Dynamics of reorganisation

WHILE debating the question of carving out more ‘administrative units’ from Pakistan’s existing four provinces, we may find it relevant to study how India has reorganised its states (equivalent to our provinces) since independence. The example is pertinent because of the shared circumstances of the two countries created out of undivided India. They inherited the same interim constitution — the Government of India Act, 1935 — which each adapted to fit its own context.

Both countries chose a parliamentary form of government. Pakistan adopted a more explicit federal character, while India shied away from calling itself a federation. Instead, it opted to describe itself as a ‘union with some federal characteristics’. Probably, India’s more diluted form of federalism helped it carve an uncomplicated path for creating new provinces: a simple majority in parliament and a non-binding consultation with the concerned states. On the other hand, Pakistan’s 1973 Constitution made the creation of new provinces contingent upon the passage of a resolution in the concerned provincial assembly or assemblies by a two-thirds majority before the bill for new provinces could be tabled in parliament and passed in the two Houses by a two-thirds majority. This set the bar very high for altering the boundaries of the provinces as compared to India.

Around the time of Partition, undivided India consisted of 14 provinces and 587 princely states, of which two provinces (Bengal and Punjab) were partitioned. Both India and Pakistan received a part of each province. Three provinces — Sindh, the North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and British Balochistan — joined Pakistan, taking the tally of provinces in India and Pakistan to 11 and five respectively. Thirteen princely states acceded to Pakistan. The rest either voluntarily acceded to India or were coerced into doing so through brute military force. Kashmir has remained a disputed territory ever since.

The reorganisation of Indian states was triggered by language riots after a political activist, who had been demanding a separate state from Madras for Telugu-speaking people, died in 1952 following a fast unto death. When the riots spread, the Government of India fast-tracked the creation of the Telugu-speaking Andhra state (later called Andhra Pradesh) out of Madras state. The demands for more states based on language spread. The Indian government constituted a three-member States Reorganisation Commission in December 1953, headed by a former judge of the supreme court.

As Pakistan debates new provinces, India’s experience offers relevant insights.

The commission, constituted to propose the redrawing of state boundaries, also came to be known as the Justice Fazal Ali Commission after the chairman. Its proceedings continued for about 21 months and it submitted its report in September 1955. Parliament finally passed the States Reorganisation Act in 1956, leading to the redrawing of boundaries and the creation of 14 states and six union territories. Language was a major consideration but not the only one in the creation of the states.

The creation of the new states continued even after the enactment of the States Reorganisation Act. Four years later, Bombay state was split into the Gujarati-speaking Gujarat state and the Marathi-speaking Maharashtra. After persistent demands by the tribes, Nagaland was carved out of Assam state in 1963 because of its distinct language and culture. Indian Punjab was split into three parts, with Punjabi-speaking Punjab, Hindi-speaking Haryana and the hilly northern tracts merged into Himachal. In all, 15 new states were created or upgraded from union territories after the enactment of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. In the meantime, some areas were downgraded to union territories; the latest such move saw the illegal splitting of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir into the two ‘union territories’ of Ladakh and Jammu & Kashmir in 2019. The latest tally is 28 states and eight union territories.

As stated earlier, most of the new states and union territories were created on the basis of identity such as language, ethnicity, culture and geography, or the difference in the level of development in two parts of a state. There is hardly a case where a state was created just because of its large population. Uttar Pradesh, with an estimated population of over 243 million, is a case in point. The state’s population almost matches the population of Pakistan.

The population of the US has increased 10 times since 1863, but not a single state has been carved out of the existing ones since then. The last state created this way was West Virginia, which had seceded from Virginia in 1863 during the Civil War.

What are the lessons from the two-country case studies above? The first is that population on its own is not enough of a reason to split a province into two or more units. Pakistan’s population has increased four times since 1973, but this alone may not justify the creation of more provinces. There may be merit in the proposal to create more provinces, but such reorganisation should be studied in depth, preferably by a commission or even a parliamentary committee as was done when the 18th Constitutional Amendment was being drafted.

The concentration of too many powers in the provinces is a key issue that needs to be addressed. Creating more provinces may not be the best solution for this problem as it will not only be an expensive exercise but may also create political instability in one or more provinces. The problem, in my opinion, may be solved by creating a balance of powers among the three tiers of the state — federal, provincial and local. This balance can be effectively achieved by empowering local government through a comprehensive constitutional amendment, as India did in 1993. The LGs already have elaborate infrastructure and staff, unlike the proposed new provinces. The proposed amendment should not only guarantee adequate powers for various tiers of local government but should also ensure the direct transfer of funds to LGs from the National Finance Commission.

The writer is president of the Pakistan-based think tank Pildat.
[email protected]
X: @ABMPildat

Published in Dawn, August 22nd, 2026