vFor decades, Pakistan has periodically revisited the idea of breaking up its provinces into smaller administrative units, but political hesitation and regional resistance have repeatedly stalled the proposal. Now, the debate has returned forcefully to the national stage. Federal Minister for Communications Abdul Aleem Khan has openly declared that the creation of new, smaller provinces is no longer optional but “inevitable,” a statement that has intensified discussions about the country’s internal restructuring. However, governance experts warn that the consequences of such a move may be far more damaging than beneficial.
The very mention of “division” in Pakistan evokes historical trauma — most notably the breakup of the country in 1971, when East Pakistan seceded to become Bangladesh after a brutal war. While today’s debate does not involve secession, the idea of carving up Pakistan’s existing provinces carries emotional and political weight. The current government insists that the proposed changes are aimed only at improving governance and administrative efficiency, not redrawing borders for independence movements.
Abdul Aleem Khan’s remarks followed weeks of televised panel discussions, newspaper columns, and academic seminars calling for new administrative boundaries. Speaking at a political convention, the minister argued that breaking the four provinces — Sindh, Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Balochistan — into smaller units would improve delivery of services and strengthen state control. According to his proposal, each of the four provinces would eventually be split into three, creating a total of twelve administrative units. This would represent the largest internal restructuring in Pakistan since Independence.
Proponents of the plan argue that smaller provinces would be easier to govern, reduce the distance between citizens and the government, and provide a buffer against separatism by satisfying regional aspirations. Khan also pointed out that several neighbouring countries have smaller administrative divisions, implying that Pakistan must modernise to keep pace.
But the backdrop to this announcement reveals deeper tensions. Pakistan’s federal leadership is under growing pressure from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, two provinces where separatist sentiment and demands for greater autonomy remain strong. Meanwhile, Sindh — politically dominated by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) — has historically opposed any attempt to divide the province. In November, Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah issued a blunt warning that the PPP would never accept the “bifurcation or trifurcation of Sindh.” Despite this, several coalition partners of the Sharif government — including the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) and the Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party — are pushing the idea aggressively and working toward enacting it through a constitutional amendment.
While political lobbying intensifies, analysts have sounded alarms that the debate is based on a misdiagnosis of Pakistan’s real problems. Veteran civil servant and senior police expert Syed Akhtar Ali Shah has cautioned that administrative reshuffling has historically failed to solve Pakistan’s governance challenges. In an article in The Express Tribune, he stressed that the country’s crisis stems not from the size of its provinces, but from weak institutions, the failure to enforce laws uniformly, corruption, and the collapse of accountability. In his view, dividing provinces without fixing these systemic flaws will merely reproduce dysfunction on a larger scale and could sharpen feelings of injustice among marginalised groups.
A similar warning came from political scientist Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, president of the think tank PILDAT. Writing in Dawn, he argued that while advocates of smaller provinces promise better governance, Pakistan’s real failure lies in the absence of meaningful power devolution to local governments. He pointed out that the Constitution already provides a framework for district-level governance that remains largely unimplemented because provincial elites refuse to share power. Creating more provinces without empowering local bodies, he said, would multiply bureaucracy, escalate administrative costs, and fuel new political conflicts rather than resolve existing ones.
Collectively, analysts argue that Pakistan is treating a structural problem as if it were a geographic one. Without repairing institutions and ensuring rule of law, mere redrawing of boundaries is unlikely to improve living conditions or strengthen national unity. In fact, the process of division has the potential to inflame dormant identity crises, provoke ethnic backlash, and trigger new turf wars between political parties.
Yet despite mounting caution, the government appears determined to move ahead. The ruling coalition believes that reducing the size of the provinces will help manage separatist pressures and centralise power more effectively — even if critics view this as a short-term tactic rather than a long-term solution.
Whether Pakistan ultimately chooses to revise its map or not, one fact remains clear: the country’s governance crisis cannot be solved solely by rearranging borders. Without addressing corruption, decentralising power, and strengthening institutions on the ground, the creation of new provinces risks becoming another experiment that deepens, rather than eases, Pakistan’s internal fractures.
