The provincial furor

An observation by a federal minister at an economic summit that the “system has collapsed” ignited a bomb that had been resting peacefully diffused for the longest time. The last reorganization of states and provinces in Pakistan took place between 1969 and 1970. Since then, many such demands have been made, but they were brushed aside, and the call was viewed with suspicion. The general consensus was that any further fragmentation could lead to the weakening of the federation—a foolish thought that unfortunately remained a guiding principle. The furor and clamor the remark generated oscillates between “good reasoning” and a highly “emotional, yet devoid of logic” opposition to the concept of redrawing the map of Pakistan. We have before us, as part of history, how the Indians tackled a similar issue. They splintered their country with no fears or inhibitions that the Union of India would be at stake, or worse, on the pyre of disintegration. Nehru was confident enough to go ahead with the creation of new states and provinces. In 1947, at the time of the partition and the creation of Pakistan and India, the latter had only nine provinces and a little over 560 princely states ruled by maharajas and kings. These princely states were autonomous and independent. Vallabhbhai Patel, India’s first deputy prime minister and home minister, integrated these states through coercion and power. Between 1947 and 1950, the princely states were given the choice of which dominion to join. Hyderabad, which was then as large as modern-day France, attempted to remain independent, as did Kashmir and Junagadh. However, the wily Patel absorbed them either through aggressive negotiations or at the barrel of a gun. Hyderabad was annexed just 17 days after the Quaid passed away, while Kashmir continues to be a flashpoint between Pakistan and India. The first reorganization of states by India was executed through an Act of Parliament, creating 14 states and 6 Union Territories that were directly ruled by New Delhi. Today, India comprises 28 states and 8 Union territories. While the initial divisions were made on a linguistic basis, subsequent major changes were driven by ethnicity. It would have been best to decide on both bases. In 1953, Andhra Pradesh was carved out of the Madras State in the south; Madras spoke Tamil, while Andhra Pradesh spoke Telugu. Later, Haryana was carved out of Punjab for the Hindi-speaking population, leaving Punjab for the Punjabi-speaking population. In the 1970s, seven states were created in the northeast. In the early 2000s, three new states were carved out of Uttar Pradesh (UP), Madhya Pradesh (MP), and Bihar. In 2014, Telangana was created, with Hyderabad remaining their common capital for the next ten years. Thus, a clear model exists to study. In 1947, Pakistan comprised 5 provinces and 13 princely states. In 1955, Prime Minister Muhammad Ali Bogra—by an act of Parliament assented to by Governor-General Iskander Mirza—dissolved the four provinces of West Pakistan into the “One Unit” scheme. The country had two flanks: East Pakistan and West Pakistan. This arrangement lasted until 1970 when the Chief Martial Law Administrator, President Yahya Khan, restored the provinces on July 1, 1970, under the Legal Framework Order (LFO). This decision served as a prelude to the 1970 elections, and Pakistan stood dismembered in 1971. Since then, we have not revisited the issue of provincial restructuring. Pakistan’s population today is teasingly close to 250 million, and it is growing at a breakneck speed. While regional birth rates have fallen to 1% or less, we are still proudly flaunting our abilities with a growth rate of 1. 6%. The combined population of Germany, Austria, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland is about 200 million. With Pakistan’s population at 250 million, it is not a rebellious thought to pursue the creation of more provinces to effectively cater to the needs of the common citizen. This demand is not political blasphemy; it is a political, social, and economic imperative. The general belief is that smaller administrative units would grant people greater representation to seek solutions to their problems. Recently, Shabbar Zaidi, the former FBR Chairman, explained the concept of “Taxation by Representation” to us, and the idea holds water. The noise and frenzy of support and opposition to the creation of new provinces is, again, not out of step with a democratic attitude, which requires properly evaluating the pros and cons of pushing such an ambition. From the extreme positions taken, all parties will have to arrive at a midpoint through negotiations. These negotiations and debates must take place on the floor of the Parliament, however misrepresentative it may currently be, so that a voice is given to all. No single party or duo should use veto power acquired through parliamentary numbers; otherwise, the debate will remain a non-starter. The nation must step out of the coercive inertia of inaction. The cocoon of the status quo must burst