WHEN Mian Amer Mahmood, Chairman of the Punjab Group of Colleges and former Nazim of Lahore, recently proposed the idea of thirty three provinces for Pakistan, it immediately sparked a heated debate.
Critics dismissed the proposal with a familiar argument. If Pakistan has struggled to govern four provinces effectively, how can thirty-three be managed. The assumption behind this argument is that more provinces mean more complications, more bureaucracy and more financial costs. Yet history, comparative examples and the lived experience of Pakistan itself point in another direction. The proposal is not only logical but also deeply necessary if Pakistan is to move beyond the cycle of alienation, weak governance and concentration of power that has plagued the country since its inception.
To understand the significance of this idea, one must look at history. When India was partitioned in 1947, it inherited large provinces and hundreds of princely states, each with its own grievances and demands. By the mid 1950s, the country was boiling with unrest. People felt excluded from power, marginalized by dominant provincial elites and cut off from resources that seemed to flow only to the larger cities. India responded with the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 which reorganized the federation along linguistic and cultural lines. Since then, India has steadily expanded its number of states, adding Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Telangana among others. Far from weakening the federation, this proliferation of provinces brought government closer to the people, created new political leadership and reduced the sense of alienation that fuels discontent. Today India has twenty-eight states and eight union territories, a system that has strengthened rather than fragmented the country.
The lesson is clear. Smaller provinces do not divide nations, they strengthen them. Large units, which concentrate resources and political power in a few hands, create resentment. Pakistan suffers from this exact problem. Punjab alone, with more than one hundred and twenty million people, is larger than many countries of the world. The centralization of power in Lahore has left South Punjab chronically neglected. In Sindh, Karachi feels alienated from rural Sindh. In Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, the Hazara region has long demanded recognition because it sees itself sidelined by the provincial capital. Balochistan, with its vast geography but scattered population, has seen wave after wave of insurgency fed by the perception that decisions are made far away by elites who do not understand its needs. If Pakistan is to move forward, this structural imbalance must be addressed.
Creating thirty-three provinces would mean that government is no longer a distant entity. It would bring the chief minister and the provincial assembly to the doorstep of the people. When a citizen of Bahawalpur or Abbottabad has a provincial capital within a few hours’ reach, governance becomes real rather than abstract. When power is spread among thirty three units, no single group can dominate the rest. Political leadership, which today seems recycled among a narrow elite, would expand as new chief ministers, provincial ministers and legislators emerge from diverse regions. In a country where the crisis of leadership is as severe as the crisis of governance, this alone is a compelling argument for reform.
The critics argue that creating thirty three provinces would be financially unsustainable, imagining a bloated bureaucracy with chief ministers, governors, assemblies and secretariats draining the national exchequer. This fear ignores both comparative experience and economic logic. Pakistan already spends vast sums on federal ministries duplicating provincial functions. A rationalized distribution of powers would cut waste, while the cost of running provinces is outweighed by the social dividend of inclusion, peace and service delivery. Alienation and neglect are far more expensive in the long run. Insurgencies, protests, instability and underdevelopment have cost Pakistan enormously. If smaller provinces can reduce these costs by ensuring equity and inclusion, then the investment pays for itself many times over.
Another criticism is that Pakistan should strengthen local governments instead of multiplying provinces. While this appears reasonable, history shows local bodies have never functioned effectively. The four large provinces, seeing them as rivals, systematically undermined them by withholding funds, cutting powers and dissolving councils. Local governments flourish only when higher tiers share resources, which Pakistan’s provinces have never done. Mian Amer Mahmood rightly argues that only by breaking the monopoly of existing provinces can local governments thrive. New provinces directly supported by the federal government would create the enabling environment for empowered municipalities.
Comparative examples also show that more administrative units strengthen federalism. The United States has fifty states, Nigeria thirty six and India twenty eight, all within strong national frameworks. Pakistan, with only four, suffers predictable results: grievances pile up, representation is skewed and entire regions feel locked out of power. Moving to thirty three provinces does not mean disintegration but ensures every community, region and identity has a stake in the federation. It strengthens rather than weakens the national bond.
The four-province model has failed to provide equity, build inclusive leadership or ensure citizens’ welfare. Pakistan has reached a point where cosmetic reforms are no longer enough. The proposal for thirty three provinces is bold but rooted in sound historical precedent, international examples and Pakistan’s lived reality. Opposition often stems from fear of losing control rather than genuine concern for governance. The choice before Pakistan is stark: continue with an outdated structure that fuels alienation and underdevelopment or embrace a vision that redistributes power, creates new leaders and brings government closer to the people. Thirty three provinces are not a burden but Pakistan’s opportunity to begin a governance renaissance.
—The writer is a senior media academic, former Dean of Mass Communication at Beaconhouse National University and University of Central Punjab, and currently a Professor at the University of Central Punjab.
