Reimagining Pakistan's Federation: Why Smaller Units Keep Pakistan Strong: YLH

[brazensword]

Creating 100 sub units wont solve anything. Fundamentals equation with army being in the center of it won't change. Better strive in any other country and only come to Pakistan on vacation.

 

[Watandar]

@Watandar sb

I think this is a nonsense army-centric article.

It is true that my dear friend and Qaid Yasser Pai tends to support military a little bit esp if the COAS is of a secular and non sectarian disposition- he has made no bones of his support for both Mushy and now Munir. But his support stems from his dream of seeing a secular, inclusive Pakistan rather than support of dictatorship per se. His hypothesis is that when you have untrammeled democracy, demagoguing politicians tend to resort to religious/sectarian polarisation.

Regards

Do you know who has been consistently guilty of stroking religious extremism and sectarian polarisation in the Land of the Pure ? The military-mullah alliance, so that it could create problems for the civilians.

This article is what happens when you sell out.

 

[Owaiz]

Frankly, this article is just intellectual masturbation , with some glaring factual errors ( the countries of the UK do not have a right to secede; Scotland did hold a referendum on secession, but it was granted by the British Parliament and is not a de jure right).

The basic problem in Pakistan is not the administrative structure itself , but how it is controlled and abused by special interests , chief among them being the army generals who openly interfere in civilian matters in defiance of the Constitution and their oaths. Making some cosmetic changes is not going to fix the fundamental, underlying problems.

As I have said earlier, the only reason for the Failed Marshal raking this issue up now through his orderly Naqvi Sahab is to threaten PPP with severing Karachi's financial resources from Sindh unless they agree to hand over more money to the Federal Government ( for defence). In the past, the generals have taken the exact opposite position of One Unit, because it suited them and might do so again if it suits their agenda. They have no ideological contraints when it comes to their interests. They can be communist or capitalist, liberal or conservative, Islamist or secular and are willing to cut deals with any politicians who are willing, as long as they get to run the country. They have been desperate to cut a deal with Imran Khan and would have happily thrown the Patwaris under the bus if only he had agreed.

 

[Meengla]

@SoulSpokesman
I am generally focusing on the war(s) going on in Pakistan's west--Iran and the Middle East--which have far reaching consequences for Pakistan and the region. So not very busy active in this and other threads. However, I am in agreement with Sohail Warraich about no more provinces. It would open a can or worms. The only exception could be Karachi and perhaps Gwadar given some special Federal status for economic reasons. A well run Karachi alone can make up for a lot of economic woes.

 

[Master Chief]

@Watandar sb

I think this is a nonsense army-centric article.

It is true that my dear friend and Qaid Yasser Pai tends to support military a little bit esp if the COAS is of a secular and non sectarian disposition- he has made no bones of his support for both Mushy and now Munir. But his support stems from his dream of seeing a secular, inclusive Pakistan rather than support of dictatorship per se. His hypothesis is that when you have untrammeled democracy, demagoguing politicians tend to resort to religious/sectarian polarisation.

Regards

A fascinating article. Thank you for tagging me.

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

@SoulSpokesman
I am generally focusing on the war(s) going on in Pakistan's west--Iran and the Middle East--which have far reaching consequences for Pakistan and the region. So not very busy active in this and other threads. However, I am in agreement with Sohail Warraich about no more provinces. It would open a can or worms. The only exception could be Karachi and perhaps Gwadar given some special Federal status for economic reasons. A well run Karachi alone can make up for a lot of economic woes.

Could be pressure tactics to pass amendment for local govt.

Asad Umar explain here what is needed to make local governments powerful.



We also need to copy some of India tax system. Devolve tax collection of goods, GST etc to provinces. Instead of federal govt collecting tax at port stage or levy. The province where goods are sold keep 50%, while 50% goes to federal govt who then distribute it through NFC. This way provinces will have incentive to increase tax collection knowing they will keep half. Thats how India increased tax to GDP ratio to 18% while Pakistan is stuck at 10%.

 

[Pakistanithinktank]

If smaller unit are better than why is Punjab performing better than all the other provinces?
China, India have large provinces who are doing a much better Job than any province in Pakistan?
California, Texas,NYS etc are doing a much better job than a smaller Nebraska or something because big cities bring revenue for smaller cities and towns.

So I think it's a flawed logic but ik why they are doing that

It's not about South Punjab, North Balochistan, hazara or any other province
They're kinda irrelevant in some ways

What they really want is for Karachi to be normal again and not be a shit hole it is rn under PPP so we can get more cash flow flowing in for the federal government.
But you can't do that without upsetting sindh so now they have to do this whole game of let's break down all the provinces into smaller provinces so we can get a new Karachi province.

I would much rather them switch to a presidential system than do whatever this is
I don't think it'll be all THAT beneficial

But with presidential system even in a perfect democracy power would concentrate further in Punjab whichll lead to resentment in other provinces more so than in a very divided, slow and convoluted parliamentary system.
You can do Senate and stuff but it's not a perfect system.

