Pakistan Is Paying The Price Of Apathy

States will not tolerate secessionist movements.

- UMAIR JAVED

In fact, not tolerating secession is central to how a state is defined, i.e., as an entity that claims legitimate monopoly over violence in a defined territorial area. Any attempt to redefine that territory will be contested and is usually done so through violence.

The extent of violence deployed may vary, as will any other strategies that may be used to stamp out secessionist movements. Prof Ahsan Butt's terrific 2017 book, Secession and Security, put forward a useful way of thinking about how states respond to secessionist movements. He argues that external security implications of a secessionist movement determine a state's strategy, guiding whether, and how much, it coerces separatists.

In the context of the recent attack in Balochistan, the Pakistani state is likely going to escalate its use of violence. The alleged presence of foreign-funded elements in the Baloch secessionist movement, an important variable that Ahsan's aforementioned book also talks about, as well as the threat posed to Chinese interests, can be used as further justification for counterinsurgency operations.

At this point, it seems futile to argue about the use of operations by the state. That some level of violence will be used is already a given, considering the brazen nature of recent attacks by BLA. The conversation on Balochistan, instead, would be better served by a frank discussion of what is likely to work and in service of what objective.