Rethinking Higher Education Governance in Pakistan: From Retrospect to Renewed Prospect

The article in Dawn offers a thoughtful examination of the evolution of the Higher Education Commission (Pakistan), capturing both the aspirations and the persistent structural challenges that have defined Pakistan’s higher education landscape. With commendable clarity, the author situates the HEC not merely as a regulatory body but as a pivotal force navigating the delicate balance among autonomy, accountability, and academic freedom issues central to the vitality of universities worldwide.

The article’s mixed appreciation of the broader ecosystem in which universities operate clarifies how policies on intellectual freedom, institutional leadership, and enabling environments can be shaped. Emphasizing that university success depends on shared governance underscores policymakers' vital role in fostering reforms that support autonomy and accountability, both of which are crucial to effective higher education governance in Pakistan.

The retrospective tone is both balanced and constructive, recognizing that while the HEC has played a transformative role since its establishment in 2002, significantly expanding access, research output, and institutional capacity, it continues to operate within constraints, including financial pressures and several others...... Clarifying how these challenges are addressed can help policymakers understand practical reform pathways, enhancing the article’s relevance to policy decisions.

The author also deserves sincere appreciation for demonstrating rare intellectual generosity by acknowledging even his strongest critics when their contributions advance the academic good. In a landscape where scholarly disagreements can often become polarized, this willingness to recognize merit across opposing viewpoints reflects a deeply rooted commitment to academic integrity and constructive discourse. By treating critical voices not as adversaries but as essential participants in the evolution of ideas, the author reinforces a culture of openness, mutual respect, and evidence-based engagement principles fundamental to the progress of any vibrant academic community.

Under the leadership of Prof. Dr. Niaz Ahmad Akhtar, the Higher Education Commission (Pakistan) is undergoing a steady, thoughtful course correction marked by inclusivity, consultation, and strategic clarity. His approach reflects a deep understanding that sustainable reform in higher education cannot be imposed from the top but must be co-created with universities, faculty, researchers, and industry stakeholders nationwide. By actively engaging voices from both the public and private sectors, he is fostering a culture of shared ownership and collective responsibility. Yet the true measure of this moment lies beyond leadership alone; the responsibility now rests with Pakistan’s entire academic community. It is for universities, scholars, and institutional leaders to rise to the occasion, align with this collaborative vision, and strengthen Dr. Niaz’s team through innovation, integrity, and a commitment to excellence. If this synergy is realized, Pakistan’s higher education system stands poised not only for reform but for genuine transformation.

While the article offers a comprehensive overview, it omits mention of the Foreign Faculty Hiring Program, a key initiative that brought distinguished international scholars to Pakistan. Recognizing its role in catalyzing research culture, mentorship, and global academic integration can inform stakeholders about successful strategies for elevating Pakistan's higher education standards and inspire similar initiatives in future reforms, thereby enriching the discussion on internationalization efforts.
 

Overall, the article is a significant contribution, measured, insightful, and essential reading for policymakers, academics, and all those invested in the future of higher education in Pakistan.

Commenting on the article about the tenure track issue raised Prof. Dr. Sohail Naqvi, Former Executive Director of the HEC is of the opinion that:

TTS is a system where the Govt has to do its part of providing a decent grant to universities so that they can pay reasonable salaries. Without money, no system BPS or TTS works

Prof. Dr. Javaid Laghari, Former Chairperson HEC comments with high optimism

"Where there is a will, there is way".

After years of decline in HE, we now have an extremely qualied and experienced Chairman HEC, who has already shaken up the HE sector since taking charge. I am confident things will rapidly improve under his leadership and his team, and we will start seeing the fruits of these efforts within six months. 

All VCs and educators need to stand together and speak out with one voice. The budget is around the corner, and we need to pressurize our constituents across Pakistan to bring funding back to good old days. Likewise, subsequently, the HEC Act needs to reverse back to what it was in 2002.

Sharing his personal experience Prof. Dr. Laghari says: I was a tenured full professor at SUNY Buffalo, and it took me 12 years, 24 IEEE Transaction publications, tons of international conference papers, conf chairs, awards, including best teaching, 7 PhD. Students 12+ Masters Thesis, plus the works, and over $ 5 million of competitive research funding to get there. But then in the US, each university have their own criteria for tenure, some less stringent, some more. But once tenured, the university knows we are an asset rather than.a liability. We bring in funding and MS / PhD students from outside the system.

