Location of Balochistan in Pakistan
In the contemporary information age, political struggles are no longer confined to the physical battlefield; they unfold just as decisively in the domain of narratives, perception management, and symbolic capital. One such case is that of Mahrang Baloch, who has rapidly emerged as the international face of Baloch resistance. Her op-ed in TIME Magazine projects her as a fearless human rights defender and victim of state repression—a Mandela-like figure bravely confronting systemic injustice.
Yet, beneath this moral performance lies a calculated use of symbolic activism to promote a separatist agenda camouflaged as peaceful dissent. The international media’s uncritical embrace of this narrative reflects a broader failure to interrogate the semiotics of subversion—a deliberate strategy where the language of human rights is co-opted to legitimise violent insurgency.
Mahrang Baloch’s discourse operates within a carefully crafted semiotic space in which she personifies the archetypal victim of a tyrannical state. Every word, every visual, and every protest she leads is freighted with symbolism—placards, hunger strikes, and slogans that evoke sympathy while masking the deeper agenda. This strategic self-fashioning is central to the concept of “semiotic insurgency,” wherein individuals or groups adopt the language, imagery, and moral authority of universal rights to mask political objectives that, in practice, undermine the sovereignty and security of the state.
Her activism is not spontaneous—it is performative and scripted for an international audience primed to side with the underdog. The omission of any reference to the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), despite its internationally documented terrorist activities, is not an accident. It is a communicative act of erasure that allows the BYC and its leadership to sustain the illusion of non-violence while remaining embedded within a broader ecosystem of subversive mobilisation.
The BLA, responsible for countless attacks on security personnel and civilians, including ethnic killings and destruction of vital infrastructure, continues to receive ideological cover from the very circles that venerate Baloch as a pacifist icon. Her silence on these matters is not benign—it is a discursive tactic. It allows her to maintain plausible deniability while enabling the insurgent narrative to flourish under the radar of global accountability.
The BYC serves as the organisational extension of Mahrang Baloch’s public persona. While it presents itself as a civil rights platform, its activities betray a far more insidious role. The committee regularly glorifies BLA militants killed in action, framing them as martyrs. It organises events where songs of separatism are sung, flags of “Free Balochistan” are waved, and the Pakistani state is demonised as an occupying force.
The insurgency in Balochistan cannot be analysed in isolation. It exists within a wider matrix of regional instability and foreign intervention. Multiple Pakistani and international intelligence assessments have identified external state actors—particularly India’s RAW and Afghanistan-based operatives—as sponsors of sub-national movements in Balochistan. These actors leverage figures like Mahrang Baloch not just as domestic dissenters but as tools of strategic disruption.
By globalising the Baloch issue through platforms like TIME, her activism becomes instrumental in creating international pressure on Pakistan. It delegitimises counter-terrorism operations, fuels narratives of state repression, and isolates Pakistan diplomatically. In short, she becomes a non-kinetic asset in a hybrid war waged through proxies and perception.
The Pakistani state’s response to insurgency has often been met with critique from international watchdogs. However, any analytical framework worth its merit must uphold the sovereign right of a state to defend itself from existential threats—especially those camouflaged as civil society activism. States are not monoliths of repression; they are complex political systems tasked with ensuring law, order, and national integration.
Human rights, when wielded without context, can become tools of political instrumentalisation. The case of Mahrang Baloch calls for a rethinking of human rights advocacy, particularly when it intersects with insurgency. True advocacy demands ethical consistency—condemning both state excesses and non-state violence, promoting inclusive development, and rejecting all forms of bloodshed. Mahrang Baloch’s transformation from local activist to global icon is not just a story of courage—it is also a case study in narrative engineering, media complicity, and strategic ambiguity. Her activism, when stripped of its rhetorical ornamentation, reveals itself as an integral node in a broader insurgent network that seeks to fragment Pakistan from within.
For Pakistan, the challenge is not just military or political—it is epistemological. It must reclaim the narrative space by exposing the symbiotic relationship between violent extremism and its soft enablers. Only then can it begin to address the root causes of unrest while preserving the integrity of the state. The semiotics of subversion must be unmasked before they evolve into existential threats.
0 Comments
LEAVE A COMMENT
Your email address will not be published