The self declared Republic of Balochistan has issued two successive statements calling for the immediate withdrawal of Pakistani military and security forces from Balochistan, while challenging Pakistan’s characterization of the conflict as a terrorism and security issue.
In statements dated 5 and 6 September, they called on Pakistan’s Army, Frontier Corps, Navy, Air Force, police and other security institutions to leave Balochistan and urged the international community to independently assess the security and humanitarian situation in the region.
The statements represent the latest escalation in the group’s political messaging against Islamabad, combining demands for military withdrawal with broader allegations of economic exploitation, military occupation and restrictions on civilian life.
Claims of Reduced Pakistani Control:
The Balochistan claims that Pakistani ground control has been substantially reduced in parts of the region and that government forces are increasingly concentrated inside military cantonments and other fortified positions.
It specifically cited Quetta, Kalat, Khuzdar, Nushki, Gwadar and Mastung, claiming that Pakistani forces in these areas have adopted a more defensive posture.
They also alleged that trenches, concrete barriers, barbed wire and other fortifications have been installed around military cantonments, police stations and checkpoints.
These battlefield claims could not be independently verified from the statements themselves.
The Balochistan presented the alleged changes in military deployments as evidence of what it described as growing Baloch resistance and a decline in Pakistan’s ability to maintain control outside fortified positions.
International Investigation Sought:
They has also appealed directly to international media organizations, the United Nations, humanitarian agencies and other international institutions to visit Balochistan.
It called for independent assessments of conditions in remote areas, the humanitarian situation, military deployments and developments involving Baloch security and defense forces.
The appeal is aimed at challenging what they portrays as competing narratives about the conflict and encouraging international observers to assess conditions on the ground rather than relying solely on statements from either side.
Dispute Over Terrorism Narrative:
In its second statement, issued on 6 September, they responded to remarks attributed to Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz concerning terrorism and security threats.
They rejected what it described as a narrative portraying Balochistan as a source of terrorism threatening Punjab. Instead, it accused Pakistan of conducting military operations and what it called state terrorism in Balochistan.
The allegations are part of a long-running political dispute over the nature of the Baloch conflict. Pakistan has generally characterized militant violence in Balochistan through a counterterrorism and national-security framework, while Baloch separatist groups describe the conflict as a struggle over political sovereignty and self-determination.
Resources and Economic Grievances:
Economic grievances remain central to the Republic’s political argument.
The Baloch accused successive Pakistani governments and military authorities of exploiting Balochistan’s natural resources and strategic geography while failing to provide adequate development and basic services to local communities.
It particularly criticized what it described as the use of Balochistan’s resources for the development of Punjab and other parts of Pakistan.
The self declared Republic Of Balochistan said its demand for an end to resource exploitation was inseparable from its broader call for political independence and control over Balochistan’s territory and coastal areas.
Nuclear Debate:
The 6 September statement also sought to connect the Baloch conflict with Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine.
The Balochistan argued that Pakistan has historically cited the threat from India as a major justification for maintaining a nuclear deterrent. It said remarks identifying threats from Balochistan or Pashtunistan as significant security concerns should prompt the international community to reconsider Pakistan’s broader security rationale.
They described this as a contradiction in Pakistan’s traditional presentation of its nuclear posture and called for greater international scrutiny of Islamabad’s strategic doctrine.
Conflict Described as a Struggle for Independence:
The self declared Republic of Balochistan also challenged Pakistan’s characterization of Baloch armed resistance, arguing that the conflict should be understood as a political struggle for independence rather than solely as a terrorism problem.
It acknowledged Pakistan’s considerable conventional military advantage, including its air force, armored forces and large standing army, but argued that military superiority alone cannot resolve a conflict in which sections of the population remain committed to resisting Pakistani rule.
The Baloch statements did not provide independently verifiable evidence for several of its battlefield and territorial-control claims.
Call for Withdrawal and International Engagement:
The Balochistan concluded by reiterating its demand for an immediate and orderly withdrawal of Pakistani military and security forces.
It urged Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership to recognize what it described as the political realities of Balochistan and called on the international community to support independent monitoring, humanitarian access, accountability and diplomatic efforts toward a peaceful resolution.
The two statements underscore the effort to frame the Baloch conflict as a question of sovereignty, political self-determination and control over natural resources, while directly challenging Pakistan’s security-based narrative.
