Barrister Usman Ali, Ph.D.
Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi has revived a national debate over whether Pakistan needs more provinces. Speaking at the Pakistan Economic Summit in Islamabad on July 30, 2026, he said the country’s governance system had “collapsed” and could no longer meet the needs of its growing population. He called for political consensus on creating smaller administrative units or provinces, arguing that decentralisation could bring government closer to citizens, improve public services and help local industries overcome bureaucratic obstacles.
His remarks drew mixed reactions, with supporters citing inequality and critics demanding consensus, safeguards and public consultation.
Pakistan’s population is estimated at 259.3 million in 2026, yet it has four constitutional provinces: Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir are administered separately because of their distinct status.
This structure has changed little despite population growth and demands for representation. Residents of South Punjab, interior Sindh, Hazara, the former tribal districts and remote Balochistan often complain that provincial capitals are distant and development is concentrated in major cities.
International experience shows that smaller units can improve representation, but may also create costly bureaucracies and weak governments.
India offers the closest comparison. In 2000, it created Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand from larger states, with sharply different results.
Uttarakhand is generally regarded as the strongest success. Statehood gave its mountainous districts an administration more focused on roads, tourism, infrastructure and local geography.
Chhattisgarh achieved mixed results. A separate government improved administrative focus, but poverty, tribal displacement and armed conflict remained serious.
Jharkhand provides the clearest warning. Despite rich mineral resources, it suffered from instability, corruption and weak institutions. Frequent political changes undermined planning, while many residents gained little from its natural wealth. India shows that smaller units succeed only when institutions, leadership and planning are strong.
Telangana, separated from Andhra Pradesh in 2014, gained control over its budget and priorities after complaints of neglect. Yet it also inherited Hyderabad, a major business centre, so its progress cannot be credited to statehood alone.
Nigeria shows the dangers of excessive fragmentation. At independence, it had three large regions; today it has 36 states. Creating more states reduced regional dominance, improved minority representation and brought government closer to many communities.
The cost has been high. Many states raise little revenue and depend on federal oil transfers, while each requires a governor, assembly, ministries and bureaucracy. State creation expanded patronage and encouraged further division. Pakistan should avoid provinces that distribute offices rather than services.
Indonesia’s experience is similarly cautionary. After 1998, it created numerous provinces, districts and municipalities to decentralise power. Some neglected areas gained recognition, but rapid expansion also produced understaffed administrations, higher costs, corruption and weak coordination. New boundaries cannot substitute for administrative capacity.
Canada’s creation of Nunavut in 1999 gave its predominantly Inuit population greater representation and control over land, language and institutions. Yet housing shortages, food insecurity, high service costs and federal dependence remain. Political gains, therefore, do not guarantee rapid economic progress.
These examples show that neither large nor small provinces are automatically better. Large provinces benefit from stronger revenue bases, established institutions and economies of scale. Very large provinces, however, can become remote and centralised, with development concentrated around the capital.
Smaller provinces can bring government closer to citizens and improve representation, but may also increase costs, create new elites and intensify disputes over capitals, water, jobs and resources.
Pakistan should avoid both extremes. Four provinces are increasingly difficult to justify, but dozens of weak units would be equally damaging.
A gradual move towards seven or eight economically viable provinces deserves serious consideration. South Punjab is the most obvious candidate, while Hazara and other proposals should be assessed through evidence, consultation and economic analysis rather than electoral calculations.
Any new province should have sufficient population, sustainable finances, workable boundaries and the capacity to provide education, healthcare, policing and infrastructure. Assets, debt, employees, water rights and natural resources must be divided transparently.
Minorities within every new province must receive constitutional protection. Provinces created solely along ethnic or linguistic lines may replace one form of domination with another.
An independent national commission should assess boundaries using population, geography, economic viability, cultural identity, transport links and public opinion. Political parties should not redraw the federation for short-term advantage.
Most importantly, creating provinces will achieve little unless power also moves below the provincial level. Provincial governments often demand autonomy from Islamabad while withholding authority and funds from municipalities and districts.
Good governance and credible accountability are equally essential. Corruption, patronage and land-grabbing mafias weaken institutions and divert public resources. New provinces would fail if these practices were reproduced in new capitals.
Strong local governments should be constitutionally protected and receive predictable shares of provincial revenue. Major cities also need empowered metropolitan governments.
Pakistan may benefit from a limited number of additional provinces, but changing the map is not enough. The aim should not be to create more governors, ministers and assemblies. It should be to bring government closer to citizens, distribute development more fairly and strengthen the federation. New provinces may be part of the solution, but accountable institutions, fiscal responsibility, effective local government and genuine democracy will matter far more than the number of lines drawn on Pakistan’s map.
