ISLAMABAD: Once again, Pakistan finds itself debating the redrawing of its internal map. Reports suggesting that a proposed 28th Constitutional Amendment may pave the way for the creation of multiple new provinces have reignited a long-standing national conversation one that sits at the uneasy intersection of governance, identity and federal balance.
According to the proposal under discussion, Punjab may be divided into West Punjab, South Punjab, Bahawalpur and Potohar; Sindh into Karachi/Lower Sindh, Upper Sindh and Mehran; Balochistan into Balochistan and Makran; and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa into Khyber, South KP, Hazara and Kohistan. Islamabad, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir would continue as federal territories.
At face value, the argument is administrative efficiency. Pakistan’s provinces, particularly Punjab and Balochistan, are often described as too large and too diverse to be governed effectively from a single centre. Proponents claim that smaller administrative units could ensure better service delivery, more equitable development and greater political representation for historically neglected regions.
Yet history urges caution.
The demand for a separate South Punjab or Bahawalpur province is not new. It has featured prominently in election manifestos, only to fade once political objectives were achieved. If revived sincerely, such a move would significantly alter Punjab’s political weight within the federation an outcome that may explain both the appeal and the resistance surrounding the idea.
Sindh presents an even more delicate challenge. Any proposal that appears to divide the province along urban rural lines risks reopening deep political and ethnic sensitivities. Karachi’s complex governance issues are real, but whether administrative separation is the solution or merely a deflection from governance failures remains a contentious question.
Death toll rises to 5 in Karachi firecracker warehouse explosion
In Balochistan, the idea of creating a Makran province may be framed as decentralisation, but the province’s core problems have never been geographical. Political alienation, resource control and trust deficits with the centre cannot be resolved by cartography alone. Without addressing these fundamentals, new boundaries may only harden existing grievances.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s proposed division touches similarly sensitive ground. The Hazara movement has long argued for provincial status, and southern districts have voiced persistent complaints of neglect. Still, fragmentation without a clear fiscal and administrative framework could strain already limited provincial resources.
Equally telling is what remains unchanged. Gilgit-Baltistan’s constitutional status continues to linger in ambiguity, once again excluded from substantive reform despite repeated assurances. If constitutional restructuring is truly on the table, selective inclusion raises uncomfortable questions.
Pakistan’s experience suggests that administrative reforms succeed only when they are built on broad political consensus and public trust. The creation of new provinces is not inherently destabilising but when driven by short-term political calculations or imposed without consultation, it can deepen divisions rather than resolve them.
Ultimately, the debate over new provinces is less about lines on a map and more about the quality of governance within those lines. Without reforms in fiscal federalism, local government empowerment and accountability, new provinces risk becoming new centres of the same old problems.
The question, therefore, is not whether Pakistan needs administrative reform it undoubtedly does. The real question is whether this moment will be used to strengthen the federation through inclusion and consensus, or whether it will add another unresolved chapter to an already fragile federal story.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.