Cover Story 
 

Cover Story

Sons of the Soil

Beyond the myths, contested facts, and prevailing narratives lies a need for a candid reassessment of history — one that recognizes Sindh’s pivotal role in the making of Pakistan

By Ambassador M. Alam Brohi | October 2026

Pakistan owes its geography, creation, independence, geostrategic importance, sea and seaports, long coast, delta, culture and civilization, history and historic heritage, and continued nationhood to Sindh as the core land after Bengal’s secession. Balochistan serves as a buffer to protect Sindh and Pakistan.

History witnesses the fundamental role Bengal and Sindh, and their leaders, played in concretizing the dream of Pakistan. Our shortsighted leaders tried to distort the history of the movement for Pakistan, but the facts, being stubborn realities, resurface from underneath the layers of falsity. History was distorted, schoolbooks rewritten, and the speeches of Quaid Muhammad Ali Jinnah altered, but the facts remained unchanged in the pages of history.

Pakistan was an abstract theory, a concept, and a dream. Bengal and Sindh took the lead in providing geography, territorial space and boundaries, and a heritage of history, culture, and civilization for this dreamland. Under the dynamic leadership of the Quaid, the All India Muslim League began its practical political odyssey from the despairing electoral defeat of 1937; and passed through the historic Pakistan Resolution of March 1940; the Direct Action of 1946; the electoral success in 1945 and 1946, acquiring the status of the sole representative of the Muslims of the Subcontinent, and finally reaching the milestone of the creation of two successive states in a short span of ten years. In this short but eventful journey, Bengal and Sindh played decisive roles. Punjab remained on the fence and joined this caravan only months before independence.

The country and the nation it sought appeared on the world map on August 14, 1947. The Quaid had staked his health, personal life, and comfort for the success of his struggle. He lived with us for hardly a year in his independent Pakistan. He did not have time to set his dreamland on a democratic path and transform his people, from diverse cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds, into a democratic, progressive, liberal, and modern nation. His successors miserably failed his country and his people, indulging in adventurism and futile experimentation with diverse political governance systems tailor-made to the ambitions of autocrats, authoritarians, dictators, military rulers, and even Martial Law administrators. This ugly practice has continued unabated. The Quaid did not achieve Pakistan for such adventures.

The entire nation has apparently once again engaged in a futile discussion on how to address the governance challenge confronting the country. Patriots started feeling this challenge from the day the last military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, was forced by the mainstream political leaders from the platform of the National Assembly to resign and go into exile or face impeachment. His autocratic rule of nine years, clothed in a sham democracy, did not elicit any protest from any quarter. Our shameless politicians even voted him to become President of this country in his military uniform. They were none other than Gujarat’s political dynasty, leading the king’s party.

The new subject spellbinding the nation was cleverly broached through Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, who not only condemned the existing system of governance but also sought to establish new administrative units by altering the geographical limits of the existing federal units. All this is meant to set up a new system of governance, or an altered version of an old system, tailor-made to the political ambitions of his political bosses and, most probably, clearly distinguishable from the long list of our past political and administrative governing structures, already tried and discarded.

The first Constituent Assembly, under the stewardship of Sindhi leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, adopted the 1973 Constitution after the tragic loss of most of the country to a coterie of generals under a Legal Framework Order promulgated by General Yahya Khan. Z. A. Bhutto was called to take over power when the extraordinary circumstances after the breakup of the country were spiraling out of control, with young officers rebelling against their seniors in almost all cantonments. Bhutto left no stone unturned in rehabilitating the truncated Pakistan.


He raised the sagging morale of the nation and moved like a hurricane, grappling with the post-war issues, restoring the confidence of his people, reintegrating Pakistan into the international comity of nations as a viable and vibrant state, and even making it the leader of the Muslim world after the OIC Summit at Lahore in 1974. This was the rebirth of Pakistan, midwifed by a son of Sindh, Z.A. Bhutto. Only a leader with Bhutto’s political acumen could have saved and re-established the remaining smaller part of Pakistan as a viable country. He was meted out very disgraceful treatment after his overthrow in a military coup.

