Since the unceremonial departure of Dr Tariq Banuri as the chairman of Higher Education Commission (HEC), more changes are afoot to manage higher education in this country. It is evident from the HEC Ordinance contents and circumstances leading to its promulgation that the federal government intends to keep the HEC under its tutelage.

Various interest groups, including teachers’ bodies, have criticised this. After the enactment of the 18th Amendment, the role of HEC was deemed to be one of a strict but non-interfering regulator for universities and degree awarding institutions. It was assumed that the universities, being autonomous, shall uphold high-performance standards. This logical arrangement has hitherto not materialised.

Our political masters claim that universities are independent in their decision making and conduct. The reality is otherwise. A majority of public sector universities function according to the drastically revised laws promulgated for their compliant existence and working. The laws lay down the mandate, academic structure, nature and extent of the operations and jurisdictional framework. From a teaching department’s functioning to the university, the overall administrative and academic skeleton is typically prescribed.

Boards of studies, faculties and research bodies, academic councils, finance and planning committees, syndicates, and senates run the university’s routine affairs. All crucial bodies have governmental and HEC representatives. The respective province’s chief minister appoints the vice-chancellor (VC) through a search committee.

In theory, the VC is an all-powerful officer capable of running the university without interference. In practice, the VC sheepishly complies with the orders and policy precepts flowing down from the HEC and the respective provincial government. The reason is simple, both the HEC and ths provincial governments fund the public universities. They ensure that universities align their actions according to official (and not so official) advice received from time to time. In statutory bodies’ meetings chaired by VC, a lowly officer representing these echelons of power can be seen snubbing the VC and getting away with it. While the VC may be found chairing meetings, the pendulum of influence swings towards a different direction. The situation prevails in most of our universities.

The composition, working and conduct of academic councils, syndicates and senates is another critical consideration. It is believed that these bodies display the internal democracy/democratic pattern of a university’s working. Representatives of the teachers and other cadres are elected to such bodies through a well laid down procedure. But the conduct of the meeting and decision making are peculiar. Usually, the VC’s views overwhelm the proceedings, where government representatives are not members of such forums. Often a pre-meeting understanding is stuck before an agenda item is taken for discussion. Another common observation is the nomination of favoured vice-chancellors to sit on the syndicates of other universities. Such VCs become spokespersons for either the provincial governments or the HEC. Other members are also carefully chosen to remain mute and toe the official line in all matters of importance.

Universities are places where dissent from conventions is respected, the status quo of all sorts is academically and intellectually challenged, and conditions ensured for free-thinking and unhindered expression. It is only after such pre-conditions are met that original contributions to knowledge are guaranteed.

It may be helpful to note that in some public sector universities, the working/meeting of senates/syndicates is very irregular. According to prescriptions of respective laws, important matters are dealt with and decided through emergency powers available with the VC and other officers. It is not common to find teachers and staff representatives effectively putting across their points of view on pertinent policy matters. Such folks are overwhelmed by the clout of senior officers present or the fear of administrative persecution should they deviate from the official line.

Universities are places where dissent from conventions is respected, the status quo of all sorts is academically and intellectually challenged, and conditions ensured for free-thinking and unhindered expression. It is only after such pre-conditions are met that original contributions to knowledge are guaranteed. This promotes academic talent and attracts intellectuals from everywhere, especially in social and applied sciences. Unfortunately, most of our institutions/universities show a total disregard for such universal prerequisites to learning. Many public sector universities lay down an ironclad framework for the professors and scholars’ code of conduct. Ideas and ideological reference, political affinities, expression, discourse and even professional affiliations have to conform to the state-based framework. More in practice than letters, teachers in the public sector universities are made to follow a strict code of conduct akin to a military drill. This reduces the university professors to mere microphones who repeat the undergraduate or postgraduate lessons in robotic performances. This also discourages renowned scholars from abroad from joining public sector universities in the country.

University funding and disbursement of annual grants is a major controlling chord that keeps all under the federal government’s strict watch. The grants, till recently, were disbursed through the University Grants Commission – a centrally organised body that evolved into a giant bureaucracy. The universities, therefore, were left with no choice but to follow the prescriptions of federal and provincial agendas into their work. Although provincially governed, financial control created a sizable handle for the federal government to intervene.

Now the HEC has taken over that role, but all is not well there. Some newly established universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have raised a complaint to the HEC and the provincial authorities for want of funds. Many are struggling to pay salaries and essential expenses. If the local and federal governments earnestly believe in empowering the university managements, then granting financial autonomy is a fundamental prerequisite.

One way to achieve this is to bolster the university endowments where they exist and help create them where they do not. Lessons from some of the leading universities worldwide show that endowments play a vital role in attracting philanthropic capital once the universities show managerial capabilities in transparently handling such funds. Given our track record, universities that have consistently displayed financial discipline and stringent measures of internal controls may be chosen as pilot options. Functional autonomy can only be ascertained through financial autonomy.

The writer is an academic and researcher based in Karachi