Universities in Pakistan have long been a battleground for control between academia and the state and, more recently, between different organs of the state. This struggle has roots in the colonial era, when a state-dominated university model emerged, which was essentially different from the model adopted by the colonialists at home in the United Kingdom (UK).

Even after Independence, this colonial model of the university continued, with the state’s role waning and waxing at different times. This outdated university model is one significant factor in arresting Pakistan’s true potential for technological advancement and economic development.

This article attempts to study the subject from a historical perspective, suggesting a way forward for our universities to play an effective role in national development and prosperity.

THE COLONIAL INDIAN UNIVERSITY MODEL

It all began in 1858, when the British colonial authorities appointed provincial governors to serve as chancellors for the first three universities established in India: Bombay (now Mumbai), Calcutta (now Kolkata) and Madras (now Chennai).

As the chancellors of the universities, the governors were entrusted with a wide range of powers, including the appointment of vice-chancellors, the nomination of members to the apex governing and academic bodies, the approval of decisions made by these bodies, and the performance of ceremonial functions such as presiding over convocations.

Pakistan’s higher education remains mired in political interference, the latest example of it being the attempt to induct bureaucrats as vice-chancellors of universities. Since colonial times, this has led to a failure to cultivate independent thinkers or to produce innovators, scientists, pathfinders and intellectuals. Is it not time to rethink university governance?

In contrast, the appointment of chancellors and the functions assigned to them were quite different at home in UK universities. There, the chancellor’s role was primarily ceremonial, limited to duties such as presiding over graduation ceremonies, advocating for funding and patronage, and representing the university in public and political spheres.

Unlike in India, universities in the UK elected their chancellors based on their contributions to the university and prominence in society. For instance, in 1852, the University of Oxford elected its alumnus, a three-time prime minister of the UK, Edward Smith Stanley, as its chancellor, who held that position until his death in 1869.

The next in the hierarchy was the vice-chancellor. In India, the governor ‘appointed’ the vice-chancellor at his discretion and, most of the time, his choice fell upon senior bureaucrats, high court judges and other persons of distinction, with sometimes an academic, too, finding the way to the top.

The essential task before the vice-chancellor in India was to ‘manage’ the university — particularly scholars and students — in such a way that their intellect and free-thinking should not create a problem for the colonial administration. To achieve this objective, vice-chancellors were equipped with extensive administrative, financial and academic powers.

In contrast, the UK universities worked on a democratic model, in which an academic was elected vice-chancellor by his fellow scholars. For instance, at Oxford and Cambridge universities, the vice-chancellor was elected from among the heads of the colleges. Their duties and functions, too, were aligned on democratic principles, avoiding the concentration of power in a single individual.

The country’s apex employment body, the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC), in one of its reports, lamented that some of the university graduated candidates were not even familiar with elementary mathematics. In another report, FPSC stated that graduate candidates did not possess analytical skills and just reproduced rote-learned knowledge in examinations.

The Indian colonial university model worked successfully in achieving the desired outcome of colonists, such as effectively producing mid-level state functionaries who could serve as a bridge between the colonial rulers and the local population, and generate a sufficiently skilled workforce for essential aspects of life in India. However, this model’s primary drawback was its failure to cultivate independent thinkers, innovators, scientists, pathfinders and intellectuals.

DAWN OF INDEPENDENCE

Against this backdrop, Pakistan and India attained independence in 1947. Both states decided to retain the colonial model, as it suited the new ruling elites as well. Pakistan inherited two universities: the University of Punjab, established in 1882 in Lahore, and the University of Sindh, established in April 1947.

Initially, the University of Sindh was based in Karachi, where Dr Abu Bakar Ahmad Haleem, popularly known as ABA Haleem, served as its first vice-chancellor. Subsequently, Karachi was made the federal capital, with a university of its own, the University of Karachi. When given a choice, Dr Haleem chose to head the University of Karachi.

The University of Sindh was shifted to Hyderabad with Imdad Ali Imam Ali Kazi, popularly known as Allama II Kazi, a great scholar from Sindh, assuming the office of vice-chancellor in April 1951. It was during his tenure that the ‘state versus scholar’ scenario came into full play, resulting in the Allama’s resignation as vice-chancellor.

The background was that, for eight years, Allama sahib had devoted each ounce of his energy and intellect to developing a top-notch university from scratch, which came to be known and highly respected for offering an environment of intellectual freedom. However, the situation in the country changed after the imposition of martial law in October 1958.

In May 1959, some army officers performing martial law duties visited the office of the university registrar, intending to involve themselves in the affairs of the university. When the registrar informed the vice-chancellor, he thought it below his dignity to work in such circumstances and resigned from his position forthwith. Over time, this kind of involvement in university affairs became a norm rather than an exception.

INTRA-STATE STRUGGLE FOR DOMINANCE

From the very beginning, universities in Pakistan operated on a dyarchy model. While provincial universities came into being through provincial legislation in the form of an act passed by the concerned provincial assembly, these acts designated the federal representative, the governor of the province, as ex-officio chancellor.

There were several considerations behind this practice. Firstly, governors were viewed as apolitical; thus, their appointment as chancellor was seen as beneficial for insulating higher learning institutions from politics.

Secondly, the federal government provided funding to the universities, which motivated the provinces to accept the federal role through the governor. Thirdly, the number of universities was relatively small and their absence from the chief minister’s domain was not intensely felt.

