İçeriğe atla
Stories
PK
Closed

Pakistan’da Yeni Vilayet Tartışması: Yönetişimde Yakınlık Arayışı

Summary · AI generated

Pakistan’da içişleri bakanının daha küçük idari birimler kurma önerisi, ülkede birkaç yılda bir alevlenen yeni vilayet oluşturma tartışmasını yeniden gündeme taşıdı. Dawn gazetesinde yayımlanan bir başyazıya göre, asıl mesele Pakistan’ın kaç vilayete bölünmesi gerektiği değil; hükümetin vatandaşlara etkin hizmet sunacak kadar yakında olup olmadığı. Yazıda, idari sınırların ancak yönetişim kalitesini etkiledikleri ölçüde önem taşıdığı vurgulanıyor. Tartışma, ülkenin federal yapısı ve yerel yönetim reformları bağlamında siyasi sonuçlar doğurabilir. Daha küçük idari birimlerin, kaynak dağılımı, siyasi temsil ve etnik dengeler üzerinde etkileri olacağı belirtiliyor. Öneri, Pakistan’da uzun süredir devam eden merkeziyetçi yapının gevşetilmesi ve yerel yönetişimin güçlendirilmesi ihtiyacına işaret ediyor. Gelişme, hükümetin reform ajandası ve yaklaşan siyasi gündemle birlikte değerlendiriliyor.

This summary is currently in Turkish; automated English translation is coming soon.

Started 05 Aug, 03:12 3 events Updated 07 Aug
Pakistan country file →
Paylaş
Bağlam · AI üretimi

Bağlam, hikayenin etrafındaki ülke + lider + komşu hikaye ağına dayanılarak AI tarafından üretildi. Olgu içerikleri için her zaman üstteki kaynak linklerine başvurun.

Bu gündemi takip et

Pakistan gelişmelerini kaçırma — ücretsiz kaydol, günlük brifinginde gör.

React to this story:

