In the Name of Allah---the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Proposed Counties of Pakistan: A Balanced Administrative Model
Introduction
Pakistan's current administrative structure consists of four provinces, the Islamabad Capital Territory, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Azad Jammu and Kashmir. While this arrangement has served the country since independence, rapid population growth, urbanization, and increasing administrative demands have exposed significant governance challenges. Today, Punjab alone has a population exceeding 130 million, making it larger than many sovereign nations, while provinces such as Balochistan cover vast territories with scattered populations that are difficult to administer efficiently.
Instead of creating additional provinces through politically contentious ethnic or linguistic divisions, Pakistan could adopt an intermediate administrative model by reorganizing existing divisions into counties. These counties would become the principal sub-national administrative units while preserving the country's federal integrity.
This proposal envisions approximately twenty-two counties, formed by combining neighboring divisions that share common geography, history, economic interests, and cultural identity.
Why Pakistan Needs Administrative Reform
The provincial boundaries inherited after independence were largely shaped by colonial administrative convenience rather than modern governance requirements. Since then, Pakistan's population has increased nearly sevenfold, yet the number of major administrative units has remained almost unchanged.
Several challenges have emerged:
Provincial governments have become excessively centralized.
Remote regions often receive inadequate administrative attention.
Development funds are concentrated around provincial capitals.
Citizens in distant districts face significant bureaucratic hurdles.
Regional disparities continue to widen.
A county-based administrative system offers an opportunity to decentralize governance without weakening national unity.
From Linguistic Provinces to Administrative Counties: A New Vision for National Unity
Pakistan inherited its provincial framework from British India, where provincial boundaries evolved over time under colonial rule. Although these boundaries were influenced by multiple considerations—including administrative convenience, strategic interests, historical circumstances, and geography—linguistic and regional identities became one of the dominant features of the provincial structure. Provinces such as Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, and the North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) came to be closely associated with their respective linguistic and ethnic majorities, even though each contained significant linguistic and cultural diversity within its borders.
This emphasis on provincial identities was broadly consistent with the colonial governance approach, which often relied on managing and reinforcing regional distinctions as part of the broader principle of "divide and rule." While provincial boundaries were shaped by multiple administrative, strategic, and historical considerations, the resulting framework also helped sustain separate regional political identities that served the interests of colonial administration rather than the objective of building a unified national identity.
Colonial governance often relied on recognizing and managing distinct regional identities as separate administrative units. While these arrangements may have served the administrative and political interests of the colonial state, an independent Pakistan faces a fundamentally different mission. Its foremost objectives are national cohesion, balanced development, administrative efficiency, and equal opportunities for all citizens.
More than seven decades after independence, provincial identities have become deeply embedded in political discourse. Competition for financial resources, development projects, water, employment, and political influence is frequently framed through provincial interests. This has sometimes encouraged regional disparities and reinforced provincial loyalties at the expense of a broader national outlook.
The proposed county system offers a different administrative philosophy. Rather than organizing the country primarily around large provinces historically associated with particular linguistic or regional identities, Pakistan could reorganize its internal administration into medium-sized counties based on objective administrative criteria such as geographic continuity, population balance, economic integration, transport networks, and effective governance.
Under this model, counties would not represent ethnic or linguistic homelands. Instead, they would function as practical administrative regions designed to deliver public services efficiently while strengthening national unity. Historic regional names such as Potohar, Hazara, Chenab, Bahawalpur, Makran, Baltistan, Sukkur, and Karachi reflect geographical and historical identities without making language the defining basis of political organization.
A county-based system would also reduce the concentration of political and economic power in a handful of provincial capitals. Multiple regional centers would emerge as engines of development, enabling investment, infrastructure, healthcare, education, and public administration to be distributed more evenly across the country.
This proposal does not seek to diminish Pakistan's rich linguistic and cultural diversity. On the contrary, every language and regional culture would remain an important part of the nation's heritage. The change concerns administrative organization, not cultural identity. By separating governance from ethnic or linguistic considerations, Pakistan can encourage citizens to view administrative boundaries as instruments of efficient public service rather than symbols of political or ethnic competition.
In the twenty-first century, Pakistan's administrative map should reflect the needs of a modern nation-state rather than the legacy of colonial-era governance. A county system founded on efficiency, accessibility, and balanced development would strengthen the federation by bringing government closer to the people while fostering a stronger sense of shared national purpose and solidarity.
An additional concern is that excessive political emphasis on provincial identities can unintentionally create opportunities for violent extremist groups, separatist movements, and hostile foreign actors to exploit local grievances. When economic disparities, perceptions of unequal resource distribution, or administrative neglect become framed primarily through a provincial lens, they can provide narratives that encourage alienation from the federation. Throughout Pakistan's history, separatist insurgencies in parts of Balochistan, episodes of ethnic violence in Karachi, and militant exploitation of weak state institutions in the former tribal areas have demonstrated how local grievances can be amplified by armed groups and, in some cases, supported or influenced by external actors seeking to undermine Pakistan's stability. These conflicts have arisen from a complex combination of political, economic, historical, and security factors rather than provincial identity alone. Nevertheless, a governance model that promotes balanced regional development, equitable access to public services, and stronger integration with national institutions can reduce opportunities for such narratives to gain traction. A county-based administrative system, designed around efficient governance rather than ethnic or linguistic politics, seeks to strengthen the relationship between citizens and the state while reinforcing the principle that every region shares equally in Pakistan's prosperity, security, and national future.
