Young People Are Not the Future, They Are the Pres…

The debate over the creation of new administrative units and provinces in Pakistan has once again occupied the national discourse after Federal Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi declared that the country’s existing governance system had “collapsed” and argued that governance must be brought closer to the people through new administrative units. His remarks have revived an issue that has periodically surfaced since independence but has rarely moved beyond political rhetoric. While some interpreted his statement as a call for creating additional provinces, others argued that he was advocating broader administrative restructuring. Regardless of terminology, the debate has exposed the structural weaknesses of Pakistan’s governance architecture and compelled policymakers, constitutional experts and political parties to revisit an important question: can Pakistan continue to be governed effectively under its existing administrative framework, or has demographic growth, urban expansion and governance complexity made institutional restructuring unavoidable?  Pakistan today is home to more than 250 million people, yet it continues to function primarily through four provinces established under historical rather than administrative considerations. At independence in 1947, the population and governance challenges were dramatically different. Since then, urbanisation, economic diversification, internal migration and increasing demands for public services have transformed governance requirements. Provincial capitals often remain geographically and administratively distant from citizens living in peripheral districts. Residents of South Punjab, Hazara, southern Balochistan, merged districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and interior Sindh frequently complain that decision-making remains concentrated in provincial capitals, resulting in unequal development, delayed service delivery and inadequate representation. Mohsin Naqvi’s argument rests on the proposition that governance has become excessively centralised and that citizens are compelled to travel long distances merely to access basic government services, courts and administrative offices. He further argued that countries with expanding populations have responded by creating additional administrative units rather than maintaining outdated structures. Whether one agrees with his assessment or not, his central observation deserves serious consideration because governance effectiveness is measured not by the size of government but by the accessibility, responsiveness and accountability of institutions.  The debate itself is not new. Successive governments have proposed South Punjab Province, Bahawalpur Province, Hazara Province and even administrative restructuring in Karachi and Balochistan. Parliamentary resolutions regarding South Punjab have previously been adopted, yet constitutional consensus has remained elusive. Political parties have often supported new provinces while in opposition but have shown considerably less enthusiasm after assuming power. Consequently, proposals have become election slogans rather than governance reforms.  Critics of creating new provinces argue that administrative fragmentation alone cannot solve governance failures. They point out that Pakistan’s primary problem is not necessarily the number of provinces but weak institutions, bureaucratic inefficiency, political interference, corruption and inconsistent implementation of laws. According to this perspective, multiplying provinces without institutional reform merely replicates existing inefficiencies across additional administrative boundaries. New provincial governments would require assemblies, governors, chief ministers, secretariats, police structures, judicial infrastructure and enormous recurring financial expenditures. Unless accompanied by governance reforms, decentralisation may simply increase administrative costs without improving public service delivery. Supporters, however, contend that administrative proximity improves governance outcomes. Comparative international experience demonstrates that countries such as India have periodically reorganised states to improve administrative efficiency and political representation. Smaller administrative jurisdictions often enable faster decision-making, improved monitoring, stronger accountability and more equitable distribution of development resources. Citizens generally experience better governance when government institutions are physically and administratively closer to them. These arguments have gained renewed attention following Naqvi’s intervention.  