The latest wave of terrorist attacks across Balochistan, theatrically branded as “Herof 2.0,” has ended in decisive failure, exposing not only the operational weakness of militant outfits of Fitnat-ul-Hindustan but also the hollowness of the narratives constructed around them. From Quetta to Gwadar, Pakistan’s Security Forces responded with speed, coordination, and precision, neutralising or repelling attackers within hours and restoring effective control across all affected areas. Contrary to exaggerated claims circulated by hostile propaganda platforms and mainstream media of India, no strategic installation was compromised, while the overall security posture of the province remained firm.
These attacks were orchestrated by Fitna al Hindustan, a foreign-sponsored terror network operating through the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) and others. Despite being projected as a coordinated offensive, the campaign reflected poor planning, fragmented execution, and an absence of operational depth. In Quetta’s Sariab Road area, an attempted strike on a police vehicle was met with an immediate and forceful response, resulting in the elimination of all terrorists in the area. Similar outcomes unfolded in Nushki, Dalbandin, Kalat, Pasni, Mastung, Tump, Balicha and Gwadar, where alert security personnel thwarted raids and forced militants to retreat under sustained pressure.
According to security sources, these failed assaults came in the wake of intensified counterterrorism operations across the province, during which more than 177 terrorists have been killed so far. The ongoing cleanup and clearance operations remain in progress, aimed at dismantling residual cells and denying militants any space to regroup. The scale of terrorist losses underscores the depth of attrition suffered by these networks and explains the desperation behind their recent, largely symbolic, attempts at disruption.
The cost of this conflict, however, has not been without sacrifice. 18 civilians and 15 security personnel have laid down their lives for Pakistan, defending communities and preventing mass-casualty outcomes. Their sacrifices stand in stark contrast to the reckless violence of groups that deliberately target mixed-population areas and labour colonies— soft targets chosen not for strategic value, but for propaganda mileage. Such attacks further expose the criminal character of these outfits and the falsity of their claims to represent the Baloch people.
Pakistan’s response to terrorism in Balochistan reflects a national consensus rooted in protecting civilians, safeguarding development, and dismantling networks that thrive on chaos. As cleanup operations continue, the message is unequivocal: violence will neither fracture the state nor hijack the future of the province. Accountability must extend beyond those who carry weapons to those who enable terror through selective silence and manufactured outrage. This is no longer a contest of narratives—it is a confrontation between truth and deception, between peace and proxy warfare.
A critical and troubling dimension of this landscape is the structure of militant leadership itself. While commanders and financiers operate from safe havens in Afghanistan, insulated from consequence, local youth are pushed into suicidal missions and direct engagements with security forces. When these operatives are killed— whether in failed attacks, internal disputes, or counterterrorism actions— their deaths are later repackaged as cases of enforced disappearances by affiliated propaganda networks. Tht is, the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) and Balochistan National Movement (BNM). This manipulation of grief is designed to obscure responsibility and sustain a manufactured narrative of victimhood.
Parallel to the kinetic failure of “Herof 2.0” is the erosion of its political and ideological cover. Organisations projecting themselves as civil rights platforms have repeatedly amplified allegations of oppression when the state enforces the law during protests. Slogans invoking women’s dignity, Baloch honour, and state brutality are mobilised selectively. Yet when credible evidence emerges of women being radicalised, armed, and deployed for terrorist operations, these same voices fall conspicuously silent. This selective outrage reveals a calculated use of human rights language as a proxy weapon rather than a principled cause.
The events surrounding January 31, which brought to light the use of women in militant operations, stripped away the remaining moral veneer. The issue is no longer one of dissent or disagreement with state policy; it is a question of complicity. When rights are invoked only to shield militancy and ignored when militancy exploits the vulnerable, the narrative stands exposed as fundamentally fraudulent.
“Herof 2.0” has thus become an unintended autopsy of a failing enterprise. It demonstrated the futility of armed struggle devoid of public legitimacy, the miscalculations of foreign handlers investing in declining assets, and the growing isolation of terror networks within Balochistan. Above all, it reaffirmed the operational competence of Pakistan’s security forces and the resilience of the state in the face of externally sponsored destabilisation.
Pakistan’s response to terrorism in Balochistan reflects a national consensus rooted in protecting civilians, safeguarding development, and dismantling networks that thrive on chaos. As cleanup operations continue, the message is unequivocal: violence will neither fracture the state nor hijack the future of the province. Accountability must extend beyond those who carry weapons to those who enable terror through selective silence and manufactured outrage. This is no longer a contest of narratives—it is a confrontation between truth and deception, between peace and proxy warfare.
