Muttahida’s stance on uplift schemes in Hyderabad has recently come under intense scrutiny, as chairmen from five town municipal corporations (TMCs) belonging to the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) vehemently rejected accusations made by Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) lawmakers. At the heart of the dispute lies the decision to transfer 43 development projects from the Local Government Project to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (HMC). This contention highlights not only a clash over administrative procedures but also deep-seated political rivalries and differing visions for the development of one of Sindh’s most significant cities.
The controversy arose during a press conference where PPP TMC chairmen Manthar Jatoi, Umair Chandio, and Adnan Rasheed addressed the media. They expressed bewilderment at the MQM-P lawmakers’ objections to the legal transfer of these development schemes to the HMC. This move, according to the PPP representatives, is a straightforward administrative decision aimed at streamlining project execution and ensuring accountability. However, the MQM-P’s vocal opposition has ignited a debate about the motivations behind such protests and the overarching commitment of political parties to local governance and urban development.
Unpacking the Contradiction in Muttahida’s Stance
One of the central points raised by the PPP chairmen revolves around what they perceive as a fundamental contradiction in Muttahida’s stance on uplift schemes and local governance. They argued that while the MQM-P frequently advocates for the empowerment of the local government system, their current resistance to the handing over of these schemes to the HMC appears to contradict that very principle. If the goal is to empower local bodies, then allowing the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, headed by a PPP mayor, to oversee development projects should, in theory, align with the call for greater local autonomy and responsibility. The PPP chairmen questioned the logic behind obstructing a process that, on one hand, demands local control, yet on the other, opposes its practical implementation.
The schemes in question are crucial for Hyderabad’s ongoing development, encompassing various aspects of urban infrastructure and public services. The PPP spokesmen highlighted that the projects’ progress had been “exceptionally slow” and that the reported 30-35% completion rate was vague, lacking concrete details about where such work had actually been carried out. This concern about transparency and efficiency served as a key justification for the transfer, suggesting that bringing these projects under the direct purview of the HMC would accelerate their completion and ensure greater accountability.
A Legacy Questioned: Four Decades in Power
Beyond the immediate dispute, the PPP chairmen launched a scathing critique of MQM-P’s historical record in Hyderabad. They alleged that the Muttahida Qaumi Movement had been in power, directly or indirectly, for an astonishing 40 years but had done “nothing for the betterment of the city.” This is a significant accusation, implying that despite considerable influence and opportunity, critical urban infrastructure was neglected.
To substantiate their claim, the PPP representatives cited specific examples of neglected infrastructure. They pointed out that MQM-P could not even properly build two main drains – Domanwah and Unit-12 Latifabad. These drains are vital components of the city’s drainage system, and their improper construction or maintenance can lead to significant urban flooding, sewage overflow, and public health crises, particularly during monsoon seasons. The failure to address such fundamental needs, according to the PPP, underscores a broader pattern of negligence during MQM-P’s long tenure. Furthermore, they alleged that not a single important hospital was upgraded under MQM-P’s watch, leaving critical healthcare infrastructure in a dilapidated state.
The PPP’s Narrative: Current Progress and Future Vision
In stark contrast to their criticisms of the MQM-P’s past, the PPP chairmen presented a narrative of proactive development under their current leadership in Hyderabad. They underlined that the PPP mayor is actively executing multiple development projects under the HMC’s umbrella, complementing the broader development works being undertaken by the Sindh government province-wide. This combined effort, they asserted, is aimed at ushering in a new era of progress for Hyderabad.
As a tangible example of recent improvements, the PPP representatives highlighted that lids were now being placed over open manholes. While seemingly a minor detail, the issue of open manholes is a persistent safety hazard in many Pakistani cities, posing a significant risk to pedestrians and vehicles alike. Addressing this concern demonstrates a commitment to basic urban safety and public welfare, presenting a stark contrast to the alleged neglect of the past.
Political Undercurrents and Democratic Legitimacy
The press conference also delved into the realm of political legitimacy and electoral processes. The PPP chairmen provocatively claimed that the Muttahida lawmakers were “a product of Form-47,” implying that their election was not a true reflection of the will of the people of Hyderabad, who had supposedly rejected them. “Form-47” is a term often used in Pakistani politics to refer to allegations of electoral manipulation in the final consolidation of results. This accusation adds another layer of political tension to the administrative dispute, challenging the democratic mandate of the opposing party and fueling the ongoing rivalry.
Conclusion
The current political skirmish in Hyderabad over the handling of uplift schemes is a microcosm of the larger struggle for power, accountability, and development in Pakistan’s urban centers. While the PPP argues for administrative efficiency, legal transparency, and a renewed focus on local development, the MQM-P’s objections, as framed by the PPP chairmen, raise questions about their consistency and commitment to the principles of local governance they often champion. The accusations of historical neglect from the PPP and the counter-allegations of political manipulation underline the deeply entrenched rivalries that often overshadow the core objective of public service and urban betterment. Ultimately, the citizens of Hyderabad will be the final arbiters, evaluating the performance of their elected representatives based on the tangible improvements in their daily lives and the transparent execution of the uplift schemes intended for their welfare.