Timeline

latest: 07 Aug
  1. Political05 Aug, 03:12

    Rethinking governance in Pakistan

    Islamabad, Pakistan

    EVERY few years, Pakistan revisits the debate on creating new provinces. The interior minister’s recent proposal to establish smaller administrative units has again raised an important question. Yet the real issue is not how many provinces Pa­­kistan should have. It is whether government is close enough to serve its citizens effectively. Adm­inistrative boundaries matter only because they influence how quickly people receive education, healthcare, justice, infrastructure and disaster relief. If governance remains distant and unresponsive, merely redrawing maps won’t improve lives. With over 240 million people spread across nearly 796,000 square kilometres, Pakistan is one of the world’s largest federations. Its administrative challenges vary enormously — from the mountains of Gilgit-Baltistan to the deserts of Thar and the vast expanse of Balochistan. A governance model suited to Lahore or Karachi cannot automatically meet the needs of Kech, Upper Kohistan or Astore. The real challenge is one of state capacity rather than geography alone. Pakistan’s history reflects repeated efforts to balance national unity with effective administration. At independence in 1947, West Pakistan comprised Punjab, Sindh, the North-West Frontier Province, the Chief Commissioner’s Province of Balochistan, princely states — including Kalat, Bahawalpur and Swat — and the Tribal Areas. The 1955 One Unit scheme attempted to centralise administration; instead, it deepened regional grievances. Its abolition in 1970 and the federal framework established by the 1973 Constitution reaffirmed the importance of provincial autonomy. More recently, the merger of Fata into KP demonstrated that Pakistan’s administrative structure can evolve when necessary. Yet demands for South Punjab, Hazara and Bahawalpur continue because many citizens still feel distant from provincial capitals. The case for smaller administrative units is fundamentally administrative rather than political. Punjab’s population exceeds that of many countries, while Balochistan covers almost 44 per cent of Pakistan’s territory but contains only a small share of its population. Administering such contrasting regions through similar institutional arrangements limits efficiency. Have power, resources and decision-making been devolved enough to serve citizens effectively? Governments perform best when decision-makers are close to the communities they serve. Greater administrative proximity improves supervision of schools, hospitals, roads and development projects while strengthening transparency and public accountability. The devastating floods of 2022 illustrated the value of capable local institutions. Where local administrative capacity was stronger, relief reached affected communities more quickly. At the same time, creating new provinces is neither simple nor inexpensive. Constitutional ame­n­­dments require broad political consensus, while new provinces need legislatures, secretariats, ju­­d­­icial institutions and sustainable financial res­o­u­­rces. Without careful planning, administrative re­­organisation risks creating additional bureaucracy without significantly improving governance. International experience offers useful lessons. India has repeatedly created new states — including Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Telangana — to improve governance in historically neglected regions. Although disputes over assets and water accompanied these reforms, smaller states enabled governments to focus more closely on local priorities. Bangladesh adopted a different approach. Rather than creating provinces, it strengthened districts, upazilas and union parishads. Improvements in rural healthcare, primary education and disaster management owe much to effective local administration. Indonesia embarked on one of the world’s largest decentralisation programmes after reforms in 1998, transferring substantial authority and financial resources to districts and municipalities. Nigeria, by contrast, demonstrates the risks of expanding administrative units without fiscal sustainability; while political representation improved, the country developed an expensive state structure heavily dependent on federal revenues. France provides yet another model, devolving significant powers to departments and municipalities without repeatedly altering regional boundaries. Despite their different political systems, these countries illustrate one common principle: successful administrative reform depends less on the number of administrative units than on whether authority, financial resources and accountability actually reach local institutions. Ironically, Pakistan already possesses the constitutional foundation for this approach. Article 140A requires provinces to establish elected local governments and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility to them. Yet successive governments have implemented this provision unevenly. Pakistan’s own experience supports stronger LG. The 2001 Local Government Plan transferred significant responsibilities for education, healthcare and local development to elected district governments. Although politically controversial, it demonstrated the benefits of bringing decision-making closer to citizens. After the 18th Amendment, provinces gained substantial autonomy from Islamabad, but meaningful decentralisation often stopped at the provincial level. Many districts and municipalities remained dependent on provincial governments for authority and funding. Thus, the debate over new provinces and LG should be seen as complementary rather than competing. Where there is broad public consensus, administrative necessity and economic viability, new provinces should remain a legitimate constitutional option. But such reforms must be guided by transparent criteria and accompanied by agreed arrangements for finance, water, civil services and transitional administration. At the same time, meaningful LG reform should begin immediately. Provinces should guarantee predictable financial transfers to elected LGs, devolve responsibility for primary education, basic healthcare, water supply, sanitation and local infrastructure, conduct regular local elections, and protect local institutions from arbitrary dissolution. Devolution without financial autonomy cannot succeed. For nearly eight decades, Pakistan has alternated between centralisation and decentralisation, often expecting structural changes alone to resolve governance failures. Experience at home and abroad suggests otherwise. Institutions matter more than boundaries. The purpose of administrative reform is not to redraw maps but to improve lives. When a child in Rajanpur, Tharpar­kar, Upper Kohistan, Kech, Astore or Neelum Valley enjoys the same access to education and healthcare as one in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, Quetta or Islamabad; when a mother in Dera Bugti can obtain timely medical care; and when citizens across Punjab, Sindh, KP, Balochistan, GB and Azad Kashmir experience responsive public institutions, Pakistan will know that administrative reform has achieved its purpose. A federation’s true strength is measured not by the number of provinces on its map, but by the confidence of its citizens that their government is never too distant to serve them. The writer is a retired inspector general of police and former DG FIA. Published in Dawn, August 5th, 2026

