Whistleblowing Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan

6.0 OPED Whistleblowing: Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan with Systemwide Collusion
Zahir Ebrahim
October 16, 2011
Through the worldwide newsmedia, I wish to bring to the notice of the world of academe the bold plagiarism of the work of world’s best known physicist and Nobel laureate of 1918, Max Planck, including verbatim theft from others to build up a padded portfolio of plagiarized publications, and its aiding and abetting by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan through a conspiracy of dunces, inept policies, and a systemic culture of corruption and whitewash wherein Paul protects Peter while they all receive payouts from the public exchequer by bloated anointments as ‘Distinguished National Professor’ and other sainthood.
Here is the summary findings. I have uncovered the following facts:
  1. 17 of 18 papers published in the book Scientific Writings by Dr. I. R. Durrani confirmed forgery, with one of these papers belonging to Nobel laureate Max Planck, and one paper could not be ascertained;
  2. first 2 papers in a second book Fairy Tales, End of Science and the Resurrection by the same author confirmed forgery, and the entire book is likely forged but I haven’t had the time to verify – this is confirmation enough;
  3. 60 papers published in a plagiarism paper mill in India titled “BPAS” (Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences) approved by HEC as a legitimate Journal, contains 14 of those 18 plagiarized chapters from the first book;
  4. a senior HEC “Distinguished National Professor” of physics who holds the prestigious Salam Chair in Physics at a local university in Pakistan writing glowing tributes on Amazon.com to these masterful forgeries in Scientific Writings: “All in all, it is an eruditely performed piece of work.” ( http://tinyurl.com/Durrani-Amazon ); ( The Federal Government of Pakistan established Salam Chair in Physics at Government College University, Lahore in 1999 and named it after the Nobel Laureate of Pakistan, Dr. Abdus Salam who was a student (1942-46) and a faculty member (1951-54) at the College. Dr. G. Murtaza was appointed Professor Salam Chair in March 2000.http://gcu.edu.pk/Salam_Chair.htm );
  5. the masterful forger is the re-virginified “HEC Approved PhD Supervisor” and “Director, Faculty of Sciences, University of Gujrat”, Pakistan, after being caught once before at Punjab University Lahore and resigned before the university could take further action.
The Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan was notified of this incredibly grotesque and massive corruption under its very noses which was caught by me quite serendipitously from the United States on September 28, 2011, and subsequently fully fleshed out in a very detailed whistleblowing exposure in the form of Letter to Editor titled: Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan under the Watchful Eyes of its Distinguished Stewards of Science and Higher Education dated October 07, 2011.
The scale of corruption uncovered and exposed therein is shockingly mind-boggling. The full report titled: Whistleblowing: Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan ( PDF http://tinyurl.com/Plagiarism-Pakistan-Report ) is being submitted to the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan as amicus curiae brief for Suo Motu notice of this matter. Evidently, the full magnitude of this scandal, primarily the role of HEC in the willful aiding and abetting of this corruption as its first cause, is being suppressed in Pakistan by the Pakistani newsmedia, and by the Higher Education Commission itself (of course), along with those Distinguished academics of Pakistan supping on HEC’s gravy-train at the public exchequer’s expense.
There has never been a case like this to my knowledge in the annals of plagiarism and academic fraud. Even single minor cases gain much notoriety in the Western academe and often lead to disrepute for life and lost careers. Here we have wholesale theft of intellectual property verbatim from multiple authors in writing entire scientific books, with the aiding and abetting of a corrupt federal government organization of higher education and their “Distinguished National Professors”, and there has been not a word in the news media despite my sending them the information?
I reported this to over one hundred vice chancellors and rectors of public and private universities of Pakistan including the concerned federal government organization and some senior academics. It is making ripples internally in the Pakistani academe but I suspect because of the big names involved, no one wants to jeopardize their own career by speaking out in public. Our academies are rather tribal, perhaps feudal is a better description where Peter and Paul watch out for each other. The scale of academic fraud is so widespread in Pakistan that in this bathhouse many Mr. clean hands are naked themselves. Even when a few honest ones show moral consternation privately, who wants to make enemies in a nation ruled by Mafiosos at every level where life evidently is as cheap as the dead bodies we continually mourn on television in Pakistan. The honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan on October 06, 2011 issued its Suo Motu findings for all the wanton killings going on in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi ( ‘Violence in Karachi a result of turf war’, DAWN, October 06, 2011 ). Under this oppressive climate, to reveal the full scandal in public can be more than just a career suicide.
Officially, my discovery is quietly being buried under a conspiracy of silence with a whitewash and at best, a pawn-sacrifice. Some major players are involved in what I call “a conspiracy of the dunces” who claim they “didn’t know” even though they wrote a book review for the plagiarized book, and created the infrastructure to promote exactly this kind of dishonest culture in Pakistan with their incentivizing policies. HEC’s Executive Director Dr. Sohail Naqvi is the one leading the official whitewash with the bold proclamation (over email sent to his colleagues and forwarded to me):
HEC has NEVER condoned any act of plagiarism anywhere. This case has been investigated and immediate action has been taken. We are all shocked by this blatant act of plagiarism but are certainly not responsible for it. Dr. Durrani alone is responsible for what he has done and not his colleagues, University of Gujrat, HEC etc.” ( http://tinyurl.com/Plagiarism-HEC-Response )
I have to echo the honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan who ended his judgment in his October 06, 2011 findings with a quote from James Bryce:
Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.”
The full whistleblowing deconstruction of this fraud may be read online at: https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/masterpiece-of-plagiarism-in-pakistan/
-###-
Author Bio: The author is a computer architect in the Silicon Valley and has two dozen engineering design patents granted by the USPTO in the field of computer systems. He retired early from corporate life to pursue other responsible social interests. He is a Pakistani permanent resident in the United States and spends his time between California and Pakistan.
