In the declaration issued at the 25th Heads of State Council meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the attack on a school bus in Khuzdar district and the hijacking of the Jaffar Express in Dhadar were condemned. The declaration also sought to link the Baloch national movement with terrorism, a characterisation that does not accurately reflect the realities on the ground in Balochistan. The Baloch struggle, spanning over seven decades, is not merely a campaign of violence but a movement for national rights, freedom, and sovereignty. To categorise it as terrorism is to distort the truth.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, addressing the summit, claimed that Pakistan has always believed in multilateralism, dialogue and diplomacy. In reality, however, Islamabad has consistently preferred the use of military force over negotiations when it comes to the Balochistan crisis, exposing a deep contradiction in Pakistan’s policies. This gap between the government’s rhetoric at international forums and its actions at home highlights a state approach rooted in coercion and militarisation internally, while projecting an image of peace and reconciliation abroad.
Attempts to brand the Baloch struggle as terrorism at the international level cannot alter the realities on the ground, as this movement is fundamentally indigenous. More than any external involvement, its roots lie within Baloch society and its long-standing grievances. Even when global sanctions were imposed on armed groups active in the Baloch struggle, these measures did not weaken the movement’s structure. In some cases, they even re-emerged more organised, showing that external pressure has failed to shape its trajectory.
Labelling the Baloch national movement as a threat to the SCO is in fact a narrative crafted by Pakistan, aimed at securing international sympathy and support. The reality remains that the ongoing struggle in Balochistan is not directed against any foreign state or region, but is instead a fight for sovereignty over its own land and resources. This is what distinguishes it from other regional conflicts, and why reducing it to a “terrorism” narrative is an unrealistic and misleading approach.