THE renewed debate over new provinces, devolution and the nature of governance ultimately converges on a larger question: what kind of state, administrative structure and constitutional order does Pakistan need? Pakistan needs a strong state, but a strong state is not synonymous with a stronger establishment. Defence and security institutions are indispensable, but national strength also requires effective political institutions, a functioning Parliament, empowered local governments and constitutional supremacy.
The demand for new provinces should, therefore, be assessed on the basis of governance rather than political convenience. Where population, geography and administrative complexity make effective governance difficult, creating new administrative units may be justified. But if new provinces merely create additional capitals, bureaucracies and political centres without improving service delivery, the map may change while citizens remain underserved.
Punjab has long witnessed demands for South Punjab and Bahawalpur, reflecting questions of representation, development and administrative accessibility. Sindh presents a different sensitivity, particularly regarding Karachi. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has its own considerations, including the Hazara demand and the administrative integration of the former tribal areas. Balochistan, with its vast geography, sparse population, mineral wealth and development and security challenges, also raises questions about whether existing administrative arrangements are sufficient.
Karachi’s future status should be considered on constitutional, administrative and democratic merits rather than partisan assumptions. The city became a federal capital territory in 1948, was incorporated into West Pakistan under One Unit in 1955 and returned to Sindh in 1970. Gwadar, purchased by Pakistan from Oman in 1958 and made a district of Balochistan in 1977, is strategically and economically important. Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, however, cannot simply be placed in the same category as demands for additional provinces. Their constitutional and political status is linked to the historical and international Kashmir dispute. The developments in India-occupied Jammu and Kashmir since 5 August 2019 have created new political and administrative realities and intensified debate about the future arrangements of AJK and GB.
Pakistan’s principled position should remain that the final settlement of Kashmir must reflect the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. At the same time, the political and administrative rights of the present generation cannot remain indefinitely contingent upon an uncertain final settlement. There is, therefore, a strong case for meaningful interim arrangements that do not prejudice the disputed status.
One such arrangement could be meaningful representation of AJK and GB in Pakistan’s Parliament, including representation in the National Assembly and Senate, together with participation in relevant national policymaking. This would provide a constitutionally recognized federal voice without prejudging the final status of Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, a predictable fiscal mechanism is essential. The National Finance Commission could be considered as one possible avenue, with an interim formula taking account not only of population but also geography, backwardness, border and defence responsibilities and development needs. Representation and resources cannot substitute for a final Kashmir settlement. They can, however, become instruments of interim political and administrative justice.
This brings the debate to an equally important question: does Pakistan need more provinces or does it need stronger local government? For the ordinary citizen, the most immediate government is often the neighbourhood, union council, tehsil or district. Roads, water, sanitation, primary healthcare, schools and local development are essentially local concerns.
The renewed discussion about a presidential system should, therefore, be approached with caution. Pakistan’s parliamentary system has weaknesses, but these can be addressed through institutional reforms, political stability, a stronger Parliament and empowered local governments rather than necessarily replacing the existing constitutional model. Particularly after the post-5 August 2019 developments in India-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, any major constitutional change that appears to weaken parliamentary representation or strengthen excessive centralization could create understandable sensitivities in AJK. The priority should, therefore, remain to strengthen, reform and make the parliamentary system more effective, accountable and responsive to all federating units. Pakistan needs neither unrestrained centralization nor centrifugal politics.
The debate over new provinces should, therefore, not be reduced to the question of how many provinces Pakistan should have. The more fundamental question is how power can be organized so that the state is strong enough to protect national interests, democratic enough to respect representation and decentralized enough to deliver services effectively. Administrative reform, parliamentary strengthening, local empowerment and fairer fiscal arrangements can together create a stronger federation without weakening its unity. Pakistan’s future does not necessarily depend on more provinces or a different system of government. It depends on building institutions that work, distributing authority responsibly and ensuring that every citizen and every federating unit feels represented in the national structure. That is the real meaning of a stronger state.
—The writer is a Supreme Court lawyer and former member & Chairman Standing Committee of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council. Islamabad
