Rajnath Singh : Sindh may be ours

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s recent statement about Sindh could have been part of India has triggered intense debate across political, historical, and diplomatic circles. Though delivered in a cultural context, the remark carries unmistakable political depth. It evokes the trauma of Partition, unfinished debates around India’s civilizational geography, and an evolving confidence of New Delhi to shape regional narratives. To understand why the comment resonates so deeply, one must revisit both the historical trajectory of Sindh and the contemporary political moment in which the statement has surfaced.

Sindh represents no ordinary subcontinental geography. It is the seat of the Indus Valley Civilization, home to Mohenjo-daro, ancient riverine trade networks, and the spiritual landscape that produced the

Bhakti-Sufi fusion. epitomized by Jhule Lal and Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai. Centuries-long, it was culturally intertwined with western India; its languages, trade, and pilgrimage routes connected it as a matter of course with Gujarat and Rajasthan.

Even until the early 20th century, Sindh was more Hindu-majority in its towns, with traders, educators, and administrators playing a prominent role. The Sindhi Hindu community was among the most prosperous, with influence over business, finance, and cultural life.

However, all that changed dramatically during Partition. In 1947, Sindh was carved into Pakistan with little of the violent demographic churning witnessed in Punjab, but a slow exodus of Hindus followed nonetheless, forever changing the region’s character. The loss of Sindh continues to remain an emotional sore for Sindhi communities worldwide, a civilizational wound.

The transition of Sindh into a separate political entity under Pakistan was engineered, not natural.

1. Demographic Transformation

The post-Partition influx of Urdu-speaking Muhajirs from North India in Sindh diluted the political influence of the indigenous Sindhis and has created ethnic tensions that continue to define Karachi and Hyderabad.

2. Islamization Policies

From the time of Zia-ul-Haq’s rule onward, religious homogenization was deepened in Pakistan. This eroded the historically pluralistic fabric of Sindh and distanced it further from its civilizational roots connected with India.

3. Centralisation by Pakistani Establishment

Sindh’s resources, its ports, and its economic hubs came under heavy control of Pakistan’s central military establishment. Political autonomy in the region began to weaken, and local grievances started to increase.

4. Cultural Separation

Sindhi literature, script, and heritage suffered from marginalization; this artificially created a cultural distance between Sindh and the rest of the Indian subcontinent.

All these factors together worked to convert a culturally Indian syncretic region into a tightly controlled Pakistani province and reshaped the identity of Sindh in a few decades.

Rajnath Singh’s remark is not an isolated outburst, it is politically calibrated. There are several layers that can be read into it.

1. Assertion of Historical Narrative

This statement reinforces a long-held Indian view: that Partition was incomplete, unfair, and traumatic. The naming of Sindh specifically conveys the powerful memory which millions of displaced Sindhis share.

2. Domestic Political Messaging

During an era of cultural revivalism and historical reclamation, these statements provide the basis for political narratives on civilizational unity, national confidence, and revisiting past wrongs.

3. Dynamics of the Regional Power

The remark comes at a time when:

Pakistan’s internal politics are unstable,

Sindh is experiencing heightened nationalism.

 Karachi is still a battleground for ethnic demands and economic exploitation.

Invoking Sindh, India indirectly signals that it is attentive to Pakistan’s internal fractures.

4. Strategic Signalling to Pakistan

Rajnath Singh leads India’s defence establishment. Any historical comment emanating from him will be inevitably read as strategic messaging. India may be signaling that Pakistan’s artificial borders-which have been formed through forced religious engineering-are not immune to scrutiny.

 Implications of the Remark

1. Diplomatic Ripples

Predictably, Pakistan will condemn it as “expansionist rhetoric.” However, for the international community, fixated on Pakistan’s instability and economic collapse, the statement may be more rhetorical than a claim to territory.

2. Energising Sindhi Nationalism

Sindh has a perpetual simmering secular nationalist movement, something rooted in its aversion to Punjabi-dominated Pakistan. Rajnath’s comment could

 encourage Sindhi activists,

 highlight historical grievances,

 revive the cultural debate about Sindh’s pre-Pakistan identity.

3. Domestic Political Resonance in India

But for Indian audiences-actually, to a great extent, Sindhi communities-the remark reinforces emotional links with a lost homeland; politically, it solidifies narratives around civilizational continuity and historical injustice.

4. Strengthening India’s Ideological Posture

India increasingly presents itself as the inheritor of an ancient, unified, civilizational sphere. The mention of Sindh extends this vision beyond present political boundaries.

5. Internal Discomfort in Pakistan

Any talk of Sindh’s civilizational relationship with India threatens the national ideology of Pakistan, which is based on erasing pre-Islamic identity. It reveals contradictions within Pakistani nationalism.

6. No Military Consequence but Strong Symbolic Power Realistically, India has no territorial ambitions over Sindh. The remark is symbolic, not strategic in the military sense. Yet, symbols matter – this one challenges Pakistan’s historical narrative.

Rajnath Singh’s remark on Sindh being part of India is far more than a sentimental reflection. It goes to the core of Partition’s unresolved wounds, the cultural dismembering of a civilizational region, and the evolving assertion of India’s historical memory. Not that the borders will change because of that, but it powerfully reshapes the political conversation about what was lost, what is remembered, and how history continues to influence the geopolitics of South Asia.