LAHORE, Pakistan — Pakistan’s decades-old debate over the creation of new provinces has entered a more politically charged phase after Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi reaffirmed his support for smaller administrative units, saying he would not withdraw his position regardless of the political consequences.
Speaking at a National Policy Dialogue on New Provinces at the University of Management and Technology (UMT) in Lahore on September 5, Naqvi sought to clarify his earlier call for a “reset” of Pakistan’s governance system.
He said the proposed reset should not be interpreted as an attempt to dismantle the state structure, but rather as an effort to address weaknesses within the existing constitutional framework.
The intervention has pushed the issue beyond political commentary and into a broader national discussion involving federal ministers, provincial lawmakers, political parties, civil society and constitutional experts.
Naqvi argued that any decision on creating new administrative units should ultimately be determined by the people rather than by the interests of an individual political party or government.
“If the people do not want new administrative units, they will not be created,” he said, according to reports of his address.
The proposal has nevertheless exposed a sharp political divide. Supporters argue that smaller provinces and administrative units could bring government closer to citizens and improve public-service delivery. Opponents, particularly in Sindh, fear that the debate could become a vehicle for redrawing provincial boundaries and upsetting an already sensitive political balance.
Naqvi: “I will not back down”
Naqvi delivered his strongest message when he said he would continue advocating administrative restructuring regardless of its political cost.
“I will not back down from this, whatever the end result may be,” he said, according to reports from the Lahore event.
The interior minister also reiterated his support for making Islamabad a separate province, arguing that the federal capital requires an administrative structure suited to its particular needs.
Naqvi has attempted to frame his proposal primarily as a governance issue rather than an ethnic or identity-based political project. He has emphasised decentralisation, improved governance and more effective public-service delivery.
That distinction is significant because Pakistan’s debate over new provinces has historically intersected with questions of ethnicity, language, political representation and control over economic resources.
Naqvi’s latest formulation instead asks whether a country that has experienced major population growth and increasing administrative complexity can continue to be governed effectively through its existing four-province structure.
From “system collapse” to a “reset”
The latest controversy follows Naqvi’s earlier remarks in which he described Pakistan’s governance system as having effectively “collapsed” and called for a reset, while suggesting that new provinces could form part of a broader reform agenda.
Naqvi has since sought to clarify that he was not targeting the federal government or any particular political party. Rather, he said, his intention was to draw attention to structural weaknesses in governance.
At the UMT dialogue, he stressed that any reform would have to remain within the framework of the Constitution.
He also highlighted shortcomings in public services, including education, healthcare and justice, arguing that citizens should have meaningful access to state institutions regardless of where they live.
The argument raises a fundamental question for Pakistan: Is the country’s governance crisis primarily a problem of provincial boundaries, or is it rooted in weak institutions and inadequate devolution of power?
That question is now at the centre of the emerging political confrontation.
Sindh rejects any move to divide the province
The strongest institutional resistance has emerged from Sindh.
The Sindh Assembly has rejected proposals to divide the province or alter its existing territorial boundaries, while Chief Minister Syed Murad Ali Shah has declared that there would be no compromise over Sindh’s geographical unity.
The assembly’s position followed several days of intense political debate over the creation of new provinces and administrative units.
Pakistan Peoples Party lawmakers strongly opposed any move to divide Sindh. Members of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) and other opposition groups, however, argued that administrative reform should not necessarily be equated with breaking up the province.
The distinction is politically important.
MQM-P lawmakers have maintained that their demand is fundamentally about governance and devolution, particularly in Karachi, rather than the erosion of Sindh’s identity.
The party has pointed to Karachi’s huge population, economic importance and longstanding administrative challenges as arguments for a more decentralised governance structure.
The PPP, meanwhile, regards any attempt to alter Sindh’s boundaries as an unacceptable threat to the province’s territorial and political integrity.
Why Karachi is at the centre of the debate
Karachi lies at the heart of the controversy.
Pakistan’s largest city is also its principal commercial centre and accounts for a substantial share of the country’s economic activity. Yet successive governments have struggled to address persistent problems involving infrastructure, transportation, sanitation, water supply and municipal services.
Supporters of administrative restructuring argue that Karachi’s sheer scale makes conventional provincial administration increasingly difficult.
The debate has consequently moved beyond the narrow question of whether Sindh should be divided to a broader issue:
Can Karachi be governed effectively without giving the city greater administrative and financial autonomy?
Some proponents favour the creation of a new province, while others advocate stronger metropolitan government, greater fiscal devolution and empowered local authorities.
This is why the term “administrative units” has become increasingly prominent in the current debate.
Pakistan’s four-province structure under pressure
Pakistan currently has four provinces — Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan — alongside the federal capital territory.
Supporters of restructuring argue that the enormous differences in population, geography and administrative requirements within and between these provinces make the existing system increasingly difficult to manage.
Punjab, for example, has a population larger than many countries, while Balochistan covers an enormous geographical area with a comparatively dispersed population.
At the Lahore policy dialogue, participants discussed possibilities ranging from South Punjab and Karachi to Pothohar and other regions, while also calling for stronger local governments and greater devolution of funds and authority.
The debate is therefore no longer simply about creating one or two additional provinces. It is increasingly becoming a discussion about the broader architecture of the Pakistani state.
South Punjab remains a major fault line
South Punjab remains one of the most persistent areas of debate.