However, subsequent developments changed this situation, resulting in a struggle between the two organs of the state — the provincial governments (read chief ministers) and the federally appointed governors — to exercise control over the universities.

The first factor was that governors were no longer apolitical, but were mostly appointed from the ranks of the federal ruling party or its political allies. When two different parties or alliances ruled the province and the federation, friction between the governor and provincial government increased.

Secondly, provincial governments also started contributing financially to their universities and felt that governors wielding substantial powers without accountability was not correct.

Then, the number of universities increased substantially during the 2000-2020 period, creating many opportunities for employment and political patronage. The provincial governments did not want to leave these to the governors.

The net outcome of these factors was the passage of legislation in provincial assemblies, one after the other, aimed at transferring power and authority from governors to chief ministers. In this infighting between two segments of the state, collateral damage has resulted in further shrinkage of space available to academics.

BUREAUCRATS IN ACADEMIA

The latest move in this regard was in Punjab where, on February 17, the government proposed amending the universities’ acts, so that the vice-chancellors (academics) would lose the chairmanship of their universities’ syndicates and be replaced by the chief minister or, in her or his absence, the minister of higher education, or in the absence of both, the secretary of the higher education department.

If the move succeeds, which it most likely will, someone from politics or civil service will preside over the universities’ most-eminent body, with the vice-chancellor and other senior academics in attendance.

Prior to that, in January, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province enacted the KP Universities (Amendment) Act, which replaced the governor with the chief minister as chancellor of the universities. Sindh and Balochistan had already passed legislation that enabled their chief ministers to appoint vice-chancellors across their provinces.

In view of the political nature of the office of provincial chief ministers, it is widely feared in academic circles that their deeper involvement in university affairs would increase the politicisation of our higher seats of learning.

It warrants mention that the Sindh government initially took measures to strengthen academia’s role in university governance. For instance, the provincial assembly passed legislation to set eligibility criteria for university vice-chancellors, requiring a PhD degree, at least 15 research publications in research journals and adequate academic leadership experience. This effectively closed the doors for people other than academics to head universities.

In addition, Sindh also set an example for other provinces in recent years to spend generously on universities from the provincial budget, bringing out universities in Sindh from severe financial troubles.

However, recently, Sindh enacted legislation that relaxed the conditions to have a PhD and research publications, allowing bureaucrats to fulfil the eligibility criteria for vice-chancellors. The official explanation for this move was to expand the pool of capable candidates for the position of vice-chancellor, which was implausible and unconvincing because the fundamental fault remains in the selection process and procedure designed by the government, rather than the dearth of capable candidates in academia.

LEARNING FROM GLOBAL MODELS

While Pakistani universities have seen an increasing role of politicians, civil servants and other state functionaries in their functioning, the international trend has been integrating universities with industry. Globally, leaders from industry and academia get involved with each other to decide the type and quality of the graduates produced by the university. They also interact to determine the nature and direction of the research, as industry-oriented research is considered of critical importance in national economies.

While this is all going on in our higher education sector, Pakistani universities are going from bad to worse in terms of performance. Various national institutions have been highlighting the declining standards of our tertiary education for long, but in vain.

The country’s apex employment body, the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC), in one of its reports, lamented that some of the university graduated candidates were not even familiar with elementary mathematics. In another report, FPSC stated that graduate candidates did not possess analytical skills and just reproduced rote-learned knowledge in examinations.

Internationally, too, our universities are not doing well. It is a shame that none of the Pakistani universities has ever made it to the top hundred in any of the three reputed international university rankings — Times Higher Education (THE), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU).

In these dire circumstances, the country’s apex body for university education, the Higher Education Commission (HEC), could have played a leading role in helping the sector emerge from this crisis-like situation.

However, as the federal minister for planning and development, Ahsan Iqbal, notes in his letter to the prime minister from a few months ago, “Unfortunately, the HEC has failed to achieve its objectives and has progressively worsened. This failure continues despite the generous grants it has received from the government (excluding the years 2018-2021) and the operational autonomy it enjoys,” he writes.

The planning minister highlighted the reason for the HEC’s poor performance, stating that “recruitments to senior positions in HEC were made on nepotism.” Speaking about the future course of action, Iqbal told the prime minister: “It is crucial to undertake higher education sector reforms, requiring the introduction of a fresh, experienced team with a bold vision and the courage to implement necessary changes.”

As the minister rightly points out, institutional reforms and a remodel of our universities’ governance structure, in accordance with international trends and practices, are urgently needed.

The country could significantly benefit from some of the successful university governance models used globally, such as the Humboldtian model (found in Germany, Norway and Finland), the Napoleonic model (employed in France and Italy), the Japanese model, the Chinese model and the evolved historical models present in the UK, US and Australia. In these models, academia and scholars have considerable influence in the operations of their universities, with minimal state involvement.

In conclusion, Pakistan should abandon its obsolete colonial university model, which has long hindered the country’s national growth, economic development and technological progress. In the reformed model, academia and scholarship should be duly respected and have an enhanced role in decision-making, alongside industry. The state should take a backseat, reducing its function to support universities rather than running them itself.

*The writer is a development consultant and a former vice-chancellor. He can be reached at *

Published in Dawn, EOS, March 30th, 2025