OF late, there has been a rash of seminars, media discussions and loaded commentaries on the idea of increasing the number of provinces in Pakistan.
Some entities have proposed converting the existing 32 administrative divisions into provinces while another recommendation is to go back to the original 12 administrative divisions that existed in erstwhile West Pakistan at the time of independence.
The sweeping conclusion of these proposals is that practically all our governance problems will be resolved once we create more provinces. Although different political parties had been advocating for the creation of new provinces for various reasons in the past, the current proposals apparently seek a greater number of provinces to facilitate the devolution of authority and achieve administrative efficiency.
If the idea of these proposals is to generate a fresh national debate to see if a consensus can be developed on the question, there should be no quarrel with the intention, but the debate needs to be organic and not stoked or moulded by vested interests. The consensus-building process should not be hurried; an important but contentious question like the creation of new provinces should be debated and scrutinised on the basis of facts and figures, both inside parliament and outside.
Since the question of carving out new provinces from existing ones is a highly emotive one, there is a risk that the debate could result in outbursts. It is, therefore, important that the debate does not take place in a vacuum and a carefully prepared document, framing the key issues, forms the basis of the issue.
The timing of the debate is questionable. As we deal with the resurgence of terrorism, an ailing economy, which is just about showing signs of improvement and an explosive geopolitical situation, one wonders if the creation of new provinces should really be on our agenda.
The impetus for the debate may not be organic. There have been times in the past when strong and sometimes violent movements for separate provinces in south Punjab, the non-Pashto-speaking Hazara division and Sindh’s urban areas were active at different times, but at present there doesn’t seem to be such an active movement, probably because there are more critical issues which need to be tackled first.
Is creating new provinces the best way to achieve better governance?
In the ongoing discourse, India’s example of increasing its states from the original 17 provinces to the current 28 states is also cited. One should keep three points in mind, while comparing our situation to India’s. First, the impetus for the creation of new states in India came from fierce and, and at times violent, movements particularly in the south, which demanded states on the basis of language. These movements led to the formation of Linguistic Provinces Commission (Dhar Commission) in 1948.
The demand for language-based states had gained so much momentum by 1952 that an activist demanding a Telugu state died after a fast-unto death. This tragic incident provoked agitation across the country, with many linguistic groups demanding separate states. In today’s Pakistan, no such violent movement exists, although the demand for separate provinces for Sindh’s Urdu-speaking people, Seraiki speakers in various provinces and KP’s Hindko-speaking population has been raised from time to time. While Urdu is the national language, separate provinces already exist which are inhabited by the majority of speakers of regional languages, including Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto and Balochi.
The second distinction is that India is not a classic federal state. It is a ‘union’ which has certain characteristics of a federation. The change in the boundaries of the Indian states is therefore much simpler than is the case in Pakistan, which is a constitutionally declared federation. Altering provincial boundaries requires a two-third majority in the concerned provinces, before a constitutional amendment can be moved in the two Houses of Parliament, where again a two-third majority is needed in each to separately pass the constitutional amendment.
The third distinctive feature of the Indian quest for new provinces is important to note by the proponents of new provinces in Pakistan. India formed a States Reorganisation Commission in 1953 which worked on reorganisation proposals for 21 months and presented its report in 1955. The States Reorganisation Act was subsequently passed in 1956, incorporating most of the recommendations made by SRC. This act led to the creation of 14 states and three union territories. Subsequently, 14 additional states were gradually created from 1956 to the present.
In the context of today’s Pakistan, the real question is whether creating new provinces is really the most cost-effective and practical way to achieve the objective of better governance and devolution of powers. Apparently, the answer is in the negative.
Assuming that 12 provinces are to be created, each new province will come with a huge price tag as taxpayers will have to pay for eight new provincial assemblies, governors, chief ministers, cabinets, high courts, public service commissions, civil secretariats, to name a few, along with the necessary physical infrastructure, etc. Such extravagance is not acceptable in any case but in the present economic scenario it would be almost criminal. Securing a two-third majority in the assemblies will be next to impossible.
There is a much simpler option available for achieving the objective of devolution and administrative efficiency — making the local governments effective, while underwriting their continuity and funding through a constitutional amendment as India did 45 years after the passage of its constitution.
Large provinces are not so much an issue as the lack of devolution of powers to the local level. The UK is a unitary state but an empowered local government there has helped provide good governance and the decentralisation of powers. The way forward for devolution in Pakistan is, therefore, empowered local governments and not the tedious route of creating new provinces.
The writer is the president of Pakistan-based think tank, Pildat.
president@pildat.org
X: @ABMPildat
Published in Dawn, August 23rd, 2025