At the recent Indus Conclave hosted by the Punjab Group, a panel on governance reforms revived an idea Pakistan has long ignored: the creation of smaller administrative units. Among the panellists was Miftah Ismail, former finance minister of Pakistan, who spoke candidly about the country’s declining ranking in the Human Development Index and its poor performance on the Sustainable Development Goals. He argued that Pakistan’s persistent governance failures in education, health and poverty alleviation stem from an over-centralised administrative structure where decision-making remains distant from citizens.
Miftah Ismail emphasised that Pakistan cannot hope to improve its human development indicators without empowering local institutions and devolving real authority. He pointed out that large provinces with vast populations and unequal resource distribution make it nearly impossible to design and implement effective public policies. His call for decentralisation echoed a proposal long championed by Mian Amer Mehmood, former mayor of Lahore, who has consistently advocated the creation of smaller provinces as a pathway to more efficient governance.
Mian Amer’s vision of thirty-three provinces, though ambitious, rests on a simple logic: Punjab, with over 120 million residents, is far too large and diverse to be governed effectively from a single capital. The same holds true, in varying degrees, for Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Miftah’s economic argument and Mian Amer’s administrative vision converge on a single truth: Pakistan’s unwieldy provinces are choking governance, stifling representation and obstructing development.
This is not a new realisation. Under General Pervez Musharraf’s devolution plan, local governments were empowered to oversee education, health and municipal services. For a brief period, it seemed that Pakistan was finally moving towards people-centred governance. Yet the experiment soon faltered as provinces withheld funds, delayed elections and reclaimed control. The failure was not of the idea itself but of its incomplete execution. Structural reforms without financial autonomy and political will are destined to fail.
Global experience reinforces this conclusion. India reorganised its states along linguistic and administrative lines, creating Haryana out of Punjab and Telangana out of Andhra Pradesh. Both new states demonstrate the benefits of focused governance and responsive leadership. Nigeria created new states to balance ethnic and regional tensions, which helped stabilise its complex federation. Ethiopia recognised ethnic federalism to give diverse groups a political voice, though its challenges offer cautionary lessons as well. And Bangladesh stands as a historic reminder of what happens when a population feels denied representation and economic justice. In each case, smaller and more locally attuned units improved service delivery and diffused grievances that oversized regions could not manage.
The idea of smaller provinces is therefore not about dividing Pakistan; it is about reuniting it through fairness, representation and proximity of power
Opponents of new provinces argue that such a move would fuel ethnic division and inflate administrative costs. These criticisms sound reasonable, but they ignore the fact that Pakistan’s current setup is already failing. Punjab’s size has generated resentment among South Punjabis who feel economically and culturally sidelined. Balochistan remains politically marginalised and underdeveloped despite its vast resources. The merger of tribal districts with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa still struggles to deliver integration and basic services. These are not potential dangers of division; they are the real costs of inaction under the existing arrangement.
The concern over increased administrative expense is also overstated. Governance is not about maintaining large bureaucracies; it is about ensuring citizens receive essential services. Smaller provinces with their own assemblies and accountable institutions can bring government closer to the people, make decision-making more immediate and transparent, and reduce waste caused by centralised mismanagement. They also foster healthy political competition, allowing leadership to emerge from outside entrenched dynasties that dominate provincial politics today. The long-term dividends of inclusion and stability will far outweigh the short-term costs of reorganisation.
Another valid concern is that political elites might exploit the creation of new provinces for personal or partisan gain. Such risks cannot be denied, but they should be managed through institutional safeguards rather than used as an excuse to avoid reform. Transparent criteria for new province formation, judicial oversight and independent election commissions can ensure that the process strengthens democracy rather than distorts it. To reject reform because it may be misused is to surrender progress to fear.
The idea of smaller provinces is therefore not about dividing Pakistan; it is about reuniting it through fairness, representation and proximity of power. It envisions a federation where citizens are partners, not subjects; where decisions are made within reach of those affected; and where governance becomes a lived reality rather than a distant promise.
As Miftah Ismail rightly noted, Pakistan’s struggle to improve its human development and sustainability performance is not due to a lack of ideas, but rather a lack of delivery. Creating smaller, more responsive provinces can rebuild that delivery mechanism by aligning authority with accountability. It can give Pakistan a governance model suited to its demographic realities, cultural diversity and economic challenges.
In this context, Mian Amer Mehmood’s long-standing proposal for smaller provinces seems to be resonating strongly with academia, students, the intelligentsia and the public at large. If adopted by political parties as part of their reform agenda, it could strengthen their earlier promises to establish more provinces and transform them into a national movement for equitable governance. The time to act is now. Pakistan’s economic stagnation, political polarisation and public frustration all point to a single truth: our provincial model has outlived its utility. Reforming administrative structures will not solve every national problem, but it is the necessary foundation for meaningful change. The Indus Conclave reignited that conversation with clarity and conviction. It is now up to policymakers and citizens to carry it forward, ensuring that Pakistan evolves into a truly inclusive, efficient and service-oriented federation.