Author Contact: The author may be reached via email (see pdf)















7.0 OPED The Salam Gang and Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons
Notes of a skeptic
November 02, 2011 | Last Updated Nov 05, 2011
Someone should be looking deeper into The Salam Gang and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. If their caliber is as uncovered in the plagiarism scandal (http://tinyurl.com/Plagiarism-Pakistan-Report-3), can these keystone cops really design nuclear weapons? All the glorified tributes on their wikipedia pages – stooges fronting for Uncle Sam as red-team / blue-team? The person to look into is Dr. Abdus Salam himself (wiki, wiki-cached). And the real role of ICTP Trieste Italy behind the public relations of :
For more than 45 years, the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) has been a driving force behind global efforts to advance scientific expertise in the developing world. (About ICTP)
ICTP operates under a tripartite agreement between the Italian government, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (About ICTP Governance)
ICTP has a long tradition of scientific capacity building in developing countries. Over the last few decades, ICTP has supported numerous activities throughout the third world, including training programs, networks, and the establishment of affiliate centres. (Outreach)’
As we see, the ICTP is run under the auspices of the UN and the IAEA, both controlled by the will of those who determine the policies of the United States of America. And behind their public relations protocol, we also know what this will was (and still is) vis a vis the developing world. At just about the same time that ICTP was set up, the author of what became known as the Truman Doctrine had coldly averred of the nature of American altruism and world-benefaction:
We have about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population …. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction …. We should cease to talk about vague and – for the Far East – unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.’ — Top Secret Memo, PPS No. 23, by George Kennan, Head of the US State Department Policy Planning Staff. Written February 28, 1948, Declassified June 17, 1974. (wiki-Memo_PPS23_by_George_Kennan)
Given that the Truman Doctrine, and the ones to follow including the Carter Doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine, and the Bush Doctrine, all continued “to deal in straight power concepts” until the present day under President Obama who is verbatim following the Bush Doctrine, is this so called collaboration melting pot of third world scientists also a secret conduit of Western intelligence to funnel pertinent “secrets” and Trojan horses to the have-nots – just as the United States and the former Soviet Union had a funnel going for high-tech secret-sharing which enabled them to sustain their fictitious enmity and their respective military-industrial complexes fully primed for over four decades of murderous hot and cold proxy warfare? (See for instance Anthony Sutton’s National Suicide – Military aid to the Soviet Union)
We have known for a while that War is a Racket (see Smedley Butler). How better to continue that racket than by arming both sides amidst make-belief and fabricated opposition? The agendas are well planned out by game theory scenarios at institutions of imperial mobilization calculus, warcraft, and social control like the Rand Corporation.
Was Dr. Salam a Pentagon asset harvested for this purpose?
The West loves marginalized and hated minorities which it cultivates and harvests for devious purposes, often as useful idiots.
It has always puzzled me how Dr. Salam endeavored to help Pakistan despite his entire minority community being designated non-Muslim by the same politicians and military junta he was helping to make the bomb. Why did he not ask for a quid pro quo – I’ll help you with your bomb if you stop calling me and my people non-Muslim, and desist in creating a culture of hatred and pogroms against them in Pakistan? He had the upper hand. And yet, he is not known to have done that…. or else he would have accomplished it if Pakistan wanted the bomb as badly as is depicted in the official narratives. Why did he not call in his trump card?
And now the new puzzling factor which has come to the fore after I have unraveled this scandal is how comes Dr. Abdus Salam collected a stellar bunch of ethically challenged, brain-challenged, sycophant crowd as has been uncovered here? If I am forming a team to do any technical project which requires original brilliance, creativity, independent thinking, forensic analysis, and intellectual courage transcending the straight-jackets of boot-licking mediocrity, let alone a nuclear weapons design for heaven’s sake, I wouldn’t have chosen any of these distinguished scholars on my team:
  1. one who gullibly accepts a verbatim plagiarized book on physics from a known plagiarist without skepticism even when knowing that he had resigned from Punjab University for being caught plagiarizing once before (Distinguished National Professor Dr. Riazuddin, pg. 17 – Dr. Salam’s student and part of Salam Gang, wiki, wiki-cached);
  2. one who thinks it is not unethical to write a review of a book one hasn’t read (Distinguished National Professor Dr. Asghar Qadir, pg. 57 – part of Salam Gang, wiki, wiki-cached);
  3. one who writes a glowing review of a plagiarized book on physics written by his own relative while knowing the caliber of this person suffering from “psychological problems” that he cannot produce such a work; knowing fully well before writing that review that his relative had resigned from Punjab University because he was caught plagiarizing once before; supervising his own relative for a Ph.D. thesis without feeling any conflict of interest, and the much touted physics department of QAU which spawned the Salam Gang even permitting such a conflict of interest; and awarding a Ph.D. degree to his relative for work which has been deemed “not very good thesis” and “rather pedestrian” and which was delayed by several years mainly due to the “psychological problems” which he has even confirmed (Distinguished National Professor Dr. G. Murtaza, pgs. 54-55, 99-100 – Dr. Salam’s student and part of Salam Gang, wiki, wiki-cached);
  4. and one who thinks a physics Nobel laureate is too high a standard as a reviewer but has no problem working for physics Nobel laureate Abdus Salam himself who evidently didn’t have such high standards when selecting people like him (Distinguished scholar Dr. N. M. Butt, pg. 101 – part of Salam Gang, wiki, wiki-cached).
I mean this bunch of keystone cops, unable to display any intellectual prowess whatsoever in the matter of HEC and plagiarism unraveled in these 132 pages, are Pakistan’s greatest scientists?
I am certain that anyone who can play in theoretical physics is pretty brilliant – how can they not be – but, it is equally self-evident that anyone who flunks the points 1-4 is either a mental savant, or a mental retard. I don’t know which one but neither trait is particularly known for superfluity in moral gravitas.
And, on top of it all, this unusual combination of keystone cops’ super-brilliance is able to create the scientific infrastructure and design and build nuclear weapons to boot when the nation does not have even clean drinking water in her taps, and nor can she even fabricate a simple high-performance precision ball bearing? How does that work?
Or, was Project-706 (wiki, wiki-cached) and its successors, a compartmentalized Western intelligence operation ab initio – with the Western states’ bureaucratic apparatuses, including the executive, actually being kept in the dark about it as a super covert ops, while providing a select leadership hierarchy in the know with plausible deniability cover?
President Harry Truman signed that very concept into an Executive Order NSC 10/2 in 1948:
Management of Covert Actions in the Truman Presidency: NSC 10/2 directed CIA to conduct “covert” rather than merely “psychological” operations, defining them as all activities “which are conducted or sponsored by this Government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.’ (source)
Convoluted covert-ops is the staple of empires, and of wannabe powers. Its history is as old as hegemony, as old as mankind. The twist in modernity is the Hegelian Dialectic: fabricated enemies, arming both (or all) sides for profit, and other not so apparent agendas of supra-national forces which only the most twisted amoral minds can conjure up as glimpsed in The Report from Iron Mountain.
