By Irtiza Kazmi
KARACHI: The debate over creating new provinces in Pakistan is more than a simple administrative discussion; it is a profound national conversation about identity, power, and resources. With a population exceeding 240 million, largely governed within the framework of four vast provinces established over a century ago, calls for reorganization are growing louder. This proposition, however, is a double-edged sword, evoking the ancient strategy of “divide and rule” and forcing the nation to weigh the benefits of administrative efficiency against the risks of further fragmentation.
The Case For: Administrative Efficiency and Empowerment Proponents argue that division is not about conquest but about good governance and empowerment. The current structure, they contend, is a colonial relic ill-suited for a modern state.
Improved Governance and Service Delivery: The primary argument is that smaller administrative units are inherently more manageable. A provincial government in, for example, a new “South Punjab” province would be physically and politically closer to its constituents. This proximity allows for more responsive governance, better oversight of local development projects, and more efficient delivery of education, healthcare, and infrastructure. The massive population of Punjab (over 120 million) makes it larger than most countries, presenting an almost impossible task for a single government in Lahore to address the unique needs of remote areas like Bahawalpur or Dera Ghazi Khan effectively.
Equitable Resource Distribution: A major grievance in larger provinces is the perceived concentration of resources and development in a few dominant regions. In Punjab, the southern region (Seraiki belt) has long complained of neglect, arguing that its water rights and economic potential are sidelined in favour of central and northern districts. Creating a new province would ensure that its annual budget and resources are allocated to and spent within its own territory, leading to more equitable and targeted development.
Addressing Grievances and Strengthening the Federation: Rather than weakening the country, devolving power to smaller provinces could strengthen national unity by addressing long-standing feelings of political and economic marginalization. By granting regions like South Punjab, Hazara, or the tribal areas greater control over their affairs, the central state can co-opt separatist sentiments and integrate these areas more fully into the federal framework. This follows a successful global model, as seen in India, which has created smaller states like Telangana and Uttarakhand to better address regional aspirations.
The Case Against: The Specter of “Divide and Rule” Opponents view the push for new provinces through a more cynical lens; warning of unintended consequences that could mirror the destructive legacy of the “divide and rule” strategy. 1. Risk of Ethnic and Sectarian Fragmentation: The most potent fear is that redrawing provincial boundaries along linguistic or cultural lines (e.g., Seraiki, Hindko, Pashtun) will institutionalize ethnic identities in a way that fuels separatism rather than quells it. Pakistan’s identity as a nation-state could be challenged if provinces are seen primarily as ethnic homelands. This could ignite dangerous internal rivalries over resources and political power between the new provinces, creating multiple smaller points of conflict instead of a few larger ones.
Political Motives and Lack of Consensus: The debate is often accused of being politically motivated. A party may champion the division of a rival’s political stronghold (e.g., dividing Punjab) while remaining silent on similar demands in a province where it holds power (e.g., Sindh). This selective advocacy erodes trust and suggests the move is less about good governance and more about breaking up electoral vote banks, a modern incarnation of “divide and rule” for political gain rather than colonial subjugation.
Massive Financial and Administrative Costs: Creating a new province is an enormously expensive undertaking. It requires a new provincial capital, a new assembly, a new high court bench, and a completely new layer of bureaucracy. The initial setup costs and ongoing administrative expenses would divert crucial funds from already strained public resources, raising the question of whether the financial burden is worth the potential administrative benefits.
Constitutional Hurdles and Political Instability: Amending the constitution to create a province requires a two-thirds majority in parliament and the consent of the concerned provincial assembly, a nearly impossible threshold in Pakistan’s fractured political landscape. The intense debate and lobbying alone could trigger a prolonged period of political instability, with various groups protesting either for or against division.
A Delicate Balance The question of new provinces in Pakistan pits the pragmatic need for effective governance against the existential need for national cohesion. It forces a critical examination: is this a genuine effort to empower people and improve their lives, or is it a politically charged manoeuvre that risks unleashing forces of division that could be hard to control?
The shadow of “divide and rule” looms large, serving as a cautionary tale against using identity politics as a tool for control. For any effort to succeed, it must be driven by a transparent, consensus-based process that prioritizes administrative logic over ethnic or political agendas. The goal should not be to divide, but to devolve, shifting power downward to create a more responsive, equitable, and ultimately stronger Pakistani federation. The path forward is narrow, requiring immense political wisdom to ensure that in solving one set of problems, the nation does not inadvertently create a host of new ones.
