Why is there no second Parveen Shakir?

At a recent conference, Syed Javed Iqbal, chairman of the board of directors of the National Academy of Performing Arts (NAPA), raised a question that deserves attention: why has Pakistan not produced another Parveen Shakir? The question is less about finding a successor to an extraordinary poet than about understanding why our institutions struggle to nurture independent voices.

No artist can be replicated, nor should anyone be. Parveen Shakir's originality lay in her distinctive expression of love, identity and women's experiences. Yet her example invites a larger question: do our universities encourage imagination, disagreement and intellectual courage, or reward conformity?

We expect young people to become writers, thinkers and leaders while denying them meaningful opportunities to exercise leadership. Student unions have remained largely absent for decades. Meanwhile, literary and debating societies often function under administrative supervision, with students enjoying limited authority over programmes, speakers and decisions.

Such societies are valuable, but they are not substitutes for elected student unions. A debating club develops public speaking; a literary society encourages creative expression. A union teaches representation, negotiation, accountability and the acceptance of electoral defeat. Together, these institutions can transform a university from an examination centre into a laboratory of democratic citizenship.

A campus can organise dozens of seminars and poetry readings yet silence students if administrators decide who may speak and what matters.

Pakistan's history offers examples. Student politics once helped develop public speakers, organisers and national leaders. Campuses hosted poetry gatherings, literary magazines and vigorous debates over public affairs. Students were not merely audiences; they were editors, organisers and decision-makers.

That history was hardly flawless. Political confrontation, intimidation and armed violence damaged campuses, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s. But institutional abuse calls for regulation, not permanent abolition. We do not abolish parliament because politicians misbehave. Why should the response to misconduct in student politics be to eliminate elected representation altogether?

The nationwide ban imposed under General Zia-ul-Haq in 1984 dealt a severe blow to this tradition. Although subsequent governments attempted to revive student participation, an effective system of elected unions never returned across most campuses.

Sindh appeared to offer a turning point when its assembly passed student union legislation in February 2022. The law envisaged elected representation and participation in institutional affairs. Yet implementation has remained elusive. In October 2026, the Sindh High Court issued notices over a petition seeking union elections at the University of Karachi and directed its registrar to appear on November 12. Nearly five years after the legislation, students are still seeking the machinery needed to exercise this right.

The answer is not unrestricted campus politics. Universities need transparent elections, enforceable codes against violence, financial accountability and safeguards against interference by outside political interests. Equally important, unions must respect the autonomy of cultural, scientific and literary societies rather than turn them into partisan instruments.

Teachers, too, must reconsider their role. Mentorship does not mean approving every invitation, dictating every discussion or preventing every mistake. Students learn responsibility by making decisions, facing criticism and accepting consequences. An institution that teaches obedience more effectively than judgment cannot credibly claim to be preparing future leaders.

John Dewey regarded democracy as a lived social experience, not simply an electoral arrangement. Paulo Freire challenged educational models that reduce students to passive recipients of information. Their insights remain relevant: creative confidence grows where questioning is welcomed and participation is real.

Another Parveen Shakir cannot be manufactured by legislation or university policy. But countless original voices may remain unheard when campuses restrict independent thought.