Area Study Centres - the academic wilderness

The Institute of Strategic Studies, Research and Analysis (ISSRA) at the National Defence University (NDU), Islamabad, commendably brought together Area Study Centres (ASCs) from across Pakistan for the 'Area Study Centres Dialogue' on August 27, 2026 - perhaps for the first time in their history. The theme focused on their perspectives regarding 'Transforming Global Order and Trends'.

The ASCs were created under the Area Study Centres Act No. XLV of 1975 by Parliament to "promote specialized, interdisciplinary academic research on geopolitically and economically important world regions", and to "foster informed foreign policy making, regional expertise, and academic diplomacy". These centres are funded by the federal government through the Higher Education Commission (HEC), formerly the Ministry of Education. Unfortunately, conducting MPhil and PhD courses is merely a supplement to their primary mandate.

The six ASCs include those located at: a) the University of Peshawar (established in the 1970s), which covers China, Russia, and Central Asia, and publishes the journal Central Asia; b) the Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, which focuses on American and African studies and publishes The Pakistan Journal of American Studies; c) the University of Karachi, which handles European studies; d) the University of Sindh, Jamshoro, which deals with the Far East and Southeast Asia; e) the University of the Punjab, Lahore, which focuses on South Asian states and domestic socioeconomic patterns; and f) the University of Balochistan, Quetta (established later in 1989), which covers the Middle East and Arab countries.

As always, there were scores of in-person and online participants during the discussions by the ASC speakers regarding shifts in the global landscape and their impact on Pakistan's security and foreign policy. To be fair, except for two ASCs, the input was below par and restricted to the centres' mandates, institutional interplay (ASC versus the host university), and self-glorification. It was disappointing to see the ASCs' mandate fully steered toward degree awarding rather than scholarly research, driven by the hidden competition for funding and resources that plagues our higher education. The input of the HEC chairman was uninspiring; he thought it fit to leave immediately after his written speech. It was ironic to see presentations by academics containing basic syntax, diction and avoidable spelling errors. Below are some other points open for discussion.

First, the Afghan policy. The concerned ASC had recommended a very rosy policy framework, getting down to the 'known' basics like trade, amity, humanitarian angle, the value of dialogue, etc. When quizzed about the 'aspirational aspects of policy (as suggested)' versus the 'pragmatic policy' under the imperatives of TTP and the Afghan government's continued hostility, the ASC lacked a solid recommended framework. In one's reckoning, and as expressed repeatedly, the policy needs to be constantly dovetailed under the 'constants and variables' of bilateralism. TTP and Afghan hostility are two 'variables', that are almost 'constant' in the immediate to near future, and are not going away. Hence Pakistan's policy needs to be cognisant of these imperatives. The ASC lacked any cogent policy response other than 'good aspirations' etc.

Second, ASC for Europe put across its viewpoint with agility, but when asked about the future direction of the war in Europe/Ukraine and its effects on the European power and unity, in the backdrop of America's withdrawal from Europe; implications for Russia's residual power; and Pakistan's policy direction, only personal opinion was offered, rather than any institutional input.

Third, likewise, the query concerning future direction of the US-Iran war, and its implications for the region in general and Pakistan in particular, was responded to by the concerned ASC by criticising America's bilateral violation of international norms, and praising Iran for steadfastly standing up to it. The input betrayed institutional deliberations, and lack of the kind of scholarship worthy of a waged cadre of scholars, researchers and academics, whose job is to immerse themselves in such issues/ debates.

It was a sad spectacle to see highly paid academics broad-brushing issues of national and existential importance to Pakistan without offering any cogent, clear and researched policy recommendations. Ultimately, it created the impression that the ASCs are merely sarkari (bureaucratic) institutions whiling away time. They appear far more consumed by petty academic and administrative battles for perks and funding than by producing the quality work for which they were originally resourced by this impoverished nation. No wonder the government functionaries either do not consult them, or ignore their formulations, or rely more on the input by other agile institutions like ISSRA, IPRI, IRS, ISSI, etc.

This questions the rationale behind the ASCs as degree-awarding institutions, if not to attract more funding. Likewise, it raises the question of why these must fall under the control of university Vice Chancellors, when their original conception was to be autonomous entities offering untainted, timely and objective input.

Reportedly, the government has still not appointed directors for five ASCs, opening the door to manipulation and influence from the respective universities. The HEC, instead of seeking more perks and privileges for these underperforming institutions (regardless of their high volume of low-utility and poor-quality published work), needs to reorient their work toward the original purpose for which they were instituted.

The HEC also needs to look into the poor quality of PhDs that we are producing by the hundreds each year. Higher education in Pakistan is literally in shambles. It is a no-brainer that bright students prefer foreign education and seldom return home, while domestic universities have become hotbeds of turf wars, politics, personal fiefdoms, student harassment and extreme backwardness.

Academics in pursuit of personal glory and benefit do not hesitate to use students, in despicable dereliction of duty. A recent piece titled "A professorship is a promise, publicly made" – written by Dr Asghar Zaidi and published in these columns on August 26 – is instructive, to say the least.

The Chief Guest, Ambassador Sardar Masood Khan, aptly summed up the deliberations by differentiating between descriptive, prescriptive and operational policy formulations. The underlying trend by most academics is to describe background, factual situation (descriptive); others present a long list of 'what to do', the 'must', 'should' and 'required' paradigm (prescriptive); while a very few offer 'how to do' – the practicable solutions (operational). Sadly, no ASC 'seemed' to fall in the last category.