A joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament on October 15 debated and endorsed the proclamation of emergency and imposition of Governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The ensuing clash offered a revealing window into the state of our public discourse. Amid fierce arguments over security data, constitutional mandates, and institutional survival, the debate exposed a deeper problem: facts and arguments were too often judged through the lens of political allegiance and institutional loyalty, rather than examined on their own merits. The central question was not simply what the evidence established, but whose claims people were willing to accept.
This reluctance to engage with facts is not confined to the halls of power; it is rooted in how we think as individuals and as a society. Perhaps one of the most revealing questions we can ask about a society is not how much its people know, but how freely and critically they can think, and how confidently they can express their views. A child who questions an elder, a student who challenges a teacher, an employee who points out an institutional failure, or a citizen who demands evidence for a popular claim may be demonstrating precisely the qualities a progressive society needs.
Yet in Pakistan, such behaviour is often mistaken for disrespect, disobedience, or unnecessary argument. When directed at powerful state institutions, it may even be portrayed as a threat to national security and cohesion. The result is a culture in which the legitimacy of a question can depend less on its substance than on who asks it, whom it challenges, and whose interests it unsettles. Our predicament is not a shortage of intelligence or ambition, but a social and institutional culture that frequently rewards conformity over curiosity. We celebrate educational qualifications while paying insufficient attention to the intellectual independence that education is supposed to develop. From classrooms and family settings to workplaces and public discourse, deference to authority, adherence to inherited beliefs, and the pursuit of approval often take precedence over questioning assumptions and examining evidence.
Critical thinking enables people to interpret information, evaluate arguments, and reach independent judgements. Innovative thinking allows them to imagine alternatives and devise solutions to unfamiliar problems. Together, these abilities determine whether education produces independent-minded citizens and resourceful professionals or merely individuals equipped with degrees and certificates. Their underdevelopment is therefore not simply an educational deficiency; it is a fundamental constraint on Pakistan’s social, economic, political, and intellectual progress.
The roots of this problem are particularly visible in our education system. The Pakistan Economic Survey 2025-26 puts the national literacy rate at 63 per cent, leaving 37 per cent of the population illiterate. The National Education Policy Development Framework 2024 estimated that only five per cent of children receive education of acceptable quality, while just 12 per cent of the eligible population has access to higher education. These figures expose a double challenge: millions are denied adequate educational opportunities, while access to schooling does not necessarily guarantee meaningful learning. Literacy, essential though it is, cannot alone determine whether individuals can analyse arguments, recognise misinformation, or solve problems independently.
The deeper failure lies in an educational model that privileges remembering over understanding. The teacher speaks, the student listens, the textbook supplies approved answers, and examinations reward their accurate reproduction. From primary schools to universities, questioning established explanations and developing original arguments receive far less attention than memorising prescribed material.
Such a model may produce examination results and degrees, but it does not adequately prepare students for a world that demands analytical reasoning, decision-making, collaboration, and adaptability. When academic success depends largely on recalling what others have said, students have little incentive to investigate why an answer is correct, whether an argument is convincing, or how an unfamiliar problem might be solved. The consequences extend into professional life, where employees may possess qualifications yet lack the confidence or experience to challenge inefficient practices and propose alternatives.
However, Pakistan’s crisis of critical thinking cannot be explained by the shortcomings of the education system alone. The attitudes that shape intellectual development are reinforced at home and in wider society. In many families, obedience is treated as the principal measure of good upbringing, and questioning an elder’s judgement can be interpreted as an affront to authority. Respect for elders and cultural traditions need not preclude independent thought; the conflict arises when respect is conflated with unquestioning submission and children learn that maintaining harmony is more important than establishing whether a claim is true.
The same culture of deference operates in workplaces and public institutions. Junior employees hesitate to challenge their superiors, while organisations often mistake passive agreement for teamwork and constructive criticism for disloyalty. When hierarchy determines whose arguments deserve consideration, institutions lose access to the knowledge and experience of those least able to speak freely. Errors remain uncorrected, inefficient practices become entrenched, and initiative gives way to compliance. The consequences are particularly damaging in organisations that require constant adaptation, innovation, and evidence-based decision-making.