In Pakistan, the only (or at least the major) source of funding is HEC. Each Ministry should have a fund to support research projects at universities, and only then the race for tenure makes sense.

Mr. Murtaza Noor endorsed Prof. Laghari comments with his thoughts

Totally endorsed, HEC Act needs to be reversed back so that prestigious organisation may contribute as a facilator.

The Chairman Punjab Higher Education Commission, Prof. Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan said: The simultaneous existance of two pay scales with back and forth mobility, is the single most important reason for the mess we are in. People earned salaries of TTS and pension of BPS, thanks to the collusive cronyism at HEC and the universities.  BPS should have been frozen upon the introduction of TTS. Now that is a belated thought, onev should freeze both and introduce new UPS with six tiers instead of four and seven steps for the full professor level. We have prepared a blue print to be submitted the provincial government.

Commenting on the article Prof. Dr. Rauf Azam, Vice Chancellor, Government College University Faisalabad says:

A good recap and analysis.
Actually many of the policies had inherent flaws in their design and because these flaws were never corrected instead further structures were built on those flawed foundations the result was a perpetual increase in complexity.

TTS was one such structure. Salary for TTS had gotten approved as one-off privilege without a mechanism of revision or a link to any reference value so it lost its charm very quickly.

The universities were forced to institute research degrees beyond their capacity, hence producing low-quality PhDs who when joined as faculty further perpetuated lower quality.
 

The new higher education institutions mushroomed at such speed that the supply of adequately qualified, trained and/or experienced HR couldn't be sustained. This forced to rely on poor quality HR, both in teaching & non-teaching, positions in the system and caused a destruction to a great extent. 

Many of developmental plans kept on coming as cycles of floods & drought rather than a regular consistently flowing stream, both being devastating in nature and caused their due harm.
 

TTS and BPS living side-by-side has been an equivalent of two-nation-theory in universities and has nurtured a continuous stress.
 

Out of proportion emphasis on research as opposed to teaching has also caused a significant devastation. 
 

And, there have been many other similar design issues which coupled with the approach at the HEC to defend whatever was designed rather than improving it has damaged the sector. Poor HR and incapable implementation machinery at HEC has also been a great reason for poor results.

Prof. Dr. Adnan Noor Mian, Vice Chancellor of the Information Technology University, Lahore, Punjab shared his article that he wrote in 2019. This article suggests that: I think in Pakistan we need to have 2 different tracks for the 2 types of faculty dispositions, First, with more research and less teaching loads, and second with higher teaching and administrative loads and evaluate them on their own strengths. Thus under current TTS let me propose TTS-TT (teaching track) and TTS-RT (research track) for teaching focused and research focused faculty, respectively. In some best international universities this splitting of roles is inherently there and in some this has already started to appear. In UK, universities like Cambridge and Oxford have strong tutorial system in which there is research faculty strongly supported by PhDs and postdocs for teaching.

Some other Russel group universities have low undergrad teaching loads with more graduate research/thesis supervisions. Some teaching-focused universities in UK, due to REF (research evaluation framework under UK HEC in 2021), are now initiating research centers with faculty to focus only on research.

Dr. Muhamamd Ali Sheikh, Vice Chancellor Ziauddin University Karachi on this article showed his concern that 

This is a good article, but its scope is limited to the tenure-track system (TTS) introduced in Pakistan by HEC two decades ago. The fact remains that many more factors have contributed to the present state of HE in the country, with the TTS being just one of them. Nevertheless, the article is a good exercise in bringing the HE into the national focus and debate through the platform of the most prestigious newspaper like Dawn.

Further responding to Prof. Sohail Naqvi thoughts Dr. Sheikh Said: Regarding resource allocation, one country that Pakistan can learn from is China. While China spent 812 billion dollars on education (compared to its defense expenditure of 178 billion dollars), Pakistan’s total expenditure amounted to less than five billion dollars. I highlighted this in one of my Dawn articles (link attached) 

Famous Journalist Mr. S.M. Askari from the Jang Group Recognized this article with the word بہترین

Dr. Amjad Hussain Director General of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) is of the opinion:

If a teacher on the BPS track demonstrates performance comparable to a colleague on the TTS track, they should be afforded equal opportunities for promotion. For example, if a BPS Assistant Professor’s dossier, evaluations, and recommendations are at the same level as those of a TTS faculty member of equivalent rank, then both should be considered for promotion on an equal basis.

