Which countries does the Baloch Army buy weapons from, and where does it get the money? Check key details here
पाकिस्तानी सेना के छक्के छुड़ा रखे हैं
New Delhi: Bankrupt Pakistan is currently in massive trouble and facing a double threat. On one hand, the country is witnessing a severe water crisis due to tensions with India; on the other hand, Balochistan is posing serious challenges to the Shehbaz government. It is important to note the fighters of the Baloch Liberation Army are so strong that the Pakistani army is unable to confront them. In this article, we will tell you the name of the country from where Balochistan is getting the weapon and financial support.
Recently, the fighters of the Baloch Liberation Army took control of a train called the Jaffer Express in Pakistan. During this incident, they took more than 100 Pakistani army soldiers hostage. During that time, several modern weapons were seen in the hands of the Baloch fighters. Since then, questions have been raised about which countries are supplying them with these weapons. Here are some of the key details: Baloch army fighters purchase weapons from the black markets of Iran and Afghanistan.
In 2021, the US military left behind its weapons in Afghanistan.
It is estimated that the Balochistan Army also purchases American weapons.
According to reports, the BLA also possesses Russian weapons.
Speaking of BLA's weapons, they possess deadly arms from both the US and Russia, including the M240B machine gun, M16A4 rifle, and RPG-7 launcher.
In Balochistan, separatists are fighting for its independence, and their bases are located in the mountains. It is said that they also receive support from local civilians.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
31 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Punjab: Two arrested on charges of spying for Pakistan
Two persons suspected of spying for Pakistan's intelligence agency were arrested by Amritsar Rural Police, an official said on Sunday. The two individuals accused in the case were identified as Gurpreet Singh and Sahil Masih, Punjab Director General of Police Gaurav Yadav said in a social media post. Singh was allegedly in direct contact with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence operatives. He is 'suspected of sharing sensitive information via pen drives,' Yadav added. The Pakistani intelligence handler involved in the case was identified as Rana Javed, claimed the director general of police. Two mobile phones allegedly used for communication with the intelligence operatives were also seized, he added. These arrests bring the number of persons apprehended in the state on similar charges to 12, The New Indian Express reported. On June 3, the Punjab police had arrested a man from Tarn Taran district for allegedly spying for Pakistan's intelligence agency and leaking sensitive information about Operation Sindoor. Yadav had said then that the man, identified as Gagandeep Singh, posed a 'a threat to national security' after allegedly sharing sensitive details about troop deployments and military locations in lieu of money during India's military strikes on Pakistan.
Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- Indian Express
With US strikes on Iran, a shadow war becomes a spectacle
On June 21, American Tomahawk missiles tore through the night sky, striking Iran's subterranean nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. In the immediate aftermath, Washington called it a preemptive act of 'strategic necessity'. Tehran called it an act of war. For the rest of the world, it is something else: A signal that the age of global restraint is over. We now live in a world where the fear of another's capability is enough to justify a first strike. A world where the legal architecture of international conflict — UN resolutions, sovereign non-aggression, even deterrence — has collapsed under the weight of expedience. Iraq was a warning. This is the rupture. This war did not begin overnight. It has been gestating across red lines blurred over the years — enriched uranium levels, shadow assassinations, sabotage campaigns. But America's direct strike marks a profound shift: From shadow war to spectacle. If Iran retaliates — as it has promised — with drone swarms, missile fire, or a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, we will not be in a limited conflict. We will be in a regional firestorm, tethered by oil, ideology, and overlapping alliances. In this war, geography is no refuge. Oil prices will rise in Paris. Shipping rates will spike in Shanghai. Missiles may land in Bahrain or Tel Aviv, but their shockwaves will hit Nairobi, London, Jakarta, and Mumbai. In Washington, victory is elusive. For all its tactical precision, the US now finds itself re-tethered to the Gulf, stretching its strategic bandwidth just when it wanted to double down on the Indo-Pacific. Every Tomahawk missile fired at Iran is one less diplomatic arrow against China. Every barrel of oil added to the crisis takes the Fed further from a soft landing. And in an election year, with inflation twitching and military casualties always one mistake away, the political risk is incalculable. In Tehran, the regime rallies. Nationalism surges. The missile strikes — though surgical — will feed a siege mentality. Proxies are already mobilised. The IRGC has options: Hezbollah to the north, the Houthis to the south, cyber capabilities across continents. The West wants to believe it can bomb away Iran's nuclear ambitions. But knowledge, once earned, does not die in a bunker. In Israel, military advantage meets political peril. For now, it has succeeded in hitting what it long feared: Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But retaliation is expected. Finally, in the Gulf States, nervous calculation reigns. