Naeem was addressing JI supporters at Karachi’s Cantonment Station before departing for Islamabad.

The JI has been holding nationwide protests against fuel levy, which is more than Rs100 per litre.

The party posted on X that the “train march”, led by Rehman from Karachi, would reach Rohri, Sukkur to hold a rally at 8pm. The protesters would depart for Multan on Monday.

More to follow

Despite persistent criticism in the mainstream media, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) maintains an almost invincible electoral grip on Sindh. Standing against this dominance is a fragile opposition, historically anchored by the Pakistan Muslim League-Functional (PML-F) and currently consolidated under the banner of the Grand Democratic Alliance (GDA).

Such opposition coalitions in Sindh often assemble around the PML-F and an eclectic mix of disgruntled former PPP members, local Sindhi nationalist groups, the Mohajir/Urdu-speaking nationalist party the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), and federal players such as the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI).

The alliances have consistently failed to curb the PPP’s dominance in the province. Deconstructing this failure requires revisiting the origins of the PML-F itself. The party’s roots trace back to the mid-1950s, when Pakistan’s founding party, the Muslim League, fragmented into various self-serving factions. By the early 1960s, three primary streams dominated the League’s fractured existence: the Convention Muslim League (formed in 1962 under military dictator Gen Ayub Khan), the Council Muslim League (organised the same year by League veterans discarded by Gen Ayub) and the East Pakistan-centred Awami League.

Ahead of the 1965 presidential election, the Council League partnered with an array of leftist and Islamist parties to form the anti-Ayub Combined Opposition Parties (COP) alliance. Following COP’s defeat, its presidential candidate, Fatima Jinnah, spearheaded the creation of a distinct Muslim League faction, appointing the influential Sindhi politician and spiritual leader Pir Pagara to its central leadership, a move that birthed the PML-F.

Sindh’s ruling party’s electoral dominance in the province rests on more than patronage networks. The inability of opposition parties such as the PML-F to challenge PPP’s hold over Sindhi identity and economic realities and to build grassroots organisations have played as much of a role

During the PPP’s first government in the centre (1971-77), the PML-F was part of the parliamentary opposition. Pagara viewed the PPP chairman and fellow Sindhi Z.A. Bhutto as an upstart. Due to his spiritual status, Pagara saw himself as the true heir to Sindh’s politics and positioned his party as an extension of the country’s founding party.

In late 1976, Pagara joined the anti-PPP coalition, the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA), to contest the 1977 parliamentary election. He was also at the forefront of the violent PNA movement against the Bhutto regime, after the alliance accused the government of rigging the elections. In July 1977, when Gen Ziaul Haq toppled the government, Pagara moved close to the military regime.

After the Zia dictatorship executed Bhutto in 1979 through a controversial trial, Pagara began to shape the PML-F as Sindh’s leading political force. With the dictatorship’s backing, he reorganised the PML-F, not as a mass-based party, but as a conservative, pro-establishment counterweight to the left-leaning, anti-establishment wave that swept Sindh in the wake of Bhutto’s execution.

By establishing itself as an entity tied closely to state patronage and a military-backed government, the PML-F traded long-term grassroots political organisation for short-term institutional influence. The party’s voting base remained limited to the allegiance of Pagara’s spiritual followers, restricting its electoral viability within specific, geographical pockets of the province.

After Zia’s demise in 1988, subsequent generations of PMLF-led anti-PPP coalitions in Sindh adopted this same structure. Rather than building institutional party branches, cultivating a compelling platform or mobilising the public around economic issues, the opposition in the province continued to function as a loose conglomerate of localised feudal fiefdoms operating under the leadership of Pagara, and later under his son, Syed Sibghatullah Shah Rashdi III.

The failure of these opposition alliances stems primarily from the PPP’s mastery over the provincial patronage network that it weaved and its control over the narrative of Sindhi identity. Since 2008, the PPP has astutely utilised the provincial machinery as a widespread influence mechanism. Through the control of provincial institutions and social safety nets, such as the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP), the PPP commands the material reality of life in Sindh’s regions where Sindhi-speakers are in the majority.

This strategy has left the PML-F and other anti-PPP parties in Sindhi-majority areas restricted to tiny pockets. Landed elites in the PML-F and GDA struggle to compete with a centralised PPP-led provincial government that holds the strings of public resources. The PPP has successfully presented itself as the sole defender of Sindh’s economic and cultural rights. Even when the PPP had a huge vote bank in Punjab (1970–2008), the party’s Sindh chapters were actively evolving this narrative.

