13 INDICATORS OF KARACHI’ CURRENT GOVERNANCE, A QUESTIONARE TO SINDH GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE

When a city of extraordinary importance struggles with basic governance, administrative restructuring becomes a necessity, not a political luxury.

Karachi is not merely another city in Sindh. It is Pakistan’s largest metropolitan center, its principal commercial hub, a major industrial and financial center, and a vital contributor to the national economy. Millions of people depend on its roads, hospitals, markets, transport networks, water supply, sanitation systems, and public institutions for their daily lives.

Yet a fundamental question confronts its residents, if Karachi is so important to the economic survival of Pakistan, why does its governance continue to face persistent challenges involving public safety, traffic management, waste disposal, water supply, sewerage, encroachments, urban planning, and institutional accountability. These are not merely municipal inconveniences. They are indicators of whether a government can translate its legal authority into effective administration. When the same problems repeatedly affect ordinary citizens, despite government departments, substantial public expenditure, and successive development announcements, it becomes reasonable to question whether the existing administrative structure is capable of meeting the demands of a modern metropolis.

Karachi needs a separate, empowered administrative unit with clearly defined authority, adequate financial resources, and direct accountability to its residents.

This proposal should not be dismissed as an emotional demand, a partisan slogan, or an attempt to undermine Sindh’s identity. It should be examined as a serious question of institutional design and public welfare.

Thirteen Questions That Karachi’s Governance Must Answer

The effectiveness of a government should be judged by its performance, not simply by its possession of constitutional authority. Karachi’s administration must therefore be examined against thirteen fundamental indicators.

13 INDICATORS TO EVALUATE GORENMENT PERFORMANCE IN KARACHI

First, law and order. Can citizens travel through the city without unreasonable fear of street crime, robbery, extortion, or violence? Police statistics may show improvements in particular periods, but the ultimate test is whether citizens enjoy consistently effective protection. ARE THE CITIZENS SAFE IN STREETS OF KARACHI?

Second, traffic management. Can authorities maintain traffic discipline, protect pedestrians, control illegal parking, and ensure that ambulances and emergency vehicles can reach their destinations without avoidable delays? Absolute absence of traffic system found, no any control of traffic in the city.

Third, waste management. Can the city ensure regular garbage collection, safe transportation of waste, and clean public spaces? The presence of large waste-management budgets means little if residents continue to experience persistent accumulation of garbage.

Fourth, water supply. Can households obtain adequate and reliable water without excessive dependence on expensive alternatives? Access to safe water is a basic public need, not a privilege determined by neighborhood or purchasing power. Can a citizen of Karachi get drinking water at his/ her home without money spent?

Fifth, sewerage and drainage. Can authorities prevent persistent sewage overflow, maintain drainage infrastructure, and reduce the risks associated with contaminated water and urban flooding?

Sixth, electricity-related public safety and street lighting. Can the responsible institutions maintain streetlights, address dangerous electrical hazards, and coordinate effectively when power failures threaten public safety? Why Karachi pays highest price of electricity as compared across the country?

Seventh, encroachments and public spaces. Can footpaths, roads, parks, and playgrounds remain accessible to the public? Are applicable laws enforced consistently, or do commercial interests and personal influence sometimes take precedence over public rights?

Eighth, equality before the law. Are regulations enforced against influential individuals and ordinary citizens according to the same legal standards? Public confidence cannot flourish when people believe that wealth, connections, or political influence determine the consequences of violating the law.

Ninth, emergency and disaster management. Can institutions coordinate effectively during fires, building collapses, heat waves, urban flooding, and other emergencies? A modern metropolis requires preparation, professional response systems, and clear lines of responsibility. So many cases of fires at Karachi happened.

Tenth, urban planning and building regulation. Can authorities regulate construction, protect public land, maintain infrastructure, and ensure that urban expansion takes place according to coherent planning principles?

Eleventh, public health and environmental protection. Can the city minimize preventable health hazards arising from unsafe water, poor sanitation, environmental pollution, and improper waste disposal? Are the facilities of health available in all public sector hospitals as claimed by government?

Twelfth, accountability and responsiveness. When residents report a problem, can they identify the responsible institution and expect timely action? How often are complaints resolved, and what consequences follow persistent administrative failure? Are rich and poor equal?

Thirteenth, equitable administration throughout the metropolitan area. Do these services reach all neighborhoods, including low-income communities and peripheral settlements, or are effective services concentrated in selected areas?

These questions form a practical framework for evaluating urban governance. They are not a substitute for a comprehensive performance audit, and their answers must be supported by reliable evidence. Nevertheless, they establish the standards against which Karachi’s administrative arrangements should be judged.

If institutions repeatedly fail to meet these standards, citizens are justified in demanding structural reform rather than accepting the indefinite continuation of the same arrangements.

The Problem Is Not Simply a Shortage of Money

One explanation frequently offered for Karachi’s difficulties is insufficient funding. Financial constraints can certainly affect public services, but money alone cannot explain every governance failure. A city may receive funding and still struggle when responsibilities are fragmented, institutions lack coordination, decision-making is centralized, and accountability is weak. Consider a road damaged by sewage overflow. One institution may control the road, another may manage sewerage, and another may be responsible for a development project. Each may possess its own budget and administrative hierarchy, yet the citizen continues to suffer because no institution effectively coordinates the entire response.

