The debate over creating new provinces in Pakistan resurfaces whenever governance falters or regional grievances intensify. The recent debates have arisen and spurred the debate among all stakeholders on the time when Pakistan is being buffeted by terrorism, natural calamities, including floods across Pakistan, and the economy has just started to breathe.
The supporters of creating more provinces are of the view that smaller provinces will improve governance, lessen ethnic and linguistic tensions, and eventually lead to more inclusivity and economic growth. In support of their argument, they cite the Indian example, which at the time of independence had 17 provinces and 500 princely states, but after numerous reconfigurations, now have 28 states and 8 union territories.
But the critics are of the opinion that it can ignite more divisions, fuel identity politics, and burden an already nervy fiscal system. To chart a path towards more provinces, Pakistan can draw learn from the Indian experience, but it must be viewed in the context of the time, legal and constitutional procedures, and the political evolution that shapes its current federal model.
When it comes to federalism and the creation of new provinces, India and Pakistan share a common colonial legacy but have taken strikingly different paths. The State Reorganization Act of 1956 was a pivotal Indian law which reshaped Indian internal boundaries by creating more states with the objective to address linguistic demands, augmenting identity, and improve governance.
The India is not a federation and article one of the constitution refer India as “Union of States” which means India is a union made of many states that are equally important. Whereas Pakistan is federal republic as embedded in the 1973 constitution and the 18th amendment in 2010 solidifies its identity as decentralized federation with substantial power vested in its provinces.
India has created multiple new states for mainly two reasons, first along linguistic lines (1956 reorganization) and later by carving out smaller administrative units like Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh. The changes in the boundaries did not weaken the union instead the creation of new provinces acted as a mechanism to integrate dissent voices and stabilize the federation without ceding real fiscal or legislative autonomy.
The lessons for Pakistan from Indian experience include:
- Provincial creation alone will not guarantee better governance if fiscal and legislative powers remain centralized.
- Diversity is not enough to demand decentralization; institutions and constitutional design shape the outcome.
- New provinces can strengthen unity rather than fragment it, if designed as tools of inclusion and efficient administration rather than as spoils of political bargaining.
Creating new provinces in Pakistan faces three entrenched challenges: constitutional, financial, and administrative.
Constitutionally: The process is highly deterring, as per article 239 it requires a two third majority in both houses (Senate and National assembly) and the unequivocal consent of the concerned provincial assembly. This gives the provinces operating veto power, making reorganization a deeply politicized affair. In contrast, the Constitution of India is rigid but at the same time flexible which can be amended according to the growing demands and changing required. The article 2 and 3 of Indian constitution allows Parliament to create, merge or alter stats without concerned state assembly consent which is biding in case of Pakistan. These two articles pertain to the formation of new states and allow the Union to ménage regional demand with more malleably
Financially: The NFC award, which is the revenue sharing framework between the federal government and provinces, poses a major stumbling block. The existing provinces might fear of losing their current fiscal share while potential new provinces often lack the capacity to generate adequate revenue. Without comprehensive revenue sharing reforms, new provinces may deepen inequalities rather than resolve it. The examples are Indian newly created states, such as Jharakand, Chhattisgarh, and Uttarakhand get support by the Indian strong central fiscal mechanism to redistribute resources and financial support.
Administratively: To set up new Provinces, Pakistan has limited bureaucratic and institutional capacity, including capitals, administrative infrastructures, policing, and judicial framework, which are required to reorganize new boundaries. In terms of institutional framework, India has a robust institutional framework and even temporary shared capitals to avoid immediate political conflicts. Where India used state reorganization as a mechanism to absorb dissent and strengthen the federation, Pakistan risks inflaming division if reforms remain ad hoc and politically driven.
Creating new Provinces could be an opportunity, only if pursued with foresight. Any step taken in haste in this direction or purely for political motivation it risks becoming just another layer of central control dressed in the language of devolution. This will only replicate the Pakistan’s failed experience of truly realizing the potential of the local government system, which was envisioned to ensure devolution and good governance.
The lessons from our neighbor show that creating new provinces can strengthen federation but only if it is paired with legal and constitutional safeguards, fiscal reforms, and a see-through process that address local aspiration rather than fuels them
Associate Professor/ Head of the Department at the School of Integrated Social Sciences, University of Lahore.
