In recent years, the exiled leaders of the Baloch independence movement have made renewed calls for India’s support. From their understanding, the struggle of Balochistan is no different from that of Bangladesh. They point to a shared history of exploitation, suppression, and denial of rights, and they see in New Delhi both a potential ally and a moral guidepost.
However, India today stands on a tightrope. While many Baloch leaders want India to extend its hand, morally, diplomatically, and perhaps even strategically, New Delhi’s cautious actions show the huge risks in such a move.
A desperate cry from a troubled land
Balochistan is the largest but least developed province of Pakistan. It is rich in natural resources, from copper to gold to natural gas, and now lithium. Despite this wealth, the region remains one of the poorest areas in South Asia. While the region is naturally rich, the people have received nothing. The profits from these resources are benefiting Islamabad, China, and even Western companies, but not the Baloch people themselves.
For decades, activists and revolutionaries from Balochistan thought they were colonised by Pakistan. The Pakistani military is seen as a repressive force there, launching crackdowns, enforced disappearances, and assassinations of dissenting leaders. Common citizens live under the colonised state, with violence and instability becoming daily realities.
This deep sense of exploitation has fueled repeated uprisings. Since Balochistan was annexed in 1948, at least five insurgencies have erupted. Each has been ruthlessly crushed, but each has also planted seeds of resentment. What started as tribal rebellions has, over time, evolved into underground militant outfits as well as political lobbying by diaspora leaders abroad.
The tragedy, however, is that the Baloch movement is a bit divided. Different tribal leaders control different factions. Militant groups sometimes also clash with each other as much as they do with Pakistani security forces. Leaders like Brahumdagh Bugti, Hyrbyair Marri, and Mehran Marri push their agendas from exile in Europe, but none command universal loyalty among the Baloch themselves.
Why they now turn towards India
The latest round of outreach to New Delhi is happening at a moment when India has asserted itself strongly against Pakistan during Ops Sindoor. After India’s Operation Sindoor carried out targeted strikes on Pakistani terror camps and air force bases, Baloch leaders saw an opportunity. They publicly applauded India’s actions and urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to extend moral and diplomatic support to their cause.
They invoke Bangladesh at every turn, asking: if India helped free millions of Bengali people from Pakistani domination in 1971, why not support the Baloch now? Their case positions India as a moral actor on the wrong side of an unfinished historical equation.
Apart from this, many Baloch activists actively court the Indian media, policy think tanks, and intellectual circles. They desperately want India’s endorsement, even soft recognition, which could breathe new life into their otherwise marginalised struggle. Yet the very fact that they are asking so openly may hamper India’s international stand.
The moral dilemma for India
On paper, the parallels between Balochistan and Bangladesh seem sharp. Both regions accuse Pakistan of economic exploitation, cultural discrimination, and political suppression. Both claim to represent a denied “right to self-determination.”
However, in practice, India’s situation today is very different from what it was in 1971. Then, Pakistan’s genocide in East Bengal had triggered an unprecedented refugee flow into India. The humanitarian and security costs were on India. In contrast, the current Baloch movement, fragmented, exiled, and often seen as militant, does not generate the same kind of international sympathy.
If India were to openly support Baloch secession, it would immediately hand Pakistan a propaganda victory. Islamabad would argue that “Balochistan and Kashmir are the same” and accuse India of hypocrisy. For decades, New Delhi has maintained that Kashmir is an internal issue born from Pakistan’s export of terrorism, whereas Balochistan is purely Pakistan’s internal failure. That moral distinction is valuable for India on the world stage, and overtly backing Baloch separatism could blur it beyond repair.
The regional complications
Beyond Pakistan, other regional powers make India’s job even harder. Iran, which also has a Baloch minority across the border, has little tolerance for separatist movements. Tehran has routinely warned foreign powers against meddling in Baloch affairs. Given India’s crucial investment in Iran’s Chabahar port, a key trade lifeline bypassing Pakistan to reach central Asia, Tehran may be alienated over Balochistan. It could be disastrous.
China, meanwhile, is deeply invested in Balochistan through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). China is also extracting resources for its benefit. At the same time, several highways, rail projects, and the Gwadar Port fall right in the heart of Baloch territory. Any perception of Indian direct involvement would only deepen tensions between New Delhi and Beijing.
Similarly, the US, despite its democratic rhetoric, has shown little space for supporting Baloch self-rule. For Washington, Pakistan is still a messy but necessary for natural resources and geopolitical position.
India’s cautious path
This is why successive Indian governments have chosen a measured line. From Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s reference to Balochistan in his 2016 Independence Day speech to mentions by Indian diplomats in global forums, the focus has always been on highlighting Pakistan’s human rights violations, not on promising secessionist support.
By doing so, India achieves multiple aims. It exposes Pakistan’s hypocrisy. While Pakistan keeps putting Kashmir at the international level, it silences any talk of Baloch rights. At the same time, India avoids taking on the costly burden of directly supporting an issue that has few international backers.
Strategically, ambiguity serves India better than clarity. By keeping the possibility of support in the shadows, using it as a pressure point whenever needed, New Delhi retains leverage without paying diplomatic or military costs. The Baloch know this too, which is why they keep appealing, even if their calls are often met with silence.
In the Indian masses, there is huge sympathy for the Baloch insurgency, and the common people of India feel their pain. From social media to digital media, they always speak for the Baloch brothers in order to amplify their voice on the international stage. This helps spread the real issues of Balochi around the world. India will keep doing that on the screen, but the government knows the repercussions of officially supporting it.
For India, the wisest policy remains the one it has followed so far, that is sympathy without secessionism, rights without rhetoric of rebellion. Supporting the Baloch issue only as a question of justice allows New Delhi to keep the moral high ground while denying Pakistan any excuse to drag Kashmir into the same conversation.
In diplomacy, sometimes silence is not weakness but strength. For India, Balochistan may well be one such case.