A Pulitzer prize is surely awaiting a real professional journalist or historian who cracks this conundrum. I am only an amateur hobbyist in both fields and even to me something smells just as fishy as when a brilliant Osama Bin Laden is awarded the medals for being the mastermind of 9/11, but at the same time he is empirically found to be so stupid as to have recruited a bunch of keystone cops to execute 9/11 who: 1) wanted to learn to fly but not land; 2) have lap dancers entertain them prominently the night before so all will remember them; and 3) leave the rest of the tell-tale signs of super-intelligence behind as have been disclosed publicly…. But the entire world of state officialdoms (except Iran) narrate the same story in unison. So all parroting the same narrative, and variations thereof, while keeping the core axioms intact, is hardly a new phenomenon. It is called manufacturing consent, and its hegelian twin manufacturing dissent, as part of social engineering of consent.
The proof of the pudding is only in its eating, not in the narratives of the pudding.
My first real intellectual encounter as a combative adversary with this new bunch of Pakistani keystone cops similarly depicts just as much empirical intelligence and moral gravitas as the ever-brilliant and resourceful Osama Bin Laden who managed to demolish three WTC towers, one even without hitting it, at near free fall speed alternatingly imploding / exploding the first two, and collapsing the third tower into its own footprints as is typical of control demolition! What sheer brilliance – almost like an Ali Baba tale.
Why would the most brilliant scientist Dr. Abdus Salam, who I would even suggest harbored a very astute global understanding of ruling powers in a world of rising disparity between the haves and the have-nots, gather such boot-licking mediocre people around him if he really wanted to change all that? People who have shown no moral gravitas, no skepticism, no ability to reason through even simple and straightforward observations as summarized in the aforementioned four points?
Similarly, even after my ad nauseam pointing out items 1-4 on pgs. 50-52 pertaining to HEC’s omissions in their awarding themselves and their fraternity including members of the Salam Gang, a clean bill of health, none of these scientists still display any intellectual curiosity whatsoever in wanting to solve the puzzle. If the Salam Gang and other scientists of Pakistan are really so above board, why are they being so obtuse about the following repeatedly declaring the case closed (quoting from pgs. 50-52):
  1. How did a plagiarist who was removed from Punjab University for plagiarism become Director at the University of Gujrat? Who aided and abetted the plagiarist to acquire the new grazing grounds? God Almighty? Or someone from the corrupt HEC organization? Or someone from the corrupt University of Gujrat which has been afforded saintly accreditation by HEC? Or was it this Dr. G. Murtaza fellow, his relative, who cleansed him? Have you conducted an investigation into this matter to make such determination before making your blanket pronouncement “Dr. Durrani alone is responsible for what he has done and not his colleagues, University of Gujrat, HEC etc.”
  2. Who appointed a known plagiarist who was forced to resign from Punjab University, as “HEC Approved PhD Supervisor”? Once again God Almighty? Or HEC itself? Have you conducted an investigation into this aiding and abetting before making your blanket pronouncement “Dr. Durrani alone is responsible for what he has done and not his colleagues, University of Gujrat, HEC etc.”
  3. Who approved that plagiarism paper mill BPAS as “HEC Approved”? Or do you have some lesser minion to take the fall for that instead of God Almighty, or perhaps the former HEC Chairman himself who just loves to report his number of publications at every step. The current number on his resume is 798. Have you conducted a competent investigation into how you yourself support a plagiarizing paper-mill as an “HEC Approved” before making your blanket pronouncement “Dr. Durrani alone is responsible for what he has done and not his colleagues, University of Gujrat, HEC etc.” I can in fact hire a bunch of high school students part-time to go through the entire HEC portfolio of publications, all of them, for each one of your HEC Approved Ph.D. Supervisors, and do a low-hanging-fruit grab. And how much public monies have you spent for your “HEC has NEVER condoned any act of plagiarism anywhere.” – that you couldn’t even detect that BPAS, your own HEC Approved paper-mill, was just a piece of your own trash in which your plagiarist was publishing? HEC gave plagiarist that paper-mill on a plate and made it really easy for him. Where is that investigation to find out who made that approval within HEC, and what sort of Q/A process you have for such approval for which great emoluments and academic advancements are granted in the system you have instituted, before your proclamations of personal hygiene and sainthood for everyone is made?
  4. Your failed policy of “number of publications for advancement” is directly responsible for the drastic rise in plagiarism in Pakistan. Your inability to enforce your own charter, be it plagiarism, or be it fake degrees, makes a mockery of Pakistan’s higher education system. With what shamelessness can you proclaim: “HEC has NEVER condoned any act of plagiarism anywhere. This case has been investigated and immediate action has been taken. We are all shocked by this blatant act of plagiarism but are certainly not responsible for it.”
Perhaps I am mistaken – but only if 9/11 was also carried out by mental savants as the official narratives of power narrate.
Official narrative is what creates well-known heroes and villains, and what writes histories – and anyone who remains unaware of this makes one wonder about their mental acuity and sophistication. How can mental midget design nuclear weapons on their own?
But unimaginative boot-licking technicians who can follow directives, cookbook recipes, blueprints, and orders surely can! If Pakistan had any real advancement in science in its weapon systems, it would show in the academe, in the industrial infra-structure, and in the general intellect and acumen of its men of science. It does so for every country which possesses nuclear weapons and advanced science – why is Pakistan the only exception? This is the same sort of absurdity which arises when super-brilliance is attributed to Al Qaeeda and Osama Bin Laden for having brought the sole superpower to its knees!
This rabbit hole runs deep and the real story of how the West itself covertly created and funded Project-706 and its successors, while outright destroying all semblance of science, all intellectual curiosity, and all sense of morality among Pakistanis, still remains to be told.
In one short fell-swoop, it fashioned a new baby-USSR while simultaneously ensuring its spontaneous internal combustion by having this calibre of dead intellect at the helm of affairs.
Even a cursory glance at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs’ prolific documents, such as “Al Qaeda Weapons of Mass Destruction Threat: Hype or Reality”, the lowest in the pecking order of imperial thinking (most of its secretive higher tiers transpiring under the public’s radar in institutions which most of the world has never even heard of such as the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica California, and the Bank of International Settlement in Basle Switzerland), makes that self-evident:
How serious is the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) terrorism? When asked, “What is the single most serious threat to American national security?” President George W. Bush answered: nuclear terrorism. On this issue, President Obama agrees with his predecessor. In his words, “The single most important national security threat we face is nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.”
The only Secretary of Defense to have served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, Secretary Robert Gates, was asked recently, “What keeps you awake at night?” He responded: “It’s the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.”’ (emphasis added)
Exactly the same as with the granddaddy enemy USSR of yesteryear which had held the world on perpetual war-footings for a generation and a half as the World War III. The same duration which James Woolsey, Director of CIA, stated this new enemy was intended to continue: Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces ‘World War IV’. Thanks to our ever super-brilliant keystone coppers!

