However, the current debate suffers from one significant omission. It largely ignores Pakistan’s weakest democratic institution: local government. Before creating additional provinces, policymakers must honestly evaluate why local governments have repeatedly failed. Pakistan has experimented with local government systems under different constitutional and political arrangements, yet these institutions have rarely been allowed to function independently and consistently. Elected local governments are frequently dissolved, elections are delayed and financial autonomy remains severely restricted. Provincial governments often resist devolving meaningful authority because local governments are perceived as political competitors rather than governance partners. This brings the issue of local body elections to the centre of the discussion. The Constitution envisions democratic decentralisation, yet local government elections have remained irregular across several provinces. In many cases, elected councils complete only partial terms or remain financially dependent upon provincial governments. Consequently, citizens seeking municipal services, sanitation, water supply, local roads, building regulation or community development frequently confront administrative paralysis. A country that struggles to sustain functioning local governments cannot realistically expect that merely creating additional provinces will automatically improve governance. The experience of Pakistan’s devolution reforms provides valuable lessons. The Local Government reforms introduced in the early 2000s attempted to decentralise authority by empowering districts and local councils. Although those reforms had weaknesses and generated political controversy, they demonstrated that bringing government closer to citizens can improve responsiveness when accompanied by fiscal authority, administrative autonomy and institutional accountability. Unfortunately, subsequent governments reversed or weakened many of these arrangements, resulting in repeated cycles of centralisation and decentralisation. Political reactions to Mohsin Naqvi’s proposal reflect Pakistan’s broader constitutional divisions. Some leaders have welcomed discussion on governance reform while supporting greater administrative decentralisation. Others have questioned both the timing and constitutional implications of the proposal, expressing concerns that restructuring provinces without broad political consensus could intensify ethnic, linguistic and regional sensitivities. There are also concerns that debates over provincial boundaries could distract attention from more immediate governance priorities, including economic recovery, inflation, institutional reforms and electoral credibility. The political diversity of these reactions demonstrates that constitutional restructuring cannot succeed through executive statements alone; it requires sustained parliamentary dialogue, provincial participation and national consensus.  The constitutional dimension cannot be overlooked. Creating new provinces requires constitutional amendments and political agreement among federal and provincial stakeholders. Such reforms inevitably involve questions relating to resource distribution, National Finance Commission allocations, Senate representation, civil service restructuring, judicial jurisdictions and provincial assets. Therefore, any attempt to redraw administrative boundaries without extensive consultation risks generating political instability rather than administrative efficiency. The opportunities nevertheless remain significant. Properly designed administrative restructuring could reduce regional disparities, improve public service delivery, enhance

“Federalism is self-rule plus shared rule”—Daniel J. Elazar The recurring demand for creating new provinces in Pakistan resurfaces with remarkable regularity. Whenever governance falters, regional disparities widen or perceptions of neglect become politically expedient, voices emerge advocating the redrawing of provincial boundaries. Southern Punjab, Hazara, Bahawalpur and other regions are periodically cited as compelling examples of territories whose aspirations can supposedly be fulfilled only through separate provincial status.  The proposition appears deceptively simple: smaller provinces would bring government closer to the people and consequently ensure better governance. Yet constitutional questions are seldom answered by geographical arithmetic. Before redrawing Pakistan’s political map, we must first answer a more fundamental question: what is the constitutional purpose of a province within a federation? The quote by Daniel J. Elazar, one of the foremost scholars of federalism is a simple expression that encapsulates the philosophy underlying every successful federation. A federation is neither a unitary state nor a loose confederation of independent entities. It is a constitutional partnership in which constituent units voluntarily participate in the exercise of shared sovereignty while retaining their distinct political identities. The essence of federalism, therefore, lies not in the number of constituent units but in the constitutional balance between unity and diversity. Pakistan’s provinces were never intended to function merely as administrative divisions. Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan represent historical regions possessing distinct linguistic, cultural and political identities. Their constitutional status cannot be viewed solely through the lens of administrative convenience. They constitute a federal compact upon which Pakistan’s constitutional structure rests. Altering provincial boundaries is therefore not merely a question of improving governance; it involves reconsidering the architecture of the federation itself. None of this implies that demands for new provinces are devoid of merit. Those advocating separate provincial status often point towards genuine grievances. Regions distant from provincial capitals frequently complain of inadequate public investment, poor infrastructure, unequal employment opportunities, weak political representation and an enduring sense of neglect. Such concerns deserve neither dismissal nor ridicule. Every federation must continuously reassess whether its institutions are responding equitably to the aspirations of all its citizens. There are, undoubtedly, persuasive arguments in favour of creating additional provinces. Smaller administrative units may improve governmental accessibility, reduce bureaucratic distance, strengthen regional representation and permit more focused development planning.  