Despite being a chronicler who often writes admiringly about politicians, I am compelled to say that the biggest reason lies in the old saying: “The house was set ablaze by its own lamps.” The provincial satraps themselves are the biggest reason behind the fragmentation of provinces and the emergence of new ones.
History teaches us that whenever a provincial ruler attempted to become a king in his own right, he ultimately invited his own downfall. Over time, chief ministers have transformed their provinces into personal fiefdoms. The provinces receive enormous sums through the National Finance Commission, but instead of distributing these resources fairly, they are often spent according to the rulers’ personal discretion. Extravagance and arbitrary spending are an additional story altogether.
I have had discussions and debates with several influential figures, intellectuals and technocrats about the creation of new provinces. The arguments made by writers are already familiar because they have repeatedly appeared in newspaper columns.
Those who advocate the creation of new provinces cite the administrative and financial performance of existing provinces as their strongest argument. They point out that in some cities, roads are so smooth that one can almost see one’s reflection in them, while in neglected areas there are barely any roads at all. In some places, children are healthy and prosperous; in poor settlements, children are malnourished and out of school.
When describing the collapse of the system, it is also pointed out that in one sensitive province, instead of posting officers from the federal service, almost all key appointments have increasingly gone to provincial-service officials so that they work according to the wishes and preferences of the provincial ruler. Capable federal officers have consequently been forced to seek postings in the federal government or in other provinces.
Recently, this province even began taking powers away from its Inspector General of Police and issuing orders directly. And this is happening at a time when the province and its provincial ruler have already called for a confrontation with the federal government. Such repeated clashes between a province and the federation are themselves a visible manifestation of the system’s decay.
A federal source told me that, even on the issue of terrorism, the provincial ruler and his team have adopted an attitude of detachment, despite the fact that terrorism represents one of the gravest threats to the survival of the country.
The federal government is also worried about another province where the development of Karachi and Hyderabad has consistently been neglected. Two major political parties bear much of the responsibility for failing to resolve the contradictions between Karachi and the rest of Sindh. The political compulsions and interests of the provincial ruler do not allow the city to receive the priority it deserves. In this province too, there is reluctance to give important postings to capable federal-service officers.
The provincial ruler of a third province repeatedly demands competent federal officers, but the law-and-order situation there has deteriorated to such an extent that almost everyone lives under the constant fear for his life.
The administrative affairs of the country’s largest province are certainly better than those of the others, but they are far from ideal. The grievances of South Punjab and Bahawalpur, along with the lack of provincial funds for these regions, remain prominent problems.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was born into a wealthy business family, but there is also a touch of socialism in his political thinking. This is why he would often recite Habib Jalib’s famous line with great passion:
“We do not accept the rules of oppression.”
The reality is that even when Shehbaz Sharif was a non-political figure, he travelled in a small car without security or protocol. He has never appeared particularly interested in displaying his wealth or position.
But almost every other provincial satrap — whether Usman Buzdar or someone more flamboyant — wants to appear before the public surrounded by protocol, aircraft and an entire convoy of security personnel.
The elders have a saying: if a rich man lives in a poor neighbourhood, he must either constantly give charity and keep the poor around him content, or remain prepared for the possibility that the poor may one day storm his house.
The conspicuous display of wealth and power creates resentment and hatred. Unfortunately, the provincial satraps have never considered that they should conceal their wealth and power. Showing it off brings them far more harm than benefit.
The historical reality is that Pakistan itself broke apart over the issue of provincial autonomy. Punjab, the Frontier Province, Sindh and Balochistan have all faced disputes over provincial autonomy at different points in history. This was one of the reasons why the 18th Amendment gave the provinces and provincial governments greater autonomy and power.
The result, however, was that the federation became financially weaker, poorer and increasingly helpless.
The think tanks behind the current system had been talking about new provinces from the very beginning. The idea of a “reset” itself was a metaphor for the collapse of the existing system.
Technocrats who support the idea of a reset argue that empowering local governments alone will not fix the system. In their view, the only solution is the creation of new provinces. They repeatedly say: “This system simply does not work.”
Corruption, incompetence, negligence and political strong-arming have become part of society. Whatever one touches is either already broken or on the verge of breaking.
This is precisely the situation described by Jon Elia:
“Who will look after this house?
Every day, something breaks.”
I recently had a debate with one of the strongest advocates of creating new provinces. During the discussion, Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s statement was brought up as an argument against taking such a major step at present:
“The situation is sensitive; this is not the appropriate time to create new provinces.”
We also discussed whether the major decision could simply be postponed for the time being.
At this, the advocate of new provinces became visibly frustrated. He argued that whenever anyone talks about reforming the system, such excuses are used to delay the matter — and eventually the reform never takes place.
According to him, such compromises and expediencies are among the biggest causes of decline.
He then made a stark argument: if the matter is postponed now, it may never be possible to implement it in the future.
He claimed that there is already such strong resistance within the provinces to any attempt to implement this decision that the possibility of bloodshed cannot entirely be ruled out. But, he argued, if the decision is delayed for another 20 years, it could become virtually impossible.
By then, he said, every province might begin behaving like a separate country in pursuit of its own interests.
In this context, a federal minister once recalled an incident from President Asif Ali Zardari’s previous tenure. He revealed that the provincial ruler in question had been his classmate and had become provincial ruler partly because of his recommendation.
One day, the minister received sensitive information that the provincial ruler was angry, furious and had even climbed to the top of a mountain in his rage. The issue concerned the national interest, and the provincial ruler was firmly opposed to it.
The minister said he was deeply alarmed when he was told that the provincial ruler might, in his anger, adopt an aggressively nationalist posture and make an announcement that could potentially damage national security.
According to the minister, after that incident he withdrew his personal guarantee for the provincial ruler. Some time later, the man was indeed removed from office.
Obviously, the story and argument presented above are one-sided. There are counterarguments, and there are other narratives that contradict this account.
Nevertheless, these are among the principal arguments being presented to convince the PML-N and PPP leadership about the need for new provinces.
At present, the biggest dispute is precisely over the creation of new provinces. If an agreement is reached on this question, indications are that the existing political arrangement may continue for the time being.
But if the system itself changes, it will at least open the door to a change of faces.
And perhaps that, more than anything else, is what the debate is really about.