Ayaz Ali Sheikh
THE question of creating new provinces in Pakistan is becoming increasingly controversial over time. In Sindh, in particular, there is strong political resistance to the creation of new provinces, especially to any administrative or political division of Sindh. The question is: why is the resistance to this issue so strong in Sindh? Is it based merely on linguistic sentiments or is it rooted in a complex combination of Sindh’s history, national consciousness, concerns about the federal structure and the historical promises associated with the creation of Pakistan? To understand Sindh’s resistance, it is necessary to examine all these dimensions together and in a critical manner.
One strong political perception in Sindh is that the question of dividing the province is not merely related to administrative requirements; rather, there may also be maritime and geostrategic interests behind it. Karachi’s geographical position, its access to the Arabian Sea, its port, maritime trade and its proximity to the Persian Gulf give it exceptional strategic importance. Some Sindhi political circles have expressed the concern that separating Karachi from Sindh could create new possibilities for international and regional powers in relation to maritime interests. Although such concerns should be treated as political assumptions rather than established facts, the maritime and geopolitical significance of Sindh cannot be ignored. Therefore, any proposal concerning the division of Sindh should be examined not merely in terms of administrative necessity, but also within its broader regional and global context.
Another important reason for opposition to new provinces in Sindh is Sindh’s historical and national consciousness. For many Sindhis, Sindh is not merely an administrative unit of Pakistan but a land possessing a long historical, cultural and geographical continuity. From Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Valley Civilization to the Sindhi language, literature, culture, Sufi traditions and historical experiences, numerous elements have played an important role in the formation of modern Sindhi identity. Consequently, many people perceive the division of Sindh not simply as a change in administrative boundaries, but as a process that could affect collective memory, cultural unity and political identity.
An important basis of resistance in Sindh is the perception that the idea of division is being advanced as a political project imposed from above rather than one emerging from local consent. Therefore, the stronger democratic argument from Sindh should be that the division of Sindh cannot take place without the clear consent of its people.
Sindh’s organized political consciousness and national awareness should also be regarded as important causes of this resistance. From the British period onward, questions concerning Sindh’s separation from the Bombay Presidency, the Sindhi language, land, rivers, resources and political autonomy remained part of Sindh’s political discourse. Even after Sindh attained separate provincial status from the Bombay Presidency in 1936, the question of Sindh’s political identity did not disappear. After the creation of Pakistan, it became more closely connected with federalism, provincial autonomy and the distribution of resources. Although different political groups in Sindh have held different positions, there has been considerable agreement among many of them on the question of the territorial unity of Sindh.
An important political and constitutional argument against the creation of new provinces in Sindh is also associated with the Lahore Resolution of 1940. A significant section of Sindhi political circles associates the creation of Pakistan with a federal conception under which the constituent units joining Pakistan were expected to enjoy autonomy. Here, however, an important historical clarification is necessary: the word “Pakistan” itself did not appear in the Lahore Resolution of 23 March 1940. The resolution spoke of grouping the Muslim-majority areas into “independent states” and granting their “constituent units” autonomous status. Therefore, interpreting the resolution as a direct and complete constitutional agreement concerning the present structure of Pakistan represents a particular political interpretation. Nevertheless, it is also true that the questions of provincial autonomy and the federal structure were extremely important during the Pakistan Movement. Therefore, the stronger argument from Sindh should not be that “Sindh can never be divided,” but rather that “Sindh cannot be divided without the clear consent of its people.”
The question of creating new provinces in Pakistan is, therefore, not merely a question of administrative efficiency. It contains multiple layers involving history, nationalism, linguistic identity, the distribution of resources, urban political power, class interests and trust in the federal structure. To describe Sindh’s resistance to new provinces merely as emotional nationalism would be to overlook its historical and material foundations. At the same time, treating the defence of Sindh’s territorial unity as something above and beyond class contradictions would also fail to present the complete picture. It is, therefore, necessary to understand Sindh’s national identity and class interests not as mutually opposed forces, but as interconnected processes that must be examined together.
—The writer is a M.phil Scholar of Political Science in University of Sindh, Hyderabad.
