From 7 May to 11 May 2025, Pakistan had a substantial national security crisis, contending with two concurrent challenges: heightened border tensions with India and a marked increase in terrorist attacks in Balochistan. This time signified a concerted and intentional escalation of pressure on Pakistan from various fronts. As Indian forces perpetrated unjustified violations of the Line of Control (LOC), militant groups including the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) initiated a series of terrorist assaults within Pakistani territory, specifically focusing on Balochistan. These occurrences were not simply accidents; they were allegedly part of a comprehensive scheme orchestrated and financed by India via its intelligence organization, RAW.
The overarching framework of this crisis is rooted in the persistent pattern of increased hostility at periods of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan. Historically, each military escalation or diplomatic discord between the two nations has been accompanied by destabilization initiatives within Pakistan, especially in tumultuous areas like as Balochistan. From 22 April to 11 May 2025, this tendency resurfaced, compelling Pakistan to allocate resources and focus on both its eastern border and internal security.
The recent escalation commenced with India’s breach of the ceasefire accord at the Line of Control. Pakistani military sources indicated multiple occurrences of unjustified artillery bombardments and army deployments along the border, resulting in deaths among military personnel and civilians alike. The LOC escalation necessitated fast action from the Pakistani military, which was required to bolster defensive positions and ready itself for additional hostilities. As global attention focused on the border tensions, a more insidious conflict simultaneously emerged within Pakistan’s territory.
In Balochistan, the BLA and BLF, formerly classified as terrorist organizations by Pakistan, have abruptly intensified their operations. From 7 to 10 May, a sequence of coordinated assaults aimed at security forces, infrastructure, and people occurred. The assaults on paramilitary patrols and bombs near vital infrastructure exhibited all the characteristics of organized terrorism. Intelligence evaluations and intercepted contacts during this timeframe suggested that these attacks were neither isolated nor spontaneous. Rather, they seemed to be deliberately scheduled to align with the LOC tensions, indicating a dual-faceted pressure strategy aimed at taxing Pakistan’s military and security infrastructure.
This timing prompts essential inquiries on the nature of the relationship between India’s governmental machinery and these insurgency factions. Pakistani authorities have consistently asserted that India, via its intelligence agency RAW, funds, equips, and orchestrates the activities of BLA and BLF. The assertions are substantiated by the apprehension and admission of other operators, including the highly publicized case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national detained in 2016 and charged with espionage and sabotage. Pakistani intelligence asserts that RAW offers training camps, financial support, and refuge for these groups along the Afghan and Iranian borders. The objective is not ideological but strategic: to undermine Pakistan internally by inciting separatist sentiments and destabilizing its most resource-abundant province.
The current instance indicates that BLA and BLF were employed as proxy forces to incite internal conflict as India intensified military actions at the border. The method is not novel but increasingly conspicuous. By instigating turmoil in Balochistan, India can force Pakistan to reallocate troops and focus from the eastern front, thus securing a strategic advantage. Furthermore, internal instability diminishes Pakistan’s diplomatic efficacy, rendering it seemingly unstable and unable to uphold order—thereby compromising its international stature.
Notwithstanding these challenges, Pakistan’s response was prompt and vigorous. Security operations in Balochistan have intensified, resulting in the elimination and apprehension of multiple high-value militants. The Pakistan Army and Frontier Corps initiated targeted intelligence-driven operations to dismantle terrorist networks and sever their supply routes.
These initiatives were augmented by improved surveillance and counterintelligence activities designed to obstruct communication between militants and their overseas operatives. On the eastern front, the troops-maintained vigilance, thwarting Indian advances and bolstering critical positions along the LOC.
The recent escalation has prompted increased demands for international oversight of India’s clandestine activities. Pakistani diplomats highlighted the matter in regional conferences, urging the international community to acknowledge what they characterize as a systematic campaign of state-sponsored terrorism. Pakistan contends that by offering refuge and assistance to organizations such as BLA and BLF, India is not only contravening international standards but also exacerbating enduring instability in South Asia.
The BLA and BLF have long stopped representing authentic Baloch interests, if they ever did. Their efforts are progressively funded and orchestrated by external entities with geopolitical interests. Authentic Baloch issues, like as calls for increased autonomy and resource management, have been co-opted by militant factions that further foreign agendas. This compounds the situation in Balochistan by obscuring the distinction between legitimate criticism and organized subversion.
The timeframe from 7 to 11 May 2025 highlights a perilous and increasing security threat for Pakistan. The concurrent onslaught from across the border and within its own regions signifies a calculated approach to hybrid warfare. As Pakistan addresses these concerns, the international community must acknowledge the wider ramifications of state-sponsored terrorism and implement measures to hold perpetrators accountable. Stability in South Asia relies not only on the resolution of border conflicts but also on the destruction of networks that sustain violence and instability under the pretext of nationalism or liberation.
