On August 21, 2025, the volatile region of Balochistan once again witnessed a violent escalation of the ongoing conflict, as fighters belonging to the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) carried out a targeted raid in the Surdu area of Panjgur district.

According to a statement released by the group’s spokesperson, Jeeyand Baloch, the assault, which occurred on Tuesday night, resulted in the deaths of four Pakistani army personnel.

The BLA claimed that in addition to eliminating these soldiers, its operatives targeted and killed Islam Sarwar, identified as a central figure in a pro-army “death squad” that had allegedly been involved in terrorising civilians on behalf of the Pakistani state.

The background to the operation highlights the entrenched dynamics of proxy violence in Balochistan. Ghulam Sarwar, the slain insurgent’s father, had earlier set up a militia with the support and protection of the Pakistani military.

This group was accused of years of involvement in targeted killings, enforced disappearances, and intimidation campaigns against Baloch civilians, particularly in Panjgur’s Gichek area and adjacent localities.

After Ghulam Sarwar, his son Islam inherited the leadership of this network, which allegedly carried out repressive operations in coordination with the military. In exchange, the faction reportedly enjoyed impunity in its involvement in drug trafficking routes, kidnappings for ransom, and extortion via illegal checkpoints along key roads in the region.

During the raid, BLA fighters claimed to have captured a wide range of military-grade equipment from Sarwar’s hideout. The arsenal included three Kalashnikov rifles, an M-4 assault rifle, additional small arms, two four-wheeled vehicles, and three motorcycles.

Importantly, the hideout itself was described as a torture chamber, where the insurgents discovered instruments of physical abuse, including electric shock devices, allegedly used against detainees.

The BLA statement further linked Sarwar to the abduction and killing of a young man in Panjgur just two months earlier, using this as evidence of his involvement in systematic violence under the patronage of the Pakistani military. The group declared that such individuals, and the institutions backing them, would face continued retaliation until justice was achieved for the Baloch population.

The attack underscores the persistence of the insurgency in Balochistan, where armed groups such as the BLA demand greater political autonomy, resource control, and recognition of Baloch rights within Pakistan.

For decades, Balochistan’s natural resource wealth, including vast reserves of gas, coal, and copper, has served as a source of contention between the state and the local population. Separatist factions argue that economic gains are siphoned away to Islamabad with little benefit afforded to the province’s residents, who continue to grapple with poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment.

This sentiment has underpinned periodic uprisings since the 1970s, though the present phase of insurgency has been among the deadliest, marked by frequent assaults on military convoys, paramilitary posts, state installations, and strategic infrastructure, including Chinese-funded projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Islamabad, in response to persistent waves of rebellion, has pursued aggressive counterinsurgency campaigns across Balochistan. Security forces frequently conduct raids targeting separatist hideouts and claim to neutralise insurgents.

However, human rights groups and international monitors have consistently accused the Pakistani military of using heavy-handed tactics. Reports of enforced disappearances, secret detentions without due legal process, extrajudicial killings, and collective punishment against communities have been widely documented.

Such accounts, compounded by testimonies of families searching for missing relatives, have deepened mistrust between the Baloch population and the Pakistani state. Analysts argue that these practices, instead of containing militancy, further radicalise local populations and drive them toward insurgent groups like the BLA.

The Panjgur attack thus reflects the cyclical nature of the conflict: state-backed counterinsurgency operations, coupled with allegations of human rights violations, lead to retaliatory action by insurgent groups; these actions then provoke harsher military crackdowns.

The persistence of this cycle underscores the failure of both sides to establish a political framework for reconciliation or meaningful dialogue on Baloch grievances. Jeeyand Baloch’s statement not only claimed operational success but also carried a political message: that the Baloch insurgency would hold accountable all those allegedly complicit in crimes against their people, whether official military personnel or auxiliary militias.

Observers note that the latest offensive in Panjgur may portend heightened violence in the weeks ahead, as separatist groups traditionally intensify attacks during periods of symbolic significance or political instability.

The increasing sophistication of operations — such as this raid, which involved the seizure of weapons and exposure of a torture facility — highlights the resilience of the insurgency despite decades of military suppression. Meanwhile, civilians in Balochistan continue to confront the dual pressures of insurgent violence and state-led securitisation, with little respite from the humanitarian and socio-political toll of the conflict.

In conclusion, the Panjgur raid is a stark reminder of the entrenched insurgency in Balochistan, exposing both the operational strength of separatist groups and the alleged complicity of state proxies in repressive practices. Without addressing the root causes of the insurgency — systemic marginalisation, lack of political inclusion, and equitable distribution of resources — Pakistan’s cycle of violence in Balochistan seems unlikely to abate.

Based On ANI Report