In 2025, Pakistan exposed a deep internal divide, including rising militant violence, overworked security forces, and a government battling several conflicts at once. However, the same year was a unique opportunity for Balochistan. The balance on the ground subtly changed as Islamabad struggled to contain Islamist militancy in the north-west and separatist unrest in the south-west.
The Pakistani government’s focus was divided, and its counterinsurgency stretched thin. As a result of this pressure, Balochistan gained operational, symbolic, and political space. The Pakistani government was compelled to go on the defensive as a result of the resistance network’s ability to reorganise, increase visibility, and impose costs. From Balochistan’s point of view, what Pakistan called a deepening security crisis was, in fact, a moment of leverage. This contrast defines 2025 as a year of Baloch resistance momentum and attrition for Pakistan.
What mattered in 2025 was not one big attack or one dramatic incident. It was the constant pressure. Small and large actions continued to occur in Balochistan.
Why 2025 was different from previous years
What set 2025 apart was not just violence, but pattern and persistence.
The scale and frequency changed
In previous years, attacks came in waves, with incidents here and pauses there. But in 2025, that rhythm disappeared. Incidents occurred more frequently and relentlessly, leaving little time for recovery. The volume itself signalled that this was no longer a sporadic insurgency but an active, sustained challenge.
The geographic spread widened inside Balochistan.
Violence was no longer limited to a few known hotspots. Attacks and disruptions were reported across multiple districts, including strategic highways, towns, and areas close to major infrastructure projects. This spread diluted the effectiveness of Pakistan’s security grid and exposed control gaps.
The strain on infrastructure and security forces increased.
Pakistani forces were forced into a reactive posture by protecting convoys, guarding installations, securing transport routes, and responding to repeated incidents. Infrastructure linked to governance, mobility, and economic activity came under persistent stress, raising both financial and political costs for the state.
The key difference:
This was not episodic violence, driven by isolated events or temporary flare-ups. It was sustained resistance, maintained over time, across locations, and under pressure.
The numbers behind the shift
The argument that 2025 marks a structural shift is not a perception; it is grounded in data. The figures released by the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS) show that conflict-related deaths rose to 3413 in 2025. It was more than 74% compared to 2024. It was the deadliest year in over a decade.
Out of this, 667 were security personnel, a 26 per cent rise. It was the highest toll since 2011. Most importantly, there is a significant increase in the number of suicide bombings, 26 suicide attacks, marking a 53 per cent increase over the previous year, underscoring a return to high-impact, high-casualty tactics. Combined, these figures demonstrate that 2025 was not a one-off statistical spike driven by isolated incidents but a prolonged phase of escalation characterised by frequency, intensity, and sustained pressure on the Pakistani state.
Strategic gains on the ground
The significance of 2025 lies in outcomes, not tactics. Over the course of the year, Baloch resistance demonstrated an ability to operate across a broader operational landscape, moving beyond isolated pockets into multiple districts of Balochistan. This expansion complicated Pakistan’s security planning and reduced its ability to localise unrest. At the same time, persistent pressure on vital routes, convoys, and strategic assets resulted in ongoing costs for economic activity, transportation, and logistics, necessitating ongoing reinforcement and security measures. Pakistan’s security forces were forced into reactive deployment, reacting to events rather than setting the pace, as a result of the cumulative effect, which resulted in a distinct change in posture. Although no actual territory was transferred, something more significant took the initiative.
The symbolic shift: women enter the resistance
In 2025, one of the most significant shifts was social rather than military. The apparent involvement of Baloch women in resistance-related activities signals a shift in the perception of the conflict. For many years, the unrest in Balochistan was seen as an almost entirely male-led conflict. It was no longer the case. Women’s involvement demonstrated how deeply alienated Baloch society is. When women, who are frequently the most impacted by economic marginalisation, displacement, and disappearances, enter the conflict area, it indicates that grievances have moved beyond the margins and into the social core.
It also reflected a collapse of fear. It acts once restrained by social norms, and deterrence became possible, suggesting that coercion had lost much of its psychological hold. The generational hardening that this change exposed was as significant. A new generation with lower expectations from the state and less faith in redress through established institutions was inheriting and reshaping resentment. As seen by the entry of younger women into the resistance camp. This event altered the story of the conflict. It shifted the emphasis from “men with guns” to more profound concerns about permission, legitimacy, and the long-term viability of Pakistan’s control over Balochistan. In doing so, it created a conflict that no longer fits well within the security lens’s moral and social weight.
Attrition over time: Why momentum matters more than headlines
A big mistake in reading while understanding Balochistan is the search for a single defining event like a spectacular attack, a dramatic takeover or a declaration. None of these were offered in 2025. Instead, it delivered something far more consequential: attrition.
The resistance applied consistent pressure across the locations over time. Roads had to be guarded. Convoys had to be reinforced. The project slowed. Costs accumulated. The psychological impact compounded. Every incident, regardless of scale, forced Pakistan to respond, divert, secure and explain.
This form of conflict favours patience over spectacle. It exhausts institutions rather than shocking them. It erodes confidence rather than provoking panic. And most importantly, it reshapes expectations both within the government and among the population. By the end of 2025, the assumption that Pakistan could indefinitely suppress Balochistan at a manageable cost no longer held.
Conclusion: 2025 as the inflection point
From Islamabad’s perspective, 2025 was a year of crisis. From Balochistan’s perspective, it was a year of leverage.
The numbers matter. The spread matters. The persistence matters. But above all, the change in posture matters. Pakistan spent 2025 defending, reacting, and absorbing costs. Baloch resistance spent it reorganising, expanding presence, and normalising sustained pressure.
No territory changed hands. No formal victory was declared. And yet, the balance subtly moved.
As history shows, insurgencies rarely succeed in dramatic bursts. They succeed when the state loses confidence in its ability to control outcomes over time. In that sense, 2025 did not resolve the Baloch question, but it narrowed Pakistan’s options.
What burned Pakistan that year tells something entirely: that Balochistan did not disappear under pressure. It endured, adapted, and advanced.
That is why 2025 will be remembered. It should not be treated as the year of collapse but the year the momentum shifted.
