Pakistan, Sept. 9 — The Sindh Assembly has once again taken a position against the division of the province. On Thursday, it passed a resolution rejecting any move to divide Sindh, alter its territorial boundaries or create a separate province from its territory. The resolution followed several days of debate, while opposition members walked out before the vote.
There is nothing unusual about a provincial assembly defending the integrity of its province. Sindh has its own history, political identity and cultural character. Its boundaries are not simply lines on a map. But the latest resolution also brings another issue to the surface: the governance of the province and the reasons behind the renewed discussion about new provinces and administrative units.
The debate cannot be understood only through the question of whether Sindh should be divided. It must also be viewed through the experience of the people living in the province.
For an ordinary citizen, provincial boundaries are rarely the biggest concern. Water, electricity, schools, hospitals, roads, sanitation, transport and employment matter more. A resident of Karachi is concerned about an overflowing sewer, an uncollected pile of garbage or an unreliable water supply. A person in rural Sindh may be more concerned about the condition of a basic health unit, a school without teachers or the absence of a proper road connecting a village with the nearest town.
These problems have existed for years.
The Sindh government has spent heavily on development. Its own figures put the provincial development programme at more than Rs1 trillion for 2025-26, while thousands of schemes have been completed over the years. Yet the government has also acknowledged delays, cost overruns, poor workmanship and weaknesses in supervision.
That contradiction deserves attention. If development spending continues to increase while basic public services remain unsatisfactory, the problem cannot simply be explained by a shortage of funds.
The real issue is implementation.
A school building does not improve education if there are no teachers. A water project does not solve a water crisis if water does not reach households. A hospital building does not provide healthcare if doctors, medicines and equipment are missing. Similarly, announcing another road project does little for citizens if existing roads are poorly maintained.
This is where the argument for smaller administrative units begins to acquire political weight.
People who support new provinces often argue that smaller units can bring government closer to the population. Critics see such demands as politically motivated or potentially divisive. Both arguments deserve consideration. But dismissing the demand without examining the reasons behind it leaves an important part of the debate unanswered.
A smaller province is not automatically a better province. It can produce another bureaucracy, another assembly and another administrative centre without necessarily improving the lives of citizens.
At the same time, keeping a province intact does not guarantee effective government.
Sindh’s experience with Karachi illustrates the problem. The city generates a large share of the province’s economic activity but continues to struggle with water, sewage, waste management, transport, roads and urban planning. Responsibilities are spread across several institutions, and the citizen is often left wondering who is actually responsible for a particular failure.
This institutional confusion has been discussed for years. Governments change, projects are announced and committees are formed, yet many of the same problems return.
The situation in other parts of Sindh is different but the underlying question remains the same: how close is government to the citizen?
The answer cannot simply be found in the provincial secretariat.
A functioning local government system could deal with many of these problems without changing provincial boundaries. Municipal bodies need clearly defined responsibilities, adequate financial resources and sufficient administrative authority. Without these, local governments remain dependent on provincial institutions for decisions that should be taken much closer to the people.
This is an important part of the new province debate that often gets lost in political arguments.
If the provincial government believes that Sindh can be effectively administered as one province, it should demonstrate that smaller administrative units are unnecessary because existing institutions are capable of delivering services across the province.
That requires results, not just resolutions.
There is also a responsibility on those demanding new provinces. They need to explain how their proposals would improve administration, how resources would be divided and how the new units would remain economically and institutionally viable. Simply creating a new province cannot be presented as a cure for every governance problem.
The constitutional question is equally important. Article 239 gives the concerned provincial assembly a decisive role where provincial boundaries are to be altered. Any serious discussion on new provinces therefore has to remain within the constitutional framework.
But constitutional authority and political responsibility are two different things.
The Sindh Assembly can reject the division of the province. The provincial government can defend the unity of Sindh. What it cannot do is assume that the debate will disappear simply because a resolution has been passed.
Political demands often grow where people feel that existing arrangements are not working.
That is why the Sindh government should look at the new province debate less as a threat and more as an opportunity to examine its own administrative record. If citizens are satisfied with public services and believe that government is accessible and responsive, the argument for breaking up an existing administrative unit naturally becomes weaker.
Sindh does not necessarily need new boundaries to solve every problem. It needs institutions that work.
The province needs schools where children actually learn, hospitals where patients can receive treatment, municipalities that can manage their cities, roads that are maintained after construction and water systems that function beyond an inauguration ceremony.
The question, therefore, is not simply whether Sindh should remain one province. It is whether one provincial government can provide effective and accountable administration to a population spread across a vast and diverse territory.
The answer will not be found in a resolution passed inside the assembly. It will be found in the streets, schools, hospitals, neighbourhoods and villages of Sindh.
If governance improves, the demand for administrative separation may lose much of its appeal. If governance continues to disappoint, no resolution is likely to end the debate.
Sindh’s political leadership has every right to defend the province’s unity. But the most convincing defence will come not from political declarations, but from the quality of government that people experience every day.