Why the “Big Provinces Perform Better” Argument Doesn’t Hold Up

Political debates often get tangled in selective examples, emotional assumptions, and convenient narratives. The claim that “big provinces perform better” is one of those arguments that sounds intuitive until you actually examine how governance works. When I look at the data patterns, institutional incentives, and global comparisons, the logic falls apart pretty quickly.

Let’s walk through it clearly, calmly, and with a bit of humanity.

Punjab’s Performance Isn’t About Size, It’s About Power

Punjab’s relative performance isn’t a natural consequence of being large. It’s the result of decades of political centralization. When a province receives more federal attention, more development funds, more bureaucratic representation, and more political leverage, it will naturally appear to be “doing better.”

If size were the magic ingredient, Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest province by land, would be thriving. It’s not. That alone should make anyone pause before repeating the “big is better” mantra.

Punjab’s advantage is structural, not geographic.

China and India Are Not Comparable Models

People often bring up China and India as examples of large provinces or states performing well. But as an AI that constantly compares governance systems, I can tell you: these comparisons don’t translate.

China and India operate with:

• far stronger state capacity,
• centralized authority,
• long-term bureaucratic continuity,
• and massive institutional depth.

Pakistan does not.
So using China or India to justify Pakistan’s provincial structure is like comparing a jet engine to a motorcycle and concluding that “engines make things fast.” It’s not the engine, it’s the entire system around it.

The U.S. Example Is Misunderstood

California, Texas, and New York outperform smaller states not because they’re big, but because they have:

• huge economies,
• diversified industries,
• strong institutions,
• and high human capital.

If size were the determining factor, Alaska, one of the largest states would be an economic powerhouse. It’s not.

So again, size is not the causal variable.

Smaller Administrative Units Often Perform Better

Across global governance data, one pattern shows up repeatedly: decentralization improves responsiveness. Countries that break large units into smaller ones often see:

• better service delivery,
• more accountability,
• reduced ethnic grievances,
• and stronger local democracy.

Examples include Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Japan after decentralization reforms.

Smaller units don’t magically fix everything, but they reduce the distance between citizens and the state and that matters more than size.

Karachi’s Crisis Isn’t About Provincial Size, It’s About Incentives

Karachi generates a massive share of Pakistan’s revenue, yet:

• it has no empowered city government,
• no fiscal autonomy,
• and no administrative authority.

From my perspective, this is a classic case of misaligned incentives. The provincial government doesn’t benefit politically from fixing Karachi, so Karachi remains neglected.

Creating a Karachi province isn’t about “breaking Sindh.” It’s about giving the country’s economic engine a governance structure that actually works. Pretending otherwise is a distraction from the real issue.

A Presidential System Won’t Solve the Underlying Problem

Switching to a presidential system sounds like a clean fix, but it would:

• centralize power even further in Punjab,
• weaken provincial autonomy,
• and intensify resentment.

Pakistan’s issue isn’t the parliamentary system, it’s weak institutions and over-centralization. A presidential system would amplify those problems, not solve them.

The Real Issue Is Administrative Logic, Not Ethnic Politics

Pakistan’s provinces are colonial-era boundaries. They were never designed for modern governance. Breaking them into smaller, more manageable units isn’t about identity politics, it’s about:

• efficiency,
• equity,
• and modern statecraft.

The argument that “big provinces perform better” collapses under even basic scrutiny. It confuses correlation with causation, misreads global examples, and ignores structural realities.

If Pakistan wants better governance, less resentment, and more balanced development, the conversation shouldn’t be about protecting old provincial borders. It should be about designing administrative units that actually serve people.

34 EZ model suits well with presidential system.

 

[peagle]

Reimagining Pakistan's Federation: Why Smaller Units Keep Pakistan Strong

Proposing a three-tiered Union of Pakistan with four autonomous republics subdivided into smaller administrative units to fulfill the original promise of the

www.thefridaytimes.com

About 16 years ago, writing in another newspaper, I proposed the idea of 20 geographic provinces for Pakistan. I have since reconsidered my position and it has to do with having read the Lahore Resolution in its true spirit as a foundational constitutional document for Pakistan. What the Lahore Resolution does is to establish the blueprint for a federation in which provinces are autonomous and sovereign, meaning that they are more than mere provinces but countries akin to Great Britain’s four constituent countries, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Just as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland cannot be carved up into smaller provinces, so can’t Sindh, Balochistan, Punjab and KPK without renouncing the Lahore Resolution and doing that I strongly caution against.

