The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), hailed as a strategic and economic lifeline for Pakistan, is increasingly threatened by an intensifying Baloch insurgency. While the corridor promises regional integration and economic growth, its execution has overlooked the socio-political complexities of Baluchistan—Pakistan’s most resource-rich yet underdeveloped province. The exclusion of local communities from planning and profit-sharing, coupled with militarization and opaque governance, has fueled resistance rather than cooperation. To understand the roots of this resistance and its implications for Pakistan’s most ambitious project, it is essential to analyze the underlying grievances and structural shortcomings that have exacerbated tensions. This editorial delves into the roots of the Baloch discontent, the impact of insurgency on CPEC, and the urgent need for a model of inclusive development that centers the rights and aspirations of the local populace.
CPEC and Its Strategic Significance
To begin with, the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor, inaugurated in 2015 as the flagship project of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is a $62 billion infrastructure program linking Gwadar Port in Balochistan to China’s Xinjiang province. Comprising highways, railways, energy plants, and special economic zones, CPEC is envisioned to be a transformative venture for Pakistan’s struggling economy. By offering China access to the Arabian Sea, the project not only fosters regional connectivity but also consolidates Beijing’s geopolitical footprint in South Asia.
Nevertheless, these strategic advantages are counterbalanced by the volatile environment through which CPEC passes—particularly Baluchistan. Despite hosting the project’s crown jewel, Gwadar Port, the province remains plagued by violence, poverty, and an armed separatist movement that views CPEC not as an opportunity but as a threat. Militants have repeatedly targeted Chinese workers and infrastructure, asserting that Baloch resources are being exploited without consent or benefit to the indigenous population. This disconnect underscores the growing perception that instead of integrating Balochistan into the national economic fabric, CPEC has deepened its historical alienation.
A Landscape of Resistance: The Baloch Insurgency
Building upon this context, it is vital to recognize that the insurgency, now in its fifth wave, is not merely an expression of rebellion, it is a reflection of long-standing grievances rooted in political marginalization, economic deprivation, and cultural erasure. These grievances have festered over decades, resulting in a trust deficit that fuels the current unrest. Thus, the instability surrounding CPEC is not just a matter of external sabotage but a consequence of deeply embedded internal discontent. Unless CPEC evolves from a top-down, security-centric model to one that is transparent, inclusive, and anchored in local empowerment, it risks further entrenching the divide. Consequently, Pakistan must adopt a more participatory development paradigm if it wishes to transform resistance into cooperation and insurgency into integration.
Historical Grievances and Political Marginalization
To fully grasp the discontent, one must consider that the roots of Baloch resentment predate CPEC. Since Pakistan's inception, Balochistan has witnessed repeated military operations and political repression, often in response to calls for autonomy and resource control. Although the province contributes significantly to Pakistan’s natural gas and mineral production, it remains the poorest region in the country. Widespread disparities in literacy, healthcare, and employment only serve to exacerbate a sense of abandonment among the local population.
In this light, CPEC is perceived not as a developmental blessing but as another federal initiative that extracts resources while ignoring local voices. The fact that decisions around route alignment, resource allocation, and project planning are made in Islamabad and Beijing, without meaningful consultation with Baloch stakeholders, reinforces the narrative of systemic exclusion. For example, in 2016, the Balochistan Assembly formally protested the federal government’s failure to incorporate provincial recommendations in the alignment of CPEC routes and allocation of special economic zones. This lack of participatory governance has only deepened distrust. Thus, the corridor risks becoming a symbol of continued marginalization rather than a vehicle for regional equity.
Security-Heavy Approach and Militarization of Development
Equally important is the manner in which the state has responded to Baloch opposition to CPEC, primarily through increased militarization. A special security division comprising thousands of personnel has been deployed to protect Chinese workers and infrastructure. While ensuring safety is essential, the heavy military footprint in civilian areas has deepened mistrust. Security without community engagement only adds to the alienation that feeds insurgency.
Local communities report harassment, land seizures without compensation, and restricted movement. According to a 2017 Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) report, residents near Gwadar and other CPEC project sites voiced concern over being forcibly evicted or denied access to their ancestral lands, often without due legal process or compensation. These practices erode the legitimacy of the state in Baloch eyes and conflate development with occupation. As a result, infrastructure that should symbolize progress instead becomes a focal point of resentment, heightening the project’s vulnerability to attacks.
