Pakistan's New Provinces Plan ?

hasssanali8998 said:
yes you are , instead of blaming elites you are blaming your fellow pakistanis
Click to expand...
Tu yeh Elites Aliens hain ? inki koi race/ethnicity nai hai? waise I would rather be a Racists than a dumb idiot who bury my head in a sand while people in Pakistan are dying in 100's.
 
chalo we can confirm that new provinces are indeed on the menu in a future constitutional amendment and the faujis have deliberately kicked off the debate.
 
As soon as this debate kicks of - Sindhudesh - Pakistan na Khappay - Afghanistan is the heart of All Pashtuns and BLA is already there - starts getting noisy support from common politicians.
That should tell you all that you need to know both from how much the existing system profits whom.
 
Pakistanithinktank said:
She was basically agree with me so
I used this opportunity to point out why my model is superior to current system.
Click to expand...
If you wish, we can consolidate the discussion regarding your "34-EZ" plan into this single thread, rather than letting the topic spill over into every other thread.

All human social organizations exist based on a shared organizational objective, and it is upon this objective that their organizational structures are built.

Within any given enterprise, there exists a multitude of systems, processes, and rules, as well as various distinct departments. These departments engage in a division of labor and collaborate to collectively serve the overarching goals of the enterprise.

However, if a specific department or branch office were to internally consolidate *all* the essential elements required to serve that corporate objective—thereby becoming entirely self-sufficient—it would, in effect, have detached itself from the larger corporate ecosystem. It would have achieved *de facto* independence. Whether or not it chooses to publicly declare this independence—or when it might do so—becomes merely a matter of timing. Prior to any formal declaration of independence, the authority and oversight exercised by corporate headquarters over this entity would have already been reduced to a purely symbolic level.

In reality, it is rare for a single department or branch office to successfully consolidate *all* the necessary elements entirely on its own. In such instances, if an external force were to step in to supply the missing elements—thereby severing that department's or branch's reliance on headquarters—it would significantly accelerate its trajectory toward independence or secession.

You need not be in a rush to roll out your "34-EZ" plan just yet. Instead, I invite you to first contemplate the following question:

If your entire existence and operation were in no way dependent upon the organization, would you still truly be considered a member of that organization? Or, to approach it from a different angle: if the organization provided you with absolutely *no* tangible benefits or advantages, would you still consider remaining a part of it?

Let us return to the topic currently under our scrutiny:
When a specific province within a nation-state acquires *all* the material elements essential for statehood—thereby establishing a self-contained, closed-loop system within its own borders—it has, in reality, already achieved "de facto independence." This remains true regardless of whether it formally acknowledges it, regardless of whether it desires it, and regardless of whether it chooses to make it public.
Furthermore, should the central government—through its policies, measures, actions, or other state-level interventions—disrupt this self-contained "closed loop," the system will instinctively trigger a defensive reaction, generating countermeasures designed to resist such interference. This is not a phenomenon that can be altered by the decisions of any single individual policymaker; rather, it represents the instinctive, systemic response of the entire closed-loop entity itself.

Consider, for instance, the Balochistan issue in Pakistan. Even if the central government were to resort to assassination, leadership replacement, persuasion, bribery, or any other tactic targeting specific individuals within the leadership—none of these actions could fundamentally resolve the underlying issue. This remains true even if those leaders were to become completely subservient to the central government's directives.

The *only* substantive measure capable of truly resolving this issue is to dismantle that internal closed-loop system and fully integrate it into the larger, national-level closed-loop system. Only through such a process can genuine, fundamental integration be achieved.

Now, regarding your "34-EZ" plan: I have repeatedly asked you—who is going to lead the implementation of this plan? Yet, you have still not provided me with an answer. Fundamentally, this issue serves as a reminder that—until the problem I mentioned earlier has been properly resolved—any form of economic planning is entirely meaningless.

Speaking of provinces: among all the provinces across China, the only one that has, for millennia, possessed a highly complete and self-contained systemic loop is Sichuan.
Sichuan possesses every single resource that a nation-state ought to have. In fact, China's entire, fully integrated supply chain for nuclear weaponry is currently situated within Sichuan. It also serves as China's designated strategic reserve province.
So, take a guess: why is it that no one in Sichuan ever agitates for independence?
 
More provinces is a must. Especially South Punjab needs a separate province.

People have so much grievances over there that Lahore takes whole budget and their issues are never heard.

Baluchistan should be split into more provinces too. Its one huge land mass right now.
 
Oscar said:
As soon as this debate kicks of - Sindhudesh - Pakistan na Khappay - Afghanistan is the heart of All Pashtuns and BLA is already there - starts getting noisy support from common politicians.
That should tell you all that you need to know both from how much the existing system profits whom.
Click to expand...

True. But we all know that those politicians (especially post 2022) are appointed by military itself, hence who cares if state is really honest to make such a decision. The true power is held by Asim munir using brute force.

But problem is that unfortunately the military dictators also see their own benefit first. Otherwise they are really not accountable to the politicians or people. Musharraf had golden opportunity to build Kalabagh dam. Similarly, asim munir has opportunity to fix so many issues but personal ambitions and personal interests comes first. That's why its highly unlikely that we will see such decisions to be taken.

Only a national govt with popularity from whole of Pakistan can do such decision, a federal level party with massive support from all corners. However, even they can't do anything if there is opportunistic General at the time who for his own power continuation collude with opposition. The circus will continue forever.

