NEW political tension between the MQM and the ruling party is intensifying over the issue of creating new administrative units in Sindh. The hard stance adopted by the ruling party against every form of the proposal seems dubious. The debate intensified in August and September following suggestions for creating new administrative units across the country. The PPP-led Sindh Assembly immediately passed a unanimous resolution rejecting any division. Strangely, the PPP has historically supported the demand for carving out a new province in the Saraiki areas of Punjab.
The political debate in Sindh highlights a long-standing tension between governance, accountability and regional identity politics. Critics and opposition parties frequently argue that the PPP strategically uses the sensitive issue of “dividing Sindh” or creating new administrative units to deflect scrutiny from its decades-long governance record in the province. When faced with criticism over deteriorating infrastructure, crumbling healthcare, an ongoing education crisis and water shortages, the PPP often shifts public and parliamentary focus towards defending the territorial integrity of Sindh.
By framing any discussion of restructuring or devolution as a “conspiracy to divide the motherland”, the PPP rallies nationalist sentiment among the rural Sindhi voter base, changing the topic from civic performance to ethnic survival. PPP lawmakers have used emotionally charged statements, including telling critics to “leave Sindh”, as well as fiery floor speeches. Critics argue that this successfully consumes media attention, burying pressing governance issues under a wave of populist rhetoric.
Opposition parties argue that their demands for new administrative units are intended to improve public service delivery and empower the third tier of government, rather than physically partition the province. However, by conflating administrative decentralization with actual partition, critics say the PPP avoids addressing two fundamental questions: Why do local governments in Karachi and other divisions remain financially and administratively paralyzed? And why do massive provincial budgets fail to produce matching results on the ground?
It is difficult to ignore the argument that, by controlling the narrative around Sindh’s geographical boundaries, the PPP uses deep-rooted regional sentiments as a political shield, making direct and objective accountability for its governance record difficult to sustain in the public eye. The PPP’s political power base is deeply rooted in rural Sindh, while suggestions to divide the province administratively, particularly by separating major urban centres such as Karachi and Hyderabad from rural regions, could pose a direct threat to its electoral dominance.
By championing the “unity of Sindh” through official Assembly resolutions, the PPP positions itself as the defender of Sindhi rights. Critics contend that this strategy consolidates its rural voter base and ensures that local governance failures do not translate into corresponding electoral losses. The PPP also relies heavily on hereditary politics to maintain its dynastic rule, while critics accuse it of delivering poor governance across Sindh.
Instead of addressing failing public infrastructure, weak healthcare systems and widespread poverty, critics argue that the party routinely escapes accountability through a calculated strategy of distraction. They contend that politically charged narratives surrounding the creation of new administrative units shift public attention away from institutional weaknesses and exploit ethnic anxieties, shielding the provincial leadership from legitimate democratic scrutiny.
—Contributing columnist.
