In the 21st century, a university’s role goes far beyond lectures and exams. Glo­bally, campuses drive tech revolutions, seed start-ups and shape public discourse. But in Pakistan, most public universities remain locked in a governance model built for another era and another purpose. Altho­ugh the problem is nationwide, Punjab offers the clearest view. It has the largest number of public universities and students, and it’s the system I have worked in for over 40 years. What follows is both a provincial case study and a national warning.

British administrators set up universities here to produce clerks for the Raj, not independent scholars. Their models emphasised rigid hierarchies and central control; they discouraged intellectual risk-taking. That architecture survived independence almost intact. Later reforms, most notably HEC in the early 2000s, added funding and rhetoric but left the core legal structure unchanged.

Today, public universities in Punjab still have the governor as chancellor, who appoints vice chancellors (VCs), presides over convocations and approves or vetoes key decisions. In practice, the governor acts on the chief minister’s advice, adding a layer of political oversight to even routine academic matters. Recommendations approved by a university syndicate must pass through the higher education department, the minister, chief secretary and the CM’s secretariat before reaching the governor. Legal or financial queries may delay the file further. Once cleared, it retraces the same path back. The result: chronic delay and stifled decision-making.

Universities elsewhere are innovating—partnering with industry, revising curricula and leading national research strategies. But Pakistan’s institutions are paralysed by red tape. VCs cannot recruit faculty or revise statutes without external approval. Key posts remain vacant for months due to bureaucratic apathy or political interference. Short-term contracts are the norm, undermining morale and continuity. Financial management is tightly controlled.

Accountability is weak. Evaluations are rare and strategic planning based on measurable outcomes is largely absent. The system continues to reward conformity over creativity, as its colonial designers intended. Yet the world outside has transformed. AI is redefining productivity across sectors. Biotechnology, new materials and quantum technologies are emerging faster than regulations can keep up. A few institutions in Punjab have engaged with these trends. Research centres in molecular biology, AI and quantum computing show what’s possible. But these are outliers. Without structural reform, their success will not spread.

To remain relevant, universities here must be agile, independent and forward-looking. This requires structural change. University laws must prioritise academic needs over administrative control. Syndicates and senates should have the final say in academic matters, without multiple layers of government endorsement. The role of chancellor/CM should be ceremonial or reassigned to a non-political academic body.

Leadership appointments—VCs, deans, registrars—must be made through open, transparent, merit-based searches, overseen by independent commissions that include academics, professionals and industry experts, not just civil servants. Search committees must be led by respected scholars, not retired generals or bureaucrats. Universities should be governed by boards of trustees drawn from alumni, academia, industry and civil society, overseeing bud­gets, strategy and appointments. These should rep­l­ace poli­ticised structures and reflect international best practi­­­ces.

Financial autonomy is equally critical. Universities must have the freedom to generate and manage revenues through endowments, partnerships, commercialisation of research and executive education. Current rules should be replaced by block grants tied to audits and performance metrics. Administrative functions must be digitised. File tracking, faculty evaluations, admissions, promotions and budgets should be handled through AI-enabled systems with clear deadlines and transparency. A portion of public funding should be linked to performance indicators such as research output, graduate employability and innovation.

None of this is radical by global standards. Universities here have the potential to lead but are shackled by outdated systems designed to control, not inspire. We can either patch a broken model and watch its decline or build something better—bold, autonomous and excellence-driven. The choice must be made now. It’s not just an academic issue but also a national imperative. Our future depends on how we train the next generation of thinkers, researchers and leaders.