A group of retired civil servants, diplomats and generals has issued a statement calling for equal treatment of all provinces and warning against constitutional change imposed against the wishes of the people. The statement, from the Roedad Khan Club, was shared with Dawn on Saturday, and it enters a renewed debate about the restructuring of the provincial system following proposals for new provinces.
The Roedad Khan Club brings together retired officials from the civil service, the diplomatic service and the armed forces. Its statement therefore carries the weight of former senior officials speaking collectively, rather than the view of a single individual. In calling for equal treatment of all provinces, the group is making a case for fairness in how provinces are treated within the federation, a question that lies at the heart of debates about provincial autonomy, resources and representation.
The statement also warns against a constitutional amendment imposed against the people’s wishes. That warning reflects a concern about process as much as about substance. In the group’s view, constitutional change should not be forced through without regard for public consent. The emphasis on the people’s wishes suggests that legitimacy, in their argument, depends not only on formal procedures but also on whether the change enjoys broader acceptance.
A further warning in the statement is that unity and the country’s future are at risk amid the current political and economic crisis. That framing links the constitutional debate to wider conditions in the country. The group is arguing, in effect, that the present moment is not a suitable time for imposed change, because political and economic pressures already strain national cohesion. From that perspective, a contested constitutional amendment could deepen divisions rather than resolve them.
The statement also says that constitutional rule must be restored in practice, not as a facade. That distinction between practice and facade is significant. It suggests that formal adherence to constitutional forms is not enough if the substance of constitutional governance is absent. The group is calling for constitutional rule that operates in reality, with its checks, limits and principles actually applied, rather than a surface observance that leaves the underlying practice unchanged.
Among the signatories are retired Air Chief Marshal Abbas Khattak, former bureaucrat Shakil Durrani, and former diplomats Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, Humayun Qazi and Asif Durrani. The presence of former senior figures from different services gives the statement a cross-service character. It is not presented as the view of one institution or one profession, but as a shared concern among retired officials who have served in different parts of the state.
The context for the statement is a renewed debate over restructuring the provincial system after proposals for new provinces. Proposals to create new provinces have been discussed at various times in Pakistan’s history, and they tend to raise sensitive questions about identity, administrative boundaries, resources and political representation. Supporters of new provinces often argue that smaller administrative units can be governed more effectively and can give underrepresented areas a stronger voice. Critics often warn about the political, administrative and financial complications of redrawing provincial boundaries, and about the risk of deepening regional tensions.
The Roedad Khan Club statement does not, as reported, set out a detailed alternative map or a specific administrative proposal. Its contribution is framed in broader principles: equal treatment of provinces, respect for the people’s wishes in constitutional change, protection of national unity, and genuine rather than formal constitutional rule. Those principles can be applied to different specific proposals, and they invite debate about how any restructuring should be approached, rather than settling the question of whether new provinces should be created at all.
For readers following the debate, the statement is best understood as an intervention about process and principle. It calls for fairness between provinces, warns against imposed constitutional change, links unity to the current political and economic crisis, and insists that constitutional rule must be real rather than a facade. Whether those arguments influence the course of the debate will depend on how political actors respond, and on whether the broader discussion about provinces moves towards consensus or remains contested.
Source: Dawn.