India’s creation of states such as Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Telangana was largely justified on similar considerations. In certain instances, administrative decentralisation has indeed facilitated more responsive governance. It would therefore be intellectually dishonest to dismiss the proposal merely because it challenges existing boundaries. Yet comparative constitutional experience also counsels caution. Nigeria expanded from three regions to thirty-six states without eliminating corruption, insecurity or administrative inefficiency. India itself continues to witness demands for further statehood despite repeated territorial reorganisation. The number of constituent units has never, by itself, guaranteed good governance. Effective administration ultimately depends upon the quality of institutions rather than the quantity of provinces. This distinction is often overlooked in Pakistan’s public discourse. Governance failures are frequently attributed to geography when they are, in reality, institutional. Weak local governments, politicised bureaucracies, uneven fiscal distribution, inadequate accountability and inconsistent policy implementation cannot be remedied simply by drawing new boundaries upon a map. Multiplying provinces without simultaneously strengthening constitutional institutions merely reproduces existing weaknesses on a smaller scale. Perhaps the most neglected dimension of this debate is local government. Modern constitutional democracies recognise that genuine democracy begins not in distant capitals but within local communities. The closer government remains to the citizen, the greater its responsiveness and accountability.  Unfortunately, Pakistan has historically oscillated between centralisation and reluctant decentralisation, often treating elected local governments as temporary administrative experiments rather than permanent constitutional institutions. Before concluding that additional provinces constitute the solution, we ought first to ask whether meaningful local self-government has ever been sincerely allowed to flourish. Equally important is the constitutional process itself. The creation of new provinces cannot become an instrument of transient political expediency or electoral bargaining. It must emerge from broad constitutional consensus, careful economic evaluation, administrative necessity and, above all, the informed consent of those directly affected. Constitutional engineering undertaken without social consensus has rarely strengthened federations; more often, it has deepened existing divisions. The debate, therefore, should not be framed as one between those who favour additional provinces and those who oppose them. The real issue is whether territorial reorganisation genuinely addresses the underlying causes of poor governance or merely offers an attractive political slogan. A federation derives its strength not from the number of provinces appearing on its map but from the confidence its citizens repose in the fairness of its institutions. Where constitutional principles are respected, resources distributed equitably and local governments empowered, both large and small provinces can flourish. Where these foundations are absent, no amount of territorial rearrangement can compensate for institutional decay. Pakistan’s future will ultimately be determined less by the cartography of its provinces than by the constitutional maturity of its federation. If new provinces emerge through genuine constitutional consensus and demonstrable administrative necessity, they may well strengthen the federal structure. If, however, they arise merely as instruments of political convenience or regional rivalry, they risk replacing the promise of federalism with the peril of fragmentation.  The challenge before Pakistan, therefore, is not simply to decide how many provinces it should have. It is to determine whether the federation can faithfully uphold the constitutional promise of self-rule and shared rule upon which every enduring federal democracy ultimately depends. _____________________________________________________________________________ The writer, lawyer and author, is former Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), a member Advisory Board and Senior Visiting Fellow of Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) 

A few years back, the 18th Amendment was introduced with the promise that devolution of power is necessary to solve the people’s problems. It was necessary to empower people and bring resources to the ground level to positively impact their lives. The devolution of power was promised through the establishment of strong local governments.    However, devolution stalled at the provincial level.  Provincial governments refused to grant the promised autonomy to local governments. Moreover, local governments do not have financial autonomy at all, which is a prerequisite to empower them. For example, political parties at the provincial level use it to get maximum financial resources and autonomy, but refuse to devolve it to local governments.  Therefore, instead of benefiting people and the country, it has added to problems. Now, it is on the verge of collapse. Many voices ask to roll back the 18th Amendment, and they are justified.     