Pakistan does not lack opinions, slogans, or passionate convictions. What it lacks is a sufficiently strong culture of testing those convictions against evidence and accepting that changing one’s mind in the face of facts is a sign of intellectual maturity.
Our public and political discourse reinforces this tendency. We too often assess an argument by who makes it rather than by the evidence supporting it. Claims from influential personalities escape scrutiny, while sound arguments from people outside dominant ideological or social circles are dismissed without serious consideration. The parliamentary confrontation over Khyber Pakhtunkhwa illustrates why this matters: when people begin with allegiance to a political party or institution and interpret the available evidence accordingly, disagreement becomes a contest of loyalties rather than an opportunity to establish the facts.
Social media has amplified the problem by enabling misinformation and emotionally charged claims to circulate rapidly among audiences predisposed to believe them. The sheer volume of information available has not translated into better public judgement; without the ability to assess credibility, more information can simply create more opportunities for manipulation. Scientific inquiry and critical thinking also face persistent obstacles from rigid religious interpretations and political expediency. Where questioning is viewed with suspicion, disagreement is mistaken for hostility, and research is expected to conform to predetermined conclusions, knowledge cannot advance.
The issue is not faith or political conviction in themselves, but the insistence that particular interpretations must remain beyond examination. Tradition and belief shape how people view the world, but they cannot substitute for empirical evidence when factual claims are being investigated. Scientific inquiry depends on testing explanations, questioning assumptions, and revising conclusions in light of new findings. Historical research requires examining records, comparing competing accounts, and remaining willing to reconsider inherited narratives. Neither can flourish when the conclusion is decided before the investigation begins.
This intellectual stagnation carries severe economic and political consequences. Innovation is not confined to laboratories or technology hubs; it includes developing more efficient agricultural practices, improving public services and overall governance, managing businesses, resolving community disputes, and making better use of limited resources. A society that discourages experimentation and rewards compliance struggles to identify failures, adapt to disruption, or translate ideas into practical innovations. The cost is not merely a shortage of new ideas, but an inability to question established practices, learn from failure, and improve existing systems.
Addressing this crisis requires systemic shifts in both institutions and attitudes. Schools and universities must move beyond excessive reliance on memorisation towards conceptual understanding, analytical writing, mathematical reasoning, scientific investigation, and project-based learning. Examinations should assess the ability to apply knowledge and construct reasoned arguments rather than merely reproduce textbook passages. Teachers need adequate resources, continuous professional development, and the freedom to encourage open inquiry.
The state must fulfil its constitutional obligation to provide quality education, particularly to those unable to afford private alternatives. Expanding enrolment, improving foundational literacy, supporting teacher training, and widening access to higher education must go hand in hand with developing analytical capabilities. Public libraries, independent and high-quality journalism, research institutions, and accessible scientific communication can extend this culture of learning far beyond the classroom. Equally important is the need to normalise healthy disagreement in public and daily life. Parents should encourage children to ask questions without viewing curiosity as defiance. Employers should welcome constructive feedback, and public institutions should treat evidence-based scrutiny as an opportunity for governance reform. Community and political leaders, scholars, and journalists must help foster an environment in which arguments are evaluated on their merits rather than accepted or rejected because of the speaker’s status, identity, or political affiliation.
Pakistan does not lack opinions, slogans, or passionate convictions. What it lacks is a sufficiently strong culture of testing those convictions against evidence and accepting that changing one’s mind in the face of facts is a sign of intellectual maturity. Critical thinking is not an elite luxury; it is an essential tool for every citizen who must evaluate information, recognise manipulation, make informed choices, and hold power accountable. The real measure of a progressive society is not how faithfully its people repeat established answers, but how confidently they question assumptions, examine evidence, and imagine better alternatives. Unless we cultivate these habits in our homes, classrooms, workplaces, public spaces, and state institutions, Pakistan will continue to squander the intellectual potential of its people. The real challenge, therefore, is not merely to educate more citizens, but to build a society in which people are equipped, encouraged, and free to think independently and express their views without fear.