Lack of Transparency and Local Economic Exclusion
Furthermore, the economic promises of CPEC, jobs, business opportunities, and regional uplift, have largely bypassed the people of Baluchistan. Local labor is rarely prioritized in project hiring, and Chinese firms often bring their own workforce, materials, and machinery. This practice not only limits skill transfer but also deprives the region of economic circulation and ownership. Such exclusions reinforce perceptions of exploitation rather than partnership. For instance, a 2018 study by the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) found that less than 2% of the workforce employed in early CPEC projects in Balochistan came from the local population, fueling local frustration over lost economic opportunities. Moreover, agreements related to revenue sharing, environmental impact, and land compensation remain shrouded in secrecy. Without a transparent framework that ensures Balochistan gets its fair share of the economic pie, resentment will continue to brew. In turn, CPEC risks transforming from a catalyst of national integration into a symbol of growing inequality.
Environmental and Cultural Displacement
In addition to economic exclusion, large-scale projects under CPEC, including port expansion and road construction, have led to the displacement of fishing communities and the destruction of coastal ecosystems around Gwadar. The city’s traditional fishing economy has suffered due to restricted access to the sea, rising pollution, and land acquisition for industrial zones. According to a 2020 report by the Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives (IDEAS), over 80% of Gwadar’s fishing families reported a decline in income and increased difficulty accessing traditional fishing zones due to fencing and security restrictions around the port area. What may appear as development in official documents often translates into displacement and disenfranchisement on the ground.
Culturally, Baloch identity and language receive little institutional support, and the influx of external populations and corporate culture is viewed as a demographic invasion. Instead of celebrating diversity, the current model imposes a monolithic developmental vision that alienates rather than unites. Unless cultural preservation is integrated into the development process, any economic gains are likely to be overshadowed by a loss of communal identity and cohesion.
Diplomatic and Geopolitical Ramifications
Adding to these internal challenges are the broader diplomatic and geopolitical consequences. The insurgency has complicated Pakistan’s relations with China. Although Beijing remains committed to CPEC, it has grown increasingly concerned about the safety of its nationals. Several deadly attacks in Baluchistan, including the 2021 Dasu bus bombing and repeated assaults on Chinese consulates and engineers, have strained bilateral cooperation. The Dasu incident alone, which killed nine Chinese workers, prompted Beijing to delay several project-related negotiations and publicly urge Pakistan to improve on-ground security—a rare diplomatic rebuke from China. These attacks signal that security concerns are now at the heart of diplomatic dialogue.
China has begun pushing Pakistan for tighter security, but without addressing the root causes of the insurgency, these measures remain reactive and unsustainable. Continued unrest could deter future investments, isolate Balochistan further, and reduce Pakistan’s credibility as a stable partner in global infrastructure projects. Therefore, resolving the insurgency is not just a domestic imperative—it is a strategic necessity.
Taken together, while the state touts CPEC as an inclusive development model, its implementation in Balochistan reveals glaring contradictions. The over-reliance on security, the marginalization of local voices, and the opaque governance surrounding project planning have undermined its credibility. However, insurgent violence cannot be justified either, as it risks derailing the province’s own prospects and invites further militarization. Only a rights-based approach that ensures political participation, equitable economic benefits, and cultural preservation can chart a sustainable path forward. Without this recalibration, CPEC may become a victim of the very exclusion it was meant to address.
In conclusion, the success of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor hinges not just on steel, roads, or foreign investment, but on the hearts and minds of the people it claims to serve. In Baluchistan, where scars of past injustices run deep, development without dignity is doomed to fail. The Baloch insurgency is not merely a security issue—it is a loud, painful protest against marginalization. To convert this protest into participation, Pakistan must move beyond token measures and toward meaningful inclusion. If Pakistan truly seeks to transform CPEC into a corridor of peace and prosperity, it must prioritize local inclusion, transparent governance, and equitable development. The future of CPEC, and indeed Pakistan’s internal cohesion, depends on how meaningfully Balochistan is brought into the national fold—not as a periphery, but as a partner. Only then can the corridor fulfill its promise as a bridge—not a barrier—between the center and its most marginalized province.