now to give birth to options that are relevant to existing realities. Change is inevitable, but for change to happen here, it requires a decisive mind. Currently, more confusion surrounds the subject due to differing signals coming from various federal ministers; while one says a blueprint is in the making for 15 or more provinces, another claims it is a premature idea that is not even on the table for discussion. The detractors of this idea of redrawing provinces say that this is just a humbug—a smokescreen to mask the problems that the country is beset with. The maintenance of the status quo favors those who are ably equipped to exploit the current system. The devolution of power to the people brings greater scrutiny of public office holders and, consequently, accountability for their actions. Those who dislike accountability and vehemently shun it will obviously favor the continuation of the malaise. The question that must be answered is whether the creation of new provinces or administrative units will naturally lead to better governance. In the view of this scribe, the answer is no. Unless there are structures in place that balance authority and responsibility, no good governance will follow. In the absence of a culture of accountability, the move may actually lead to more vexatious corruption, unbridled nepotism, and uninhibited favoritism. In fact, the opponents of the concept use taunt and sarcasm to suggest that if we have a very high ranking on the corruption index with only four or five provinces, wouldn’t more of them lead to greater harm? Such a reaction is an obvious attempt to distract. Regardless of such diverse positions, the need for empowered administrative units or provinces is imperative. However, this creation must not be based on whimsical thinking. At the time of drawing maps for the partition of India, Sir Cyril Radcliffe—who was not a cartographer and had a limited sense of geography and history—gave the city of Lahore to India and Amritsar to Pakistan in his first brush. Upon an uproar of dissent, he swapped the cities. He was selected to perform this surgical geography because he knew nothing about the subcontinent, and it was therefore believed he would remain neutral. A barrister by education and training, it is no wonder he left behind surgical scars. In an interview with the celebrated journalist Kuldip Nayar, he remarked, “I nearly gave you Lahore, but since Calcutta was marked for India, I thought Pakistan must have at least one large city. ” We cannot afford a Radcliffe to do this for us. The whole concept must be evaluated threadbare; if it takes time, so be it. China, for instance, negotiated in 1982 or 1983 for the restoration of Hong Kong to the mainland on July 1, 1997—after a gap of 14 to 15 years. Let us do this job with sincere focus and not allow ourselves to be pushed by an early timeline. The process must represent the will of the people and not be achieved through a mere “notification. ” One Unit was formed and undone by the stroke of a pen. The nation’s think tanks must work unceasingly to design the reconstruction of provinces. This requires serious deliberation among stakeholders. The need, as stated, is imperative; how many provinces are needed and when they must be chalked out depends on our growing needs. The country’s geography needs a reset. Consequently, the subject of the country’s financial capital emerges as a vital item of discussion—and rightly so. Being the hub of commercial activities and the financial capital, the city of Karachi is cracking at its seams due to inattention, mismanagement, and neglect, which is not necessarily deliberate. Even with questionable census results, the growing population of Karachi is pushing it to its limits. The sheer size and magnitude of this cosmopolitan megapolis today demands self-governance. If China can have a Shanghai and India a Mumbai, why should we hesitate to grant administrative authority to the locals? It will eventually happen, but for now, we must ensure the solid backing of the highest standards of discipline. The Chinese and Indians took bold steps and created several new provinces. What we seriously lack is the institutionalization of compliance within a given framework. Every citizen must understand the importance of self-accountability. This mindset leads to accepting responsibility for choices made between alternatives, owning the outcomes of decisions, and having the fearless attitude to accept the wrongs done. An admission of a lack of compliance will usher in the best practices of conducting state business. Politicians who inherit bricks but leave behind marble are the only ones remembered by history. Karachi was once the Paris of South Asia, but it has been ravaged by inattention to become a ruin. Let’s react and regain the lost glory of Karachi and Pakistan. Let’s not reduce this debate to a contest for a comb between two bald men. Let’s not persist in governing with so little wisdom. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Read full story on Business Recorder