KARACHI: The Sindh Assembly on Monday initiated a debate on the creation of new provinces in the country, including Sindh, amid remarkable parliamentary decorum on both treasury and opposition benches as the house took up the adjournment motion concerning the highly sensitive issue.

Members from both sides of the aisle addressed the house with restraint and seriousness, while focusing mainly on constitutional arguments and historical context rather than personal attacks.

They emphasised the need for tolerance and mutual respect while presenting their divergent viewpoints on governance and provincial administrative structure.

The motion, tabled by Pakistan Peoples Party Sindh President and MPA Nisar Khuhro, sought a discussion in the house on the renewed public debate “regarding creation of new provinces and administrative units in Pakistan, including proposals and suggestions which may have the effect of altering the existing territorial limits of the province of Sindh”.

Murad says only provincial assembly can decide Sindh’s territorial future; Muttahida lawmakers back more administrative units

At the outset of the proceedings, which began with a delay of almost two hours, Chief Minister Syed Murad Ali Shah addressed the house, saying that the outcome of the debate was already clear that Sindh would never be divided.

He said that any decision regarding the status or territorial integrity of Sindh rests solely with the provincial assembly. “The province will remain united, and all debates on its future must be conducted through the constitutional forum of the provincial legislature,” he added.

He recalled that the house had repeatedly expressed its position against the division of Sindh through resolutions adopted in 1948, 2000, 2014, 2019, and 2026.

The chief minister said the decision regarding Sindh’s division would not be made by businessmen in Lahore, courts, public gatherings, television seminars, or any other forum. “It is the elected representatives in the Sindh Assembly who will debate and decide the matter,” he said.

He noted that his government had decided to allow a more comprehensive discussion on the issue and had therefore brought an adjournment motion to facilitate the debate.

He explained that under parliamentary rules, an adjournment motion took precedence over an ordinary resolution because it allowed all routine business to be suspended for discussion of an issue of public importance.

The chief minister said that an adjournment motion required the support of at least 34 members and added that the opposition was free to bring such a motion if it wished. “The opposition lacks the courage to table a resolution supporting the division of Sindh,” he added.

He added that the provincial assembly was the proper constitutional forum for discussing the province’s future and that all viewpoints should be heard within the House. “The assembly must hear both sides of the argument and take the debate to its logical conclusion,” he said.

He noted that the Pakistan Peoples Party would continue to defend the unity and integrity of Sindh. “As long as PPP members are present in this House, Sindh will remain a united province,” he declared.

The chief minister said that all voices advocating Sindh’s division would receive a response from the Sindh Assembly and reaffirmed that if necessary, the house could once again pass a resolution opposing any such proposal.

He concluded that the debate could continue for as long as required to ensure a thorough discussion, but reiterated that the outcome would remain unchanged. “Sindh will remain one province, united and indivisible,” he asserted.

Following the CM’s address, Speaker Syed Owais Qadir Shah suspended regular business to allow the debate on the motion, which had been moved by the PPP Sindh President and admitted on Friday.

Speaking on the motion, Mr Khuhro said he had brought the motion because speeches outside parliament could not be stopped, but the people of Sindh had already responded. “I want to see who those people are who want to cut pieces off our motherland,” he said.

He criticised remarks made at a businessmen’s conference in Islamabad where, he said, a federal minister had suggested that new provinces would have to be created. “Surprisingly, the discussion on provinces was started at a businessmen’s conference in Islamabad,” he added.

Tracing Sindh’s history from the Indus Civilisation to its separation from the Bombay Presidency, Mr Khuhro said that the province had already suffered under the One Unit policy in the 1950s. “Now again there is talk of cutting Sindh into pieces. This is the same dirty act,” he said.

He asserted that with a two-thirds majority in the house, the assembly would decide Sindh’s future. “Sindh is one, and will remain one,” he said.

Other PPP members also spoke on the adjournment motion.

MQM-P defends idea of administrative units

Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) members took part in the debate and defended the idea of administrative units, while rejecting any suggestion of division.

MQM-P’s Rehan Akram said that the 1973 Constitution provided a procedure for creating provinces and argued that new administrative districts in Karachi had not divided the city, so new units would not divide Sindh either.

Sharjeel Jamal of the MQM-P said that good governance for Sindh’s people required support for administrative reforms. “When we can have cities, districts and divisions in Sindh, why can’t we have administrative units?” he asked, adding that the proposal for new provinces had come from Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, not MQM-P.

MQM-P member Adil Askari questioned why the assembly did not bring a resolution against “Sindhudesh” and said that Karachi South and Karachi West could be considered as administrative units.

Aamir Siddiqui of the MQM-P said no one wanted Sindh to be divided, but the PPP had failed to solve the province’s problems. “You are hiding behind popular vote. We say Karachi is the mother of Sindh.”

The house was adjourned to 2pm on Tuesday when more members from both sides of the benches would participate in the discussion on the motion.

Published in Dawn, September 1st, 2026