Legitimate constitutional process under Partition, debunking forced annexation narratives
ISLAMABAD:
The misleading claim that Pakistan forcibly occupied Kalat and Balochistan continues to circulate and is often used to distort history and fuel grievances. However, a detailed review shows that Kalat’s accession in March 1948 followed the legal framework of Partition and was not an act of occupation.
Kalat, like hundreds of other princely states under British supremacy, was never completely sovereign. Its foreign affairs, defense and communications were controlled by the British, leaving it treaty-based autonomy rather than complete independence. When British rule ended in 1947, the doctrine of supremacy waned, requiring all princely states, including Kalat, to join either India or Pakistan. Independence was never a third legal option.
When the Khan of Kalat signed the Instrument of Accession, most of present-day Balochistan was already part of Pakistan. British Balochistan (including Quetta, Pishin and Sibi) had legally merged with Pakistan, while Lasbela, Kharan and Makran acceded voluntarily in 1947-48. Gwadar was later joined by a purchase from Oman in 1958.
Read: Kalan Kot Fort Fights Ghosts of the Past and Squatters of the Present
The accession was signed by Kalat’s own leadership, with the support of many Baloch sardars and political elites. Opposition was limited to a small faction, notably Prince Abdul Karim, who acted on external impulse rather than public consensus. Even if objections regarding Kalat are considered, they cannot justify claims that Pakistan “occupies” the entire province. British Balochistan and the other three princely states had already acceded independently.
No country, including Afghanistan, Iran or the United Nations, ever recognized Kalat as a sovereign state. Occupation presupposes the violation of a recognized State, which does not apply here. The “forced accession” narrative emerged decades later, particularly from the 1970s, and intensified after 2000, often used to justify political agendas or mobilize international sympathy.
Read more: 4 terrorists neutralized in Kalat
Labeling Kalat’s accession as “colonization” would imply similar claims against India’s integration of Hyderabad or Junagadh, exposing the selective nature of such arguments.
Today, the challenges in Balochistan revolve around governance, development and fighting indoctrination, not occupation. Decade-long “deprivation” narratives often reflect propaganda rather than reality, underscoring the need for solutions focused on progress, inclusion and national unity.