The roots of this narrative can be found in Bhutto’s two-pronged strategy in the 1970s. While the party’s overall disposition was federal (and still is), in Sindh, Bhutto usurped the Sindhi nationalist narrative that was first shaped by the likes of G.M. Syed and Sheikh Ayaz. The PPP then diluted it and placed the narrative firmly within a federal context.

The PML-F lacks the intellectual rigour to replicate anything of the sort and constantly seeks support from powerful state institutions, such as the military establishment. Whenever the PML-F or the GDA enters into tactical electoral alliances with federal parties, such as the PML-N or PTI, or urban Mohajir-centric outfits such as the MQM, most Sindhis view this as an attempt to mitigate Sindh’s provincial autonomy. In this case, even though most Sindhi nationalist groups are part of GDA, they often choose not to partner with the PML-F.

This dynamic becomes even more intricate when examining the politics of anti-PPP Sindhis residing in Sindh’s cosmopolitan capital Karachi. The city’s upper-middle and middle class Sindhis are often critics of the PPP. Yet, this demographic exhibits a pragmatic outlook. Within the socio-political spaces of Karachi, where their language and cultural heritage have historically been sidelined by urban power structures, Karachi’s Sindhis experience an acute sense of minority status. Their response to this environment is a protective reliance on the very party they criticise in private.

For Karachi’s middle class Sindhis, the PPP serves a dual function. It regulates the dominance of non-Sindhi political forces and prevents the administrative division of Karachi. Economically, the city’s Sindhis rely heavily on the provincial state apparatus to secure their socio-economic standing in a private sector that is otherwise dominated by non-Sindhi business communities.

For Karachi-based Sindhis, challenging the PPP’s dominance risks undermining the single political institution that guarantees their economic and political inclusion. Anti-PPP Sindhis spread across Karachi view the alternative represented by the PML-F as either completely aligned with federal forces or entirely incapable of protecting Sindhi interests in the metropolis.

The anti-PPP opposition in Sindh remains trapped in a cycle. By relying on legacy spiritual authority, localised feudal figures and state patronage rather than building an inclusive, progressive and organised political alternative, parties such as the PML-F have miserably failed to challenge the PPP in any meaningful manner.

As long as the opposition fails to address the deep-seated ethnic, economic and existential anxieties of Sindhis, the electoral dominance of the PPP in Sindh will endure.

Published in Dawn, EOS, September 20th, 2026

KARACHI: Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan leader and Federal Health Minister Syed Mustafa Kamal has said his party wants “administrative restructuring of Sindh without altering its boundaries”.

“We want administrative units with their own assemblies and chief executives, where National Finance Commission [NFC] funds are directly transferred,” he told a press conference here at the party’s temporary headquarters in Bahadurabad on Saturday.

However, the absence of party chairman Dr Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui and senior leader Dr Farooq Sattar from Mr Kamal’s press conference suggested that the party’s internal rifts over leadership control are far from over.

In the evening, Dr Sattar held a separate press conference, conspicuous by Mr Kamal’s absence, where he announced a rally to be held on Sunday (today) and claimed that six administrative units would soon be created in Sindh.

At the first press conference, Mr Kamal said that the 18th Amendment had practically divided the country into “four independent states” and the MQM-P wanted to unite the country through the creation of new administrative units.

Accompanied by senior leader Anis Kaimkhani and others, he made it clear that whoever leads the campaign for administrative units — whether a person, institution, or ruler — will be their hero for saving Pakistan.

“The PPP is furious [over new administrative units] because they realise the sun is setting on their power and the public will now hold them accountable,” he said, accusing the ruling party of “conspiring to associate the entire Sindhi nation with some corrupt beneficiaries of the current system”.

Mr Kamal said that the PPP can no longer hide its bad governance behind the so-called Sindh card, nor can it “engineer Sindhi-Mohajir riots”.

“If bloodshed was bound to happen, it would have occurred over the spread of HIV/AIDS among children via infected syringes at Valika Hospital, Karachi and Larkana; the denial of drinking water; innocent people being crushed under dumpers; deaths from falling into open manholes; citizens being murdered for Rs10,000 mobile phones; the denial of government jobs; the selling of urban Sindh’s quota on fake domiciles; and rampant bribery in every government department,” he said.

“Just past Hyderabad, the interior of Sindh tells a tragic tale of destruction, devastation and corruption. MQM-Pakistan is fighting the case of these oppressed Sindhis.

We assure Sindhi nation that after the formation of administrative units, their lives, property and honour will be far more secure than today,” he said.