8.0 Letter to Editor Chronicle of Higher Education: Diederik Stapel of Netherlands vs. Pakistan’s Masterpiece of Plagiarism
Zahir Ebrahim
Friday, November 04, 2011
Interesting discovery in your article ‘The Fraud Who Fooled (Almost) Everyone’, also covered in the Washington Post’s ‘Diederik Stapel: The Lying Dutchman’ by Joel Achenbach. The full story is in the Science Insider Report: Dutch ‘Lord of the Data’ Forged Dozens of Studies by Gretchen Vogel ( http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/report-dutch-lord-of-the-data-fo.html ). The question of how Diederik Stapel could get away for so long is not sufficiently explored in any of these reports.
I have a similar case of fraud which I caught in Pakistan last month. It is described in the following two Opeds (see links below) which I had submitted to The Chronicle. In the situation which I have uncovered, the fraudster, a plagiarist in plasma physics, has very clearly been aided and abetted by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, i.e., the system itself, and by his learned colleagues who have subsequently persisted in a coverup of their own roles. For the report on Diederik Stapel, the Chronicle author might look at that angle for how Diederik Stapel could get away so long. Where there is smoke, there is often fire. You might find more dirt by some forensic digging rather than taking things at face value.
For the case I have uncovered, can the author of Diederik Stapel’s report kindly also take a look at it, and write his own report if my exposition is deficient in some way, to bring this scandal to the forefront of world’s academe just as he did with the Netherlands case?
Why is one more important than the other that the Chronicle seems only interested in the Netherlands’ case? This Pakistani scandal that I have uncovered far surpasses Diederik Stapel. And it is being deliberately suppressed in the Pakistani press because of its implication. Especially the way I have framed my discoveries by going wherever the prima facie evidence and commonsense has itself led me without any prior presuppositions and judgments.
It begins with entire books on physics 100% verbatim plagiarized, with Distinguished National Professor of Pakistan in physics, and a student of the late nobel laureate in physics Dr. Abdus Salam, writing glowing reviews of the book. That reviewer is also the plagiarist’s Ph.D. thesis supervisor and occupies the prestigious Salam Chair in physics in Pakistan.
After uncovering the plagiarist, I moved my focus to his Distinguished National Professor thesis supervisor. Because plasma physics is not my domain, I requested Dr. Abdus Salam’s co-winner for the same nobel prize in physics of 1979, Professor Sheldon Lee Glashow, Emeritus, Harvard, examine the plagiarist’s thesis. Dr. Glashow graciously did so immediately and wrote me back stating it was “rather pedestrian” and “not very good thesis”.
After that I moved my focus to Dr. Salam himself: because “The Salam Gang” he constituted in Pakistan all seem to be playing the fool, and yet they are also credited to be the nuclear weapons designers of Pakistan.
The scandal I have uncovered is simply momentous in its implications of how a corrupt system itself creates the problem of corruption among academics. The system automatically creates a state of equilibrium where people are inextricably caught in the very “banality of evil”, rising to the highest levels of mediocrity in the course of natural adjustment to it. Who has aided and abetted in creating this system of mediocrity?
My second oped is a Notes of a Skeptic which looks at the big picture of The Salam Gang rising to the level of mediocrity in the plagiarism scandal, and asks how can a bunch of keystone cops like these who betray neither any intellectual nor moral gravitas in the plagiarism case, design Pakistan’s nuclear weapons?
Here are the links to the two Opeds, a link to the letter of inquiry to Nobel laureate Dr. Shelly Glashow and his brief evaluative reply, and link to the full PDF of my 132 page report which I submitted to the Supreme Court of Pakistan as amicus curiae.
Zahir Ebrahim
SF Bay Area, California, United States,















9.0 Letter of inquiry regarding the legitimacy of HEC approved academic publisher Bentham Open: Another Scam?
Letter to Peter Suber: Bentham Open and Loss of Integrity in Scholarship
To: “Professor Peter Suber, Research Professor of Philosophy at Earlham College, Berkman Fellow at Harvard University, Senior Researcher at SPARC, the Open Access Project Director at Public Knowledge” [ peters@earlham.edu ]
Date: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Subject: Bentham Open and Loss of Integrity in Scholarship
Dear Professor Peter,
Hello.
I read the 2008 summary of your findings on Bentham Science Open:
Well, three years later I am looking at Bentham once again for two reasons. Here is some background first.
1) I have recently caught a most grotesque case of plagiarism in Pakistan which has been aided and abetted by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC). My full report which I submitted to the Supreme Court of Pakistan as amicus curiae (as there appears to be no other avenues of redress) can be read here:
One can see the difference in attitudes towards scholarship between how the case at University of Tilburg was recently handled by its Rector Magnificus vs. how the HEC handled my disclosures, in this as yet unpublished Letter to Editor to the Chronicle of Higher Education:
2) The architect of the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan was its former chairman Dr. Atta ur Rahman. He was installed there by the former military dictator in chief of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf. I met this fellow Atta ur Rahman in 2005 when I volunteered at HEC gratis, for his still incumbent Executive Director Dr. Sohail Naqvi who is (or used to be) my friend and who had invited me to come to HEC. I left after two weeks because, inter alia, they wanted me to sign off on 6 most ridiculous proposals for the importation of 6 foreign engineering universities at the expense of Rupees one billion each. I would have rejected all six even if these foreign universities had paid one billion each to be implanted in Pakistan instead of being the burden on her debt-laden national treasury – primarily because the proposals were ridiculous and not in the national interest of any developing nation. Well, after catching the scandal which I have disclosed in the link in item one above, I have moved my focus to Dr. Atta Ur Rahman. I knew HEC was a corrupt organization even then just by my brief exposure to their “thumb-print” bureaucracy, meaning, all in the hierarchy just put down their signatures to whatever comes down the pipeline to them. I was the only person, a singularity, who not only loudly protested against their nonsensical projects to everyone in sight, but went straight to Atta ur Rahman, something unheard of, and registered my dissenting view most energetically.
And it is Atta ur Rahman who instituted the culture of high number of publications in Pakistan, incentivizing it to the point that, as I have noted in my discovery of the masterpiece of plagiarism in Pakistan, the problem is now systemic. Scholarship has been replaced by the illusion of scholarship – and not even a very good one at that. The fact that this transparent scam does not seem to bother anyone in Pakistani academe who are all chasing citation indices and impact factors for advancement, never mind that the citation itself might be saying this is crap (!), and all evidently just playing along with it, bothers me more than the actual instance of the scam which I caught.