Supporters of a separate province argue that the region has historically experienced political and administrative distance from Lahore, with demands for greater control over development spending, public services and local decision-making.
The proposal for a separate South Punjab province has repeatedly surfaced in Pakistani politics but has never secured the political consensus required to become reality.
The renewed debate could once again bring the question of reorganising Punjab into smaller political and administrative units to the forefront.
Any such move, however, would carry major political consequences because Punjab is Pakistan’s most populous province and a central pillar of the country’s federal electoral politics.
New provinces or stronger local governments?
Not everyone believes that creating new provinces would resolve Pakistan’s governance problems.
Political and administrative experts have warned that simply redrawing provincial boundaries does not automatically improve education, healthcare, policing or municipal services.
If decision-making and financial authority remain concentrated at the same levels, a new province could simply reproduce existing problems on a smaller geographical scale.
Election and local-government expert Zahid Islam, quoted by BBC Urdu, argued that the fundamental issue is governance itself. He cautioned that creating additional administrative units would not necessarily resolve structural weaknesses if political and administrative power remained concentrated in the same centres.
That raises another potential solution: genuine local-government reform.
Rather than creating multiple new provinces, Pakistan could strengthen elected municipal governments, provide them with predictable financial resources and transfer greater responsibility for local services.
Such reforms could give major cities including Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar and Quetta greater administrative authority without necessarily changing provincial boundaries.
The constitutional obstacle
Creating a new province is not simply an administrative decision.
Pakistan’s Constitution provides a formal mechanism for altering provincial boundaries, meaning any serious attempt to create or redraw provinces would require a constitutional and parliamentary process.
That makes the issue considerably more complicated, even if political support for restructuring were to increase.
Prime Minister’s Adviser on Political Affairs Rana Sanaullah has described the current debate as premature and indicated that any proposal involving a referendum would first have to pass through Parliament.
The position highlights the institutional challenge facing advocates of reform.
Even if public opinion were to favour a new province, translating that sentiment into constitutional change would require agreement across multiple political and institutional bodies.
A political battle as much as an administrative debate
The controversy is exposing competing political interests across Pakistan.
For the PPP, particularly in Sindh, territorial unity is closely tied to political identity and historical grievances.
For MQM-P, administrative decentralisation is closely linked to Karachi’s demand for greater political and financial representation.
For political forces supporting new provinces in South Punjab and other regions, the issue is associated with equitable development, representation and access to state resources.
For advocates such as Naqvi, meanwhile, the central question is whether Pakistan’s administrative structure has kept pace with its population growth and increasingly complex governance challenges.
Those competing objectives make consensus difficult.
Why the Mamdani and Sadiq Khan comparisons matter
Naqvi also referred to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and London Mayor Sadiq Khan while discussing the future of urban governance.
The comparison appears intended to highlight the role of powerful metropolitan institutions in managing major global cities.
Both New York and London have complex governance arrangements in which major urban centres possess significant administrative institutions and elected leadership.
For Pakistan, such a model could potentially inform discussions about Karachi, Lahore and other major cities, although the constitutional and political systems of the United States, United Kingdom and Pakistan differ substantially.
The comparison should therefore not necessarily be interpreted as a proposal to replicate the London or New York models. Instead, it points to a wider discussion about metropolitan governance, decentralisation and the distribution of political authority.
The establishment question
The timing and sensitivity of the debate have also generated speculation about whether the proposal reflects a wider institutional push for administrative restructuring.
BBC Urdu has reported that the issue has prompted speculation on social media concerning the position of powerful state institutions and the PPP’s response.
Such speculation, however, should not be treated as established fact.
What is clear is that the issue has moved beyond a single ministerial speech. It has entered provincial parliamentary debate, prompted formal political resolutions and forced major political parties to publicly define their positions.
That alone makes the debate politically significant, regardless of whether an immediate constitutional change follows.
What happens next?
The immediate challenge for Pakistan’s political leadership is whether the increasingly polarised debate can be transformed into a structured discussion about governance and institutional reform.
Three broad possibilities are emerging.
First, Pakistan could move towards creating additional provinces, particularly in regions where demands for separate political representation have persisted for years.
Second, the government could pursue smaller administrative units without immediately creating new provinces, potentially through districts, divisions and empowered metropolitan authorities.
Third, political leaders could conclude that the more practical solution lies in strengthening local governments rather than redrawing provincial boundaries.
The third option may be administratively easier, but it would still require political parties to transfer some control over resources and decision-making — something successive governments have historically struggled to do.
A debate that could redraw Pakistan’s political map
For now, no immediate creation of a new province has been announced.
But the political significance of the debate should not be underestimated.
Naqvi’s latest remarks have ensured that the question remains firmly on Pakistan’s national agenda, while the Sindh Assembly’s resistance illustrates how difficult any attempt to redraw provincial boundaries could become.
Ultimately, the issue is about far more than maps.
It concerns who controls resources, who makes decisions, how major cities are governed, how distant regions are represented and whether Pakistan’s administrative institutions are capable of serving a rapidly growing population.
As Naqvi calls for a governance “reset” and Sindh’s political leadership insists that the province’s territorial unity cannot be compromised, Pakistan is confronting a question that has remained unresolved for decades:
The answer could determine not only the future shape of Pakistan’s administrative map, but also the balance of political power between Islamabad, the provinces and the country’s increasingly influential cities.