Principles Behind the Proposed Counties
The proposed counties are based on several guiding principles.
1. Existing Divisional Boundaries
Rather than drawing entirely new borders, counties are formed by combining existing administrative divisions. This minimizes constitutional complications and administrative disruption.
For example:
Lahore and Gujranwala Divisions become Central Punjab County.
Rawalpindi and Sargodha Divisions become Potohar County.
Faisalabad and Sahiwal Divisions become Chenab County.
This approach preserves existing district structures while creating stronger regional administrations.
2. Geographic Continuity
Each county should form a geographically connected region.
Mountain areas remain together.
River basins remain together.
Desert regions remain together.
Coastal districts remain together.
Natural geography often creates common economic opportunities and infrastructure requirements.
3. Cultural and Historical Identity
Where possible, counties correspond with well-known historical regions such as:
Potohar
Hazara
Malakand
Bahawalpur
Makran
Baltistan
These names already possess historical legitimacy and local acceptance.
4. Balanced Population
Rather than having one province with over 130 million people and another with only around 15 million, counties would generally contain between approximately 8 and 20 million residents.
This makes public administration significantly more manageable.
Proposed Counties
Islamabad Capital County
Capital: Islamabad
This county consists solely of Islamabad Capital Territory and continues serving as Pakistan's federal capital.
Potohar County
Divisions:
Capital:
Rawalpindi
Characteristics:
Defence headquarters
Potohar Plateau
Military industries
Wheat production
Growing IT sector
Central Punjab County
Divisions:
Capital:
Lahore
Economic strengths:
Manufacturing
Higher education
Export industries
Financial services
Chenab County
Divisions:
Capital:
Faisalabad
Known for:
Textile industry
Agriculture
Dairy production
Industrial exports
Multan County
Divisions:
Capital:
Multan
Economic base:
Bahawalpur County
Division:
Capital:
Bahawalpur
Benefits:
Hazara County
Division:
Hazara
Capital:
Abbottabad
Strengths:
Tourism
Forestry
Hydropower
Education
Peshawar Valley County
Divisions:
Capital:
Peshawar
Key sectors:
Commerce
Universities
Healthcare
Border trade
Malakand County
Division:
Malakand
Capital:
Saidu Sharif
Focus:
Tourism
Fruit production
Hydroelectric projects
Kohat–Bannu County
Divisions:
Capital:
Kohat
Economic opportunities:
Oil and gas
Agriculture
Livestock
Dera Ismail Khan County
Division:
D.I. Khan
Capital:
Dera Ismail Khan
Potential:
Irrigation
Trade corridor
Agriculture
Gilgit County
Capital:
Gilgit
Primary sectors:
Baltistan County
Capital:
Skardu
Potential:
Karachi County
Capital:
Karachi
Role:
Pakistan's financial and commercial capital.
Specializations:
Ports
Banking
Shipping
International trade
Hyderabad County
Divisions:
Capital:
Hyderabad
Economy:
Agriculture
Industry
Transport
Sukkur County
Divisions:
Shaheed Benazirabad
Sukkur
Capital:
Sukkur
Key strengths:
Larkana County
Division:
Larkana
Capital:
Larkana
Characteristics:
Rice
Dates
Historical heritage
Upper Sindh County
Capital:
Sukkur
Importance:
Indus irrigation
Trade
Logistics
River transport
Quetta County
Divisions:
Capital:
Quetta
Economic role:
Provincial commerce
Mining
Border trade
Kalat County
Divisions:
Capital:
Khuzdar
Potential:
Minerals
Livestock
Transportation
Makran County
Division:
Makran
Capital:
Turbat
Strategic significance:
Gwadar Port
Fisheries
Blue economy
Coastal tourism
Rakhshan County
Divisions:
Capital:
Chagai (or Dera Murad Jamali)
Strengths:
Mining
Agriculture
Solar energy
Below is an approximate table based on the 2023 Census, existing divisional boundaries, and estimated areas obtained by aggregating constituent districts. Population and area figures are rounded and should be treated as planning estimates rather than official statistics.
