Recently, Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh stirred controversy by suggesting that Sindh, Pakistan’s historic province, is “civilizedly part of India” and may someday return. The statement was bold, but it disregards the long history and the political decisions that shaped Sindh today. If anything, his statement invites a deeper look at why Sindh despite its layered past did not move toward India in 1947 but aligned decisively with Pakistan.
Sindh: A Civilizational Crossroads
From the Indus Valley Civilization, one of the world’s earliest urban cultures, to the eras of Persian, Greek, Mauryan, Kushan, and Arab rule, Sindh remained a crossroads of empires long before the subcontinent took its modern form. Mohenjo-Daro and Kot Diji reveal Sindh as a thriving heart of civilization, rather than a peripheral appendage.
During the medieval period, Sindh retained autonomy under Arab governors and later local dynasties, preserving its cultural and political distinctiveness. Even under the Mughal Empire, it resisted full integration, with local rulers maintaining space for independent decision-making. By the time the British conquered Sindh in 1843 and merged it with the Bombay Presidency, the province continued to push back insisting on its own political identity and petitioning for recognition as a separate administrative unit.
Local Governance and Political Identity
The 20th century was a period of significant change for Sindh.When Muhammad Ali Jinnah demanded the restoration of Sindh as an independent province, it reflected both the region’s Muslim-majority character and its political self-confidence. In 1936, the British formally acknowledged this, and Sindh’s Legislative Assembly quickly emerged as a central actor in the Pakistan Movement.
Sindh became the first province in British India to endorse the Lahore Resolution in March 1943 three years after it was adopted nationally. This provided the first provincial and institutional backing for the idea of a Muslim homeland, placing Sindh at the forefront of political momentum.
The 1946 provincial elections cemented this trajectory. The Muslim League won every Muslim seat, despite last-minute efforts by Congress, prompting the Governor to invite the League to form the government and solidify its political control over the province.
The June 1947 Decision
Then came June 1947. Just days after the announcement of the Partition Plan, the Sindh Assembly voted on June 26 to join Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly. The final count “24 to 3” spoke for itself. Hindu Mahasabha members walked out, but the decision was made by Sindh’s elected representatives. There were no commissions, no disputed boundaries, no last-minute negotiations. Sindh chose its own future.
Sindh’s accession was not the result of coercion. It was the product of a centuries-long pattern: maintaining local governance, resisting external dominance, and asserting political agency. From challenging Mughal authority to confronting British administrative decisions, Sindh’s history shows that borders are not only drawn by empires they are shaped by people and their choices.
A Democratic Choice Rooted in History
In South Asia, where history is often weaponized for political speeches, Sindh’s story pushes back against rhetorical distortion. Sindh did not “return” to India because it was never merely an extension of any empire. It had its own identity, its own institutions, and in 1947 it exercised its democratic right to decide where it belonged.
For Pakistan, Sindh remains a cornerstone of national history and culture. Its role in shaping the country’s political landscape from supporting the Lahore Resolution to influencing the Constitution is undeniable. While some may continue to make provocative claims, Sindh’s historical integrity and democratic choice remain unshakable.
Borders Shaped by People, Not Politics
Sindh’s path was never about imperial nostalgia; it was about identity, autonomy, and the will of its people. Its centuries-long resistance to external domination, from Mughals to the British, reveals a consistent pattern of local governance and self-determination. Political rhetoric aside, Sindh’s example shows that history is not malleable, and borders are rooted in collective choice, not in fantasy claims.
Conclusion
Sindh’s story reminds us that history is living memory, reinforced by institutions, elections, and civic agency. Its accession to Pakistan was deliberate, democratic, and reflective of the will of its people. Any attempt to distort this reality is political rhetoric, not history. In contemporary Pakistan, Sindh’s legacy continues to symbolize cultural depth, political agency, and a foundation for national identity.
Also Read: Amir Timur (1336–1405): The Iron Lord of the Auspicious Conjunction
