New Provinces, Old Power Struggles: What’s At Stake For Asim Munir In Pakistan?

Pakistan is debating whether to create new provinces, establish smaller administrative units within existing provinces or strengthen local governments. These options would have different constitutional and political consequences.

According to local media reports, discussions in government circles include dividing Punjab into three provinces and Balochistan into two, splitting Khyber Pakhtunkhwa into Pakhtun and Hazara regions, and placing Karachi and Gwadar under federal administrative control while leaving the rest of Sindh intact.

The proposals were described as being at an early stage, with no settled plan or timetable. The debate also follows a proposal by Federal Minister Abdul Aleem Khan in October 2025 to reorganise each of Pakistan’s four provinces into North, Central and South administrative units while preserving their existing identities.

The distinction matters. Creating new provinces would require constitutional changes, while reorganising administration without altering provincial boundaries would be a different undertaking.

Why Has The Debate Returned?

Supporters argue that Pakistan’s large provinces make administration difficult and leave some regions distant from decision-making centres. Smaller units, they say, could improve access to public services, strengthen local representation and distribute administrative responsibilities more evenly.

Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi has backed the creation of new provinces, presenting it as a way to address governance problems. A government functionary cited in local media also argued that the creation of more provinces could address difficulties arising from the devolution of powers under the 18th Constitutional Amendment.

That argument remains contested. Devolution transferred significant responsibilities from the federation to the provinces, but creating new provincial governments would not automatically improve service delivery. Administrative capacity, funding and accountability would also determine whether a reorganisation worked.

Strengthening local governments is another option under discussion. Rather than creating new provinces, the state could seek to give elected local bodies greater authority and resources. The debate therefore concerns not only where boundaries should be drawn but also which level of government should exercise power.

Who Wants Which Changes?

Demands for new provinces are not new. Southern Punjab has long been a focus of calls for greater political representation and administrative autonomy. On 3 May 2012, the National Assembly passed a resolution supporting the creation of a Janoobi Punjab province and called on the Punjab Assembly to initiate the necessary constitutional process. The proposal did not result in a new province.

The question has also exposed differences within political parties over the status of regions such as Bahawalpur. According to local media, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Rana Sanaullah said in September that the party had not initiated the current project and that its leaders held differing views on whether Bahawalpur should form a separate province or remain linked to Lahore.

These disagreements make a national consensus difficult. Even parties that support better regional representation may disagree over boundaries, the location of capitals and the distribution of political influence.

How Would Power Shift?

Creating provinces would redistribute political representation and administrative authority. New provincial governments would require institutions, officials, budgets and legislative arrangements. Regions that currently depend on distant provincial capitals could gain more direct access to decision-makers.

But the effects would not be uniform. Dividing a province could reduce the concentration of authority in its capital, while creating a new unit could also produce fresh competition over resources and political offices.

The proposal to bring Karachi and Gwadar under federal administration raises a separate question. Such a move would shift authority away from the relevant provincial government towards the centre. For Sindh, where Karachi is the provincial capital, this is more than an administrative adjustment: it touches the province’s territorial integrity and political autonomy.

The debate has consequently become a test of the balance between federal and provincial power. Reorganisation could bring government closer to some communities, but the outcome would depend on the terms of any eventual plan.

Who Would Control The Money?

Finance is central to the dispute. New provinces would need administrative institutions and public-service budgets, while existing provincial governments would have to negotiate how assets, liabilities and revenues were divided.

The Seventh National Finance Commission Award established a formula for distributing resources among provinces that weighted population at 82%, poverty and backwardness at 10.3%, revenue collection and generation at 5%, and inverse population density at 2.7%.

Creating new provinces would not, by itself, settle how funds should be allocated among them. Any reorganisation would raise questions about how existing provincial shares should be divided or whether a revised arrangement was needed. Those decisions could become a major source of disagreement between the federation and the provinces.

Supporters may argue that smaller units would allow resources to be spent closer to local needs. Critics could counter that additional governments would increase administrative costs and create further disputes over fiscal transfers. Neither outcome is automatic; both would depend on the design and implementation of a settlement.

Why Is Sindh Opposed?

Sindh has been the clearest institutional opponent of proposals that could divide its territory or place parts of it under federal control. On 3 September, the Sindh Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution rejecting attempts to divide the province or detach any part of it. The resolution was notified four days later.

The assembly invoked Article 239(4) of Pakistan’s Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority in the affected provincial assembly for a constitutional amendment that alters the province’s boundaries. It also stressed Sindh’s historical identity and its status as a federating unit.

The opposition reflects a wider concern that a debate framed around administrative efficiency could weaken provincial autonomy. Sindh’s position is not simply a rejection of improved governance; it is also a demand that any proposed changes respect the province’s constitutional status and territorial integrity.

The wider political reaction has been divided. The Economist editorial described the proposal as a “selfish ploy to break up Pakistan”. That is an editorial judgement, not evidence that a settled plan exists or that its alleged political purpose has been established.

Is This Munir’s Plan?

The possibility that a redrawing of provincial boundaries could change the balance between elected provincial governments and the federal establishment has fuelled speculation about the military’s interests. But it does not establish that Army Chief Asim Munir personally initiated, announced or formally sponsored a plan to create new provinces.

Local media have reported discussions within government circles, while political leaders have publicly debated the merits and possible consequences of reorganisation. Rana Sanaullah has described the issue as being at an early stage and said the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz did not initiate it.

These accounts do not establish Munir’s direct role. Nor do they confirm that the proposals attributed to government discussions represent an agreed military or government blueprint. However, Pakistan is notorious for military control over policy affairs.

The question of who would gain from reorganisation is nevertheless relevant. A change in provincial boundaries or the transfer of major cities to federal administration could alter the distribution of political authority. But any claim that this is the purpose of a particular individual or institution needs evidence beyond the existence of the debate itself.

What Does The Constitution Require?

Under Article 239, a constitutional amendment bill must secure the votes of at least two-thirds of the total membership of each House of Parliament. If the amendment changes a province’s boundaries, the affected provincial assembly must also approve it by at least two-thirds of its total membership before the bill can be presented for presidential assent.

This requirement gives provincial assemblies a decisive role in any territorial reorganisation. A federal proposal alone would not be sufficient to divide a province.

A model that establishes administrative units without changing constitutional provincial boundaries would raise different questions about authority, funding and institutional design. The details would matter: a change in administrative structure should not be treated as equivalent to creating new provinces.

Parliament remains the forum for debate, but political support and the relevant constitutional process would be needed before a formal change could take effect.

What Happens Next?

The immediate question is whether the debate develops into a formal proposal. In September, Rana Sanaullah said that a proposal brought before Parliament would be considered by lawmakers and could be referred to parliamentary or standing committees. He also said a decision on a referendum would rest with a joint sitting of Parliament, rather than the government acting alone.

That leaves several unresolved issues: whether the government will adopt a specific model, whether political parties can agree on boundaries, and whether the affected provinces would support the necessary changes. The competing options—new provinces, administrative units or stronger local governments—would also need to be distinguished clearly.

Until a formal proposal moves through the required process, Pakistan’s provincial map remains unchanged. The debate has, however, brought the country’s competing ideas of governance and federalism into sharper focus: whether authority should be dispersed through new provincial structures or strengthened at the local level, and how either approach can be pursued without undermining provincial autonomy.