Exposing Mahrang Baloch for Misrepresentation of Missing Persons

In the charged atmosphere of protests and sit-ins that took place in Islamabad during 2023–2024, Mahrang Baloch emerged as a vocal figure advocating for the rights of Baloch people and raising awareness about enforced disappearances in Balochistan. Among the most emotionally compelling cases presented during the protest was that of Gulzadi Baloch, a young woman who used the platform of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) to demand the release of her brother, Abdul Wadood Satakzai. She alleged that her brother had been forcibly disappeared by state institutions. With the support of Mahrang Baloch and BYC, Gulzadi’s voice resonated loudly, as they accused the Pakistani state of targeting Baloch youth without justification.

However, this narrative began to unravel dramatically when the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), a proscribed terrorist organization, claimed that Abdul Wadood Satakzai was not a victim of state aggression but a suicide bomber who carried out an attack on civilians in Mach city, Bolan, in January 2024. This shocking revelation directly contradicted Gulzadi’s earlier statements and raised troubling questions about the authenticity of the claims being made under the BYC and by figures like Mahrang Baloch.

The initial assertion made by Gulzadi, that her brother had been abducted by Pakistani security forces, was powerful and emotive, drawing attention to the alleged suffering of countless Baloch families. Mahrang Baloch capitalized on this case to fuel her broader narrative that Pakistan is systematically silencing Baloch youth through enforced disappearances. Together, they painted a bleak picture of state oppression and marginalization. Yet, the truth turned out to be quite different. The BLA’s admission revealed that Abdul Wadood was, in fact, undergoing militant training in BLA camps during the very time Gulzadi was leading demonstrations demanding his release.

This development not only discredits the personal claims made by Gulzadi but also casts a shadow over the credibility of Mahrang Baloch and BYC’s wider narrative. The most damning aspect of the case came when Gulzadi herself changed her statement following the BLA’s revelation. She admitted that her brother had not been abducted by the state but had instead gone to the mountains of his own volition, driven by grievances against the government. This reversal is not a minor correction; it is a fundamental shift that dismantles the very foundation of the accusation she initially leveled.

Gulzadi’s change in stance is more than just a confession; it is an admission of complicity in a broader misinformation campaign. By initially accusing the state and later acknowledging her brother’s voluntary association with a terrorist outfit, she has exposed the inconsistencies and falsehoods inherent in the narrative being pushed by Mahrang Baloch and the BYC. The fact that she knew, or at least suspected, that her brother had joined a militant group, but still chose to accuse the state, reflects a deliberate attempt to manipulate public perception and undermine the state’s credibility.

This episode underscores a disturbing pattern: under the guise of activism and human rights advocacy, elements within the BYC and their supporters may be shielding or even facilitating individuals involved in terrorism. Mahrang Baloch’s continued support for such cases, even after contradictory facts emerge, suggests that her activism is not entirely rooted in truth or justice. Rather, it appears to be part of a broader agenda to malign Pakistan’s international image by projecting a distorted view of the realities in Balochistan.

The use of false narratives around enforced disappearances is a serious issue. It dilutes the genuine grievances of those who may have legitimate cases and mixes truth with propaganda in a way that ultimately harms the cause it claims to champion. In this context, Mahrang Baloch’s role becomes highly questionable. By lending her platform to unverified and ultimately false claims like those of Gulzadi Baloch, she is not only misleading the public but also giving cover to terrorist activities under the veneer of human rights advocacy.

What makes the case of Abdul Wadood Satakzai particularly alarming is that he was not just a sympathizer or a passive participant; he was trained as a suicide bomber and participated in a deadly terrorist attack. This shows that the problem is not simply one of state overreach or heavy-handedness but also one of radicalization and recruitment by banned militant groups operating in the region. While Mahrang Baloch and the BYC continue to accuse the state of unjust actions, they remain silent on the manipulation of Baloch youth by terrorist networks such as the BLA. This selective outrage is not only dishonest, it is dangerous.

Furthermore, the case highlights how public protests can be weaponized to push a specific political agenda, irrespective of the facts. The BYC, under the leadership and support of figures like Mahrang Baloch, is increasingly seen not just as an activist group but as a political actor with an agenda that includes undermining the Pakistani state through misinformation. When fabricated or misleading stories are used as the basis for protest and international advocacy, the credibility of the entire movement comes into question.

It is important to differentiate between legitimate grievances and fabricated claims. The people of Balochistan, like any other citizens, deserve justice, accountability, and equitable treatment. But using false stories, such as that of Abdul Wadood, to amplify the voice of a movement is counterproductive and undermines trust in activism. If Mahrang Baloch and the BYC continue to stand by such discredited claims, they risk becoming enablers of terrorism rather than champions of justice.

The international community must also exercise due diligence before taking such narratives at face value. While concerns about human rights must always be taken seriously, it is equally important to scrutinize the sources and motivations behind these claims. Activism based on false premises not only misguides international opinion but also endangers national security and disrespects the victims of genuine abuse.

The exposure of the truth behind Abdul Wadood Satakzai’s case serves as a crucial reminder that not all that is presented under the banner of activism is rooted in fact. Mahrang Baloch and the BYC, by backing claims that later proved to be false, have lost a measure of credibility and have revealed the underlying risks of politicizing human rights issues. If the goal is true justice for the people of Balochistan, then that justice must be built on truth, not on convenient falsehoods designed to score political points or attract international attention. The case of Gulzadi and her brother is a cautionary tale of how easily activism can cross the line into deception when accountability is absent.