Dr. Raja Qaiser Ahmed
Having served as the Registrar of Quaid-i-Azam University for three years (2021–2024), I am compelled to reflect with candour on the current state of one of Pakistan’s most prestigious institutions. This is not an exercise in nostalgia, nor an attempt to assign blame in abstract terms. It is an effort to confront an uncomfortable reality with honesty, clarity, and a sense of institutional responsibility.
Quaid-i-Azam University was not built merely as a collection of departments and building rather it has long stood as a symbol of academic excellence, intellectual diversity, and progressive thought. It has produced scholars, policymakers, and professionals who have contributed meaningfully to national and global discourse. Yet over time, and more visibly in recent years, the university has experienced a steady erosion of discipline, academic seriousness, and institutional ethos. It has been shaped by identifiable trends and practices that now demand serious reflection and decisive response.
At the heart of this deterioration lies the transformation of illegitimate ethnic councils into entrenched andparallel power structures with outright miscreant behaviour. What may once have been claimed as forums of representation and cultural expression have, over time, evolved into instruments of disorder. Their influence now extends far beyond legitimate student engagement, often overriding institutional authority and shaping campus dynamics in ways that are fundamentally incompatible with the idea of a university.
A regressive culture has consequently taken root. It privileges politics over intellect, intimidation over dialogue, and disruption all in the guise of disregard for gender sensitivity and toxic chauvinism. Academic life has repeatedly been subordinated to orchestrated strikes, forced closures, and manufactured crises. Classrooms fall silent not because of debate, but because of coercion. Libraries and laboratories, which should be the lifeblood of any university, have been rendered peripheral in an environment where disruption is normalized.
More troublingly, this environment has been marked by a recurring pattern of recourse to violence, an entrenched false sense of entitlement, and persistent hooliganism. These are not isolated aberrations. They are symptoms of a deeper institutional malaise. Physical intimidation, disregard for faculty, erosion of discipline, and a conspicuous absence of gender sensitivity have collectively created a campus climate that is neither safe nor intellectually enabling. What is often presented as activism is, in reality, frequently devoid of substance and reflective of a shallow, performative engagement.
The consequences are now visible and measurable. Declining enrolment figures, increasing parental concern, and a growing sense of insecurity on campus are not coincidences. They are direct outcomes of a prolonged drift away from academic purpose. A university cannot sustain itself when uncertainty and disruption become routine.
There is a fundamental distinction between representation and domination, between diversity and division, and between liberty and lawlessness. When this distinction collapses, institutions lose their moral and functional coherence. No credible university allows illegitimate structures to override institutional governance, nor does it tolerate violence in the name of identity. These are not negotiable principles. They are the minimum conditions for the survival of any academic institution.
It is precisely at such a moment that leadership becomes decisive. The intervention of Prof. Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, Vice Chancellor, must be understood in this context. His approach signals an attempt to restore institutional writ, reassert order, and reclaim the university’s academic purpose. Such efforts are rarely comfortable. They disrupt entrenched interests and challenge normalized dysfunction. Yet when structural distortions take root, incrementalism becomes a luxury an institution can no longer afford.
The corrective measures undertaken must be seen for what they are: necessary steps toward institutional recovery. No university can function if its authority is continuously undermined. No system can sustain itself if rules are selectively applied or openly defied. Restoring order is not the negation of freedom. It is the very condition that makes meaningful freedom possible.
The way forward is neither complex nor ambiguous. Parallel, ethnicity-based power structures must give way to inclusive, merit-based engagement grounded in ideas rather than identity. Violence, coercion, and forced closures must be rejected without qualification. Academic primacy must be restored, and respect for faculty, institutional norms, and diversity must be reaffirmed. Effective campus management is not securitization; it is the basic architecture of any functioning university.
Students, too, must confront a fundamental question: what is the purpose of their presence at the university? If it is to replicate external divisions and power struggles, then the institution will continue to fragment. If it is to cultivate intellect, build professional capacity, and expand horizons, then a different culture must take root. Universities do not exist to produce factional loyalty. They exist to produce thinking individuals.
The responsibility for renewal does not rest with the administration alone. Faculty, alumni, and the broader academic community must engage with seriousness and purpose. Critique must be accompanied by commitment. Reform cannot be episodic. It must be sustained and collective.Quaid-i-Azam University still possesses the intellectual capital and legacy required for renewal. But potential, left unattended, fades into irrelevance. Institutions do not decline overnight, and they do not recover without deliberate effort.
The choice before QAU is stark. It can continue to drift, allowing fragmentation to define its trajectory. Or it can reassert itself as a space of learning, discipline, and intellectual freedom anchored in responsibility. The distinction must be reclaimed, and it must be defended: between representation and domination, between diversity and division, between liberty and lawlessness. Because when that distinction collapses, a university ceases to be a university.
