In 1843, British General Sir Charles Napier invaded Sindh and send a one word telegram to the Governor General about his victory – “Peccavi” or “I have sinned”. The British hoped to use Sindh for its economic potential with the simple objective to consolidate their rule and as a market for British products. A few years later, Sindh was annexed and merged in Bombay Presidency. Since then, a sense of deprivation has remained that Sindh was being neglected.
The British in their attempt to increase profitability and exploit Sindh carried out work on the irrigation infrastructure system such as the Sukkur Barrage completed in 1932. Eventually, many peasants migrated from Punjab and Sindh’s apprehension of a ‘Punjabi invasion’ grew which remains till now. This created the desire for an administrative status for Sindh and separation from Bombay Presidency.
The demand was first placed by a Sindhi Hindu during a meeting of the Indian National Congress in 1913 but the party failed to represent the interests of Muslims who were also demanding separation from Bombay. It was incorporated by the Muslim League and was part of Jinnah’s Fourteen Points. For this reason, many prominent political families found support for the Muslim League and supported Partition.
Sindh was the first and only province to pass the Pakistan Resolution. An overwhelming majority of Muslims supported independence and unlike Punjab, Sindh did not witness the horrors of partition. Despite raising demand for a separate homeland, Sindh ended up suffering from centralist policies that have prevailed through much of the political history of the country.
The first chief minister of Sindh after independence, Ayub Khuro who was a typical wadera, opposed the separation of Karachi from Sindh as it was the federal capital. He was eventually dismissed but then helped the formation of the ‘One Unit’ scheme in 1955 under which the rights of Sindh were once again usurped for fifteen long years.
Sindh has held uneven ties with the Centre ever since as the One Unit experiment led to protests and ethnic prejudices resulting from the Muhajirs who settled in Sindh and nationalist movements were at their peak. Bhutto restored the status of Sindh but brought a quota system, nationalisation, and divisive policies which widened the ethnic gap. The military stepped in again and since then actions of politicians have focused on nothing but blame game and the discord remains.
What happened to the separate identity of Sindh? In the same way, democracy was nipped in the bud, the rights of Sindh have been usurped and not allowed to flourish. This is evident from the fact the Chief Minister had been a representative of the federal government. The furore that has created now is because the incumbent ruling party does not have a government in the province.
It is not about the administrative control of Karachi, rather it is part of a bigger plan to take over Sindh. There is a bitter history and we need to understand the power dynamics and the underlying socio-economic issues. Any attempt to suppress the highly complicated and multi-ethnic province will lead to far reaching consequences and the government may again have to utter Charlies Napier’s word – “Peccavi.
ADVERTISEMENT
