THE renewed national discussion about new provinces is a healthy, necessary and long overdue democratic debate. Pakistan has spent too long treating any review of provincial boundaries as a threat to national unity. It is nothing of the sort. Provincial borders are constitutional and administrative arrangements, not sacred lines or ancestral property. A functioning federation should be able to review its internal structure as its population, economy and administrative needs change. The figures are compelling. According to the final results of the 2023 census released by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Pakistan’s population reached 241.49 million, with an average annual growth rate of 2.55pc. Yet the country continues to operate through only four main provinces. Punjab alone has about 127.7m people, nearly 53pc of the national population. It is more populous than every member state of the European Union, but remains governed as a single unit from Lahore. Balochistan has only 14.9m people but covers nearly 44pc of Pakistan’s landmass. The existing provinces differ greatly in population, territory and administrative manageability.
This imbalance has practical consequences. Provincial authority, public institutions, government employment and development spending remain concentrated in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta. Residents of Rajanpur, Chaghi or Torghar may spend an entire working day reaching a specialised hospital, university, higher court or senior provincial department. Provincial decision makers are equally distant. This amounts to administrative exclusion. That exclusion explains demands for South Punjab or a Seraiki province, the restoration of Bahawalpur as a province, and a Hazara province. Proposals concerning Karachi or urban Sindh, the former tribal districts and other regions vary in merit, but most are not separatist. They reflect concerns about administrative distance, inadequate representation, regional identity and unequal development. Each should be assessed on its merits rather than accepted uncritically or dismissed as a threat.
If properly designed, new provinces could bring government closer, improve regional representation and distribute hospitals, universities and public institutions more fairly. Development planning could better reflect local needs, while policing and disaster management could become more effective. New units could reduce the dominance of existing capitals, recognise cultural identities and make governments easier to hold accountable. Sharing authority can strengthen a federation. Concentrating it rarely does. Climate change adds urgency. Exposure to floods, droughts, glacial hazards and extreme heat varies sharply. Viable new provinces could plan adaptation, emergency responses and resilient infrastructure around local conditions.
International experience provides context, not a model to copy. India has 28 states and eight union territories. It created Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand in 2000, followed by Telangana in 2014. Nigeria moved from three dominant regions to 36 states and now has 774 local government areas. Germany has 16 federal states for roughly 83.5m people, the United States has 50 for about 341.8m, and Brazil has 26 states and one federal district. These examples show that internal boundaries can change and that four provinces are not the only workable arrangement for a federation of Pakistan’s size. Why has political agreement remained so difficult? Party interests largely explain it. PML-N risks losing influence in Punjab. The PPP supports South Punjab but strongly opposes dividing Sindh. PTI promised South Punjab and presented a constitutional bill in 2022, but failed to carry it through or secure a workable settlement. The ANP and some regional parties have reservations about a Hazara province. MQM-P supports additional provinces, particularly greater autonomy for urban Sindh.
The pattern is clear. Parties support new provinces where they expect electoral gains and oppose them where their influence may weaken. Behind their positions are constituencies, NFC shares, water, natural resources, employment quotas, Senate representation, development funds and patronage networks. Principles often become flexible when control over resources and votes is at stake. The Constitution deliberately makes the process difficult. Article 239 requires a constitutional amendment supported by two thirds of the total membership of both houses of Parliament. If provincial boundaries are changed, two thirds of the total membership of the affected provincial assembly must also approve. Reorganisation therefore requires broad political agreement and cannot be imposed through an executive decision. The strongest objection is that new provinces could add governors, chief ministers, assemblies, ministries and secretariats without improving ordinary lives. That risk is real, but reflects poor design rather than reorganisation. New units need lean administrations, transparent budgets, credible financial viability tests and firm limits on cabinet size. New provinces are not a substitute for empowered local governments. The reforms are complementary. Provincial reorganisation can improve regional administration and representation, while elected and adequately funded local governments must deliver municipal and community services.
The issue cannot be settled through speeches, campaign promises or partisan maps. Pakistan needs an independent national commission of constitutional experts, economists, demographers, geographers and representatives of affected regions. It should assess each proposal according to population, geography, accessibility, economic viability, identity, resources, infrastructure and public consent. Public hearings, published feasibility studies, parliamentary negotiations and, where appropriate, regional referendums should follow. The present debate must lead to a structured constitutional process, not another campaign slogan that disappears once the votes have been counted. Pakistan does not need more provinces to divide its people. It needs them to divide power, reduce administrative distance and make the federation work for its citizens.
—The writer is a young activist who comes from Islamabad and now lives in Dubai.