    Dawn – Home
  2. Political07 Aug, 03:32

    Pakistan’s privacy debate

    Pakistan

    EVERY discussion about data protection in Pakistan reaches the same conclusion: we still don’t have a comprehensive data privacy law. Technically, that’s true. The Personal Data Protection Bill has sat in draft form since 2018, and after years of delay it’s easy to assume Pakistan’s approach to data governance is on hold. That assumption can now be challenged. While attention stayed fixed on the stalled privacy bill, another development moved far faster. In late June, the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication (MoITT) released the draft National Data Governance Policy 2026 for public consultation. That consultation closed on July 10. This week, MoITT and the Pakistan Digital Authority (PDA) held a high-level meeting, chaired by Federal Minister Shaza Fatima Khawaja, to finalise the policy ahead of cabinet approval and gazette notification. It isn’t law yet, but we cannot treat it as a mere policy draft either. Many Pakistani tech companies already maintain strong governance practices because foreign clients demand it. The policy isn’t a privacy law, it doesn’t tell private companies how to collect or use their customers’ data. Instead it focuses on something narrower but, in many respects, more consequential: government data. That distinction matters because government data rarely stays inside the government. Across Pakistan, private companies build digital services for public agencies, host government systems, operate call centres, manage cloud infrastructure and process citizen information on the state’s behalf. Many businesses think of themselves as serving a government client; fewer recognise they’re becoming part of its data governance framework. The finalised policy makes that explicit. Its obligations extend beyond ministries and departments to contractors, processors, concessionaires, grantees and other entities processing government data or performing public functions for the federal government. For many technology companies, compliance won’t begin with a regulator knocking, it begins with revised procurement requirements and contractual terms. Pakistan’s privacy debate has largely been framed around one question: when will parliament finally pass a comprehensive data protection law? The finalised policy raises an equally important one that’s already here: how should organisations manage government-held information when governance obligations arrive through contracts rather than legislation? The answer has practical consequences. The policy classifies government data by sensitivity and restricts where certain categories may be stored or processed. It tightens controls on cross-bo­­rder transfers of sensitive information and expects contractors to notify PDA, the body designated to enforce the framework, promptly following qualifying security incidents. Citizens also gain visibility into who accessed their data and why, making audit trails more than good internal practice, none of it dependent on a private-sector privacy law. It flows instead through the relationship between the state and the organisations it works with. One detail from this week’s meeting stands out. PDA Chairman Dr Sohail Munir was clear the policy does not centralise government data or permit unrestricted sharing. Ownership stays with individual entities; a new mechanism, the WASL fra­mework, enables secure exchange between them based on classification and governance standards, not a single pooled database. That’s a more federated, realistic model than many expected, a sign the drafters were listening during consultation. This reflects a broader shift in how governments think about data. For years, information collected by public bodies was treated as just another operational asset. The finalised policy takes a different view, describing government data as a strategic national asset held in trust for the people. This language shouldn’t be dismissed as symbolic. Organisations processing that data on the state’s behalf now assume responsibilities beyond delivering a contracted service; they are no longer simply vendors with access to sensitive information, but participants in a governance system built to protect it across its lifecycle. Cabinet approval and gazette notification will start a phased rollout, with PDA-led capacity-buil­ding and governance arrangements, though detai­led timelines await a forthcoming National Data Strategy. That clock won’t stop at the ministries. Companies working with the government can exp­ect new requirements around data residency, security controls, breach reporting, access management and documentation as the rollout proceeds. Many organisations will find the hard part isn’t technical safeguards, it’s knowing where government data resides, how it moves, and who has access, questions surprisingly hard to answer if never asked before. There’s an opportunity hidden inside these obligations too, and the numbers aren’t small. Pakistan’s IT and IT-enabled services exports crossed $4.6 billion this past fiscal year, and nearly all of that revenue depends on the same kind of client trust the finalised policy now asks companies to demonstrate domestically. Many Pakistani technology companies already maintain strong governance practices because international clients demand it; GDPR-compliant protections for Europe, security assessments for the US. The finalised policy means those investments can now serve domestic requirements too, let­­ting organisations build one programme that satisfies both international and public-sector demands. That’s a more efficient way to think about compliance, and it reflects how regulation is evolving. Governments once relied mainly on legislation to shape corporate behaviour; increasingly, they do it through procurement, infrastructure requirements and technical standards. Companies waiting for a landmark privacy statute may find governance already arrived by other routes. Pakistan’s Personal Data Protection Bill remains important; eventually the country will need a comprehensive legal framework governing personal data across both sectors. But waiting for that moment risks overlooking what has already happened this week. The National Data Governance Policy doesn’t answer every privacy question in Pakistan, it was never meant to. What it signals is that data governance no longer waits for parliament. For much of the technology sector, it’s already arriving through the contracts they sign, the systems they build and the information they’re trusted to handle. That is a change worth paying attention to, regardless of when Pakistan’s long-awaited privacy law finally arrives. The writer is a technology lawyer specialising in data protection. Published in Dawn, August 7th, 2026

