Dismissing new provinces as an “administrative response to political problems” ignores the scale of Pakistan’s governance challenges. A recent article by a journalist in a renowned newspaper has once again dismissed the idea of creating new provinces in Pakistan as little more than a political plan – administrative band-aids applied to deep political wounds. While such skepticism is not new, it is misplaced.
The debate over new provinces is not a distraction from governance reform; it is at the very heart of it. The article points to Article 239 of the Constitution as proof that redrawing provincial boundaries is nearly impossible. This perspective twists the essence of the law. Article 239 does not block change; it provides a clear path to it. Yes, a two-thirds majority in Parliament (both the Senate and the National Assembly) and in the concerned provincial assembly is required.
Consensus-building is the very essence of democracy.
But consensus-building is the very essence of democracy. The 25th Amendment in 2018, which successfully merged FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is living proof that such constitutional mechanisms work when backed by political will. Such narratives push public concerns to the background and politicize matters that deserve serious attention, creating unnecessary divisions.
Punjab alone, with a population exceeding 110 million, is larger than most countries. To expect one provincial government to equitably manage such a vast and diverse population is unrealistic. The push for a Siraiki province reflects long-standing grievances of underdevelopment and marginalization under Lahore-focused politics. Similarly, Hazara’s call for a separate province stems from long-standing frustrations with marginalization.
These demands are grounded in genuine grievances over resource allocation, development priorities, and representation. Critics argue that dividing provinces, particularly Balochistan and Sindh, could inflame nationalist sentiment. This concern is valid, but history shows that accommodating identity through institutional recognition can stabilize rather than destabilize the federation.
The 18th Amendment, once feared as a threat to unity, practically strengthened the federation by devolving power and giving regions a greater stake in governance. Creating smaller provinces would bridge the gap by bringing governance closer to citizens, minimizing travel, streamlining bureaucracy, and enhancing efficiency.
Some argue that Sindh is more than an administrative unit; it is a homeland, and therefore indivisible. That emotional connection is real, but it is hardly unique to Sindh. Moreover, proposals such as carving out Karachi or South Sindh are not an attack on Sindhi identity; they are attempts to deal with the governance challenges of one of the world’s largest megacities, whose needs are very different from rural Sindh.
The greatest danger lies not in creating new provinces but in ignoring the demands for them. For citizens of southern Punjab, Hazara, or Karachi, the cost of doing nothing is far higher than the risks of reform. To dismiss their calls as political theatrics is to overlook decades of neglect and to deepen the very mistrust that critics say they want to avoid.
Around the world, no single province holds more than 25% of a country’s population. In Pakistan, however, Punjab alone accommodates 56%, while Balochistan makes up barely 5%. The creation of new provinces in Pakistan is no longer a theoretical discussion; it has become a practical necessity amid rapid population growth, governance failures, and regional disparities. Yes, the challenges of ethnicity, resources, and political consensus are real – but ignoring them will only fuel frustration and alienation in already neglected areas. If implemented responsibly, new provinces can strengthen the federation, foster unity, and bring governance closer to the people. If mishandled, however, they risk deepening divisions in an already fragile society.
New provinces are not a cure-all. They will not by themselves eliminate corruption or mismanagement. But they can provide the structural framework for better governance, fairer distribution of resources, and more meaningful representation. Federalism fails not because of diversity, but because of the refusal to embrace and empower it. The real choice before Pakistan is clear: treat this as another hollow slogan, or embrace it as a serious reform for a stronger, more equitable future.
Refusing to innovate administratively has already cost Pakistan decades of opportunity. Critics see the demand for new provinces as another false promise. In reality, it presents an opportunity to redesign Pakistan’s governance model to address the evolving challenges of the 21st century. Caution is the disguise; complacency is the reality. Marginalized regions deserve structural solutions, not lectures on the impossibility of politics.
The writer can be reached at hamnaobaidkhokher @gmail.com