Terrorist Propaganda Cannot Rewrite the Rule of Law

Terrorist organisations have long understood that violence alone is not enough to sustain an insurgency. Alongside attacks, intimidation and coercion, they seek to control the narrative surrounding their activities. Videos, staged statements and carefully produced propaganda are used to create an appearance of authority, project strength and intimidate communities. The recent video attributed to the proscribed Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) illustrates this broader strategy, presenting an alleged detention, confession and execution as though they constituted an act of legitimate justice.

The video claims that a man identified as Mujeeb Khiyazai was detained in Kalat, allegedly forced to confess to working for intelligence agencies and subsequently “tried” by a so-called Baloch National Court before being executed. The organisation has also circulated footage purporting to show its patrols in parts of Kachhi and along the Sibi-Bakhtiarabad corridor. Such claims, however, remain unverified and have been disseminated by a proscribed terrorist organisation with an obvious interest in portraying itself as an alternative authority.

The most important point is that propaganda cannot establish facts. There is no independent verification of the man’s identity, his alleged activities, the circumstances of his detention or the conditions surrounding his reported death. A video produced by an armed organisation cannot, by itself, establish guilt, prove a confession was voluntary or demonstrate that any alleged proceeding actually occurred as described.

This distinction is particularly important in an age when terrorist organisations increasingly use sophisticated media operations. A professionally produced video can create an impression of authenticity even when its central claims cannot be independently established. Images of weapons, uniforms, checkpoints or alleged courts may be designed to communicate territorial control and organisational capability. But visual presentation does not transform an allegation into evidence.

The reference to a so-called “Baloch National Court” is equally significant. Such a body has no recognised legal authority to exercise judicial power. Courts derive their legitimacy from law, established procedures, evidence and recognised constitutional institutions. An armed group cannot simply declare itself a judicial authority and thereby acquire the power to detain, prosecute or execute individuals.

The danger of such rhetoric extends beyond the individual named in the video. By presenting an extrajudicial killing as a judicial punishment, terrorist organisations attempt to normalise violence and redefine murder as justice. The language of courts, trials and confessions is used to provide a veneer of legitimacy to actions that take place outside any recognised legal framework.

A genuine legal process requires basic safeguards. An accused person must have an identifiable legal status, access to due process, the opportunity to challenge evidence and the right to a fair and impartial determination of guilt. Punishment cannot simply be imposed by an armed faction based on an accusation or a confession obtained under coercion.

Forced or staged confessions are particularly problematic. Terrorist organisations can detain individuals in environments where there is no independent oversight, legal representation or meaningful opportunity to contest allegations. Under such circumstances, a recorded statement cannot automatically be treated as reliable evidence. The purpose of releasing such footage may be less about establishing truth than about sending a warning to an entire community.

That warning is central to terrorist propaganda. The intended audience is not necessarily the person shown in the video. It is the population watching from outside the frame. The message is designed to tell residents that the organisation can identify alleged opponents, reach them, punish them and publicly announce that punishment. In this way, propaganda becomes an instrument of psychological warfare.

Such tactics can create fear among civilians who refuse to cooperate with militants, provide information or accept their authority. Local populations may consequently face pressure from multiple directions, particularly when armed groups attempt to impose their own rules in areas where state institutions are present but security challenges remain.

At the same time, the existence of legitimate counterterrorism operations does not provide terrorist organisations with a justification for replacing law with violence. Intelligence-based investigations into suspected facilitators, financiers, recruiters or informants of banned organisations must remain subject to applicable Pakistani law and judicial procedures. Where evidence exists against an individual, the appropriate response is investigation, prosecution and adjudication through recognised institutions.

This is precisely what separates a state governed by law from an armed organisation seeking power through force. The state is expected to operate through institutions, laws and procedures, while terrorist organisations rely on secrecy, coercion and intimidation. Any individual suspected of involvement in terrorism should be dealt with through a lawful process rather than through summary punishment by an armed faction.

The circulation of videos claiming territorial patrols in Kachhi and the Sibi-Bakhtiarabad corridor should therefore also be viewed carefully. Such footage may serve an operational as well as psychological purpose. It can be intended to exaggerate the group’s reach, encourage sympathisers, intimidate opponents and create the perception that the organisation exercises authority over territory. Independent verification is essential before such claims are accepted as evidence of actual control or capability.

The broader lesson is straightforward. Repetition does not make propaganda true. Branding does not make an armed group a government. A staged confession does not constitute a fair trial, and a self-declared “court” does not possess judicial legitimacy simply because a terrorist organisation gives it a name.

Balochistan’s people deserve security, justice and functioning institutions rather than competing systems of intimidation. Political grievances, social problems and legitimate public concerns can only be addressed sustainably through lawful political and constitutional mechanisms. Terrorist violence cannot provide a substitute for those mechanisms.

The challenge, therefore, is not merely to respond to individual propaganda videos but to prevent misinformation from becoming normalised. Journalists, researchers and social-media users should distinguish verified evidence from material released by armed organisations seeking publicity. Responsible reporting requires scrutiny, independent confirmation and context.

Ultimately, the rule of law cannot be rewritten by a terrorist organisation with a camera, a weapon and a propaganda narrative. Justice depends on evidence, due process and legitimate institutions. Any attempt to disguise extrajudicial violence as judicial punishment should be recognised for what it is: propaganda designed to legitimise terror and intimidate those who reject it.