That Laissez-faire attitude begets the first source of corruption in scholarship. No one cares to do anything about it and eventually all end up succumbing to it in the course of automatic adjusting to it to reach social equilibrium. In other words, the system begets mediocrity and continual loss of scholarly integrity by the very nature of existential social forces which drive the corruption. There is no advancement unless you play the game and stay silent. It is a vicious self-serving positive feedback loop which maximizes mediocrity. Very soon it leads to the state which is easily visible in Pakistan. But it is certainly not unique to Pakistan. The scholarship in the United States is equally infected by the same viruses of playing along with the wisdoms du jour, of not questioning matters when it can cause a loss of bread and butter… albeit as yet in their latent state and under the radar – but won’t be for long in the police state under construction. That state of pernicious intellectual corruption, the first corruption which begets all others, is disclosed in my second oped, also submitted to the Chronicle of Higher Education and still remains unacknowledged by them. It may be studied here by those who do not fear intellectual honesty even if it will indict their own:
Well, today, Dr. Atta ur Rahman’s CV itemizes 845 publications, of which 14 are with Bentham science, annotated as being in the Netherlands. I started looking into Atta ur Rahman’s resume as a continuation of my digging into the plagiarism scandal I uncovered, moving my focus up the hierarchy. And I was surprised to note that Dr. Atta ur Rahman had 14 listed in Bentham Science, Netherlands.
The contact page of Bentham ( http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/contactUs.php ) (cached) lists the same four addresses you noted in your own missive three years ago. And remarkably, the only address with a street address which is not a P.O. Box, is in Karachi Pakistan! And I just had to wonder why had Dr. Atta ur Rahman not annotated his Bentham publications as being in Karachi Pakistan, right down the street from his own university called HEJ ( http://www.iccs.edu/hej/faculty2.php ), instead of being in the Netherlands? That is odd to say the least.
It is of course not rocket science to straightforwardly infer that Dr. Atta ur Rahman is trying to make the false representation that Bentham is a foreign publication.
The other curious thing which strikes me is that Bentham’s fee payment form ( http://www.benthamscience.com/open/feeform/Fee-Form.pdf ) (cached) lists only a fax number to send the form to: (215) 310-9757 Location: Morrisville, PA. But the US address on Bentham’s contact page is in Illinois!
This entire outfit smells of being a global scam, not just with the problem of it not being kosher in terms of “peer review”, but an outright scam! And unfortunately, it is also beginning to smell of this crap being located in Pakistan.
I am not sure what role Dr. Atta ur Rahman has in it, apart from the prima facie one of having published in it with false representation of it being in Netherlands when its office is located in Karachi Pakistan.
The pay-for-publish model of Open Access I suspect few academics even understand in Pakistan – unless they are all already into it. Who makes these payments, and in the case of Atta ur Rahman, who paid for it? HEC? And all this is apart from that fact that Atta ur Rahman is the architect of many of the hare-brained schemes while at HEC – which slide hand in glove with paper-mill scams like Bentham which will pretty much print anything. See details in my full report above of how Atta ur Rahman’s own organization, HEC, has endorsed other paper mills which publish any crap, like BPAS run out of India which in fact published 14 of the 18 plagiarized papers in plasma physics noted in my report.
I bring all this to your attention as detective-work-in-progress, to request that if you have uncovered additional information on Bentham since your last missive, please do share it with me. It is most curious where that fax number mentioned on its fee form rings! Is it an efax number [which converts the fax to email]? Is it a forwarding number via internet switching to some place in UAE? How can one trace that? In whose bank account do all these monies get deposited? Who is the registered owner of Bentham Science? Are they even a registered business in any country?
Below is a link to Dr. Atta ur Rahman’s most imposing resume – and I ask you, who has 845 publications in the Western academe? A lot of it is likely crap. In any case, I am unfamiliar with some of the publication houses he lists. Since you have been looking at this matter for much longer than I have, are you aware of which of these publication houses are reputable and which aren’t? Chemistry is not my area (it is electrical engineering/computer science) and therefore I cannot judge the quality of these papers but I can already expect that they aren’t very high. Are some plagiarized? I don’t know. The point of interest at present is Bentham, which is clearly the worst of the Open Access publisher lot from all the reports I have read thus far, including those at scholarlykitchen
(
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/03/12/bentham-publishers/ ) and Richard Poynder’s interview of Matthew Honan, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers
(
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-access-interviews-matthew-honan.html ).
It begs the question that why would this imposing fellow Dr. Atta ur Rahman send any of his papers to Bentham at all when he also has many with far more reputable houses like 49 in Elsevier Netherlands; 12 in Harwood Academic Publishers UK, Netherlands, and Switzerland; 7 in Springer-Verlag Germany and New York; 6 in Academic Press New York and San Diego; etc. These are all the ones that I think I have heard of (it is possible that I am also mistaken). He of courses publishes in his own outfit too, 18 are listed in COMSTECH of which not only is he the editor, but also its head! In any case, there are several other Open Access publishers with a far stellar reputation than Bentham.
Why did the paper-mill architect of Pakistan Dr. Atta ur Rahman go to the lowest of the low in reputation among the paper mills himself, while he continually presents himself in Pakistan as its foremost intellectual and scholar?
I hope you will acknowledge the receipt of this letter even if you may not have additional information to contribute. It is a rather bizarre state of affairs that my report on the masterpiece of plagiarism in Pakistan is not managing to break into the notice of the world of academe like the Tilburg case did when its reverberations will surely outstrip the Tilburg case due to the magnitude of its absurdity and the subsequent coverup at the highest levels, all documented in my report with full email reproductions.
Thank you for your time,
Kind Regards,
Zahir Ebrahim
California, United States





10.0 Letter To Editor Nature Fraud in Science: An intellectual fraud seldom occurs in a social and intellectual vacuum
Letter To Editor Nature
An intellectual fraud seldom occurs in a social and intellectual vacuum
Zahir Ebrahim
Thursday, November 10, 2011
I read the articles in Nature “Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities” by Ewen Callaway [Nature 479, 15 (2011)], and “The road to fraud starts with a single step” by Jennifer Crocker [Nature 479, 151 (2011)]. I have also read the official English translation of the interim report issued by Tilburg University dated October 31, 2011. And I have a problem with the entire narrow focus of investigation as well as science media coverage of this academic fraud. I wish to bring my concerns to the attention of Nature readers via this Letter which I hope will be published.