Now the debate has started about creating new provinces, and the size of provinces is portrayed as a problem, as devolution of power and local governments were portrayed before the 18th Amendment. However, before creating new provinces, there is a need to learn from the failure of the 18th Amendment. It is necessary to analyze the reasons for the failure of the 18th Amendment. There can be many reasons, but the most prominent ones were governance and political culture. Thus, there is a need to first understand these before venturing into creating new provinces.    What is governance? There are different ways to define governance, but for me, “governance is an art and a science for satisfying people’s needs, building institutions to protect their interests and life, and keeping people’s aspirations or dreams alive. Governance is a basic ingredient of state-building and sustaining it; rather, it shoulders the existence of the state. Why? Because it ensures justice and social justice, provides security, and protects people from injustice and security threats. It holds true from ancient times to modern statehood. Hence, it is used to measure a country’s success and failure.    Over time, humans have developed different models of governance. In modern history, there are three prominent models: Western, socialist, and empathy-based (Islamic) models. The Western model, based on Liberal democracy, prefers democratic governance, which hinges on elections and accountability. It works through the slogan “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Unfortunately, over time, this slogan and accountability began to weaken, and elections alone remain the main component. Moreover, manipulation of the election process and the use of money further weaken the system, as marginalized people get pushed out of the system. Popular slogans, identity, ethnicity, and hate become the driving force.      The socialist model is based on the slogan of people-centric governance and the whole-process people’s democracy. People-centric governance means all policies and actions must be people-oriented, and outcomes must serve the people and bring positive change in their lives. The whole process of people’s democracy means that the interaction between the state and the people is continuous, not just at election time. Moreover, the merit and character of governance actors are determining factors to ensure people-centric governance. This model was invented in China and is practiced there, where it has achieved remarkable success.     The Islamic model hinges on three fundamental pillars: empathy, people, and accountability, in accordance with Sharia law. Empathy and people must be the focus of all policies and actions at all levels. People’s say must matter at all levels. Accountability must be ensured at all levels, without any discrimination. Famous incidents of Hazarat Umer (RA) and Hazarat Ali provide the true essence of accountability and governance. Lastly, the actors of governance must have the highest virtuous character and should not engage in any form of prejudiced behavior. Unfortunately, it is not practiced anywhere in the contemporary world.       From the above comparison, it can be inferred that despite differences in philosophy and actions, the goal of each model remains the same: to serve the people. Serving the people is the key to sustaining power and the state.    Unfortunately, Pakistan does not follow any of these models. Pakistan has its own style of governance, which is a mix of everything, and we cannot say exactly what it is. However, the most prominent features of our governance are relationship-based networks, misuse of power, and a money- and power-driven system. The system is devised through complicated webs of laws, rules, and requirements. It makes the system prone to corruption and rent-seeking behavior, exclusiveness, and clubs of interest groups, which have become common elements. The system operates through money in exchange for favors, business deals, or power and influence, and is facilitated by relationship-based networks.    It has given rise to a new type of governance model: elusive governance. There is no systematic way to plan and execute the plans. Plans are being made for short-term gains, not with proper planning or a futuristic approach. Haphazardness has become the most prominent feature of governance. People and people’s interests are largely missing. Let’s try to understand it with an example from Islamabad, the seat of government.    A few years ago, the Pakistani government initiated the Safe City program. The government spent billions of rupees to complete the Safe City program. It was sold as a program to secure the people. After that, a new government came to power and initiated the construction of signal-free corridors by building underpasses and flyovers. The government again spent billions of rupees to build the signal-free corridors. People were told it was being done to serve them by facilitating mobility. The process is still going on.     After spending hundreds of billions on the Safe City program and signal-free corridors, the government one day decided to install check posts at major points. The installation of check posts severely disrupts traffic flow and puts the lives of hundreds of people at risk across the city every day. Now, a common-sense question is: why do governments spend

