South Asia's Fragile Balance: India's Proxy Footprint in Balochistan and the Global Silence Thereafter

Is strategic stability in South Asia at risk not from overt war, but from covert subversion?

Over the past decade, the region has witnessed a surge in hybrid threats, proxy conflicts, and information warfare. Among the most critical yet underreported dimensions of this instability is India’s covert involvement in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. This involvement, marked by state-sponsored financing of separatist militias and documented intelligence operations, represents a clear breach of sovereignty and a challenge to international norms.

Despite concrete evidence, global institutions have largely maintained a posture of strategic silence. This analysis outlines the operational mechanisms of India’s proxy campaign in Balochistan, examines the international community's muted response, and explores potential policy frameworks to address the escalating asymmetry.

Balochistan: Geostrategic Vulnerability Meets Covert Interference

Balochistan is not merely Pakistan's largest province by area; it is also a pivotal transit route for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). This geoeconomic relevance has turned it into a battlefield for influence.

The capture of Commander Kulbhushan Yadav, a serving officer of the Indian Navy and a RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) operative, in 2016, provided unprecedented insight into India's operational footprint. Yadav's recorded confession revealed India’s direct support for anti-state elements in Balochistan, including:

Recruitment of militants
Financial and logistic support to separatist factions
Planning and execution of sabotage operations

These admissions were corroborated by intelligence briefings and forensic evidence shared with the United Nations and other global security forums.

State-Sponsored Terrorism: Legal Definitions and Strategic Implications

International law defines state-sponsored terrorism as direct or indirect support by a government to violent non-state actors with the intent to destabilize another sovereign state. In this context, India’s actions meet the definitional threshold, raising significant questions about double standards in global counterterrorism enforcement.

The FATF (Financial Action Task Force), while stringent on Pakistan, has failed to initiate any meaningful inquiry into India’s role in financing separatist groups. This imbalance undermines the credibility of the institution and perpetuates a narrative of political selectivity.

UN and the Dilemma of Equivocation

The United Nations, through various channels including the Human Rights Council and counterterrorism committees, has received official dossiers and appeals from Pakistan documenting cross-border violations. Yet, no meaningful resolutions or investigations have followed.

The lack of action can be attributed to geopolitical alignment: India is viewed as a strategic counterbalance to China. As such, holding it accountable risks destabilizing relationships with a rising power considered economically indispensable by many Western capitals.

Regional Fallout: Security, Civilian Impact, and National Resilience

The cost of these covert operations is borne not by diplomats but by civilians. Over 1,200 casualties in Balochistan between 2014 and 2024 have been linked to targeted attacks on infrastructure, development projects, and public transport. Patterns of violence, intercepted communications, and confessions from detained operatives trace back to Indian support lines.

Yet, despite this, Pakistan has exercised restraint, choosing legal, diplomatic, and intelligence-based responses rather than retaliatory escalation. This maturity, however, should not be mistaken for weakness.

Strategic Recommendations

To address the asymmetry and deter future violations, the following multi-tiered policy response is recommended:

Legal Warfare: Pursue arbitration and advisory opinions through the International Court of Justice (ICJ), leveraging the Kulbhushan Yadav case as precedent.
Narrative Counteroffensive: Establish a dedicated strategic communication cell under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to disseminate evidence across global media and academic institutions.
Alliances with Neutral Blocs: Engage with non-aligned states, particularly in Africa and Latin America, to build a coalition on sovereignty protection and counter-hybrid warfare.
FATF Engagement Reform: Demand audit mechanisms within FATF that address state actors involved in indirect financing of terrorism.
Human Rights Advocacy: Collaborate with civil society organizations to document and humanize the civilian cost of proxy conflicts in Balochistan.

Conclusion: Redrawing the Line Between Strategy and Subversion

India’s covert actions in Balochistan represent more than a bilateral concern. They expose the cracks in global counterterrorism regimes and highlight the dangers of politicized enforcement.

If the international community is serious about peace, it must apply its principles uniformly. Geopolitics cannot be an excuse for enabling state-sponsored subversion.

Strategic silence is not neutrality; it is complicity.

And for South Asia, already burdened by nuclear tensions and historical grievances, complicity is a luxury no one can afford.

Keywords used: India terrorism in Balochistan, Kulbhushan Yadav RAW spy, Pakistan India proxy war, State-sponsored terrorism India, FATF double standards, UN silence on India.