Критика журналистов за поддержку разделения Синда названа нарушением демократических принципов

When Democracy Ends at the Borders of Sindh Pakistani Punjab dominated establishment and journalists appear to have a curious understanding of democracy: it is celebrated when it serves their political narrative and conveniently forgotten when the people of Sindh assert their own democratic will. Their criticism of the Sindh Assembly’s resolution rejecting any scheme to divide Sindh exposes that contradiction. The resolution was passed by elected representatives exercising precisely the democratic mandate they were entrusted with. They have every right and indeed a responsibility to reflect the political sentiments of their constituents. What, then, is the democratic basis for ridiculing them? The people of Sindh are not required to seek permission from political commentators outside Sindh before defending the territorial integrity of their homeland. Nor should their elected representatives be lectured about democracy simply because they have taken a position that certain sections of the political and intellectual establishment find inconvenient. There is a deeper issue here. Democracy is not merely the right to speak; it is also the obligation to listen. If elected representatives in Sindh express a clear political position on the future of Sindh, dismissing that position as irrational, provincial or inconvenient does not demonstrate democratic sophistication. It demonstrates an unwillingness to accept democratic outcomes when they challenge established power structures. The double standard is difficult to ignore. Some of the loudest voices invoking democracy, pluralism and political rights elsewhere become remarkably restrained when Sindhi political rights and sentiments are at stake. Their principles seem to become conditional the moment the question involves Sindh. That raises a fundamental question: is democracy being defended as a principle, or merely deployed as a political weapon? If democracy means anything, it means that Sindhis have the same political rights as everyone else. Their elected representatives have the same legitimacy as elected representatives elsewhere. Their collective political aspirations cannot be dismissed simply because they conflict with the preferences of powerful interests. Nor can opposition to the division of Sindh be casually portrayed as an obstacle to democracy. People have every right to reject a political project that they believe threatens their province’s territorial, cultural or political identity. Disagreement with that position is legitimate; contempt for the democratic right to hold it is not. The real test of a democrat is not how loudly they defend democracy when it is convenient. The real test comes when democracy produces an outcome they dislike. If some self-styled intellectuals and journalists cannot extend that basic principle to Sindh, they should stop pretending that their concern is democracy. The question is no longer whether they disagree with the Sindh Assembly. The question is far more uncomfortable: when they attack Sindh’s elected representatives for reflecting the will of their constituents, are they defending democracy or simply giving intellectual cover to the interests of the Punjabi-dominated establishment?