The moment started with a comment of a supreme court judge calling the unemployed Genz’s as “cockroach” when they were demanding to address the weakness of the system where there were almost 2 million students who are going to make an attempt to pass through the examination to prequalify, as the doctors. but the worst is what happened. Finally, despite that the Indians government paid an attention on their education system, they simply call that Genz’s as a cockroach. Historically, they need to understand that a cockroach can survive in the worst environment. Coming back to the topic, what happened in Indian education system, was a leakage of the NEET exam in the shape of a guess paper. Which was based on the fake pillars where for 2024 all that important papers were leaking with the advanced version of so-called guesses paper. 135 questions out of total 185 questions were exactly based on the same guess paper which was drafted by the person who exactly formatted the questionnaire of this NEET exam. Vice President Pakistan- China Joint Chamber Total democratic system of India which is ruthlessly dealing with the sentiments of Genz’s who lost their lives by committing suicide. India so-called, the largest democracy of the world, is even not being able to control its most acknowledgeable area, the medical studies. India claims that they are producing the most doctors globally. But how not we supposed to check their systems? Is that they are coming through the proper channels? Out of 2 million students who attempt this NEET exam every year, almost 120000 students can be qualified as doctor. But the leakage of this questionnaire globally, who will rely at the doctor degree of this community? It has come to our attention that their entire educational structure has already collapsed and been terminated internally. The matter cannot be settled with the resignation of their Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan who is only a part of that culprit syndicate which was operating among the Indian society form decades. The matter not only for the medical students, is that their system like the engineers, lawyers and other technical areas that have already been destroyed but the system. How India can claim that they are the global technical man power supplier? This have exposed India with its education system globally, who is going to trust that the fake degrees to the favorable students have been provided, is that the degrees really have the global value where every one sure that the leaders of BJP were also directly involved in this scam. Even the local media of India have identified that who are the culprits and beneficiaries for this scam. What I want to emphasize, the weakness of the system where everything is being unjustified and the privilege class at the basis of castism are the biggest beneficiaries. This have exposed a so-called system who is the beneficiary of this castism, and keeping that majority suppressed for the centuries. Even the democratic system of India is based on hollow cast. Where there is no space for the lower cast but still their claim to be the biggest democracy in the world is questionable. Where the majority is being ruled but the minority from centuries. Dalits under the savage rule of Indian castism are suffering with the disaster. They are Still being called untouchable with the dominance of the castism which is consistently trying to to promote its so-called elite class. Is that the India is willing to release the data for its sectorial, religious, a. nd scheduled cast who are under a constant pressure in all his century as a lower-class citizens? How this Modi government is going to make denial for that paper which was leaked on the first week of May? and was going to be as a facilitating tool for the students, with a money in their pocket. It have also been published that how his paper was properly scanned and was sent against money to the people who were already in a position to manipulate the system. That means the so-called upper class, the privilege class have their ways to dominate the system. But i will come back to my topic is that all that education system of India was already manipulated from decades, this is something have shown up recently? But how about the past? India who was claiming to produce most CEOs in the worl, have totally been failed. How about the Sundar Pachai degree, is there any certification that his degree was not formulated? It is not only a question mark on an education system rather than a system which was manipulating globally. This paper leak have a very viable question to the world. Not only for the doctors, engineers, pilots, IT experts under this system got a very big question mark. The level of corruption where these students were demonstrating was not only on a partial side to be an anti-BJP. But they were accusing a system adopted but the Phanatic ideology of RSS, where there is no space for the minorities and schedule cast. The acceptance of the resignation of India’s Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being viewed by many as holding him accountable not only for jeopardizing the future of countless students but also for the student suicides allegedly linked to the examination controversy. Is that Indian judicial system is enough powerful to go for a revenge? By confirming the resignation of their education minister, Indian Prime Minister have clearly shown his weakness. this is a crack in an ideology created by the Indian elite in last one and a half decade.