Commenting on remarks made by a senior PPP leader against Field Marshal Asim Munir, he said it “exposed the ruling party’s malice, hatred and enmity towards institutions”.

“The time has come for the state to decide whether to save Pakistan or cater to the whims of the PPP,” he said.

Strongly condemning the attacks on Saudi Arabia, Mr Kamal said that every worker of his party was ready to sacrifice their life for the protection and sanctity of Makkah and Madina. “We have defence pacts with Saudi Arabia and Turkiye, and whatever decision the state makes in this regard, we will fully support it,” he said.

MQM-P to stage rally today

Later in the day, senior MQM-P leader Dr Farooq Sattar told another press conference that six administrative units are going to be created in Sindh very soon.

Although he did not elaborate, his remarks seem to suggest that he was talking about Sindh’s existing six divisions — Karachi, Hyderabad, Suk­kur, Larkana, Mirpur­khas and Shaheed Benazir­abad.

He said the MQM-P was organising a rally on Sunday (today) from Ayesha Manzil to Mazar-i-Quaid in favour of the demand for new administrative units and provinces in the country.

He said that for the past 18 years, the public has been deprived of an empowered local government system and education, health and employment facilities.

“When the system of governance fails, the transfer of authority and power to the grassroots level becomes mandatory; therefore, we are talking about establishing new administrative units,” he said.

He appealed to citizens belonging to all ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, particularly youths, to participate in large numbers in the rally and play their full role against the status quo.

Published in Dawn, September 20th, 2026

Breaking his silence on the issue, the British singer decried Israel’s treatment of residents in Gaza as “unjustifiable.”

“I’ve had to take and make difficult decisions and I am making mistakes and I’m so, so sorry,” Sheeran told an audience in Philadelphia, where he performed for the first time since Macklemore was taken off the concert tour.

At the start of the concert at Lincoln Financial Field, Sheeran called the October 2023 Hamas attack that killed around 1,200 Israelis “horrific.” He also called Israel’s subsequent invasion, which has killed thousands in Gaza and displaced almost all of the population, “catastrophic and unjustifiable and disproportionate.”

Sheeran also decried “systemic injustice” in the West Bank, where Israel’s right-wing coalition government has allowed a massive expansion of Jewish settlements.

The pop star’s opening statement on Saturday offered a stark change from his statements earlier in the week, when Sheeran posted on Instagram that his concert audiences “do not expect a political forum”.

Controversy has surrounded Sheeran since Macklemore posted on Instagram that New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft had told Sheeran that Macklemore would not be allowed to perform at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, where Sheeran has shows on September 25 and 26.

Macklemore said Kraft and other stadium owners had told Sheeran he would not be allowed to perform in their venues if Macklemore remained on the tour after saying “Free Palestine” during a September 4 concert at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The tour’s other supporting acts subsequently quit to show solidarity with Macklemore.

Despite acceding to stadium owners’ demand for Macklemore’s removal, Sheeran on Saturday said he was “deeply worried” about concert venues vetting performers’ content. “This happens in so many places that I perform around the world, but it should never happen in the free world,” Sheeran said.

The controversy, however, did not matter to people who spoke to Reuters on Saturday before Sheeran took to the stage.

Joy VanRuler, a 55-year-old teacher from Pottstown, Pennsylvania, said she supports both artists.

“It doesn’t need to be political,” VanRuler said in an interview outside the stadium in Philadelphia. “It’s about the music, and we support both of them and it’s all good.”

Macklemore “shouldn’t have talked about politics,” said Javier Hernandez, a 62-year-old designer from Allentown, Pennsylvania, whose daughter invited him to the concert.

“It gives the people an opportunity to raise their voices and just make a mess of the whole situation. He should have just left it alone.”

Dozens of pro-Palestinian protesters gathered about half a mile from the concert venue ahead of Sheeran’s performance. Organisers said they were there to talk to people about the conditions on the ground in Gaza and to highlight local groups advocating for Palestinians.

His warning in a televised recorded message came ahead of the PTI planned protest march to Islamabad on Sept 27, which the government has vowed to stop.

The PTI has announced a nationwide protest on Sept 27 to demand release of party founder Imran Khan and mobilise people for the supremacy of the Constitution, with the plan to march towards Islamabad.

The Jamaat-i-Islami also launched its march towards Islamabad today in a bid to press the government to end the fuel levy.

In his message, Aurangzeb said the protests and sit-ins, when seen against the backdrop of the economic hardships resulting from the Middle East conflict, would be a “self-inflicted pain”.

More to follow