Nasir jaan
The continued detention of Mahrang Baloch and her fellow activists from the Baloch Yakjehti Committee is not just a legal matter — it is a test of our democratic values. At a time when Pakistan faces numerous internal and external challenges, the need to uphold constitutional freedoms and democratic dialogue is more important than ever. For long-term peace, especially in sensitive regions like Balochistan, the state must move beyond forceful responses and engage with its citizens through empathy, respect, and political inclusion.
Mahrang Baloch, known for her peaceful activism against enforced disappearances, was arrested in March and has since remained in custody under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance — a law often criticised for its sweeping powers. Most recently, she was remanded for another 10 days without any clear evidence presented publicly. The legal route, in this case, seems harsh and overly reliant on technical justifications, giving rise to concerns that legal tools are being used to curb dissent rather than maintain public order.
Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com
Yet, despite these concerns, this situation presents an opportunity for reflection and course correction. Balochistan is not a security problem alone; it is a political and humanitarian issue that requires sensitive handling. Over the years, there have been credible voices from the province who have chosen non-violence, dialogue, and civil engagement to raise their grievances. These voices must not be silenced. Rather, they should be seen as allies in the search for durable peace and national unity.
No one denies the state’s responsibility to ensure security and uphold the law. But that responsibility also includes creating space for dialogue, dissent, and lawful protest — the core tenets of a democratic system. When peaceful activists are arrested and treated as threats, it not only closes the door to communication but strengthens the perception that the state is not willing to listen.
This is neither a call for leniency towards lawbreakers nor an undermining of the challenges faced by the government in Balochistan. Rather, it is a humble appeal to distinguish between those who pick up arms and those who pick up placards. There is a difference between violence and non-violent advocacy, and treating both with the same heavy hand can backfire.
Engagement, not isolation, is the key to resolving long-standing issues. The more the state isolates peaceful actors, the more it risks pushing them — and those they represent — into corners of despair. History has shown that when doors for dialogue are shut, alternative and often extreme paths begin to appear attractive to the disillusioned. That is a risk no country can afford.
Balochistan’s grievances — whether they relate to missing persons, equitable resource distribution, or political representation — deserve serious and sincere dialogue. And who better to talk to than those already working within the framework of peace and civil engagement? People like Mahrang Baloch have chosen a path of resistance within the democratic order. Engaging such voices offers a chance to build bridges instead of barriers.
The judiciary also plays a vital role here. As the matter now lies before the Supreme Court, a balanced and fair judgment will set a powerful precedent on how Pakistan treats civil liberties. It is an opportunity to reaffirm that our Constitution protects all citizens equally — even those who disagree with the state. The courts can serve as guardians of democratic values by ensuring that legal instruments are not misused to target dissenters.
Moving forward, the state must create space for structured political engagement in Balochistan. That includes reforms in the legal system to prevent misuse of broad ordinances like the MPO, strengthening local governance, and giving meaningful political voice to youth and civil society. Confidence-building measures — such as releasing those detained without clear evidence and opening channels of dialogue — can go a long way in mending trust.
In conclusion, the path to peace in Balochistan lies not in silencing protest, but in understanding its message. It lies in recognising that justice, dignity, and inclusion are not threats — they are the foundation of a stronger federation. The state has both the power and the responsibility to choose a more conciliatory path. Let it be one that upholds democratic values, respects lawful dissent, and builds unity through dialogue, not division.