I have a similar case of fraud which I caught in Pakistan last month. It is detailed in my report Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan [ http://tinyurl.com/Plagiarism-Pakistan-Report-3 ]. In the massive fraud and deception case I have uncovered, the fraudster, a plagiarist in plasma physics, has very clearly been aided and abetted by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, i.e., the system itself, and by his learned colleagues who have subsequently persisted in a coverup of their own roles while hanging the plagiarist.
The Diederik Stapel case I similarly sense is one of trying to hang the effect and hush up the cause.
Where there is smoke, there is often fire under the hood. When a system manifests a fault, a technician starts looking at each individual component to discover which one is faulty. An engineer and scientist looks at the entire system to discover what is malfunctioning in the entire system whose manifestation is the visible fault. Often times, there are degrees of separation from the first causes and effects such that the tip of the iceberg masks a Titanic crushing mountain just beneath the surface.
What is also very peculiar to me is how the case of Tilburg is being given so much prominence in the press and the academies worldwide with very innocent academics demonstrating their shock and horror as if such fraud is a singularity, when the case caught in Pakistan has no word of it in public and has far reaching consequences which pale this Tilburg case in comparison. The case caught in Pakistan as I have fleshed it out, simultaneously lends insight into this very case of Diederik Stapel, that such acts of individual fraud do not occur in a vacuum, and nor can they be sustained in a vacuum. The system itself makes its longevity existential and self-perpetuating.
To uncover and unravel that entire ecosystem of “respectable” corruption, i.e., Mr. Clean Hands, requires a great deal more scholarship and intellectual integrity than has thus far been demonstrated in the Tilburg interim report, or in the several follow-up armchair commentaries such as by Jennifer Crocker. Nature is not alone in this narrow perspective. The Chronicle of Higher Education also had an anemic disclosure “The Fraud Who Fooled (Almost) Everyone” by Tom Bartlett. The fraud was also covered in the Washington Post’s “Diederik Stapel: The Lying Dutchman” by Joel Achenbach. And in the Science Insider Report: “Dutch ‘Lord of the Data’ Forged Dozens of Studies” by Gretchen Vogel. The question of how Diederik Stapel could get away for so long is not sufficiently explored in any of these reports.
Contrast this anemic science media exposure to the Pakistani case which I have unraveled. It begins with the bold plagiarism of the work of world’s best known physicist and Nobel laureate of 1918, Max Planck, including verbatim theft from other physicists, to build up a padded portfolio of plagiarized publications, and its aiding and abetting by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan through a conspiracy of dunces, inept policies, and a systemic culture of corruption and whitewash wherein Paul protects Peter while they all receive payouts from the public exchequer by bloated anointments as ‘Distinguished National Professor’ and other sainthood.
Here is the summary findings:
  1. 17 of 18 papers published in the book Scientific Writings by Dr. I. R. Durrani confirmed forgery, with one of these papers belonging to Nobel laureate Max Planck, and one paper could not be ascertained;
  2. first 2 papers in a second book Fairy Tales, End of Science and the Resurrection by the same author confirmed forgery, and the entire book is likely forged but I haven’t had the time to verify – this is confirmation enough;
  3. 60 papers published in a plagiarism paper mill in India titled “BPAS” (Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences) approved by HEC as a legitimate Journal, contains 14 of those 18 plagiarized chapters from the first book;
  4. a senior HEC “Distinguished National Professor” of physics who holds the prestigious Salam Chair in Physics at a local university in Pakistan writing glowing tributes on Amazon.com to these masterful forgeries in Scientific Writings: “All in all, it is an eruditely performed piece of work.” (http://tinyurl.com/Durrani-Amazon); (The Federal Government of Pakistan established Salam Chair in Physics at Government College University, Lahore in 1999 and named it after the Nobel Laureate of Pakistan, Dr. Abdus Salam who was a student (1942-46) and a faculty member (1951-54) at the College. Dr. G. Murtaza was appointed Professor Salam Chair in March 2000. — http://gcu.edu.pk/Salam_Chair.htm );
  5. the masterful forger is the re-virginified “HEC Approved PhD Supervisor” and “Director, Faculty of Sciences, University of Gujrat”, Pakistan, after being caught once before at Punjab University Lahore and resigned before the university could take further action.
The Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan was notified of this incredibly grotesque and massive corruption under its very noses which was caught by me quite serendipitously from the United States on September 28, 2011, and subsequently fully fleshed out in a very detailed whistleblowing exposure in the form of Letter to Editor titled: “Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan under the Watchful Eyes of its Distinguished Stewards of Science and Higher Education” dated October 07, 2011.
The scale of corruption uncovered and exposed therein is shockingly mind-boggling. There has never been a case like this to my knowledge in the annals of plagiarism, academic fraud, and co-option of intellectual integrity by the very same persons and institutions officially chartered to ensure it. Even single minor cases gain much notoriety in the Western academe and often lead to disrepute for life and lost careers. Diederik Stapel is a case in point. In Pakistan’s fraud case, we have wholesale theft of intellectual property, verbatim, from multiple authors in writing entire scientific books, with the aiding and abetting of a corrupt federal government organization of higher education and their “Distinguished National Professors”, and there has been not a word in the news media despite my sending them the information?
I reported this to over one hundred vice chancellors and rectors of public and private universities of Pakistan including the concerned federal government organization and some senior bureaucrats and academics. It is ostensibly making ripples internally in the Pakistani academe in silent whispers but I suspect because of the big names involved, no one wants to jeopardize their own career by speaking out in public. Pakistan’s academies are rather tribal, perhaps feudal is a better description where Peter and Paul watch out for each other. The scale of academic fraud is so widespread in Pakistan that in this bathhouse many Mr. clean hands are naked themselves.
Even when a few honest academics have shown moral consternation privately, who wants to make enemies in a nation ruled by Mafiosos at every level where life evidently is as cheap as the dead bodies we continually mourn on television in Pakistan. The honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan on October 06, 2011 issued its Suo Motu findings for all the wanton killings going on in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi (‘Violence in Karachi a result of turf war’, DAWN, October 06, 2011). Under this oppressive climate, to reveal the full scandal in public can be more than just a career suicide.
Officially, my discovery is quietly being buried under a conspiracy of silence with a whitewash and at best, a pawn-sacrifice. Some major players are involved in what I call “a conspiracy of the dunces” who claim they “didn’t know” even though they wrote a book review for the plagiarized book, and created the infrastructure to promote exactly this kind of dishonest culture in Pakistan with their incentivizing policies.
More to the point, and returning to Diederik Stapel case, these frauds need a nurturing ecosystem in order to flourish and remain hidden for so long. The case of Pakistan while surely unique in its grotesque magnitude, qualitatively is indicative of the fault in the intellectual system itself which has been built up ubiquitously in the pursuit of modern science and technology which rewards its pursuers based on their publication history that is judged incestuously by the same peers who themselves rely on that carrot for their advancement.