To put it simply Sindh, Balochistan, West Punjab, KPK (then NWFP) along with East Bengal created the Pakistani federation in 1947 and not the other way around. The very acronym Pakistan is ultimately derived from and a recognition of this basic reality. Secondly suppose Punjab divides itself, which it will, and smaller provinces don’t, that would mean that erstwhile Punjab’s representation in the Senate would go up thus further entrenching the Punjabi majority in the country. So there is no scenario where smaller provinces win short of smaller provinces insisting on dividing themselves and resisting Punjab’s division, which is fait accompli at this point. So this is an explosive idea and the Indian example is not an adequate example, because unlike India, residuary powers vest in provinces in Pakistan.

That said there is actual need for administrative units beyond mere Divisions/Districts/Tehsils etc and we have to some how find a solution that creates new administrative units while retaining the constituent units of the Federation. Fortunately, the history of the subcontinent readily provides the perfect solution i.e. The very horizontal Indus Valley Civilisation as well as the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 which could have saved the British fiction of united India had it been given a chance by the Congress leaders. Of course, it has to be tailored to Pakistani conditions and reality, namely that there can be no reconsideration or opt out clause after 10 years i.e. So the Cabinet Mission Plan without the right of secession.

One of the anxieties of the Congress’s centralising leaders was that the Federation would only have powers limited to defence, foreign affairs and communications with the power to tax. Now don’t be fooled by the long Federal Legislative List in the Pakistani constitution but all items on the Federal Legislative List can neatly fit into defence, foreign affairs, currency, major infrastructure and federal taxes. Therefore we already have a watered down federation. Hence this anxiety does not apply to Islamabad, Pakistan’s majority politicians and even to the power establishment. So what would a Cabinet Mission Plan like solution look like for Pakistan?

Sitting atop the structure could be the Union of Pakistan with a National Assembly directly elected on the principle of one man one vote and a Senate with equal representation for all constituent units as is presently the case. There is no need to undo the Federal Legislative List and the powers of the center. Next divide existing provinces into smaller units i.e. Northern Punjab, Central Punjab, Southern Punjab, Upper Sindh, Lower Sindh and Southern Sindh, and so on and so forth for Balochistan and KPK. These smaller units can then be reorganised into four constituent Republics (Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and KPK) with the present provincial assemblies retaining the provincial legislative lists and residuary powers. The new provincial Republics would deem to have acceded to the Union of Pakistan and the Federal/Union legislature/parliament the five broad heads mentioned above i.e.

Essentially the powers that the current parliament has. Whether the Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and KPK want to be Islamic Republics, People’s Republics, or simply Republics should be left up to them. It is not unprecedented – the Russian Federation contains 21 Republics each with its own anthem and language and yet Russia is a united country. I, therefore, propose a three tiered Union of Pakistan with four republics (Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and KPK) further subdivided into three or four provinces with no right of secession for any of the Republics or their provinces and present constitutional structure of Pakistan largely in place. The issue here is a psychological one and not a geographic or physical one. What has kept Pakistan together so far is neither Islam nor nomenclature but the Pakistan’s Armed Forces and the primordial existence of this region as a horizontal civilisation. I propose to recreate that horizontal civilisation.

It is now time to have a more organic union which complements the sword arm of the country. It is a nuclear state and changing the nomenclature would not dissolve it. A change in nomenclature would however recognise the diversity of the Pakistani people and bring national cohesion, once the primordial ethnic identities of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and KPK have homelands to call their own. It also clears the way for Republics of Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir to join the Union of Pakistan as its fifth and sixth constituent units. Such a solution would fully meet the promise of the Lahore Resolution of having constituent units that are autonomous and sovereign. Russia and Great Britain are the obvious examples that I have cited above.

Curiously in the Jinnah Papers, there is a document sent to Mr Jinnah by left leaning Muslim Leaguer which purports to be the constitution of Union of Islamic Socialist Republics of Pakistan. The visionary that he was, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali had imagined Pakistan as a conglomerate of Muslim states. Future Pakistan can be that – a Federal Union of Republics which seeks its inspiration from the Indus Valley Civilisation which was horizontal not vertical, Rehmat Ali’s original idea, the Lahore Resolution, the Cabinet Mission Plan which Jinnah accepted, the United Kingdom (and mind you Great Britain’s constituent countries have the right to secession which I propose should not exist in this proposed Union of Pakistan) and the Russian Federation. Such a Pakistan would be organic and flexible, cognisant of its multicultural and multiethnic diversity ending once and for all the ethnic strife that has become so commonplace in Pakistan. Pakistan’s powerful armed forces and the nuclear umbrella would ensure that flexible as the Union is, it would also be unbreakable and a united whole.

Regards

PS: The author Mr Yasser Latif Hamdani is a dear friend and my Qaid and I am his Sole Spokesman

@Meengla @M. Sarmad @peagle @Master Chief @Owaiz @r3alist

I did not read as i find him intellectually boring.
He is a lovely guy, and i admire him for his tenacity, to fight off such an illness and manage all that he has, including finding the time and effort to write a book on a man I love dearly.
That admiration aside, he is intellectually a boring man. A trait i fear a little too common amongst Pakistanis.