Is the Nobel Peace Prize being turned into a weapon? This disturbing question arises from the campaign to project Mahrang Baloch as a global peace figure and even as a candidate for the world’s highest honour. What appears at first to be a call for human rights is, on closer scrutiny, a calculated lobbying effort that undermines the credibility of the Nobel tradition and lends legitimacy to those aligned with terrorism.
Mahrang Baloch is introduced abroad as a rights activist, but her record and associations tell another story. She is the daughter of Ghaffar Langove, a militant of the Baloch Liberation Army, whose grave is still draped with the BLA’s flag. Despite her public visibility, she has never condemned the BLA’s campaign of bloodshed. Innocent Pakistanis from other ethnicities have been systematically targeted, yet her statements remain vague, deliberately avoiding naming the perpetrators. This silence is not neutral; it is political.
The BLA is recognised internationally as a terrorist organisation.
The organisation she leads, the Baloch Yakjehti Committee, demonstrates the problem clearly. Under her leadership, the BYC has provided narrative cover for terrorist actions, glorifying individuals later revealed as suicide attackers. One of its members, Gulzadi, claimed her brother had been forcibly disappeared, only for the BLA itself to later admit he was a suicide bomber in the Mach attack of 2024. Her former bodyguard, Sohaib Langov, was later identified as a BLA commander involved in killing civilians. Such cases prove that BYC has become a platform that shields and even celebrates militants while pushing young people toward radicalisation rather than peaceful struggle.
The sudden rise of Mahrang Baloch on the international stage is not the product of grassroots activism but of lobbying through foreign networks. In May 2024, she met Jørgen Watne Frydnes, a member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and Secretary General of PEN Norway. This access was arranged by Kiyya Baloch, a Norway-based activist whose writings consistently mirror BLA propaganda. Through PEN Norway’s networks, Mahrang gained visibility in European circles, and soon after, her nomination campaign began in earnest.
Here lies the glaring conflict of interest. A serving Nobel Committee member directly engaged with a controversial figure tied to a movement connected with proscribed terrorist outfits. Neither Frydnes nor his associates have spoken against the BLA’s brutal ethnic killings or suicide bombings. Instead, their advocacy amplifies a selective narrative of victimhood that ignores the thousands of innocent Pakistanis murdered by terrorists. The credibility of the Nobel Prize itself is at stake when such selective silence is tolerated.
This effort also cannot be divorced from wider geopolitical designs. The BLA has long been backed by India’s RAW and Israel’s Mossad, using propaganda networks such as MEMRI and friendly Indian media to malign Pakistan. By projecting her as a human rights figure, hostile networks seek to weaken Pakistan diplomatically and whitewash extremist-linked activism.
The consequences of such manipulation go beyond Pakistan. The BLA is recognised internationally as a terrorist organisation. If its sympathisers are elevated to the rank of Nobel contenders, it undermines the very foundations of counterterrorism commitments worldwide. It tells victims of terror that their suffering can be erased if powerful lobbies succeed in rebranding those associated with violence as champions of peace.
The Nobel Committee must therefore safeguard its moral authority. It should thoroughly investigate the lobbying networks behind Mahrang’s rise, the conflicts of interest involving PEN Norway, and the BYC’s connections with proscribed groups. Failing to do so would turn the Nobel Peace Prize into a political tool against the very ideals it was meant to uphold.
Pakistan has borne the heavy cost of terrorism. Thousands of civilians, soldiers and police officers have laid down their lives defending the country. Their sacrifices cannot be diminished by rewarding those who provide cover to militant organisations. True peace demands an uncompromising stand against terrorism, not the legitimisation of its sympathisers.
If the Nobel Peace Prize is to remain a genuine symbol of hope, it must resist manipulation. Otherwise, it risks being weaponised, not to honour peace, but to serve the agendas of those who thrive on conflict.
The writer is a freelance columnist.