Legitimate constitutional processes during partition, debunking narratives of forced annexation
ISLAMABAD:
The misleading claim that Pakistan forcibly occupied Kalat and Balochistan continues to circulate, often used to distort history and fuel grievances. However, a detailed review shows that Kalat’s accession in March 1948 followed the legal framework for partition and was not an act of occupation.
Kalat, like hundreds of other princely states under British rule, was never fully sovereign. Its external affairs, defense and communications were controlled by the British, leaving it treaty-based autonomy rather than full independence. When British rule ended in 1947, the doctrine of supremacy lapsed, requiring all princely states, including Kalat, to join either India or Pakistan. Independence was never a legitimate third option.
At the time 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 – was legally merged with Pakistan, while Lasbela, Kharan and Makran joined voluntarily in 1947–48. Gwadar joined later through a purchase from Oman in 1958.
Read: Kalan Kot Fort struggles with the ghosts of the past and the squatters of today
The accession was signed by the Kalat leadership itself 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 inducements rather than public consensus. Even considering objections regarding Kalat, they cannot justify claims that Pakistan “occupies” the entire province. British Balochistan and the other three princely states had already acceded to independence.
No country, including Afghanistan, Iran or the United Nations, has ever recognized Kalat as a sovereign state. Business presupposes violation of a recognized state, which does not apply here. The “forced accession” narrative emerged decades later, especially from the 1970s and intensified after 2000, often used to justify political agendas or mobilize international sympathy.
Read more: 4 terrorists neutralized in Kalat
To label Kalat’s accession as “colonization” would imply similar claims against India’s integration of Hyderabad or Junagadh, revealing the selective nature of such arguments.
Today, the challenges in Balochistan are about governance, development and countering indoctrination, not occupation. Decades-long narratives of “deprivation” often reflect propaganda rather than reality, underscoring the need for solutions focused on progress, inclusion and national unity.