I invite the academics who are expressing all their feigned shock and horror on this case to look at the system itself, and to their own broad roles in sustaining it, often with clean hands and clean consciences. That is the very zenith of intellectual corruption itself.
Zahir Ebrahim
California, United States






Second Submission Letter To Editor Nature: Fraud in Science By Zahir Ebrahim
[ Note to editor: you may drop the last paragraph if you absolutely cannot accommodate even this condensed length. Thank you. ]
Letter To Editor Nature
An intellectual fraud seldom occurs in a social and intellectual vacuum
Zahir Ebrahim
Thursday, November 10, 2011 | Condensed on request by Nature Editor, Nov 22, 2011
I read the articles in Nature “Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities” by Ewen Callaway [Nature 479, 15 (2011)], and “The road to fraud starts with a single step” by Jennifer Crocker [Nature 479, 151 (2011)]. I have also read the official English translation of the interim report issued by Tilburg University dated October 31, 2011. And I have a problem with the entire narrow focus of investigation as well as science media coverage of this academic fraud. The question of how Diederik Stapel could get away for so long is not sufficiently explored in any of these reports.
I have a similar case of fraud which I caught in Pakistan last month. It is detailed in my report Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan [ http://tinyurl.com/Plagiarism-Pakistan-Report-3 ]. In the massive fraud and deception case I have uncovered, the fraudster, a plagiarist in plasma physics, has very clearly been aided and abetted by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, i.e., the system itself, and by his learned colleagues who have subsequently persisted in a coverup of their own roles while hanging the plagiarist.
The Diederik Stapel case I similarly sense is one of trying to hang the effect and hush-up the cause. The case of Pakistan while surely unique in its grotesque magnitude, qualitatively is indicative of the fault in the intellectual system itself which has been built up ubiquitously in the pursuit of modern science and technology.
Where there is smoke, there is often fire under the hood. When a system manifests a fault, a technician starts looking at each individual component to discover which one is faulty. Whereas an engineer and scientist must look at the entire system to discover what is malfunctioning in the entire system whose manifestation is in the visible faults. Often times, there are degrees of separation from the first causes and effects such that the tip of the iceberg masks a Titanic crushing mountain just beneath the surface.
Our “Peter baptizing Paul” system today both rewards its pursuers based on their publication history, which in turn is incestuously judged by the same peers who themselves rely on that system of carrots for their own advancement. And, in some cases, it officifies and ossifies “respectable science” by having it self-servingly funded and incestuously adjudicated by academics towing the official line in order to be funded. These fundamental, self-reinforcing, catch-22 properties of the system enable frauds to be committed in science for any vested interest which can transcend individual motivations for dishonesty.
The impact of this is far reaching. The peer-review publication system ensures that neither a Darwin nor a Galileo would be published today anymore than they were centuries ago. And self-serving frauds like that unraveled in the Climategate scandal can legitimize any state agenda for seeding doctrinal motivation when they acquire the “respectability” of peer-reviewed papers published in notable journals. Industry can carryout its own frauds in science for profit in this system, as even documented by David Michaels, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA), in his book “Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health”. Etceteras.
Zahir Ebrahim
California, United States








11.0 Letter To HEC Chairperson on HEC Coverup
To : Javaid R. Laghari, Chairman Higher Education Commission of Pakistan
From: Zahir Ebrahim
Subject: HEC Coverup: “I don’t know what other thing we should be doing” says Sohail Naqvi
Date: Monday November 28, 2011
Cc: Distribution List [ http://tinyurl.com/Plagiarism-Pakistan ]
Dear Mr. Javaid Laghari,
I was forwarded the reply of HEC Executive Director Sohail Naqvi to Asghar Qadir stating:
Dear Dr. Qadir, I am sorry if I had not responded to you earlier. The HEC immediately took up this issue and reviewed the case and there was definitely substantial plagiarism committed in the publication of the books by Dr. Ijaz Durrani. Before we could take action, however, Dr. Durrani resigned from University of Gujrat and is no longer associated with any academic institution, so the action taken by HEC was immediate and swift. I don’t know what other thing we should be doing. Regards Dr. S. Sohail H. Naqvi Executive Director Higher Education Commission, Saturday, November 26, 2011 1:10 PM” — Letter forwarded to Zahir Ebrahim by Asghar Qadir amidst his own self-serving gloats ( http://tinyurl.com/AQ-SN-HEC-nov262011-jpg )
Ignoring the rest of nonsense in Asghar Qadir’s letter disparaging my efforts and imputing ignobility to my motives in bringing this grotesque case of Plagiarism to the notice of HEC and to the world’s public, as an employee of the government of Pakistan and paid from its public treasury, you are heading an institution which is not only third rate by any administrative measure, but corrupt to the core. What is not just gross incompetence and corruption on the part of HEC officers, but also gross professional discourtesy that you have not even written me an acknowledgment letter to this date for reporting the fraud to you two months ago. Is that the character of any professionally run organization? Or a feudally run one caught with its knickers down and covering its own ass?
In the above response, your Executive Director innocently asks: “I don’t know what other thing we should be doing.” Apart from the fact that Sohail Naqvi manages to also contradict himself in the same sentence: “Before we could take action, however, Dr. Durrani resigned from University of Gujrat and is no longer associated with any academic institution, so the action taken by HEC was immediate and swift.”, please permit me to inform you of what you should be doing with the salary paid to you for heading the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. Sohail Naqvi claims its highly paid executive officers do not know after living off of the public treasury himself since its very inception as its Executive Director.
A) Publicly acknowledge the case, and publicly document what investigations were conducted and how adjudication was made on a range of matters uncovered in this scandal. Since you are obviously unaware of how such scandalous academic fraud cases are handled when the concerned officers are aboveboard and interested in performing their due diligence rather than covering it up, here is how another case was recently handled in the Western academia. The case of Diederik Stapel at Tilburg University has received much notoriety in the Western press. Here is the link to the official translation of the interim report issued by the Rector of Tilburg University, dated October 31, 2011: https://zahirebrahim.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/cacheof-tilburg-university-interim-report-on-diederik-stapel-oct-31-2011.pdf
Whereas, in contrast, HEC and its public servant officers have quietly hushed up the Durrani case entirely. Not one official press release has been issued by HEC to my knowledge, let alone conducting a full and impartial investigation as was commissioned in the case of Diederik Stapel. Just compare the vast differences in approach to the respective discovery of academic fraud and the mindset! One shows an attempt at a concerned and honest investigation – the other a coverup!
