Written by: Burz Kohi.
Translated by: Zanish Baloch
There are two ways to understand politics. The first is the one that is readily apparent, where parties, fronts, negotiations, institutions of power, and conflicts take place. The second is not visible to the naked eye, but it controls the essence of things. We refer to this deeper level as metapolitics, the moment when politics is no longer about motion but about meaning. Who determines an act’s name, description, intent, and moral standard? This is the question posed by metapolitics. It is the area where the connection between power and truth is most visible.
For the Baloch, their fight is about more than just administration or weapons. It is about taking back their sense of self, their perception of the world, and their right to live a dignified life. Both local and international narratives attempted to confine the current Baloch independence movement to well-known categories when it first arose. However, the intellectual vitality of the movement defied such containment. Its claim to the right to name itself was its first and most significant triumph. By doing this, it preserved the concept of Baloch freedom in the context of meaning.
One fundamental fact remains unchanged: the Baloch insist on defining the meaning of their own struggle. Pakistan, with all its state apparatus, may increase its pressure on the battlefield and tighten its control over the cities. No political agreement can ever be finalized without this control over meaning. Therefore, even though the state may seem to be in control on the surface, its influence on an intellectual level has already diminished.
Because they are defining their own moral standards, interpreting their struggle in their own words, and envisioning their future through collective understanding rather than state patterns, the Baloch are winning in the metapolitical arena. The outcome is obvious: until this intellectual sovereignty is fully expressed, the war will not end. This is a philosophical fact rather than an emotive catchphrase. Any short-term political compromise cannot satisfy a people who have regained their right to self-determination. Moral consistency, which is the real power of metapolitics, is developed by such individuals. For this reason, the Baloch national liberation movement has maintained its intellectual vitality in spite of its ups and downs.
Even though repression has increased, organizations and tactics have evolved, one thing has stayed the same: Baloch youth still refer to their actions by their own names, and they still believe that their cause is just. Metapolitics is based on this sense of justification. The Pakistani state cannot put an end to this conflict until it undermines the moral and intellectual independence of the Baloch, regardless of how much force it uses. Violence cannot destroy such independence; only the denial of a people’s right to reason and self-representation can do so. Indeed, the Baloch have made a claim already.
One thing is thus made clear by the movement: the war will not end until the political order is restored in accordance with Baloch terms. This is a question of intellectual development rather than passion, a process that has developed over the last 20 years and given this conflict a coherent philosophical framework.
However, the biggest challenge to sustaining this mental toughness comes from within. History demonstrates that certain segments of the Baloch intelligentsia dismiss the bravery of young people who risk their lives to challenge the status quo as emotionalism whenever the movement gains new momentum. It is referred to as immaturity, unpolitical behavior, personal ambition, and foreign power influence at different times. These viewpoints influence the meaning’s equilibrium; they are not neutral. The moral significance of an act is ultimately determined by the language used to interpret it.
This pattern is not new to us. Many people wrote off acts of resistance as impetuous and driven by outside forces when they first surfaced in urban areas. However, the critics started to change their tone as time went on and those same actions showed new organization and strategy, claiming that the movement was growing and deserving of support. This path—from denial to doubt, from doubt to hesitant approval, and finally to the assertion that they supported it all along—has frequently been followed by the Baloch intellectual community. Young Baloch fighters now have to contend with both the state’s power and the skepticism of their own intellectual circles as a result of this contradiction.
From a metapolitical standpoint, this incredulity is a theoretical flaw in the foundation rather than just a moral issue. An act of resistance loses its ability to reason when internal Baloch voices reduce it to simple emotion. It starts to appear as though resistance lacks collective consciousness and sacrifice is illogical. The state’s prepared narrative enters that void. Internal voices begin repeating the word “extremism” whenever the state uses it to describe an action. When the government refers to it as terrorism, the word is used in public discourse. Suspicion subtly creeps into our own explanations when the state labels it a foreign conspiracy. The youth’s moral courage is the thing that suffers the most during this process. He faces two fronts, one he recognizes as the enemy and another that is similar to his own but makes him less certain. Resistance cannot exist without conviction, but political order may.
