Pakistan’s governance challenges have multiplied with its rising population, urbanisation, and widening social disparities. From Karachi to Khyber and Gwadar to Gilgit, citizens repeatedly express frustration at the inability of state institutions to deliver basic services efficiently. At the heart of this crisis lies an outdated administrative structure. With only four provinces and a handful of federally administered areas, Pakistan continues to govern more than 240 million people under a system designed for a fraction of this population. The idea of creating smaller provinces and administrative units, once considered politically sensitive, now appears not only logical but also necessary.
The demand for smaller units is not without precedent. Historically, administrative adjustments in South Asia have often been linked to governance needs. During British colonial rule, provinces were frequently carved out or reorganised—Bengal was partitioned in 1905, Sindh was separated from Bombay in 1936, and Baluchistan’s administrative status was modified several times. After independence, Pakistan itself went through territorial reorganisations: East Bengal became East Pakistan, West Pakistan was merged into the infamous One Unit scheme (1955–1970), and eventually, with the separation of East Pakistan in 1971, the country was reduced to the four provinces we know today.
The 1970s arrangement may have been workable for a population of 60–70 million, but with today’s fourfold increase, Pakistan’s provinces are too large to be efficiently governed. Punjab alone has over 127 million people—more than half of the national population. Running Punjab under a single provincial government not only overburdens its institutions but also fuels grievances in smaller regions such as South Punjab, Bahawalpur, and Potohar, which often feel neglected in development and representation. Similar patterns exist in Sindh, where Karachi’s urban governance issues are drowned under a provincial framework dominated by rural Sindh politics. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has faced difficulties absorbing the newly merged tribal districts, while Baluchistan, despite its vast territory, remains chronically under-served.
Across the world, smaller administrative units have proven more efficient in responding to people’s needs. India, with its federal structure, has continually carved out new states—Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand were created in 2000, Telangana in 2014. The argument in each case was the same: smaller states could deliver governance closer to the people, ensure equitable resource distribution, and reduce the dominance of one region over others. The results have largely been positive, with smaller states often outperforming larger ones in literacy, infrastructure, and social services. Similarly, Nigeria—another large, diverse country—expanded from three regions at independence to 36 states today, primarily to improve administrative efficiency and accommodate ethnic diversity.
The idea of smaller provinces is not a populist slogan but a rational response to a governance crisis
For Pakistan, the creation of smaller provinces or strong administrative units offers three major benefits. First, it would bring governance closer to the people. Citizens in Bahawalpur should not have to depend on Lahore for every decision, nor should residents of Gwadar wait on Quetta. Localised provincial governments could address education, health, policing, and development priorities more effectively. Second, it would reduce political alienation. Many smaller regions feel marginalised in the current structure, which breeds resentment and fuels ethnic and regional tensions. Decentralisation could strengthen national integration by giving people a stake in their own governance. Third, it could improve economic planning. Smaller units would compete to attract investment, improve infrastructure, and enhance human capital, leading to more balanced national development.
The argument for smaller units also intersects with the debate over local governments. Pakistan has experimented with devolution, most notably under General Musharraf’s devolution plan in 2001, but these initiatives were often rolled back by provincial elites wary of losing power. A combination of smaller provinces and empowered local governments would create a governance pyramid in which citizens are not distant subjects of remote capitals but active participants in local decision-making.
Of course, creating new provinces is politically sensitive. It requires constitutional amendments and consensus among political parties. Opponents argue that new provinces could encourage ethnic divisions or create administrative duplication. Yet these fears are overstated. The example of India shows that dividing states does not necessarily weaken the federation—rather, it strengthens it by accommodating diversity. In Pakistan, the demand for a South Punjab province, for instance, has persisted for decades. Ignoring such calls risks exacerbating feelings of neglect. Managed wisely, new provinces could be based on administrative logic rather than ethnic exclusivity.
Smaller administrative units also offer a practical solution to Pakistan’s urban crisis. Cities such as Lahore, Karachi, Faisalabad, and Peshawar are expanding uncontrollably, overwhelming provincial and municipal authorities. Stronger regional governments could focus on urban planning, public transport, water supply, and waste management tailored to local contexts. Instead of being hostage to provincial-level political compromises, cities would have clearer governance structures and accountability mechanisms.
As Pakistan looks ahead, the question is not whether smaller units are desirable but whether the political will exists to make them a reality. The country’s demographic trajectory leaves little choice: by 2050, Pakistan’s population may exceed 330 million, and managing such a vast populace with the current structure will be untenable. The choice before policymakers is clear—either pre-emptively reform administrative structures or allow governance failures to deepen, risking instability.
The idea of smaller provinces is not a populist slogan but a rational response to a governance crisis. It is time for Pakistan’s political leadership to rise above parochial interests and think in terms of long-term national stability. History shows that federations that fail to accommodate diversity and decentralise authority often falter. Pakistan has an opportunity to avoid that fate by embracing smaller, smarter administrative units that can deliver governance where it matters most—at the doorstep of its citizens.