Rakhshanda Mehtab
We live in an age where narratives are powerful, and the line between activist and propagandist can be dangerously blurred. Nowhere is this more evident than in the coordinated campaign surrounding Balochistan, a campaign spearheaded by Mahrang Baloch on the ground and amplified internationally by voices like Jorgan Frydness. Their story is simple, emotive, and designed for global consumption: a brutal state persecuting its innocent people. But when you hold this narrative up to the light of verifiable facts, it not only cracks, it shatters, revealing a disturbing partnership that provides a humanitarian mask for a terrorist organisation. This deception has now escalated into an audacious attempt to legitimise extremism on the world’s most prestigious stage: the Nobel Peace Prize.
Let’s start with a case that exposes this deception with brutal clarity: the story of Gulzadi Baloch. Just months ago, she was a central figure in the Baloch Yakjehti Committee’s (BYC) protests. Standing beside Mahrang Baloch, she presented a heartbreaking story to the world: her brother, Abdul Wadood Satakzai, had been forcibly disappeared by the state. This claim became a cornerstone of the BYC’s narrative, a potent example used to justify their accusations and garner international sympathy.
Then, the truth emerged from the very group the BYC refuses to condemn. The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), a proscribed terrorist organisation, claimed Abdul Wadood Satakzai as one of its own. They identified him as the suicide bomber who participated in the January 2024 attack on civilians in Mach. He was not in a state detention cell; he was in a BLA training camp.
Faced with this undeniable fact, Gulzadi Baloch changed her story. She retracted her allegation of a “forceful disappearance” and admitted her brother had “left for the mountains on his own will.” This is not a minor detail; it is a confession of perjury on a grand scale. This single incident reveals how the BYC, under Mahrang Baloch’s leadership, built a public campaign on a foundation of lies, knowingly providing a public relations shield for a terrorist.
The credibility of this leadership is further undermined by Mahrang Baloch’s own background. She is the daughter of a known BLA terrorist, Ghaffar Langove, a connection that is openly celebrated by the militant group. This familial link casts a long shadow over her claims of impartiality. Adding to these concerns, her own former bodyguard, Sohaib Langov, was later identified as a BLA commander, illustrating the deeply entrenched ties between her inner circle and the militant organisation she refuses to condemn. The BYC, therefore, functions as more than an activist group; it is a platform that provides narrative cover, glorifies terrorists, and mobilises youth into radicalisation.
But the misrepresentation runs even deeper. Mahrang Baloch herself provided a glimpse into the true nature of her movement. During her 2023-2024 sit-in protest in Islamabad, she revealed that families of militants killed in Pakistan’s precise airstrikes on BLF camps in Iran were present among her protesters. Think about the implications of that statement. She openly linked her “peaceful” democratic protest to individuals affiliated with a group Pakistan had justifiably targeted as a terrorist threat. This is not activism; it is a strategic manoeuvre to legitimise extremists by placing them within a human rights framework. It confirms the state’s long-held position that these protests are not merely about rights, but are used as a conduit for subversive, pro-terrorist agendas.
The most damning evidence of the BYC’s role as a proxy for the BLA is its deafening and deliberate silence in the face of the very atrocities that define the terrorist group it shields. Where is their outrage when the BLA, whose networks were spread by recruiters like the late Raji Mucchi (who notoriously used protests to promote extremism), massacres 22 innocent passengers in Musakhel? Why is there no press release from Mahrang Baloch when a young female law student, radicalised by this violent ideology, carries out a suicide bombing in Lasbela, or when civilian labourers from Punjab are targeted and killed?
Throughout her activism, Mahrang Baloch has never sincerely condemned the BLA’s systematic ethnic killings, issuing only mild, grudging statements designed to create an appearance of universality. This selective outrage is not an oversight; it is the definitive hallmark of a proxy organisation. The BYC’s vocal condemnation is reserved exclusively for the state, allowing it to act as the BLA’s humanitarian front, providing a false face of legitimacy, logistical support, and a platform for recruitment, all while cunningly hiding behind the veil of activism.
This is where figures like Jorgan Frydnes become complicit. By uncritically parroting the BYC’s talking points without scrutinising facts like the Gulzadi case, they bestow false credibility upon a proven false narrative, effectively whitewashing terrorism.
This local propaganda campaign has now been elevated to an international lobbying effort. Reports indicate a troubling nexus involving Mahrang Baloch, Kiyya Baloch (a Norway-based employee of PEN Norway and a known BLA mouthpiece) and Jørgen Watne Frydnes (Secretary General of PEN Norway and a member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee). The campaign to project Mahrang Baloch as a Nobel Peace Prize contender is the outcome of a calculated strategy. Through PEN Norway’s institutional networks, Mahrang gained access to Frydnes. This raises a glaring conflict of interest and casts doubt on the transparency of the Nobel process. The involvement of a Nobel Committee member in directly meeting with a controversial figure tied to a designated terrorist group risks politicising the award and legitimising extremist sympathisers.
This lobbying effort aligns with a broader geopolitical pattern. The BLA has historical connections to foreign intelligence services hostile to Pakistan. The campaign to sanctify Mahrang Baloch on the international stage, therefore, appears to be a strategic move to diplomatically pressure Pakistan by sanitising the image of a terrorist-linked movement. The central question must be asked: Are international actors, wittingly or not, allowing the Nobel Peace Prize to be leveraged as a tool in a geopolitical conflict?
The reality that this network obscures is that Pakistan is facing a brutal, foreign-backed insurgency in Balochistan. The state’s actions are not acts of random oppression; they are legally sanctioned operations under the Anti-Terrorism Act aimed at protecting citizens from armed militancy. The courts are independent and provide legal recourse. The issue is not with peaceful protest, but with actions that cross the line into supporting violence and spreading hate.
In conclusion, the connection between Mahrang Baloch and her international enablers is not a partnership for human rights. It is a collaboration that distorts reality to sanitise terrorism. The push to nominate Mahrang Baloch for the Nobel Peace Prize is not an organic movement for peace; it is the product of a calculated lobbying campaign by a network of BLA sympathisers and their international sponsors. By presenting fabricated cases, associating with militants, and now seeking the world’s highest peace honour, they are not helping the people of Balochistan; they are betraying them. The Nobel Committee must safeguard its integrity by investigating the terror linkages tied to this nomination. To do otherwise would turn the Nobel Peace Prize into a political tool against the very ideals it was meant to uphold.
The writer is MS Research Scholar at IIUI, a freelance content writer and a columnist.
