NO SANCTUARY FOR CIVILIANS: PAKISTAN ARMY'S DESTRUCTION OF A MOSQUE DEEPENS ATROCITIES IN BALOCHISTAN

When a mosque is reduced to rubble under military fire, the destruction goes far beyond bricks and concrete; it strikes at the very idea of civilian safety, religious freedom and human dignity. A place meant for prayer, peace and refuge becomes a scene of devastation, raising a deeply disturbing question: if even places of worship are no longer safe, where can ordinary civilians turn for protection? The reported destruction of a mosque by the Pakistan Army in Balochistan has brought this question into sharp focus, exposing yet another deeply troubling dimension of the region's continuing security and human rights crisis.

According to accounts accompanying footage of the incident, Pakistani forces allegedly used both light and heavy weapons against the religious structure, leaving it severely damaged. The military reportedly justified the operation by claiming that the mosque had been used for militant training. Local residents, however, have strongly rejected this assertion, maintaining that the building had never been associated with the activities of any armed group. These conflicting accounts raise serious questions about the justification for the operation and the treatment of civilian and religious infrastructure by Pakistan's security forces. The circumstances surrounding the incident therefore demand independent scrutiny rather than unquestioning acceptance of official claims.

However, the reported destruction of the mosque cannot be viewed as an isolated incident disconnected from Balochistan's troubled political history. Since Pakistan's formation in 1947, the relationship between the federal state and Balochistan has been marked by disputes over political autonomy, provincial rights and control over natural resources. The controversy surrounding the accession of the former princely state of Kalat in 1948 was followed by successive Baloch uprisings in 1958, the 1960s and 1973–77. Rather than resolving the underlying political disagreements through meaningful negotiations, successive governments repeatedly resorted to military force. The dismissal of the elected National Awami Party-led provincial government in 1973 and the subsequent military operation demonstrated how quickly demands for provincial autonomy could become a security confrontation. The killing of prominent Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Bugti during a military operation in August 2006 under General Pervez Musharraf further intensified resentment and became a defining moment in the province's modern conflict.

Over the decades, Pakistan's military establishment has increasingly been accused of treating Balochistan primarily as a territory to be controlled rather than a province whose people deserve political representation and economic justice. Enforced disappearances have emerged as one of the most disturbing aspects of this conflict. Families of missing students, political activists, journalists and ordinary residents have repeatedly alleged that individuals were picked up by security agencies and intelligence personnel without warrants, formal charges or information about their whereabouts. Many families have spent years searching for their loved ones, while Baloch human rights organisations have continued to demand their recovery and accountability for those responsible. In April 2025, United Nations human rights experts expressed serious concern over the continuing use of enforced disappearances in Balochistan and urged Pakistan to establish independent mechanisms to investigate these cases and hold perpetrators accountable. Such concerns cannot simply be dismissed as anti-state propaganda; they demand serious institutional and judicial attention.

The question of Balochistan's natural resources exposes another fundamental contradiction in Pakistan's treatment of the province. Balochistan is endowed with enormous reserves of natural gas, coal, copper, gold and other minerals, yet its population continues to face severe poverty, unemployment, inadequate healthcare, poor educational facilities and chronic underdevelopment. The Sui gas fields, discovered in the province in the early 1950s, became an important source of energy for Pakistan's economy. Nevertheless, generations of Baloch residents have complained that the wealth extracted from their homeland has not translated into comparable improvements in their lives. The same concerns surround major mining and infrastructure projects, where local communities have questioned the distribution of economic benefits, their participation in decision-making and the protection of their land and livelihoods. The fundamental grievance is straightforward: Balochistan's resources generate national wealth, but its people continue to demand a fair share of that wealth. This persistent imbalance has reinforced the perception that the province is valued more for what lies beneath its soil than for the rights and welfare of the people living above it.

The development of Gwadar Port and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has further intensified these concerns. While Islamabad presents these projects as major achievements that will transform Pakistan's economy, many local residents and political representatives have questioned whether the promised prosperity will actually reach Baloch communities. Concerns over displacement, restrictions on traditional livelihoods, employment opportunities for outsiders, inadequate public services and the limited participation of local people have repeatedly surfaced. Development cannot be considered meaningful if the communities whose land and resources make these projects possible remain economically marginalised. A port surrounded by poverty, or a mining project that generates enormous profits without delivering substantial benefits to its neighbouring population, cannot be presented as an unquestionable success. The state cannot demand that Baloch residents accept the costs of development while denying them a meaningful voice in deciding its direction and sharing its rewards.

Equally troubling is the apparent reliance on a security-centred response to political and economic grievances. Pakistan's authorities frequently frame the Balochistan conflict exclusively through the language of terrorism, foreign interference and national security. There are genuine security threats in the province, and attacks by Baloch armed groups against civilians, security personnel and infrastructure are also unacceptable and must be condemned. However, acknowledging militant violence does not absolve the state of its legal responsibilities. The actions of armed groups cannot be used to justify collective punishment, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance or indiscriminate force against civilian communities. By treating political dissent and demands for provincial rights as security threats, the military establishment risks strengthening the very resentment that fuels instability. A counter-insurgency policy that ignores the political roots of a conflict may suppress dissent temporarily, but it cannot produce lasting peace.

The reported attack on the mosque must therefore be examined within this broader pattern of mistrust and alleged repression. If the military genuinely possessed evidence that the building was being used for militant training, it must present that evidence for independent verification. If a religious structure was attacked without sufficient justification or in violation of civilian protections, those responsible must be held accountable. The same principle must apply to allegations of enforced disappearances, unlawful killings, torture and destruction of civilian property. Pakistan cannot credibly claim to be defending national security while failing to guarantee the fundamental rights and dignity of the people living in its largest province. Military strength cannot substitute for political legitimacy, and territorial control cannot be confused with public trust.

What Balochistan needs is not another military offensive but a fundamental change in the state's approach. The first step must be an immediate end to enforced disappearances, accompanied by a credible, independent and judicially empowered mechanism to establish the whereabouts of missing persons, investigate alleged abuses and prosecute those responsible. Families must receive answers, victims must have access to justice, and security agencies must operate under meaningful parliamentary and judicial oversight. Second, Pakistan must implement genuine provincial autonomy and ensure that Balochistan has effective control over its natural resources in accordance with constitutional guarantees. Gas, minerals, copper and gold revenues must translate into transparent and equitable benefits for local communities, including investment in education, hospitals, employment, clean water and infrastructure. Major development projects must involve meaningful consultation with local residents, protect their land and livelihoods, and guarantee fair employment and revenue-sharing arrangements. Finally, the state must initiate an inclusive political dialogue involving elected representatives, Baloch nationalist parties, civil society, students, tribal leaders and affected families, rather than relying exclusively on military institutions to determine the province's future.

Ultimately, Pakistan's military establishment must recognise that Balochistan cannot be governed indefinitely through fear, force and coercion. The repeated use of military operations, the allegations of enforced disappearances, the marginalisation of local communities and the unequal distribution of natural wealth have deepened a crisis that cannot be resolved through weapons or intimidation. The destruction of a mosque, if independently established, would represent another grave failure to protect civilian and religious infrastructure. Pakistan must understand that the people of Balochistan are not merely inhabitants of a resource-rich territory; they are citizens entitled to dignity, representation, justice and control over their future. The Pakistan Army must be held accountable wherever its personnel violate these rights, while the state must abandon its coercive approach and pursue a genuine political settlement. Balochistan does not need more cantonments, military offensives or imposed development projects; it needs justice, political freedom, economic ownership and a government that protects its people rather than treating their demands as a threat.