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar want Iran boxed in, not unleashed. Nations not involved in the war will still suffer its symptoms. India is heavily dependent on Gulf crude and now faces a renewed need to evacuate its massive diaspora from possible hotspots. Pakistan finds itself split — sympathetic to Iran, indebted to America, and vulnerable to unrest in its restive Baloch borderlands. Markets speak faster than diplomats. Within hours of the strike, oil jumped toward $80, with projections of $100–120 if Hormuz is closed. Gold spiked to new highs as investors sought refuge. Global equities trembled, led by airline, logistics, and tech selloffs. Defence stocks soared. There are three long-term implications. The first one is the proxy inferno: The regional war that doesn't stop at borders. Iran responds not with conventional warfare, but through its sprawling proxy network — launching missile and drone attacks via Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias. US bases across the region are hit. Israel opens a northern front in Lebanon. Saudi oil fields are targeted again. The Red Sea becomes a war zone. This scenario doesn't become a world war, but it consumes the Middle East — and the global economy with it. The second scenario is that the global economy faces a chokehold. Iran blockades or mines the Strait of Hormuz. Global crude prices surge past $120. Supply chains fracture. Inflation returns with a vengeance. Central banks freeze planned rate cuts. Fragile economies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America tip into recession. Shipping giants reroute, insurance markets explode, and oil-dependent currencies crash. Thirdly, this war strengthens the 'preemption' precedent. The doctrine of 'might before motive' spreads further. Having watched the US strike Iran based on future fear, other powers take note. China begins 'preemptive defensive' posturing over Taiwan. India and Pakistan both harden their stances on cross-border threats. Russia, having acted on similar logic in Ukraine, now claims doctrinal vindication. The world enters an era of normalised anticipatory warfare — where 'what you might do' justifies 'what I will do.' Is there an off-ramp? Barely. Amid global panic, Oman, India, and possibly China quietly broker a non-escalation pact. Iran pauses retaliation; the US halts further strikes. A diplomatic 'freeze frame' is agreed, though nothing is resolved. The nuclear programme continues underground; sanctions remain. But the missiles stop — for now. It's not peace, just silence. Fragile, but invaluable. In this age, perhaps even silence is a victory. But the real question is this: Can the world afford to normalise a war that justifies itself before it begins? Even my 10-year-old son understands the illegitimacy of war as a means to an end. History will not wait for an answer. It is already being written — in oil prices, in refugee movements, and in the silence of bombed-out labs. The writer serves as the global goodwill ambassador for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's office. A Harvard and Columbia University-educated graduate, he has worked for the UN and allied organisations
Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Express View on US strikes on Iran: A defining, dangerous moment
US President Donald Trump's decision to join Israel's war against Iran on Sunday morning — with the bombing of three major nuclear facilities at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz — could either force the Iranian regime to surrender or move decisively towards a wider war in the region. Although President Trump has claimed that the attacks have been successful, it will be a while before the full impact of the bombing of the nuclear sites in Iran will be known. Ground-level information will provide key inputs into understanding the extent of damage done to Iran's nuclear programme. Even more important is the nature of the political impact of the American bombing. Israel's war against Iran that began on June 13 had already done considerable damage to the regime and its structures, including the armed forces, intelligence establishment, and the nuclear scientific community. But the Iranian regime has managed to survive and has succeeded in hitting back against Israel. It remains to be seen if the American attacks mark a death blow to the regime or rally Iranian nationalism in favour of the Islamic Republic. Trump's attacks have come well before the end of the two-week pause he had announced to explore, ostensibly, a peaceful resolution of the conflict between Iran and Israel. Cynics say the talk of a two-week time-out was a political feint. Since the announcement, the US has steadily mobilised a massive military force in the Gulf — including two aircraft carriers and several B-2 bombers that can deliver the bunker-buster munition to destroy the Fordow nuclear facility built deep inside a mountain. In a short statement on the bombing decision, Trump said the strikes are limited to destroying Iran's nuclear weapons capability and that the ball is now in Iran's court. If Iran sues for peace, there can be serious diplomacy for peace, he said. But if Iran seeks to widen the war by attacking the US or allied targets, Trump warned that more attacks will follow. All eyes will now be on Tehran's response. It is no secret that Israel's goal has not been limited to a rollback of the Iranian nuclear programme, that it seeks a regime change in Tehran. Tel Aviv has long sought to bring the US into the war and leverage Washington's full weight to induce political change in Iran. Although Trump did not explicitly support the regime change objective, he made it clear that he seeks a change in the behaviour of the Islamic Republic. He seems to have left the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with no option but to surrender and survive on Trump's terms. Within the US, the right-wing opponents of the war in Trump's political base are bound to be disappointed with the President's decision. They had mounted a serious campaign against the traditional temptation in Washington to intervene on Israel's side. They questioned the claim that Iran has built or is about to build nuclear weapons. They wanted the White House not to forget that previous efforts at regime change in Iraq and Libya had ended in disaster and cost the US much blood and treasure. Trump, however, appears to have calculated that total victory over Tehran is possible with a short and swift bombing campaign and that there would be no need for sending ground troops into Iran. It will not be long before the world sees either a familiar tragedy unfold in the Middle East or internal change in Iran that moves the region in a new direction.