The political significance of Sindh’s separation from the Bombay Presidency lies in the magnitude of its support for the struggle for Pakistan under the leadership of G.M. Syed in the 1940s

In March 1943, another son of Sindh, G.M. Syed, responded to the call of Quaid-e-Azam by tabling a resolution in the Legislative Assembly of Sindh in March 1943 supporting his demand for Pakistan. Earlier, he, along with Pir Ali Muhammad Rashdi, helped Abdullah Haroon—President of the All India Muslim League Sindh—draft and move a resolution in the party’s annual session of 1938 in Karachi, presided over by the Quaid himself. The resolution was unanimously adopted, providing the background for the historic Pakistan Resolution passed by the All India Muslim League in March 1940 at Lahore.

Notwithstanding progress towards the creation of Pakistan, the years 1941–1943 did not bode well for Sindh. Pir Sibghatullah Rashdi, the 33-year-old young leader of the Hur Movement, was treacherously arrested in October 1941. He was tried by a military court and sentenced to death. The Quaid tried to save his life. He was executed and buried incognito. He had mobilized his followers, known as Hurs, spread all over Sindh and parts of Rajasthan across the border, calling on them to pick up arms to free their motherland from the bloody clutches of the British Raj. The Hurs responded massively to his call, and the movement quickly took on the dimension of a guerrilla war, keeping the British Imperialists on tenterhooks for over a decade.

From the Tharparkar desert, Ruplo Kohli had also carried out a violent struggle for the expulsion of the British Imperialists from Sindh. His struggle shook the British administration in Tharparkar. He embodied the hardiness of his land. Ruplo was also arrested and executed. The British administration considered them terrorists, but Sindh’s history remembers them as defenders of their land and recognizes their heroic sacrifices. Sindh’s contribution to the creation of Pakistan goes much beyond these resolutions and armed struggles.

Sindhi leaders led a heroic movement against the merger of their land into the Bombay Presidency. Supported by politicians, journalists, academia, advocates, scholars, writers, poets, traders, landowners, peasants, Muslims, and non-Muslims alike, the movement has an interesting background, complexion, and history, offering deep insight into the abiding love of the people of Sindh for their land. A quick glance at the headlines of the vernacular newspapers of the time reveals the extent and intensity of the anger and anguish felt by Sindhis, and the magnitude of their movement for the separation of Sindh from the Bombay Presidency.

Finally, the British administration conceded the Sindhis’ demand and separated their land from the Bombay Presidency in 1936. All the Sindhi stalwarts, including Allah Bux Soomro, Muhammad Ayub Khuhro, Shahnawaz Bhutto, Abdullah Haroon, Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah, Ghulam Muhammad Bhurgari, Abdul Sattar Pirzada, Pir Illahi Bux, G. M. Syed, Pir Ali Muhammad Rashdi, Abdul Majeed Sindhi, and Muhammad Hashim Guzdar—just a few names coming to my mind—contributed massively to the success of the movement. Had Sindh been attached to the Bombay Presidency, it would not have been able to play a pivotal role in the making of Pakistan. The political significance of Sindh’s separation from the Bombay Presidency lies in the magnitude of its support for the struggle for Pakistan under the leadership of G.M. Syed in the 1940s.

Sindhi leaders shared their capital with the federal government, placing their financial and administrative resources, buildings and offices, airstrips, and seaports at its disposal to address the post-independence challenges, particularly the onslaught of refugees. The refugees were distressed, angry, and desperate, and ready to create a law-and-order situation by attacking non-Muslim citizens of Karachi. The local administration, under the influence of the federal government, was not cooperating with the provincial administration of Chief Minister Muhammad Ayub Khuhro to establish his government’s writ.

He personally led law enforcement agencies to control the riots. He resisted the en masse settlement of refugees in Karachi, which could disturb the city’s population balance. He wanted to spread refugees all over Sindh. The federal authorities dismissed his administration. This spread a nervous reaction and triggered a mass exodus of the Hindu population from the city, fearing for their lives. They left their movable and immovable properties behind, vulnerable to loot and plunder. As a result, Sindh lost a substantial portion of its educated class, including public servants, traders, business people, and skilled artisans.

Later, the federal government took over the city and made it a federal territory. Sindhis were outraged and did not accept the federal government’s decision. They launched a movement for the return of the city. The history of this movement shows how the Baloch, Brohi, Sindhi, Memon, Gujarati, and Kathiawari populations supported the movement to return Karachi to Sindh. However, a new crop of corrupt political leaders and an administrative machinery vulnerable to blackmail and manipulation have failed miserably to protect the city’s lands and properties from usurpation by powerful institutions.

Read More