In the early hours of January 4, 2025, the tranquility of Turbat in Balochistan was shattered by an explosion, signaling not just an attack but a deeper malaise within Pakistan. The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) claimed responsibility for this assault on a military convoy, an act that has reignited debates about Pakistan’s stability and its implications for peace in the volatile Indian subcontinent. The Turbat incident, characterized by its audacity and consequences, could be the harbinger of Pakistan’s potential disintegration, but paradoxically, this might be the very event that paves the way for lasting peace in the region.
Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest province by area, has long been a crucible of unrest. Rich in resources yet perennially underdeveloped, it has been the site of numerous insurgencies, with groups like the BLA fighting for autonomy or outright independence. The Turbat attack is not an isolated incident but part of a continuing saga of resistance against exploitation by the central government. This event underscores a critical question: Can Pakistan continue to hold together when one of its core regions feels so alienated?
The attack’s implications are multifaceted. Firstly, it exposes the fragility of Pakistan’s internal cohesion. Balochistan’s grievances, combined with the rise of separatist movements in other parts of the country like Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, suggest that Pakistan might be teetering on the edge of fragmentation. The resurgence of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other militant groups further complicates the security landscape, challenging the state’s monopoly on violence and governance.
Moreover, this incident reveals the strategic blunder of Pakistan’s foreign policy, particularly its support for non-state actors. For decades, Pakistan has played a double game, nurturing Islamist groups to exert influence in Afghanistan and to wage proxy wars against India, especially in Jammu and Kashmir. This policy has not only backfired domestically, with these groups turning against the state itself, but has also positioned Pakistan as a perennial source of regional instability.
The Turbat attack also highlights the economic dimension of Pakistan’s disintegration. Balochistan’s resources, including natural gas, copper, and gold, have not translated into prosperity for its people. Instead, they’ve fueled resentment as the wealth is seen to benefit other parts of the country or foreign entities, like China through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), while locals suffer from poverty and neglect. This economic disparity could be the final straw that pushes Balochistan towards secession, a scenario that could inspire similar movements elsewhere in Pakistan.
But why is this disintegration necessary for peace in the Indian subcontinent? Here lies the paradox. A fragmented Pakistan might seem like a recipe for more chaos, but it could also be the key to untangling this complex region’s Gordian knot.
Firstly, a smaller, more ethnically and ideologically cohesive state might be less prone to internal conflicts, reducing the breeding ground for terrorism. The current Pakistan, with its diverse and often conflicting national identities, has struggled to maintain national unity without resorting to authoritarian measures or military dominance. A breakdown could lead to entities that are more governable and less likely to support or harbor cross-border terrorism, which has been a constant thorn in India’s side.
Secondly, the dismemberment could lead to a reevaluation of foreign policy. A weaker, possibly multiple Pakistani states might not have the resources or the inclination to engage in the same level of proxy warfare in Kashmir or Afghanistan. This would not only reduce direct conflict with India but also decrease the strategic depth Pakistan seeks in Afghanistan, potentially leading to a more stable Afghanistan.
Moreover, the disintegration might force a reorientation of international relations in South Asia. Countries like China, with significant investments in Pakistan, especially through CPEC, might push for stabilizing measures. The international community, including the United States, might also step up to mediate or support new state formations, ensuring they are democratic, inclusive, and peace-oriented rather than militarized entities.
For India, this could mean a less hostile neighbor. The decades-old conflict over Kashmir might see new dynamics if the Pakistani state in its current form ceases to exist. New statelets might be more open to dialogue, especially if they are economically vulnerable and seeking international legitimacy and support.
However, the path to peace through disintegration is fraught with risks. The immediate aftermath could see increased violence, refugee crises, and regional instability. Yet, the long-term vision should be one where smaller, more manageable states work towards mutual security and economic cooperation rather than perpetual antagonism.
The international community must be proactive. Support for democratic processes, human rights, and economic development in any emerging entities from Pakistan’s potential breakup should be prioritized. There’s also a need for a nuanced approach to counter-terrorism that respects the sovereignty of new states while ensuring they do not become havens for radical elements.
In conclusion, while the Turbat attack appear to be a grim reminder of Pakistan’s internal strife, it might also be an unwitting step towards redefining the geopolitical landscape of South Asia. The disintegration of Pakistan could be a painful process, but if managed with foresight and international cooperation, it could lead to a more peaceful Indian subcontinent, where nations are less defined by conflict and more by cooperation. The challenge lies in navigating this transition with wisdom, ensuring that the end result is not merely the breaking apart of a nation but the beginning of a new era of regional stability.