It is unfair that a BPS faculty member, despite meeting the same standards, must wait for the next available position, while a TTS faculty member may be promoted immediately. In many cases, BPS faculty even show stronger performance, yet face delays due to structural differences between the two systems.

To ensure fairness and merit-based advancement, promotion policies should be aligned across both tracks so that similarly qualified faculty receive equal treatment and opportunities, thereby eliminating unnecessary discrimination.

Prof. Dr. Saeed Ahmad Buzdar, Vice Chancellor, Thal University Bhakkar came up with a proposal: A practical way forward to bridge differences between the Tenure Track System (TTS) and the Basic Pay Scale (BPS) in Pakistan’s higher education sector under the policy ambit of Higher Education Commission is to move toward a unified, performance-linked academic framework that harmonizes compensation, evaluation, and career progression. Instead of maintaining parallel systems, HEC / PHEC may introduce a hybrid structure where all faculty are placed on a common baseline pay (aligned with BPS for security and pensionability) but with significant variable components tied to measurable outputs such as research quality (indexed publications, impact), teaching effectiveness (student feedback, peer review), and institutional service. A nationally standardized Academic Performance Index (API) consistent with PSG-2023 quality benchmarks should govern promotions and incentives across universities to ensure transparency and comparability. For long-term sustainability, universities may be granted controlled autonomy to top-up salaries through endowments, research grants, and PPP models, reducing sole reliance on government funding. This integrated model would gradually dissolve the rigid TTS–BPS divide, restore equity, and align academic careers in Pakistan with global best practices while remaining sensitive to local administrative and financial realities.

Dr. Bushra Mirza, Vice Chancellor of the Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi sharing her experience says: In several cases, it is observed that the performance of BPS faculty is far better than TTS faculty because BPS faculty has to compete every time to move to the next cadre while TTS faculty thinks that they need to fulfil only the minimum criteria to get promoted.

Dr. Wasim Kazi, Vice Chancellor of the Karachi Metropolitan University  believes that: A candid policy assessment suggests that the legislative frameworks governing public sector universities, as enacted by provincial and national assemblies, require a comprehensive and forward looking review. These Acts, while historically designed to ensure representation and oversight, have increasingly resulted in complex governance structures that dilute executive authority and impede institutional agility.

Contemporary higher education management demands clarity of roles, accountability, and professional autonomy. However, the existing statutory arrangements place Vice Chancellors in structurally conflicted positions, where they are expected to simultaneously lead institutions and navigate competing interests of diverse stakeholders including representatives from the bureaucracy, academia, administration, and political spheres. This multiplicity of accountability lines often leads to decision making paralysis, risk aversion, and suboptimal institutional outcomes.

From a governance perspective, the current model disproportionately emphasizes representational inclusivity over managerial effectiveness. The implicit expectation that a Vice Chancellor must maintain equilibrium among all factions, often at the expense of strategic priorities, undermines the very essence of leadership and institutional performance. Failure to satisfy any stakeholder group may trigger administrative, political, or reputational consequences, thereby discouraging bold and merit based decision making.

It is therefore imperative that university Acts be recalibrated in alignment with modern management principles. This would entail redefining the composition and mandate of statutory bodies, streamlining decision making processes, and clearly delineating governance versus management functions. Boards and syndicates should transition towards policy oversight and strategic guidance, while operational autonomy must rest with the executive leadership, supported by robust performance accountability frameworks.

In moving forward, policymakers may consider benchmarking against globally recognized governance models that prioritize institutional autonomy, meritocracy, and outcome based evaluation. Such reforms would not only enhance efficiency and transparency but also position public sector universities to respond more effectively to evolving academic, economic, and societal demands.

A balanced governance architecture, grounded in accountability yet enabling leadership discretion, is no longer optional but essential for the sustainability and global competitiveness of the higher education sector.