| Proposed County | Constituent Division(s) | Capital | Approx. Area (km²) | Approx. Population (2023) |
|---|
| Islamabad Capital County | Islamabad Capital Territory | Islamabad | 906 | 2.4 million |
| Potohar County | Rawalpindi + Sargodha | Rawalpindi | 42,500 | 16.5 million |
| Central Punjab County | Lahore + Gujranwala | Lahore | 29,500 | 26.5 million |
| Chenab County | Faisalabad + Sahiwal | Faisalabad | 33,000 | 20.8 million |
| Multan County | Multan + Dera Ghazi Khan | Multan | 72,000 | 16.2 million |
| Bahawalpur County | Bahawalpur | Bahawalpur | 45,600 | 6.5 million |
| Hazara County | Hazara | Abbottabad | 18,000 | 5.5 million |
| Peshawar Valley County | Peshawar + Mardan | Peshawar | 12,000 | 10.7 million |
| Malakand County | Malakand | Saidu Sharif | 28,500 | 8.7 million |
| Kohat–Bannu County | Kohat + Bannu | Kohat | 28,000 | 5.8 million |
| Dera Ismail Khan County | D.I. Khan | D.I. Khan | 23,000 | 2.3 million |
| Gilgit County | Gilgit Division | Gilgit | 38,000 | 0.65 million |
| Baltistan County | Baltistan Division | Skardu | 27,000 | 0.55 million |
| Karachi County | Karachi Division | Karachi | 3,780 | 20.4 million |
| Hyderabad County | Hyderabad + Mirpurkhas | Hyderabad | 33,500 | 10.2 million |
| Sukkur County | Sukkur + Shaheed Benazirabad | Sukkur | 54,000 | 9.6 million |
| Larkana County | Larkana | Larkana | 15,500 | 5.2 million |
| Quetta County | Quetta + Zhob | Quetta | 57,000 | 4.3 million |
| Kalat County | Kalat + Sibi | Khuzdar | 89,000 | 2.1 million |
| Makran County | Makran | Turbat | 47,000 | 1.8 million |
| Rakhshan County | Rakhshan + Nasirabad | Chagai (or Dera Murad Jamali) | 93,000 | 2.7 million |
Summary
| Item | Value |
|---|
| Number of Counties | 21 |
| Total Area | ≈ 881,000 km² |
| Total Population | ≈ 241 million |
Observations
Largest by Area: Rakhshan County (~93,000 km²)
Second Largest: Kalat County (~89,000 km²)
Smallest by Area: Islamabad Capital County (906 km²)
Most Populous: Central Punjab County (~26.5 million)
Second Most Populous: Chenab County (~20.8 million)
Third Most Populous: Karachi County (~20.4 million)
Least Populous: Baltistan County (~0.55 million)
This arrangement produces counties that are generally more balanced than the current provinces while preserving historical and geographical identities. The only remaining very populous counties are Central Punjab, Chenab, and Karachi, reflecting Pakistan's major urban and industrial corridors.
Advantages of the County System
Better Governance
Smaller administrative units allow government departments to remain closer to citizens.
Decisions become faster.
Monitoring improves.
Corruption becomes easier to detect.
Balanced Development
Large provinces often prioritize their capital cities.
Counties would spread investment across multiple regional capitals, encouraging more equitable development.
Improved Infrastructure Planning
Each county can prepare infrastructure plans tailored to its own needs.
Examples include:
Tourism in Hazara and Baltistan
Ports in Makran
Industry in Central Punjab
Agriculture in Chenab
Mining in Quetta and Rakhshan
Reduced Political Polarization
The proposal is administrative rather than ethnic.
It avoids creating provinces based solely on language or ethnicity.
Instead, counties are built around functional administrative regions.
Stronger Local Democracy
County governments could have directly elected councils and executives responsible for:
Education
Healthcare
Transport
Regional planning
Local policing
Disaster management
District governments would continue handling local municipal services.
Economic Competitiveness
Smaller regional governments tend to compete in attracting investment.
Each county can develop:
Healthy competition among counties often leads to improved governance and innovation.
Administrative Efficiency
Many countries with successful governance systems rely on medium-sized regional units rather than a few oversized provinces.
Examples include:
Pakistan can adapt these lessons while preserving its own constitutional framework.
Constitutional Considerations
The county model does not necessarily require abolishing the federation.
Instead, provinces could be reorganized into counties through constitutional reform, or counties could function as strengthened regional governments within a revised federal framework.
A phased implementation—starting with administrative decentralization before broader constitutional changes—would allow institutions to adapt gradually while minimizing disruption.
Challenges
Several issues would require careful planning:
Constitutional amendments.
Redistribution of provincial assets.
Civil service restructuring.
Revenue-sharing mechanisms.
Election of county governments.
Public acceptance.
Transition costs.
These challenges are significant but manageable through gradual implementation.
Conclusion
Pakistan's governance challenges are increasingly those of scale rather than merely resources. Provinces with populations larger than many countries face immense administrative burdens, while remote regions often remain underserved. A county-based administrative model offers a practical path toward more responsive government by bringing decision-making closer to citizens without undermining national cohesion.
By organizing neighboring divisions into geographically coherent, economically viable, and historically recognizable counties, Pakistan could achieve a more balanced distribution of development, improve public service delivery, strengthen local democracy, and reduce regional disparities. Counties such as Potohar, Hazara, Central Punjab, Makran, Bahawalpur, and Baltistan reflect identities that are already familiar to the public while creating governance units that are more manageable than the existing provinces.
Although constitutional, political, and administrative challenges would accompany such a transformation, they are not insurmountable. With careful planning and phased implementation, a county system could modernize Pakistan's administrative framework for the twenty-first century—making government more efficient, equitable, and accountable while preserving the country's federal character and national unity.
