Provinces and districts-11332-News

The debate about creating new provinces continues after Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s remarks.

Politics in every province has its own dynamics. Radical reform is almost always resisted. Consensus building becomes even more challenging in a polarised political landscape and a fragmented power structure. The demand for creating new provinces is not new. However, a government leader’s endorsement of the demand has never been as explicit.

The early reaction in Sindh was unsurprisingly vehement. Sindhi nationalist parties and the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party came out hard against the proposal to divide Sindh. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan - like the Muttahid Qaumi Movement before it - has been demanding the creation of more administrative units in Sindh. The party was routed in the 2018 general elections. In the 2023 local government elections, it lost further ground as PPP mayors were elected in Karachi and Hyderabad.

All political parties having roots in the Sindhi speaking population favour the geographic integrity of Sindh. Communities politically associated with the PPP and the PTI have consistently opposed the division of Sindh. These groups have demanded more empowered local bodies for improved service delivery and infrastructure.

The country had 40 districts in 1947. The number has increased to 150. If administrative decentralisation is the objective, these structures already exist.

Nationalist parties remain at odds with the PPP and accuse it of compromising on the interests of Sindh to retain power. Nonetheless, the insistence on an undivided Sindh unites the two. Some of these parties point out that Sindh agreed to join the Pakistani federation in terms of the 1940 resolution, which envisioned a federation with autonomous constituent units. They consider any attempt to divide the province as a betrayal of the agreement.

Some seven decades ago, the present-day provinces of Pakistan were merged into West Pakistan province under the One Unit regime. Architects of the scheme: Malik Feroz Khan Noon and Mian Mumtaz Daultana claimed that the arrangement will strengthen the country and enhance administrative efficiency. It took 15 years of untiring political struggle to undo the scheme and restore provinces. It has been argued that the forced merger of the provinces paved the way for disintegration of the country. The same argument is now being deployed in reverse: where once consolidation was presented as the path to national strength, fragmentation is now being presented as the solution.

Nationalist parties and groups in Sindh trace its history as an independent country before the British occupation in 1943. The province was first to demand a separate Muslim majority homeland in the British India, which led to the creation of Pakistan. Sindh has thus existed for centuries; it was not created by a government notification or executive order. Its boundaries were drawn over centuries and the state is under moral obligation to respect and protect its territorial limits.

Sindh joined Pakistan as a federating unit and not merely as an administrative unit in 1947. Administrative powers are devolved through divisions, districts, talukas, union councils and towns. These administrative units have multiplied over the years. At independence, Sindh had a single administrative division; today it has seven. In the Punjab, the number of divisions has increased from three to 10, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from two to seven; and in Balochistan’s from two to 11. Nationwide, the number of divisions has grown from eight to 35. Similarly, the country had 40 districts in 1947; the number has increased to 150. If administrative decentralisation is the objective, these structures already exist. More divisions and districts can always be created as required.

The constitution provides for political decentralisation through the local bodies. Currently, Sindh is the only province with a functional local bodies system. Given that their performance in terms of service delivery is debatable, there is a need to make democracy more effective and autonomous at the provincial and federal levels.

Frequently interruptions of democratic governance at the provincial and federal levels have debilitated the third (local government) tier. Better governance and improved service delivery will only be possible if the top tiers are allowed to sink deeper roots.

On August 7, the provincial assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa unanimously rejected the proposal to include other district of the province in the federal territory. The assembly also demanded that the federal government issue a clear statement rejecting any such proposal.

Elevating all administrative divisions into provinces will only increase the financial burden. Imagine an administration headed by 35 chief ministers, governors, chief secretaries, police chiefs and high courts each besides a large contingent of ministers and secretaries. This will require hundreds of new office buildings, fleets of vehicles and administrative expenditure. Recall that federal budget this year was made viable by squeezing out several hundred billion of rupees from the provinces.

There is little evidence that there is a direct relationship between the number of provinces in a country and economic or social progress. Governance will improve only by letting the democracy function without any external interference.

The writer is a development professional, nmemon2004@yahoo.com.