Parts of Baloch scholarship unwittingly tip the metapolitical scales in favor of power when they repeat state rhetoric in the name of caution. Reverting to the fundamental tenet of knowledge—that the subject itself is the principal witness to its meaning—is all that is necessary to comprehend this. It would be an injustice to knowledge itself to dismiss the Baloch youth’s testimony as merely psychological unrest when his actions reflect collective awareness.
As we know from history, many of those same intellectuals claim to have always supported the movement when a new wave of it succeeds. However, such assertions obscure the point at which skepticism was at its most acute—when resistance was rendered irrational by arguments.
That memory is preserved by metapolitics. It teaches us when intellectuals support their own people and when they defend the language of power. It is also important to understand that Baloch intellectuals are not just using words when they refer to the conflict as emotional, terroristic, extremist, or externally planned. They are adhering to the occupier’s conceptual frameworks. The occupier has given these terms moral authority through its institutions, media, and educational system. The state’s definition of conflict will always prevail if we keep using these borrowed ideas. We will continue to debate in a power-hungry circle.
Concepts must be independent for intellectual integrity to exist. An act’s name must come from our collective wisdom and past experiences, not from pre-existing models. It is the source of real power in the metapolitical sphere. The concept of metapolitics is not abstract. It is measurable and identifiable. How much control a people have over the purpose of their struggle is the first metric. Political order may exist if the right to define is found elsewhere, but freedom consciousness will still be lacking. On this front, the current Baloch movement has already made its mark.
Only if the Baloch intelligentsia assumes responsibility for its own language will intellectual superiority last. This entails declining to accept the language established by authority without question. The only people who can determine what an act is emotionally charged are those who are aware of its overall context. Those whose rule is based on violence cannot be considered terrorists. Only when we first agree on what drives intensity—the concentration of power and the lack of justice—does the concept of extremism make sense. Only when we choose convenient excuses over internal causes does the label of foreign conspiracy appear.
When honestly analyzed, it is evident that whenever Baloch scholars employ these state-defined terms out of habit or fear, they bolster the oppressor’s metapolitical position while undermining that of their people. The fact that the current Baloch armed resistance has preserved the prospect of freedom is its greatest accomplishment. Statistics cannot quantify this possibility. It can be identified by a people’s strong belief that they are correct and their steadfast adherence to that belief. Future politics will be based on this kind of perseverance. History demonstrates that only those conflicts culminate in stable political structures that first attain meaning sovereignty.
Thus, Baloch intellectuals have two responsibilities. They must first base their analysis on the rules of reason rather than on convenience or fear. Second, they need to view the youth’s sacrifices as testimony rather than just experiences. A type of argument known as testimony can only be disproved by an equally significant experience. The state’s narrative will fill the void left by the internal intelligentsia undermining this testimony. However, it will fortify the metapolitical basis and open the political route that emanates from it if it comprehends and expands upon it.
This reflection aims to remind us of our responsibility—to acknowledge the moral weight of words—rather than to place blame. Our understanding of the consequences of actions is shaped by the names we give them. We perpetuate the thought patterns that support dominance if we keep categorizing the behavior of our own young people into prefabricated groups. However, we can create patterns that lead to freedom if we extract new meanings from our own historical consciousness.
That is the essence of metapolitics, and the current movement has been able to maintain that essence. Its victory does not mean that the conflict is over; rather, it means that the Baloch people still control its meaning. Time becomes ours when we have meaning. And politics eventually changes to reflect the will of the people when time is on their side. Every serious reader has an intellectual obligation to match their words, opinions, and standards with the consciousness that transforms freedom into an idea, a constitution, and ultimately a system.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Balochistan Post or any of its editors.