SINCE Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi claimed that the state system has collapsed, the debate over creating new administrative units has gained momentum. What initially appeared to be a question of governance soon turned into a confrontation between political elites and ordinary citizens. In Sindh, the issue carries particular sensitivity because it is connected with memories that have never completely disappeared. First, Sindh has already experienced the One-Unit system, under which its separate provincial identity was absorbed into a larger administrative structure.
The memory of losing their distinct status continues to influence public attitudes toward any proposal that appears to threaten the province’s integrity. Second, the experience of administrative restructuring during General Pervez Musharraf’s regime also remains part of public memory. The devolution framework and local-government experiment did not produce the transformation that was promised. Instead, its political legacy remains contested. Therefore, the present discussion cannot be separated from earlier attempts to reorganize governance. Third, the persistent narrative of a neglected Interior Sindh, amplified for years by prominent journalists, television anchors and electronic media, has created another layer of public perception. These experiences have accumulated into an unresolved political and psychological trauma. Consequently, any discussion about dividing Sindh immediately touches a deeper historical nerve.
The irony is that the people of Sindh, like citizens elsewhere in Pakistan, want better governance, employment, education, healthcare and justice. Their demand is not for perpetual stagnation; it is for a system that improves their lives. Yet meaningful transformation will remain difficult as long as political power remains concentrated within established elite that repeatedly occupies the same positions while younger generations remain excluded from decision-making. The recent remarks of MNA Shumaila Rana, who reportedly argued that a salary of Rs. 520,000 was insufficient and should be increased to Rs. 1 million, illustrate the widening distance between political privilege and public hardship. While the most competent young people struggle to secure employment at modest wages, representatives of the state continue to debate their own financial entitlements.
The contradiction becomes even sharper in the ongoing protest of young people against alleged nepotism in the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC), where their protest has continued for 50 days: those who claim that Sindh is their motherland must also remember that these protesting young people are the sons and daughters of the same land, entitled to opportunity, merit and dignity. The central problem, therefore, is not simply the number of provinces or administrative units. It is the quality of governance and the distribution of power. Changing boundaries cannot strengthen a state when institutions remain weak and citizens remain economically insecure.
To be concluded, the youth, therefore reject patriotic and nationalistic rhetoric when it is used to distract citizens from bread, employment, education and dignity. The priority should be to strengthen the hands of the common citizen, not construct another centralized arrangement designed to protect political privilege. Otherwise, frustration among the younger generation may eventually produce the kind of social upheaval witnessed in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
—The writer is a Research Officer.