    Dawn – Home
  3. Political07 Aug, 12:17

    Canal controversy

    RECENTLY put into trial operation, Jalalpur canal has stoked a new controversy between Punjab and Sindh. A summary of the Sindh government, raising objections against the project, was already pending with the Council of Common Interests (CCI) since 2024. Sindh had been raising objections on this project from its inception, but these have been consistently disregarded. A 117km-long main canal with a design discharge of 1,350 cusecs off-taking from the right bank of the Rasul barrage on the Jhelum river, it aims to irrigate a culturable command area of about 68,000 hectares in the Potohar plateau of Punjab, mainly in Pind Dadan Khan and Khushab during the Kharif season. The Asian Development Bank had provided financial assistance for design and construction of the project to the Punjab government. Punjab claims that it will use its own share of water for the new canal through internal adjustment. Sindh, however, has questioned the source of additional water of approximately 0.5 million acre feet every year. Punjab has distributed all its water allocated under the 1991 Water Accord. Internal adjustment would require slashing the share of water of some other canal command area. Publicly available project documents do not mention barrages or canals willing to sacrifice their share of water. Diverting allocated water will deprive the command area concerned of its irrigation share. The Indus River System Authority (Irsa), while issuing a no-objection certificate for the project in September 2014, made it contingent upon using Punjab’s own share of water for the canal. The Sindh member was the only dissenting voice, but was outvoted with a majority of 4-1. Irsa, however, did not question how Punjab will internally adjust allocation of water of its canals without any detriment to the existing command areas. The project envisages a significantly above-normal water allowance. It is also noteworthy that the project envisages a significantly above-normal water allowance. The canal has been designed with a water allowance of approximately 6.75 cusecs per thousand acres, nearly two-and-a-half times higher than the 2.75 cusecs per thousand acres allowance for Sindh’s canal systems. The provincial assembly of Sindh, in its sitting on November 22, 2021, unanimously adopted a resolution moved by Jam Khan Shoro, minister for irrigation, and several other members to express grave concern over the construction of the Jalalpur canal and Chaubara branch canal project under greater Thal canal (phase-II). The resolution also criticised the federal government for its alleged compliance with the controversial project despite the legal objections of Sindh. The house termed the project against the 1991 Water Accord and the Irsa Act, 1992. Prior to this, the Sindh government through P&D department raised the objection in the Ecnec meeting held in early 2018. The provincial government also addressed a letter to the secretary, ministry of planning, development and special initiatives on Nov 11, 2021 to convey reservations on the Jalalpur canal. The canal is designed to provide irrigation from April to October on non-perennial basis. The early Kharif months of April and May are a critical period when the Indus river system experiences severe water shortages. In its summary submitted to the CCI, Sindh has presented data on water shortages over the last two decades. The province witnessed over 50 per cent shortages in early Kharif for several years. In the current year too, Sindh experienced up to 65pc shortages at Kotri barrage during early Kharif months. A further diversion of 1,350 cusecs tro­ugh Jalalpur can­al will unleash havoc for crops in Sindh where Kha­­rif crops are sown earlier than Punjab. Sindh has apprehensions that since Punjab does not have any surplus water in the system, eventually it will divert additional water from the Indus through Chashma-Jhelum and Taunsa-Panjnad link canals to meet additional water requirements in the Jhelum zone. The Indus delta will ultimately pay the cost, which already receives little or no freshwater for much of the year and faces unrelenting ecological degradation. Further curtailment of freshwater inflows will worsen its fragile ecosystem by accelerating seawater intrusion and loss of livelihoods for the delta dwellers. CCI is a constitutional forum empowered to resolve conflicts on water sharing between the provinces under Article 154 of the Constitution. It is lamentable that the canal was constructed while Sindh’s summary awaited intervention of the CCI. The very act was in contravention of the spirit of the federation. Such instances undermine credibility of institutions like Irsa and the CCI and deepen mistrust between the federation and the federating units. The writer is a water sector expert. nmemon2004@yahoo.com Published in Dawn, August 7th, 2026

    Dawn – Home

Okumaya devam et

ilgili gelişmeler