Written By Sana Nazir
Pakistan’s provincial map has remained largely unchanged since 1971, even though the country itself has changed dramatically. Its population has increased from about 65 million in 1972 to around 241.5 million according to the 2023 census. Cities have expanded, new economic centers have emerged, and the differences between regions have become much more visible. The question, therefore, is quite simple that whether four provincial governments effectively manage a country of this size and population or not. The answer to that is pretty simple that it is hard for such vast area to be handled by few from afar. But redrawing the provincial map should be seen as an attempt to bring government closer to the people rather than an attempt to divide Pakistan. Pakistan can remain one country while having more provinces, just as many other large and diverse countries have developed different forms of internal administration over time.
The population figures alone show why this debate deserves serious attention. Punjab has a population of about 127.7 million, Sindh about 55.7 million, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa about 40.9 million and Balochistan about 14.9 million. Punjab alone has a population larger than that of many countries. At the same time, Balochistan covers a very large geographical area but has a much smaller and widely dispersed population. Expecting the same administrative structure to respond equally well to such different circumstances is difficult. The problem becomes more obvious when we look within the provinces themselves. Major cities naturally attract investment, infrastructure and political attention while remote districts can remain far from provincial decision-making. In a large province, people living hundreds of kilometres away from the provincial capital may have limited influence over decisions that directly affect their daily lives. Creating smaller provinces could reduce this administrative distance and allow governments to focus more closely on the needs of people. This does not mean that creating a province automatically solves poverty or underdevelopment. A new provincial boundary cannot build a hospital, create a university or provide employment by itself. What it can do is create a government structure that is closer and more directly accountable to the people it serves. A smaller administration would have fewer districts and communities competing for its attention. Local politicians would also have greater pressure to demonstrate actual performance because their electorate would be more concentrated.
This is particularly important for regions that have repeatedly complained of political and administrative neglect. Southern Punjab is one example. The region has a large population, important agricultural activity and several major cities, yet its development needs are often discussed in relation to the much larger Punjab province as a whole. Balochistan presents an even stronger case for reconsidering the existing structure. It is Pakistan’s largest province by area and possesses significant natural resources, but many of its districts continue to face serious development challenges. This enormous geographical spread makes administration from a single provincial centre particularly difficult. The same principle applies to other neglected areas of the country i.e., Interior Sindh, Buner, and Kohistan of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc. If existing structures have struggled to provide effective governance, Pakistan should be willing to examine whether a different administrative arrangement could improve access to government and public services.
There is also no convincing reason to assume that creating new provinces would necessarily weaken national unity. India, for example, has repeatedly reorganized its internal administrative boundaries and today has 28 states and eight union territories. The United States expanded from its original thirteen states to fifty, while Nigeria reorganized its original regional structure into 36 states. These examples do not prove that Pakistan should copy their systems, but they do demonstrate that changing internal boundaries does not automatically mean breaking up a country.
The important distinction is between political fragmentation and administrative decentralization. It can also encourage the emergence of new political leadership. At present, political power is heavily concentrated around established provincial centres and major political families. Smaller provinces could create opportunities for leaders from previously neglected regions to emerge. There could also be economic advantages. A new provincial capital would require government offices, universities, hospitals, courts, businesses, roads and other infrastructure. It can stimulate economic activity in areas that currently depend heavily on larger cities. Most importantly, decentralization can make resources more relevant to local needs. A region with a predominantly agricultural economy may need irrigation, storage facilities and agricultural industries, while a mountainous region may require roads, tourism infrastructure and connectivity. Moreover, the security situation of smaller area can be managed easily compared to the larger areas with lesser security officials. A smaller province would be in a better position to design policies around these specific requirements rather than applying broad provincial policies to very different regions. Keeping all these in mind, boundary-making should therefore be based on population, geography, economic viability, administrative accessibility and the preferences of the affected communities rather than political convenience. If implemented carefully, provincial restructuring could strengthen the federation by making its institutions more responsive to the people.
