Saudi Arabia names new envoy to Pakistan

Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche has issued an official order rescinding the controversial $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponisation Fund”, resolving a key point of friction ahead of his confirmation vote before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The action follows extended negotiations with Republican Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, who had withheld support for the nomination pending written assurances that the initiative would be permanently discarded. Although Blanche previously indicated in Congressional testimony that the department would not move forward with the program, lawmakers sought a formal rescission to prevent its potential revival. The directive also clarifies terms surrounding a related legal settlement, stipulating that provisions concerning tax audit protections apply exclusively on a retroactive basis to open claims active at the time of the agreement and do not extend to future tax filings.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced a high-powered task force to reform the country’s examination system following weeks of student-led protests over alleged irregularities in major entrance exams. The announcement came a day after Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned, as the government faced growing pressure from students and opposition groups demanding changes to the examination process. Modi said the new task force would be headed by Nandan Nilekani, co-founder of technology company Infosys. The panel will focus on improving the examination system and making it more transparent, reliable and technology-driven. In a video message posted on social media, Modi said the government wanted to restore confidence in upcoming examinations as quickly as possible. He stressed that the system must ensure greater transparency and make effective use of technology. The protests had been led in large part by supporters of the social media-driven Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). Thousands of students and young people gathered at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar over several weeks, making the demonstrations among the most significant anti-government protests in India in recent years. The movement initially focused on alleged problems and irregularities in examinations, but its demands later expanded. Protesters also raised concerns about unemployment, limited opportunities for young people and what critics described as the government’s increasingly authoritarian approach. The protest site was largely cleared on Sunday. Municipal workers washed the surrounding roads and began repainting walls covered with slogans, posters and graffiti. Some protesters criticised the decision to remove the writings, saying the messages represented an important record of the movement. Rahul, a protester who had visited the site, said demonstrators had photographed and recorded the posters and slogans before they were removed. He said they wanted the material to remain documented and remembered. Some young people who travelled long distances to participate in the demonstrations arrived after the protest had already ended. One 19-year-old participant said he had travelled for around 20 hours after seeing videos of the demonstrations on Instagram. He said he wanted to witness the atmosphere and join other young protesters. Another visitor accused the government of worsening the situation by attempting to suppress the demonstrations. He argued that the crackdown had contributed to the protests becoming larger.

A renewed debate over the reliability of PhD examinations has emerged following questions surrounding the doctoral thesis of Professor Jason Arday. Arday submitted his PhD thesis at Liverpool John Moores University in July 2015. The controversy resurfaced after Professor Richard Dawkins publicly questioned whether the thesis had been thoroughly examined. Other commentators have also raised concerns about its academic quality and allegations of plagiarism. The debate has now expanded beyond the individual case. It has prompted questions about how universities assess doctoral research and whether the existing system consistently maintains the required academic standards. A PhD normally represents several years of specialised research. A doctoral thesis can contain tens of thousands of words and often requires extensive academic reading and analysis. The assessment is generally carried out by two examiners. One is usually from the candidate’s university, while the other comes from an external institution. Critics argue that the workload involved in examining a thesis is not always matched by the financial compensation provided to examiners. Examiners are commonly paid a relatively modest fee for reviewing lengthy and complex research. This has raised concerns that some may not devote sufficient time to the process. There are also concerns about inconsistencies in examination decisions. Some candidates have reportedly failed their PhDs despite believing that their research met the required standard. Others have received a pass even when questions remained about the quality of their work. The appeal process can be particularly difficult for unsuccessful candidates. A failed PhD can mean years of research being lost. Students who finance their own studies can also face substantial financial losses. For those hoping to build academic careers, the consequences can be even more serious. Another issue is the selection of examiners. Supervisors often play a role in recommending academics to assess their students’ work. Critics say professional relationships within academia could potentially influence the choice of examiners or the assessment itself. Academic misconduct presents another challenge. Universities can spend considerable time investigating allegations of plagiarism and other forms of cheating. Lengthy investigations can involve hearings, appeals and administrative procedures. The discussion has also highlighted the subjective nature of academic assessment. Different examiners can sometimes reach different conclusions about the same research. In some cases, candidates who fail with one set of examiners may later receive a pass from another panel after an appeal. There is no suggestion that these concerns necessarily apply to Arday’s examination. The available debate does not establish whether his thesis met or failed to meet the required standard. However, the controversy has renewed calls for universities to examine their doctoral assessment systems. Questions include how examiners are selected, whether they receive adequate compensation, how thoroughly theses are reviewed and how allegations of academic misconduct are handled. The wider debate is therefore about more than one doctoral thesis. It raises fundamental questions about the credibility, consistency and accountability of the PhD examination process.