Institutions of ego

An arbitrary decision to build a university is not the way to build a system of inquiry, curiosity and social impact

Buried in the pages last week was a small story about a big plan. The plan for Islamabad National University, which was going to be housed at the Prime Minister’s house, was now being shelved. Back in September, I had written about why a university in the PM House was not the best of ideas. Other scholars and university administrators had chimed in as well. The university ought to be a place of open engagement, inclusive of its scholars and able to welcome all with open arms. It also needs to be in a place where the ecosystem around it is enabling, and can sustain the academic and social life associated with an institution of higher learning. The PM House can offer none of that. There was a big show, supposedly to the tune of about Rs30 million, earlier this year.

As an academic, the idea of creating more institutions of higher learning is an excellent one. But an idea that is based on an impulsive campaign promise, and not the promise of sustainable success is not worth pursuing and one I cannot support. I am glad that better reasoning has prevailed and the idea of the university at the PM House is being shelved.

Unfortunately, one bad idea is often replaced by another one. There is now a new idea being floated by some in the government quarters. The news reported in several outlets seem to indicate that instead of the original Islamabad National University, there would be another university focused on science and technology on the same premises. Some other news outlets suggested that it would first become a research centre and then a university. Lots of questions remain unanswered, but perhaps the most important one that needs to be answered is: Why do we need to create a university at the PM House? In other words, what makes the PM House a suitable location for the university? The general proximity to institutions that require high security, the lack of access, and the miserable state of existing institutions close to the PM House should be enough to dissuade any serious planner, university administrator or scholar.

At a time when higher education is facing repeated, and severe cuts, creating a white elephant is not only silly, it is immoral and unfair to existing institutions in the country. Students who were promised scholarships are being told that they may not get their stipends in time, or at all. Existing research grants are facing cuts and new grants are becoming more and more elusive. In the light of these issues, investment in creating a new institution is neither a good policy nor is it sensible economics.

Then there are other problems as well. A research institution is more than a mere building — no matter how spectacular the building is. The murky vision and a blurred mission of a research institution, with no clarity is unlikely to create anything of intellectual value.

Finally, if all seems to be lost on deaf ears — can someone please explain why is it that every new institution we want to create is about science and technology? What happened to humanities and social sciences? The problems facing our country are not just in technology, they are just as acute in ethics, a fragmented social fabric, in a law that is not equal for everyone, in a democracy that is not inclusive, and a citizenship that seems to have endemic classes. Our fixation with science, and one that is at best motivated by arbitrary metrics and not substance or quality, is not a service to the nation.

An arbitrary decision to build a university, just because it is good optics or because it is a matter of ego, is not the way to build a system of inquiry, curiosity and social impact.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 25^th, 2019.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.