From Khalistan to Balochistan: Comparing India and Pakistan’s Responses to Insurgency

By Engr. Saqlain Abid

Internal insurgencies are among the most difficult challenges any democracy can face. They test not only a state’s security apparatus but also its political institutions, constitutional flexibility, and ability to maintain public trust. South Asia offers two important case studies in this regard. India and Pakistan have each confronted separatist violence, militancy, and regional grievances, yet their approaches have often differed in emphasis, timing, and political engagement.

Pakistan in 2026 faces a complex internal security landscape. Violence linked to militant groups in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa continues to claim the lives of civilians and security personnel alike. At the same time, protests and political disputes in different parts of the country have highlighted growing tensions between provincial demands and the federal government. These developments raise broader questions about governance, centre–province relations, and the balance between security measures and political dialogue.

Many analysts argue that while effective law enforcement is indispensable in confronting armed groups, security operations alone rarely resolve the underlying causes of long-running conflicts. Political exclusion, economic disparities, governance deficits, and questions of representation often become part of the environment in which insurgencies take root. Addressing these factors is therefore frequently presented as a necessary complement to maintaining public order.

Instead of allowing political space to shrink, the state should seriously consider confidence-building measures, including engaging peaceful nationalist voices. Releasing political figures such as Dr. Mahrang Baloch, Sammi Baloch, Ali Wazir, and Manzoor Pashteen—subject to lawful judicial processes—could create an opening for dialogue rather than confrontation. A negotiation process facilitated by experienced politicians such as Mahmood Khan Achakzai could provide a political face to reconciliation.

India’s experience with the Khalistan insurgency is often cited in discussions of counter-insurgency. The conflict involved severe violence and significant security operations, but over time it also saw the restoration of electoral politics, greater political participation, and renewed engagement with democratic institutions in Punjab. Scholars continue to debate the relative importance of security measures, political accommodation, and economic recovery in that outcome. While Pakistan’s circumstances differ in important historical and constitutional respects, comparative experiences can still provide useful lessons.

The central question is not whether one country has succeeded perfectly while the other has failed. Both India and Pakistan continue to face security challenges and criticism regarding civil liberties, governance, and minority rights. Rather, the comparison illustrates that durable stability often depends on combining effective security with credible political institutions capable of hearing grievances, strengthening provincial participation, and building confidence among citizens.

Ultimately, the strength of a democratic state is measured not only by its ability to defeat violence but also by its capacity to reinforce the rule of law, expand political inclusion, and preserve public trust. The long-term success of counter-insurgency lies not merely in restoring order but in ensuring that citizens continue to believe their grievances can be addressed through constitutional and democratic means rather than through violence.