Asif Mahmood

In recent weeks, there has been a renewed attempt to promote a politics of agitation and identity based grievance in Kashmir, but it is increasingly clear that such narratives are not aligning with the awareness of the people. The public understands that repeated slogans of deprivation and confrontation do not automatically reflect reality, and that politics built on emotional escalation cannot provide stability or practical improvement. Within Pakistan’s broader institutional framework, opportunities in governance and the civil service are based on merit, competence, and performance rather than regional identity, with officers from different parts of the country serving across multiple regions. Against this backdrop, the attempt to sustain a narrative of exclusion or to mobilise society through continuous agitation appears less convincing, as people are gradually distinguishing between political messaging and actual lived realities.
For years, a familiar political narrative has been circulated in parts of Pakistan, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, that the province is being deprived, sidelined, and denied its due share in national opportunities. This argument is repeated so frequently that it often begins to appear as an unquestioned truth in public discourse.
However, when this claim is examined against institutional realities, a different picture emerges. If any province were truly excluded from the national framework, it would be difficult to explain the presence of its representatives in some of the most powerful administrative positions across the country.
At present, officers from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are serving at the highest levels of provincial administration in different parts of the federation. Shahab Ali Shah is serving as Chief Secretary in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa itself. Shakeel Qadir Khan is serving in Balochistan. Arshad Mohmand is serving in Gilgit Baltistan. Khushal Khan is serving in Azad Kashmir. These positions are not symbolic. They are central to governance, decision making, and the implementation of public policy.
This reality raises an important question. How does a narrative of exclusion align with a system where senior bureaucratic leadership from the same province operates across multiple regions of the country.
Pakistan’s civil bureaucracy is structured on the principle of national service rather than provincial confinement. An officer from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa may serve in Balochistan, a Punjabi officer may serve in Sindh, and officers from other regions may be posted in Gilgit Baltistan or Kashmir. This mobility is not accidental. It is a fundamental feature of a federal administrative system designed to ensure integration and merit based progression.
The civil service, by design, does not allocate positions on ethnic or provincial entitlement. Selection, promotion, and posting are based on performance, training, seniority, and institutional requirements. In principle and in practice, merit remains the defining criterion.
The tension, therefore, does not lie within the administrative system itself but in the way political narratives are constructed around it. Governance and politics often move in different directions. When governments face criticism over development, service delivery, employment, or infrastructure, the discourse frequently shifts from policy performance to identity based grievance.
This shift is not unique to one region. However, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, it has often taken the form of a broader deprivation narrative. Instead of engaging with questions of governance efficiency or administrative accountability, public debate is redirected towards claims of systemic exclusion.
Yet the institutional evidence does not fully support this framing. The presence of senior officers from the province in key administrative roles across Pakistan suggests integration rather than isolation. It reflects participation within the system rather than distance from it.
A similar pattern is visible in debates about Kashmir. In recent years, political messaging in the region has often revolved around emotions, identity, and confrontation. However, there is a growing recognition among ordinary people that politics built on extremism, fragmentation, and perpetual agitation does not translate into practical improvement in daily life. The appeal of such narratives is weakening as their outcomes become increasingly limited.
Across different regions, whether in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Kashmir, a recurring political strategy has been the construction of grievance based identity narratives. These narratives suggest structural exclusion while often overlooking the complexities of governance in a federal state.
Pakistan’s administrative system, particularly the civil service, continues to function on a merit based framework where provincial origin does not determine access to authority. What determines it is capability within an institutional structure that has historically allowed mobility and representation across regions.