bridge between mainstream parties and Baloch nationalist parties is collapsing. This is happening because of a two-way process. First, the nationalist parties are losing appeal in the province because of their pro-federation politics, which many perceive as pro-establishment, but they have also lost the latter’s trust, while right-wing movements and resistance sentiments are increasingly capturing their space.
These nationalist parties have their own arguments and blame the state apparatus for pushing them into a corner through manipulated elections, and a large segment of the youth that previously remained under their influence now faces fewer barriers to joining violent movements resisting the state.
Both the NP and BNP advocate political solutions and hope that the state, mainstream political parties, and nationalist parties can all regain what they have lost through political experimentation in the province. Recently, an NP senator proposed ‘national reconciliation’ on Balochistan, and BNP’s Sanaullah Baloch has advocated a ‘truth and reconciliation commission’ on Balochistan, which was once endorsed by the Balochistan Assembly; there are efforts in this direction.
However, political solutions and reconciliation do not resonate within the current power arrangement of the ruling elite, which clearly favours a hammer approach and assumes that even a softer tone could undermine perceptions of its strength. Who has gained in this process? Clearly, beyond mainstream parties sharing power in Balochistan, the beneficiaries include the bureaucracy in its various forms, those managing the province’s finances, and segments of the security apparatus. However, one of the major beneficiaries has also been the violent actors who exploit this power structure.
The writer is a security analyst.
Published in Dawn, February 8th, 2026
