By Saman Aftab We are so habitual of listening to the gender inequality, women empowerment, and ever growing population talks that now these topics have become an essential subject for the matter of discussing societal issues. But what we people have lacked to unravel is the very essence of these debates. Why gender inequality exists? Why we are still lagging behind in terms of employing more women? Why we are unable to control the growing rate of population in our country? Before addressing the ‘absolutely unavoidable’ questions, let me take the readers down an irksome memory lane of my life. Last year when our maid broke the news of her pregnancy to us, our most obvious question was why now? Considering her age which was 42 years that time and her financial grim along with unsupportive role of her husband in bearing the burden of their five children, this question clicked in every mind. And her answer though not surprising was quite gloomy for the existence of every female in this world; “baji, larka chahye humen” (we need a boy). She had four daughters and a deaf son. Her statement broke my heart because it questioned the capabilities of her daughters who were all physically and mentally sound. This memory was not worth forgetting because as a female it made me feel inferior. But this Babygirl vs Babyboy thing is not new, in fact it is one of the most deeply rooted concerns of our society. The normalcy of demanding the birth of a boy from a married woman is consolidating with the passage of time. The worst part of this matter – it’s getting acceptance. Ironically, majority of mothers in law showcase such demands to the newly married couple, as if it is in their hands to ‘design’ the genetic make-up of their offspring. The heart wrenching memory got afresh, when Tabassum shared her so called good news with us. Tabassum, 35 years old woman who works as a maid in three houses, a mother of four girls is expecting again for the sake of receiving a son this time. Her good news reminded me of her last fourth delivery when she gave birth to a girl in government hospital and she was made to give her daughter to a rich family on the persuasion of her drug addict husband. Whether they got money in return was dubious but chances of such happening were bright. I really hope and pray that this time she gets a son, otherwise the couple will continue to bring unwanted girls in this world and ruin their lives. For all the existing daughters of this couple are living a dark and disowned life. This brutal reality of life is not constrained to lower class people and it has crossed the demarcation of social groupings based on all classes, religions and races. Let us take an example of my sister’s friend, who is married to a well-established businessman and living in a posh locality. The poor lady who has a rich family, is a mother of two cute little girls. Although the little girls born to riches are living a good life, their mother is undergoing severe mental anxiety and pressure for not having a son. And of course, she for the sake of getting rid of such pressure is planning to have another baby neglecting her present deteriorating health condition. Unfortunately, the instances are innumerable and the rate of their occurrences is increasing day by day. Why boy child is mostly preferred over girl child? The answer lies in the heart of several burdens tied with bringing up a girl till her marriage. Among so many liabilities, the extra protection needed by the girls in our society and the curse of dowry have aggravated the scenario to such an extent that today girls are seen as “misfortune”. Of course exceptions are always there. Let us shift the focus from this melancholy to addressing those “absolutely unavoidable” questions raised earlier. 1: Gender inequality; Homo sapiens (humans) are generally categorized into three groups namely man, woman and transgender. Men are always ranked superior for enormous reasons but if we see things more pragmatically, it becomes evident that parents are left with sons in their old age while their daughters somehow abandon them and serve in laws for the rest of their lives. Call it our family system, it is the way it is. Then how can girls be loved or demanded? For voicing rights for equality, women should also bear the responsibilities equally. If a woman is capable of doing an employment being educated or skilled, she must pursue it for sake of giving all the best of resources to her parents that are expected of a son. The root cause of inequality among genders is the leverage given to men of being more useful and thus more needed. As long as the share of women in the society is constrained only to domestic chores and family caretaking, this inequality will never fade away. More women should be encouraged to become financially sufficient and independent. But how? This leads to our second question. 2: Women empowerment; there should be more campaigning with regards to educating girls and investing in their skill building. More powerful the educational background of a woman is, more will be the chances of her getting a good job for the sake of financial security. Thus, the number of women working for the betterment of society and raising capital will rise exponentially. And finally once these two milestones are achieved, the third ordeal of our country will evade automatically. 3: Overpopulation: as discussed in the start, demand and desire for the birth of a son has contributed a lot more towards overpopulation. Men are expected to take care of their parents but the same goes for women also. And in this age of compatibility, women should come forward and play a vital part in developing this society. Instead of placing all the

By Ali Abbas Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission (HEC) new weighted research policy has surely raised an eyebrow among a few academics nationwide. Before further dissecting the policy and its implications, it is pertinent to understand the role of HEC as a regulatory authority, which can help clear the air to a greater extent. As stated, “Regulatory”, it is important to accept that the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan is there to implement quality checks irrespective of the decision being popular or unpopular. So, with this lens, it is easy to understand why HEC is weighing this bold step of assigning weights to authorship and what must have been the shortcomings in the previous policy, despite the earlier policy’s apparent benefits. The new policy values first authors and corresponding authors more, acknowledging a reward for the initiators and potential stakeholders in the event that there are more than 3 authors. While HEC is not stopping co-authorship, it aims to credit researchers who have genuine contributions and are adding value as a lead or major contributor. It is entirely up to contributors to choose the number of other co-authors and their desired contribution and commitment in the research article. In fact, this should rather be seen as a measure of transparency that researchers who are expecting to get fewer marks for co-authorship will be doing less work in contrast to the first author. That can actually act as a yardstick for them to allocate their time to multiple projects to get their respective share/ count. However, not to undermine the researchers whose genuine intent surrounds a higher number of publications in less time with real contribution, it is a welcoming sign for authors who stay away from relationship-based and aided research. So, HEC, being a quality custodian of education and research practices for HEIs, has come up with a stance to curb research mills, fraudulent research, and fake authorship, where publications in friends’ journals and contributions following quid pro quo are compensated. And one never knows when these researchers who have worked as co-authors or fall last in the author list make it to the classes; their share of knowledge and impact may be a concern at times as well. The problem is even bigger, as not only papers with 20+ authors can be found, but researchers are co-authoring in different fields that may be beyond cross-domain collaboration. This is where HEC might have to respond and find this weighted policy as damage control.  Well, this research’s credibility is not Pakistan’s dilemma only, but something that is a world issue in a higher education setting. And when HEC addresses these concerns, it might act as a benchmark for other nations’ education systems, especially for the education and accreditation councils of similar demographics. Whether one favors or opposes it, HEC has devised something that raises major concerns, and that is to curb the need to distinguish between real and fake contributors. Now comes the point of demotivating international contributions from this weighted system, as raised by the affected prospective contributors. Well, though not every policy can avoid its collateral, the overall gain may be exploited as well. It is to be remembered that international collaborators are not to be linked with those weights; they can continue to collaborate at any number in the author list as they used to be, i.e., first or second or third, etc. In this case, the logic for local authors will remain the same as stated above about their respective contributions and rewards. The time and effort can then help in identifying multiple avenues as well. Again, there are always two sides to a coin, and in the current dynamics, where co-authorship has appeared to be a business deal, the side with the assigned weights policy bears more weight. Also, on the other hand, the offset can be made by allocating funds and instructing HEIs to devote funding to Gold open access, thus accelerating the pace of the first-author research. All in all, the new policy hints at increasing competitiveness and research credibility while leaving it to the test of time to see if it turns out to be a value addition for researchers by choice or by chance. About the author: Ali Abbas, PhD, works at Beaconhouse National University. He can be reached at aabbas724@gmail.com