Our Future as a state must be based on solid democratic govts, otherwise for how long we will function under semi-martial law. Who knows next COAS would be likes of drunk Yahya Or extremist Zia ?
 
Michael said:
If you wish, we can consolidate the discussion regarding your "34-EZ" plan into this single thread, rather than letting the topic spill over into every other thread.

All human social organizations exist based on a shared organizational objective, and it is upon this objective that their organizational structures are built.

Within any given enterprise, there exists a multitude of systems, processes, and rules, as well as various distinct departments. These departments engage in a division of labor and collaborate to collectively serve the overarching goals of the enterprise.

However, if a specific department or branch office were to internally consolidate *all* the essential elements required to serve that corporate objective—thereby becoming entirely self-sufficient—it would, in effect, have detached itself from the larger corporate ecosystem. It would have achieved *de facto* independence. Whether or not it chooses to publicly declare this independence—or when it might do so—becomes merely a matter of timing. Prior to any formal declaration of independence, the authority and oversight exercised by corporate headquarters over this entity would have already been reduced to a purely symbolic level.

In reality, it is rare for a single department or branch office to successfully consolidate *all* the necessary elements entirely on its own. In such instances, if an external force were to step in to supply the missing elements—thereby severing that department's or branch's reliance on headquarters—it would significantly accelerate its trajectory toward independence or secession.

You need not be in a rush to roll out your "34-EZ" plan just yet. Instead, I invite you to first contemplate the following question:

If your entire existence and operation were in no way dependent upon the organization, would you still truly be considered a member of that organization? Or, to approach it from a different angle: if the organization provided you with absolutely *no* tangible benefits or advantages, would you still consider remaining a part of it?

Let us return to the topic currently under our scrutiny:
When a specific province within a nation-state acquires *all* the material elements essential for statehood—thereby establishing a self-contained, closed-loop system within its own borders—it has, in reality, already achieved "de facto independence." This remains true regardless of whether it formally acknowledges it, regardless of whether it desires it, and regardless of whether it chooses to make it public.
Furthermore, should the central government—through its policies, measures, actions, or other state-level interventions—disrupt this self-contained "closed loop," the system will instinctively trigger a defensive reaction, generating countermeasures designed to resist such interference. This is not a phenomenon that can be altered by the decisions of any single individual policymaker; rather, it represents the instinctive, systemic response of the entire closed-loop entity itself.

Consider, for instance, the Balochistan issue in Pakistan. Even if the central government were to resort to assassination, leadership replacement, persuasion, bribery, or any other tactic targeting specific individuals within the leadership—none of these actions could fundamentally resolve the underlying issue. This remains true even if those leaders were to become completely subservient to the central government's directives.

The *only* substantive measure capable of truly resolving this issue is to dismantle that internal closed-loop system and fully integrate it into the larger, national-level closed-loop system. Only through such a process can genuine, fundamental integration be achieved.

Now, regarding your "34-EZ" plan: I have repeatedly asked you—who is going to lead the implementation of this plan? Yet, you have still not provided me with an answer. Fundamentally, this issue serves as a reminder that—until the problem I mentioned earlier has been properly resolved—any form of economic planning is entirely meaningless.

Speaking of provinces: among all the provinces across China, the only one that has, for millennia, possessed a highly complete and self-contained systemic loop is Sichuan.
Sichuan possesses every single resource that a nation-state ought to have. In fact, China's entire, fully integrated supply chain for nuclear weaponry is currently situated within Sichuan. It also serves as China's designated strategic reserve province.
So, take a guess: why is it that no one in Sichuan ever agitates for independence?
Click to expand...
Bro, let me say this straight because you keep circling back to the same points I’ve already explained a dozen times. I’ve laid out the model, the framework, the pilot phases everything. But you’re still repeating the same objections as if none of it was addressed.

Look at the real-world examples: Singapore, UAE, Estonia, and now even Saudi Arabia. All of them built their governance and economic systems on a similar structural model. None of these countries sat around waiting for some “Messiah”, some miracle leader, or a brand-new political movement to descend from the sky. They built systems, not saviors.

And let’s be honest, there’s no magic wand that can fix nearly 80 years of economic mismanagement. That’s exactly why I talked about 12–36 month pilot projects: test what works, discard what doesn’t, refine the model before scaling it. Before even reaching that stage, I already explained the entire government framework that makes the model functional.

But here’s the funny part, Some people are so clueless that they call this “AI-generated”, even though they know very well that AI in 2026 is nowhere near autonomous enough to understand the lived problems of Pakistani people and then magically design a national economic blueprint. We’re at least 200–250 years away from anything close to Cyberdyne Systems, Skynet, or Umbrella Corporation taking over. Relax bro, Judgment Day isn’t tomorrow.

The people criticizing or dismissing the model haven’t even bothered to look at the systems already running in Singapore, UAE, Estonia and the one Saudi Arabia is implementing right now. They’re ignoring global evidence and then acting like they’ve cracked some deep insight.

Bro, the model is grounded in reality. The examples exist. The framework exists. The pilot logic exists.
What doesn’t exist is people actually reading what’s already been explained.
 
No matter how many provinces are carved out from Pakistan, as long as local bodies stay dead and ineffective, all those provinces will become personal fiefdoms of elites. And the circle will continue. Power needs to be devolved a bit to the grassroots for better services delivery along with constitutional guarantees and fiscal guarantees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top