This is the central weakness that administrative restructuring must address: the distance between formal authority and practical responsibility. Karachi needs a governance arrangement in which the institutions responsible for its metropolitan challenges possess the legal powers, financial capacity, and coordination mechanisms necessary to resolve them.

Why Should Karachi Have a Separate Administrative Unit?

Karachi’s scale and complexity justify considering an administrative structure specifically designed for its metropolitan requirements. Its essential features should include:

• A unified framework for metropolitan planning and infrastructure coordination. 
• Clearly defined responsibility for roads, drainage, sanitation, and waste-management oversight. 
• Predictable financial allocations and transparent control over authorized expenditure. 
• Effective coordination with police, water, electricity, transport, and other relevant institutions. 
• Strong elected local governments at town and neighborhood levels. 
• Independent performance audits and publicly accessible service-delivery data. 
• Transparent complaint-resolution mechanisms. 
• Legal safeguards against discrimination in resource allocation and public-service delivery. 

The precise distribution of powers would require careful legislation. Essential provincial functions should not be transferred without a clear legal basis, and the new arrangement must not create another layer of bureaucracy without delivering tangible improvements. The objective is straightforward, Karachi’s administration must become capable of addressing Karachi’s problems through institutions that can be held directly accountable for their performance.

If Other Parts of Sindh Are Not Divided, Why Should Karachi Be Treated Differently?

This is an important question.

The case for a separate Karachi administrative unit does not require dividing every other part of Sindh into additional units. Different regions have different administrative needs, population patterns, economic structures, and infrastructure requirements. Karachi is an exceptionally large and complex metropolitan area. Its transport networks, commercial activity, population density, water requirements, industrial development, and municipal challenges demand a coordinated administrative approach on a scale that differs from that of many other districts.

An arrangement designed for a predominantly rural district may not be suitable for a major metropolitan city. Equally, Karachi’s administrative model need not be imposed on every other region. The rest of Sindh can continue to be governed within the existing provincial structure while receiving meaningful improvements in district administration, municipal services, and local-government autonomy.

Administrative arrangements should be designed around the needs of citizens, not maintained merely because existing boundaries have become politically familiar.

At the same time, the proposal must respect the rights of all residents of Karachi and Sindh, including communities with deep historical, cultural, and linguistic connections to the province. A separate administrative unit should be presented as a governance reform, not as a claim that any particular community has an exclusive right to the city.

Does a Separate Administrative Unit Mean a Separate Province?

Not necessarily. The distinction matters.

A separate metropolitan administrative unit could be established within Sindh through an appropriate legal and constitutional framework, depending on the powers and institutional arrangements involved. A separate province, however, would require a more fundamental constitutional change and the prescribed provincial and parliamentary approvals.

Those who oppose a separate province should still be prepared to explain how Karachi’s administrative problems can be resolved through a credible alternative. Similarly, those who support separation must demonstrate how their proposed arrangement would improve services, protect minority rights, distribute resources fairly, and prevent the emergence of another ineffective bureaucracy.

Governance Must Be Measured by Results

The people of Karachi should not have to judge government performance through political speeches or competing institutional claims. They should be able to examine published figures showing how much waste is collected, how reliably water is supplied, how quickly complaints are resolved, how effectively roads and drainage systems are maintained, and whether public safety is improving.

Every major institution responsible for Karachi should publish measurable targets and regular performance reports. Independent audits should determine whether public expenditure produces the promised outcomes. If the existing system consistently fails, its defenders must explain why the structure should remain unchanged. If a proposed alternative promises improvement, its supporters must demonstrate how it will work. This is how a serious administrative debate should proceed: through evidence, clearly defined responsibility, and accountability for results.

Karachi’s Future Cannot Remain an Unresolved Administrative Question

Karachi contributes enormously to Pakistan’s economy, yet the quality of life experienced by its residents depends on whether public institutions can manage the city effectively. The demand for a separate administrative unit deserves serious consideration because the city’s problems require coordinated, metropolitan-scale solutions. It should neither be dismissed automatically on political grounds nor accepted without examining its institutional design and likely consequences.

The thirteen indicators provide a practical starting point. They can be used to assess the present arrangements, identify which institutions are failing, and establish whether meaningful reform is possible without changing the administrative structure.

But one principle should be non-negotiable, Karachi cannot be expected to function as a modern metropolitan economy while its essential governance responsibilities remain fragmented, inadequately coordinated, or insufficiently accountable.

If the existing administrative structure cannot reliably deliver public safety, essential services, effective urban planning, and equal treatment under the law, Karachi deserves a fundamentally reformed administrative arrangement designed around the needs of its people.

Sindh’s historical identity and Karachi’s demand for effective governance need not be presented as mutually exclusive. The real challenge is to establish an arrangement that protects the rights of all citizens while ensuring that the city receives the authority, resources, and accountability mechanisms necessary to function effectively.

Ultimately, the purpose of government is not to defend administrative boundaries for their own sake. It is to serve the people living within them.

Karachi needs more than promises. It needs an administrative system that can deliver.