LEWIS Carroll set a daunting bar in Through the Looking-Glass: one must run to stay in the same place; to get somewhere one must run twice as fast. How far will our one step forward, two steps back gait take us then? Nations once behind us now run twice as fast to perform 21st-century miracles; our rulers still plod after 19th-century mirages.
The mirage now being sold to end misrule to entice a nation sick of it is creating many provinces. What they will fix is unclear: low growth or poor services? I dug deep into global research to test this idea but got a blunt rebuke from reform sages: more provinces fix neither; adopt sound policies for growth; devolve, not divide, for better public services. But our rulers avoid such steps. Provinces must ideally focus on policy and large projects; however, ours also control local services. Division will create new patronage layers and fragment policy across small areas; it will keep services poor. Devolving power and purse locally will ensure better services and policy coherence. If research evoked rebuke, global practice evokes alarm. The bottom 15 states on the Fragile States Index average five times more first-tier units than us but have populations only one-fifth of ours. Many created new units in one go. Yet, they are the most fragile and misruled states. Needless division may multiply misrule.
Provinces created politically for federal balance and ethnic equity make sense if viable. Punjab comprises over half the federation. The Baloch who form around six per cent of the population have a province; the Seraiki-speaking people, numbering nearly three times as many, do not. A Seraiki unit would improve balance, cutting Punjab’s share to about one-third and being about as big as KP itself.
In terms of development, reports rank Seraiki districts far behind Punjab’s dominant ones. But the main minority districts are at par with majority ones in Balochistan and far ahead in Sindh and KP. They would contain nearly 40 million people, big cities like Multan and Bahawalpur, a large agrarian base and be strategically located. A rough review of the net fiscal impact of its NFC share, provincial revenues and Punjab funds lost reveals a small surplus. So, it meets all three tests prima facie. But those based on other minority demands or administrative logic may fail at least two.
What more provinces will fix is unclear.
New provinces require two-thirds votes in parliament and the provincial assembly. A referendum can’t override the Constitution. This makes Sindh’s division hardest given its valid political, fiscal and historical concerns. Bulldozing it via rigged referendums and pliant courts may backfire as, unlike other smaller units, it straddles key trade routes. It rightly said no to the Kalabagh dam and canals project; both remain stalled. The Sindhi-speaking population especially are likely to resist any division. Karachi has huge issues but paradoxical rankings — near-bottom globally among cities; near-top nationally among districts. It exhibits relative individual prosperity and collective adversity. Strong local bodies nationwide will benefit everyone.
An Islamabad province would fail at least two tests as a rich region with under 1pc of our population. National capitals globally are usually not made full provinces, more so small ones. Also, a province is just the first step in ensuring equity. So, it is not an ethnicity demanding a province but one that already has one — the Baloch — that is the most aggrieved. Another huge risk is low state capacity for such big changes, evident even in the much simpler Fata merger. New units may emerge on paper but lack capacity, especially in militancy-hit regions where terrorists may exploit the void. Lastly, this set-up’s debatable mandate and hybrid status make such changes contentious.
Why do our rulers avoid such systematic analysis and the right policies and sell us only dodgy ideas? Has any set-up ever presented rational policies for public debate, and adopted and implemented them? Only the 18th Amendment and the 1973 Constitution come to mind, both with significant provisos. Nations using top analysts to devise smart policies zoom ahead; we use glib pundits to peddle controversial ideas, and are left trailing behind. Our misrule stems from foundational gaps: lack of legitimate and empowered set-ups. But those blocking them distract us with banal design fixes. Dividing provinces smacks of colonial divide-and-rule ploys. The 26th and 27th Amendments undercut the horizontal balance of power in their favour. A new one may now do so vertically.
The writer has a PhD degree in political economy from the University of California, Berkeley, and 25 years of grassroots to senior-level experience across 50 countries.
X: @NiazMurtaza2
Published in Dawn, September 15th, 2026
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!