Going back to the passionate yet pragmatic speeches of Quaid-e-Azam, one may safely conclude that the nation’s architect was well aware of the deleterious effects of provincialism. He had termed–as early as 1948–the disease as “a tool in the hands of enemies of Pakistan” to disrupt the state “by creating a split” within. While many may recall provincial autonomy as a cornerstone of the Pakistan Resolution, it was not a clear-cut, final framework for the new state. Rather, a part of an evolutionary process that had begun well before (to settle the Hindu-Muslim question)! Ergo, Mr Zardari and his party’s iron-fisted determination to keep the devolution of powers intact can best be described as a flawed interpretation of history. Of course, no one would willingly play into any subordination of the larger state interests to carry out local agendas. This would be suicidal to its core. No matter how progressive–even revolutionary–the 18th amendment may sound on paper, time has proven it to be nothing but retrogression for the economy, national politics and society. There is literally nothing wrong with devolution, but such a bold measure is akin to burning all bridges. And like it or not, Pakistan cannot survive even a day without its bridges. We should have taken heed from the Yugoslav state that was dragged to its disintegration–thanks to senseless devolution. Writing closer to home, there is utter confusion prevailing all across the country post-decentralisation. Pakistan Economy Watch CHairman Muhammad Aslam Khan summed the conundrum up best: “It has divided the taxation system in an unnatural way hampering documentation of the economy; helping the undocumented economy and increasing the cost of doing business for the business community.” The provinces were simply not ready to shoulder the enormous pressure of work. Having not inherited established systems, their administrations were nothing more than sitting ducks when it came to running key portfolios (health, education and food security). The units are more than happy to enjoy autonomy and resources but still expect the centre to share most of the burden. More recently, the pandemic has spelt the lack of consistency between the centre and the provinces in bold letters. The well-orchestrated coordination pursued to tackle prior emergencies (2005 earthquake, catastrophic 2007 floods and Operation Zarb-e-Azb) could not now be put on display despite Islamabad’s noble intentions. It would be unfair to castigate the present government for “fuelling the fire” of dissent. The debate was just as raging 11 years earlier when the then president, Asif Zardari, had signed the landmark bill. Even then, a sizeable body held the opinion that the pendulum was swinging a little too far from the centre. There was an outcry that such a convoluted system would practically impair the state from smoothly running its affairs. There is no denying the bold initiative taken by Mr Zardari of voluntarily surrendering his powers for the sake of the bigger picture. However, shouldn’t he too realise that this bill was a part of a badly-needed maturing of our political process? Like it or not, the 18th amendment is a reality. It would be next-to-impossible for any lobbying to convince the provinces for a reversal in the status quo. But taking stock of what this historic change has and has not been able to achieve is just as crucial. Launching defamatory campaigns is a walk in the park. The back-breaking work needed to rewrite the dark patches in the constitution is another story altogether. *