During an address in Mumbai to a Sindhi-community event organised by the Vishwa Sindhu Foundation, Singh referenced veteran leader L. K. Advani and affirmed enduring civilisational links between India and Sindh, adding: “Today the land of Sindh may not be a part of India, but civilisationally Sindh will always be a part of India. As far as land is concerned, borders can change. Who knows, tomorrow Sindh may return to India.”
In response, Burfat posted on X: “The statement of India’s Defence Minister… is warmly welcomed by the national movement of Sindhudesh JSMM and the Sindhi nation from the depths of our hearts.” He emphasised that the movement has long advocated for a confederal relationship with India, grounded in mutual respect, sovereignty and shared heritage.
Sindh, which became part of Pakistan following the 1947 partition of undivided India, has long been the focus of nationalist aspirations among groups such as the JSMM that seek autonomy or separation. Mr Burfat reaffirmed that Sindh is the historical homeland of the Sindhi nation and accused Pakistan’s military-intelligence structure of suppressing the region’s identity, language and heritage. He described Pakistan as “a lethal poison for the very existence of the Sindhi nation.” Analysts note that the JSMM is considered a banned organisation in Pakistan and is subject to allegations of militancy and links to violent incidents, which Pakistan’s authorities attribute to the party’s operations abroad.
Singh’s remark arrives amid heightened tensions between India and Pakistan over territorial, security and civil-society issues. His articulation of borders as potentially changeable has stirred debate in diplomatic and security circles in both countries. Some Indian security officials assert that such comments risk inflaming regional disputes, while others argue they reflect India’s willingness to reshape geopolitical narratives. A senior Indian defence analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “The statement amplifies India’s civilisational narrative, but practically such a shift remains highly improbable without massive political, diplomatic and military upheaval.” Meanwhile, Pakistani government sources characterised Singh’s comment as provocative, accusing India of reviving irredentist rhetoric to distract from domestic issues. One Pakistani foreign-policy advisor warned that such signals could destabilise the fragile status quo across the subcontinent.
Within Sindh, Burfat’s endorsement has been interpreted as a political manoeuvre aimed at bolstering the JSMM’s relevance among diaspora and domestic supporters. He proposed establishing a “Sindhudesh National Intellectual Commission,” composed of scholars from Sindh, India and the global Sindhi diaspora, tasked with drafting a roadmap for freedom and confederal ties with India. Human-rights organisations caution that the Sindhi nationalist movement must demonstrate adherence to peaceful, democratic channels rather than armed activism; Pakistan rights-monitors have documented enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions and extrajudicial killings of dissidents in Sindh in recent years.
The statement by the Indian defence minister also holds symbolic significance for the larger Sindhi community in India and globally, many of whom trace their origins to migration during the 1947 partition. By invoking shared civilisational roots, Singh tapped into cultural memory and identity politics that transcend national borders. Media commentary in India suggested that his words offered moral encouragement to Sindhi groups seeking greater recognition of their historic links with India, even if no concrete policy shift is announced.
For Pakistan, the remark raises questions about how Islamabad might respond to perceived ideological encroachments. Observers say Pakistan’s reaction likely combines diplomatic protest with domestic messaging aimed at reinforcing territorial integrity and discrediting nationalist narratives emanating from Sindh. Pakistan’s military-led establishment may also intensify monitoring of Sindhi nationalist organisations and diaspora networks in response to the heightened focus.