Post-Doctorate (Peace Education) International Islamic University Islamabad The trilateral relationship between Pakistan, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia represents one of the most significant geopolitical partnerships in the Islamic world, with the potential to reshape regional dynamics and contribute meaningfully to global peace and stability. These three nations, each wielding considerable influence in their respective spheres, share common interests rooted in Islamic solidarity, strategic cooperation, and mutual security concerns. As the world navigates increasingly complex challenges including terrorism, economic instability and geopolitical tensions, the collaboration between these three countries offers a pragmatic pathway toward addressing regional conflicts and fostering sustainable development. This essay examines the historical foundations of this trilateral relationship, analyzes the contemporary opportunities and challenges facing these nations, and proposes a comprehensive vision for how Pakistan, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia can work collectively to promote peace, stability, and prosperity in their regions and beyond. The relationship between Pakistan, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia is deeply rooted in shared Islamic heritage and Cold War-era strategic alliances. Pakistan and Türkiye have maintain diplomatic relations since Pakistan’s independence in 1947, with both nations viewing themselves as guardians of Islamic values while navigating the complexities of secular governance and regional stability. Saudi Arabia, as the custodian of Islam’s holiest sites and a major regional power, has historically served as a financial and ideological anchor for both Pakistan and Türkiye. These connections intensified during the Soviet-Afghan War when all three nations collaborated to support Afghan resistance movements, establishing patterns of military cooperation and intelligence sharing that persist today. The geographical positioning of these three nations makes their cooperation particularly valuable. Pakistan serves as a bridge between the Middle East and South Asia, Türkiye controls critical waterways and straddles Europe and Asia, while Saudi Arabia dominates the Arabian Peninsula and maintains substantial economic influence globally. Together, they represent a population exceeding 250 million people and combined GDP that makes them economically significant actors in the Islamic world. Their combined military capabilities, particularly Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and Türkiye’s advanced defense industry, provide them with considerable strategic weight in global affairs. The three nations face remarkably similar security challenges that necessitate coordinated responses. Terrorism, particularly extremist groups operating across borders, poses a persistent threat to all three countries. Pakistan has struggled with militant organizations such as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, Türkiye faces challenges from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and various Islamist extremist groups, while Saudi Arabia confronts threats from Al-Qaeda affiliated organizations and Iranian-backed militias. A coordinated counterterrorism strategy that shares intelligence, coordinates military operations, and implements joint training programs could significantly enhance the security of all three nations while reducing opportunities for terrorist organizations to exploit jurisdictional gaps. Beyond security concerns, these nations share substantial economic interests. The growing middle class in Pakistan, Türkiye advanced manufacturing sector, and Saudi Arabia’s renewable energy ambitions create complementary opportunities for trade and investment. Regional infrastructure projects, such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the proposed Middle Corridor connecting Central Asia to Europe through Türkiye, offer avenues for economic cooperation that could benefit all three countries. Additionally, all three nations recognize the importance of energy security in an increasingly multipolar world, creating opportunities for cooperation in renewable energy development, particularly given Saudi Arabia’s commitment to transitioning away from oil dependency and Türkiye strategic location for energy transit. Recent developments demonstrate growing momentum toward deeper trilateral cooperation The Economic Cooperation Organization, which includes all three nations along with others on the region, has emerged as a platform for discussing trade facilitation and infrastructure development. Pakistan and Türkiye have strengthened military-to-military ties through joint exercises and defense cooperation agreements, while Saudi Arabia has increased its defense: e procurement from both countries and hosted significant diplomatic summits bringing the three nations together. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization also provides a forum where these nations increasingly coordinate on regional security matters. Cultural and educational exchanges have expanded considerably, with increasing numbers of students from all three nations studying in each other’s universities and growing tourism facilitating people-to-people connections. Turkish media has gained significant popularity in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, while Pakistani cultural products have found audiences in the other two countries, creating soft power synergies that strengthen bilateral ties. These cultural connections help build constituencies within each country that support deeper cooperation and mutual understanding. However, challenges remain in translating political will into concrete outcomes. Bureaucratic inefficiencies, trade barriers, and inconsistent policy implementation have hindered some cooperative initiatives. Additionally, each nation faces domestic political pressures that sometimes constrain their ability to fully commit to trilateral projects. Pakistan’s ongoing economic challenges, Türkiye internal political dynamics, and Saudi Arabia’s regional rivalry with Iran create competing priorities that sometimes divert attention and resources from trilateral initiatives.