In 1947, paramountcy ended; princely states like Kalat had to join India or Pakistan, not remain independent
The misleading claim that Pakistan forcibly occupied Kalat and Balochistan continues to circulate, often used to distort history and fuel grievances. A detailed review, however, shows that Kalat’s accession in March 1948 followed the legal framework of Partition and was not an act of occupation.
Kalat, like hundreds of other princely states under British paramountcy, was never fully sovereign. Its external affairs, defence, and communications were controlled by the British, leaving it treaty-based autonomy rather than full independence.
When British rule ended in 1947, the doctrine of paramountcy lapsed, requiring all princely states, including Kalat, to join either India or Pakistan. Independence was never a legal third option.
Also Read: Kalan Kot Fort struggles with ghosts of the past and squatters of the present
By the time the Khan of Kalat signed the Instrument of Accession, the majority of present-day Balochistan was already part of Pakistan. British Balochistan, including Quetta, Pishin, and Sibi, had legally merged with Pakistan, while Lasbela, Kharan, and Makran voluntarily acceded in 1947-48. Gwadar joined later through a purchase from Oman in 1958.
The accession was signed by Kalat’s leadership itself, with support from many Baloch sardars and political elites. Opposition was limited to a small faction, notably Prince Abdul Karim, acting on external prompting rather than public consensus.
Even if one considers objections regarding Kalat, they cannot justify claims of Pakistan “occupying” the entire province. British Balochistan and the three other princely states had already acceded independently.
Read More: 4 terrorists neutralised in Kalat
No country, including Afghanistan, Iran, or the United Nations, ever recognised Kalat as a sovereign state. Occupation presupposes violation of a recognised state, which does not apply here.
The narrative of “forced accession” emerged decades later, particularly from the 1970s and intensified post-2000, often used to justify political agendas or mobilise international sympathy.
Labeling Kalat’s accession as “colonisation” would imply similar claims against India’s integration of Hyderabad or Junagadh, exposing the selective nature of such arguments.
Today, challenges in Balochistan revolve around governance, development, and countering indoctrination, not occupation. Decades-long narratives of “deprivation” often reflect propaganda rather than reality, underscoring the need for solutions focused on progress, inclusion, and national unity.
