Conflicting narratives and military missteps emerge from the Jaffar Express crisis in Balochistan.
The recent hijacking of Pakistan’s Jaffar Express by militants from the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) has ended in tragedy, exposing serious flaws in Pakistan’s military preparedness and counterterrorism capabilities. While Pakistani authorities quickly declared success in ending the siege, conflicting reports from militants and independent sources have cast serious doubts on the official version, indicating higher casualties and continuing insurgent resistance.
On March 11, 2025, militants belonging to the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), a separatist insurgent group seeking independence for Pakistan’s Balochistan province, seized control of the Jaffar Express near the Mashkaf region in Balochistan. The attackers blew up railway tracks, derailing the train, which was carrying around 440 passengers from Quetta to Peshawar, and held hundreds hostage, including Pakistani security personnel.
Initially, the BLA issued a demand for a prisoner exchange, threatening to execute hostages if Pakistani authorities failed to comply within 48 hours. In response, the Pakistani military launched a large-scale operation, employing both ground forces and airstrikes. By March 12, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military’s media wing, declared the operation successfully concluded, stating all 33 insurgents had been killed, 21 passengers and four Pakistani Army personnel had died, and all hostages had been rescued.
Yet, the BLA swiftly disputed this victory declaration. The insurgent group categorically rejected ISPR’s claims, labelling them “propaganda.” In an official statement, BLA spokesperson Jeeyand Baloch said, “The claims made by the Pakistani army spokesperson are a failed attempt to cover up lies and defeat. The ground reality is that the battle continues on multiple fronts, and the enemy is suffering heavy casualties and military losses.”
Independent media reports further exposed these contradictions. Reuters, citing security sources, reported only 155 hostages were rescued initially, leaving many passengers unaccounted for. Al Jazeera corroborated that several dozen hostages remained trapped even after the Pakistani military’s claimed completion of operations. Reports emerging from Quetta, the capital of Balochistan, provided an even grimmer picture. Local sources indicated at least 200 coffins being prepared for Pakistani soldiers, sharply contradicting the official military casualty figures. Additionally, the BLA publicly stated that it executed 50 hostages after Pakistani authorities refused to negotiate a prisoner exchange—highlighting the tragic cost of the military’s refusal to engage diplomatically with insurgents.
Security experts have pointed out that Pakistan’s premature declaration of victory has damaged its credibility despite unclear ground realities. Military analysts noted the complexity of this particular hostage situation, mainly due to the insurgents reportedly having suicide bombers among their ranks, posing significant challenges for rescue operations. Islamabad, known for projecting its omnipotent intelligence apparatus and substantial counterterrorism experience, was expected to conduct a swift and precise operation. However, operational delays of approximately 30 hours suggest hesitations and logistical gaps, raising doubts about the military’s preparedness for such high-stakes missions.
Notably, Pakistan’s approach stands in contrast to global best practices in hostage rescue operations. For instance, India’s National Security Guard (NSG), internationally recognised for its counterterrorism capabilities, emphasises rapid deployment, real-time intelligence integration, and precision tactics. During the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, the NSG successfully rescued over 600 hostages in a heavily contested urban environment. Even India’s Railway Protection Special Force, Commando for Railway Security (CORAS), specialises in handling hostage situations involving trains, highlighting operational deficiencies within Pakistan’s elite Special Services Group (SSG).
Moreover, the Pakistani authorities’ swift declaration of victory, without independent verification, has undermined public trust and credibility domestically and internationally. Reports of ongoing clashes and accusations by insurgents suggest that the military’s narrative was an attempt at controlling the information landscape rather than accurately depicting operational realities.
The broader context of the Baloch insurgency highlights that the hijacking was not an isolated incident. Balochistan remains Pakistan’s poorest yet most resource-rich province, with a long history of grievances over economic marginalisation, political suppression, and human rights abuses by state forces. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a multibillion-dollar infrastructure initiative, further intensified these grievances by excluding local Baloch populations from economic benefits, leading insurgent groups to increasingly target both Pakistani and Chinese personnel and assets.
Since its formation in 2000, the BLA has evolved into a more potent threat. Notable attacks include the 2019 assault on Gwadar’s Pearl Continental Hotel and the 2022 Karachi University suicide bombing targeting Chinese nationals. The group recently formed a unified structure under Baloch Raji Aajoi Sangar (BRAS), aiming to launch even more coordinated offensives against Pakistani forces.
This crisis has prompted renewed attention to the underlying political issues in Balochistan. Former Balochistan chief minister Akhtar Mengal recently stated, “There is not a single inch of Balochistan left where the government can claim authority. They have lost this war—completely and irreversibly.” Mengal’s statement suggests the insurgency is evolving beyond the state’s control.
Human rights groups and analysts have urged Pakistan to adopt a political solution alongside military operations. History shows that purely military strategies in Balochistan have only exacerbated local resentments, fostering further insurgency. The international community, which has remained largely silent, is also urged to reassess its stance and advocate for peaceful political solutions rather than tacitly supporting a purely militaristic approach.
As the immediate crisis surrounding the Jaffar Express siege concludes amid confusion and controversy, deeper questions linger about Pakistan’s broader counterinsurgency strategy and its repeated reliance on military solutions. The government’s unwillingness to negotiate, combined with the military’s mishandling of the operation and conflicting public claims, reveals a troubling lack of transparency and readiness to protect its citizens effectively.
If the Pakistani state continues to prioritise military force over political dialogue, experts warn that the violence will escalate further, perpetuating instability and putting civilians at even greater risk. The recent siege stresses the critical need for Pakistan to rethink its approach to counterinsurgency—balancing security measures with genuine political reconciliation and respect for human rights. Unless such reforms are implemented promptly, Balochistan is likely to remain a flashpoint of conflict where both civilians and soldiers continue to pay the ultimate price.