Please let me start from two practical examples.
First, several years ago, I met a visiting female professor from the United States (if I remember correctly) at the University of Peshawar. During our conversation, I did what many of us often do. I began describing the challenges facing our universities such as insufficient funding, inadequate laboratories, weak research infrastructure, bureaucratic hurdles, and several other difficulties. I continued speaking for quite some time.
She listened patiently without interrupting. When I had finished, she smiled and said something remarkably simple that has stayed with me ever since. She agreed that these problems were real, but then asked me to think differently: "Instead of focusing only on what is wrong with the system, ask yourself what you, as an individual, can do to strengthen it."
At the time, I appreciated her advice, but I did not fully grasp its depth. Second, I submitted a manuscript to a highly prestigious international journal (mentioning its impact factor—above 60—may sound naïve, but I mention it only to illustrate the journal's standing). The manuscript was rejected. While rejection is a normal part of academic life, one comment from the editor deeply affected me. The editor essentially conveyed this message: "Do not merely identify the problem. Also propose practical solutions and explain what you can do to help implement them." I had no convincing answer. Those two experiences changed the way I think about higher education in Pakistan.
Pakistan certainly needs people who identify educational and research problems. We owe our sincere appreciation to researchers, educationists, policymakers, and writers who have carefully documented the many challenges facing our universities. They have highlighted or highlighting issues such as inadequate funding, outdated research infrastructure, limited laboratory facilities, shortage of modern scientific equipment, insufficient research grants, quality assurance concerns, weak governance, bureaucratic delays, brain drain, limited international collaboration, poor university-industry linkages, low research commercialization, inadequate faculty development opportunities, and weak innovation ecosystems. Without identifying these problems, meaningful reform would not even be possible.
However, identifying problems is only the first step. Our country also needs solutions. Perhaps it is time to launch a national movement dedicated not to listing more problems, but to collecting practical, evidence-based, and implementable solutions. Pakistan has nearly 200 universities. Each university has experienced academics, researchers, administrators, students, and alumni who understand their institutions better than anyone else. Why not invite every university to submit its best ideas for reform? Why not ask every department, faculty member, researcher, and student a simple question:
"What practical reform would you recommend to strengthen Pakistan's higher education system?"
This initiative, however, should not be limited to universities alone. Social media platforms, print and electronic media, scientific societies, professional associations, private organizations, think tanks, government departments, relevant ministries, the Higher Education Commission (HEC), philanthropic foundations, and other public and private institutions can all play an important role. Each of these stakeholders could independently launch national or sector-specific programmes inviting evidence-based proposals for improving higher education, research, innovation, and governance.
However, identifying problems is only the first step. Our country also needs solutions. Perhaps it is time to launch a national movement dedicated not to listing more problems, but to collecting practical, evidence-based, and implementable solutions.
Contributors could submit practical recommendations on research funding, governance, faculty development, graduate employability, digital transformation, international collaboration, innovation, and commercialization of research, quality assurance, university-industry partnerships, and other priority areas.
To encourage broad participation, organizers could offer symbolic appreciation certificates, awards, honoraria, research grants, fellowships, or prize money for the most practical and innovative proposals. More importantly, contributors would know that their ideas are being heard, critically evaluated, and given a genuine opportunity to influence future reforms.
Such an initiative could be coordinated through the Higher Education Commission (HEC), universities, scientific societies, professional associations, print media, electronic media, and social media platforms. Contributors could propose solutions related to research funding, governance, faculty development, graduate employability, digital transformation, international collaboration, and innovation, commercialization of research, quality assurance, or university-industry partnerships. Participation could be encouraged through symbolic appreciation certificates, awards, honoraria, research grants, or prize money for outstanding proposals. More importantly, contributors would know that their ideas are being taken seriously.
The submitted recommendations should not simply be archived. Instead, they should undergo rigorous national-level scrutiny by independent panels comprising academics, policymakers, industry experts, and education specialists. The most feasible and impactful proposals could then be refined into policy recommendations and implemented on a pilot basis in selected universities. Their outcomes should be carefully evaluated, improved where necessary, and expanded nationally if successful.
Of course, many solutions immediately come to mind. For example, we could send thousands of researchers, faculty members, and university administrators to leading institutions in the United States, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, or China for advanced training. We could establish state-of-the-art laboratories in every university, procure the latest scientific equipment, substantially increase research funding, create generous postdoctoral fellowship programmes, recruit internationally renowned scholars, and provide world-class research grants to every promising young scientist.
These are all worthwhile ideas, and few would disagree with their potential benefits. However, before proposing such solutions, we must also acknowledge an undeniable reality: Pakistan faces significant financial constraints and many competing national priorities. Not every excellent idea is immediately affordable or feasible.
This is precisely why Pakistan needs a national conversation focused not merely on ideal solutions, but on practical, affordable, evidence-based, and scalable solutions. We should actively seek reforms that can strengthen our universities within existing or modestly expanded resources, while also identifying long-term investments that can be pursued as the country's economic capacity grows.
Pakistan has never lacked talented people capable of identifying challenges. What we now need is an equally strong culture of proposing, testing, refining, and implementing solutions. Perhaps the next chapter in Pakistan's higher education should not begin with another report describing what is wrong. It should begin with a nationwide conversation about what we can do—individually and collectively to make it right.