Balochistan, a region of British India, was a mix of princely states and tribal territories, each with varying degrees of autonomy. The Mastung Treaty of 1854 and the Kalat Treaty of 1875. formalized the relationship between Kalat and the British Empire, stripping the Khan of Kalat of his sovereignty. The accession to Pakistan was not a result of coercion or force, but a culmination of discussions and agreements between the Khan of Kalat and Pakistani leadership.
The narrative that Balochistan was an independent state, forcibly annexed by Pakistan is a dangerous and misleading story fed to Baloch youth. This version of history that depicts Balochistan as a land yearning for freedom from an oppressive occupier, is often used as a rallying cry by Baloch sub-nationalists for separation from Pakistan. However, when we peel back the layers of historical revisionism and examine the facts dispassionately, a different story emerges—one that debunks the myth of an independent Balochistan and highlights the complex, yet consensual, process of its accession to Pakistan.
Before delving into the specifics of Balochistan’s accession to Pakistan, it remains essential to understand the geo-political makeup of the region before 1947. Contrary to the popularized narrative, there was no unified entity known as "Balochistan" before Pakistan's creation. Instead, what we now recognize as Balochistan was a patchwork of princely states and tribal territories, each with varying degrees of autonomy under British suzerainty. The region comprised six distinct parts: the princely states of Kalat, Kharan, and Lasbela; the district of Makran; and the British-controlled Chief Commissioner’s Province of British India.
Additionally, Gwadar, a significant port city, was part of the Sultanate of Oman, until it was incorporated into Pakistan in 1958. These fragmented entities operated under the loose framework of the Baloch and Pashtun jirgas (councils) and the Quetta municipality, but there was no cohesive political structure that could be recognized as a single state.
Among the various entities, the State of Kalat often takes centre stage in discussions about Balochistan’s historical status. The Khan of Kalat, who governed this region, is frequently portrayed as the ruler of an independent state. However, historical records tell a different story. The relationship between Kalat and the British Empire was formalized through a series of treaties, most notably the Mastung Treaty of 1854 and the Kalat Treaty of 1875. These agreements positioned Kalat as a princely state under British suzerainty, similar to the other 564 princely states in British India.
Under such treaties, the Khan of Kalat was stripped of key attributes of sovereignty. The state was not permitted to maintain an Army, conduct foreign policy, engage in external trade, or even build a railway without British approval. In return, the British protected against external threats, such as Afghan incursions, and paid the Khan a pension too. This arrangement clearly undermines any claim that Kalat—or by extension, Balochistan—was an independent entity before 1947.
Moreover, the British exercised significant control over Kalat’s internal affairs. The British Political Agent, stationed at Quetta, acted as an arbitrator in disputes between the Baloch Sardars (tribal leaders) and the Khan, further limiting the Khan’s autonomy. This setup was not unique to Kalat; it was the standard arrangement for princely states across British India, where rulers maintained internal control over their domains but were ultimately subordinate to British authority.
With the partition of British India on the horizon in 1947, the princely states were given a choice: join either India or Pakistan or remain independent. The Khan of Kalat initially sought to declare Kalat an independent state. However, the British and the Indian National Congress quickly rejected this bid, reinforcing that Kalat was not recognized as a sovereign entity capable of such a decision. Eventually, after negotiations with the newly formed government of Pakistan, the Khan of Kalat signed the Instrument of Accession on March 27, 1948, officially joining Pakistan.
It is crucial to note here that the accession was not a result of coercion or force, but a culmination of discussions and agreements between the Khan and Pakistani leadership. The majority of the tribal chiefs (Sardars) and local leaders in the region supported the decision, recognizing the benefits of joining a larger, more secure nation-state.
The narrative of Balochistan’s supposed forced annexation is further complicated by the political machinations of external powers. The first insurgency against Pakistan in the region did not originate from widespread local dissent but was sparked by the Khan of Kalat’s brother, who had ties to the Indian National Congress and whose wife was from the Afghan royal family. After fleeing to Afghanistan following Kalat’s accession to Pakistan, he established the first anti-Pakistan terrorist camp on Afghan soil. This marked the beginning of Afghanistan’s long-standing proxy involvement in Balochistan, aiming to destabilize Pakistan for its strategic interests.
This external influence has played a significant role in perpetuating the myth of Balochistan’s forced annexation. By framing the conflict as a struggle for independence, these external actors have sought to legitimize their interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs and to weaken the Pakistani state.
Another critical point often overlooked in discussions about Balochistan’s history is the region’s demographic diversity. The Baloch people, while a significant group, constitute only about 35% of the population. The Brahui, who are ethnically distinct from the Baloch, make up around 17%, while the Pashtuns represent another 35%.
This diverse composition challenges the notion of a unified Baloch national identity that could have supported an independent state before Pakistan’s creation. Any independence movement today does not reflect the will of the entire population but rather a segment influenced by specific political and external factors.
The perpetuation of the myth that Balochistan was an independent state forcibly annexed by Pakistan is not only historically inaccurate but also a dangerous narrative that fuels division and conflict. By distorting history, those who propagate this myth seek to undermine Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is essential to challenge these falsehoods with facts and to educate Baloch youth about the true history of their region—one that is deeply intertwined with the formation of Pakistan. Understanding the historical realities of Balochistan’s accession to Pakistan allows us to appreciate the region’s complex and diverse heritage. It also highlights the importance of unity and cooperation in addressing the challenges that Balochistan faces today, within the framework of a strong and inclusive Pakistan.