B) The following questions must be addressed by HEC in its full investigation of I. R. Durrani’s academic fraud case which evidently has still not happened, despite Sohail Naqvi’s false presentations to the contrary, even exactly two months after I first uncovered it on September 28, 2011 and informed HEC about it. The questions which any honest HEC officer should be investigating and reporting on publicly as their fiduciary responsibility to the position they have been appointed as public servants, were previously articulated in my extensive report which can be read here: https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/masterpiece-of-plagiarism-in-pakistan/
Some of these questions appear on pages 50-52 in its PDF: http://tinyurl.com/Plagiarism-Pakistan-Report-3
1. How did a plagiarist who was removed from Punjab University for plagiarism become Director at the University of Gujrat? Who aided and abetted the plagiarist to acquire the new grazing grounds?
2. Who appointed a known plagiarist who was forced to resign from Punjab University, as “HEC Approved PhD Supervisor”?
3. Who approved that plagiarism paper mill BPAS as “HEC Approved”? HEC gave plagiarist that plagiarism paper-mill on a platter and made it really easy for him. Where is that investigation to find out who made that approval within HEC, and what sort of Q/A process you have for such approval for which great emoluments and academic advancements are granted in the system you have instituted?
4. A re-examination of HEC’s failed policy of “number of publications for advancement” which is directly responsible for the drastic rise in plagiarism in Pakistan. Your inability to enforce your own charter, be it plagiarism, or be it fake degrees, makes a mockery of Pakistan’s higher education system. With what shamelessness can you proclaim: “HEC has NEVER condoned any act of plagiarism anywhere. This case has been investigated and immediate action has been taken. We are all shocked by this blatant act of plagiarism but are certainly not responsible for it.” — Sohail Naqvi http://tinyurl.com/Sohail-Naqvi-HEC-defense
5. Investigation of I. R. Durrani’s supervisor, G. Murtaza, on how a relative can be appointed Ph.D thesis supervisor; how a relative writes a review of a fraudulent book without disclosing his relationship; why are these brazen matters not treated as conflict of interest in Pakistani academia which is entirely under the purview of HEC, as already noted in my report.
6. Investigation of I. R. Durrani’s academic collaborators and his students for possibly also publishing plagiarized papers with Durrani, as already noted in my report.
In addition, as I have continued to look into the calculated destruction of Pakistan’s Higher Education System under HEC’s founders Atta ur Rahman and Sohail Naqvi, a new scandal is surfacing. Its preliminary exploration is in my Letter of inquiry concerning Dr. Atta ur Rahman’s publishing with Bentham Science located in Karachi Pakistan: https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/letter-to-peter-suber-bentham-open-and-loss-of-integrity-in-scholarship-by-zahir-ebrahim/
7. This new matter, whether or not it implicates Atta ur Rahman with Bentham science, will potentially eclipse all that I have exposed earlier. Dr. Atta ur Rahman’s CV itemizes 845 publications, of which 14 are with Bentham science annotated as being in the Netherlands. Whereas Bentham science is located right there, cozily in the same city as Atta ur Rahman’s HEJ, in Karachi Pakistan! Why this mis-representation by the former chairman of HEC in his CV that it is a foreign publisher? Its implication are enormous for HEC as it begs the obvious question whether it was Atta ur Rahman who approved Bentham Science at HEC making lofty foreign representations for it. If that was indeed the case, it is a direct case of fraud and conflict of interest, implicating Atta ur Rahman as the former head of HEC. The present head of HEC, unless sent there to protect his predecessor and endorse all his dealings while merely presenting a veneer of change, must investigate this question with considerable integrity and skill as it pertains directly to a case of fraud at the highest levels at HEC.
8. No one really knows who owns Bentham Science Open today, or where its corporate taxes are paid for the $800 per paper paid to it by authors and their institutions as open publishing fee. There appears to be no corporate registration and ownership record available for it anywhere. So look at this absurdity: $800 per paper is being sent to an unknown bank account overseas by authors throughout the world whose only street address is located in Karachi Pakistan! What role is HEC playing in endorsing this paper-mill scam? Is HEC paying the open publishing fee to Bentham Science? Who paid the publishing fee for Atta ur Rahman’s 14 papers in Bentham Science? This paper-mill is reputed to be the worst of the lot in open publishing. Who is responsible at HEC for approving the worst of the lot, if not Atta ur Rahman himself? This ties in to the question raised for the plagiarism paper-mill BPAS in item 3 above.
9. The motivation to drive up the publication count with sheer garbage has become deep rooted in Pakistani academia. It was driven right from the start by Atta ur Rahman. And Bentham Science, which pretty much publishes any crap under its present incantation, is now discovered as being published from Karachi Pakistan. This ties in with item 4 above. Its international ramifications, and consequently implications for HEC, are far greater than the Durrani fraud scandal! As HEC institutional head, the responsibility stops at your door to investigate: Who approved Bentham Science at HEC when nothing is known about its present corporate whereabouts and ownership? Has HEC paid any author fees to Bentham?
It is self-evident that the entire fabric of public sector education has to be rebuilt in Pakistan. No cosmetic changes can alter the attitudes of its boot-licking stewards which are even clearly visible in this prima facie grotesque matter in which the investigation of Durrani and related issues have been so criminally covered up by HEC’s Executive Director Sohail Naqvi proclaiming: “I don’t know what other thing we should be doing.” Previously, on October 14, 2011, in his email letter Sohail Naqvi had also falsely proclaimed on behalf of HEC without conducting any meaningful investigation: “Dr. Durrani alone is responsible for what he has done and not his colleagues, University of Gujrat, HEC etc.” If there was an investigation conducted, where is its report which justifies that adjudication?
You might be reminded of your responsibility as the head of HEC by recalling the fact that even the United States of America’s own former President Richard Nixon, was forced out of its highest office before he was impeached, not for the burglary committed by others which is a crime, but for attempted post-burglary coverup of the crime by the White House. It took a few years…
I would very much like to be proven wrong in my blanket statement fielded above, that: you are heading an institution which is not only third rate by any administrative measure, but corrupt to the core. Endeavor to show Pakistanis who are fed up with both top and bottom feeders off the public exchequer’s gravy-trains that that’s not the case under your stewardship of HEC. Address my full report with due diligence, presenting yourself for questioning in a public forum. There can be nothing more honest than that for an honest head of an institution.
Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim
California, United States





12.0 Letter to HEC Chairperson: Is HEC planning to reinstate the plagiarist like it did once before?
To: The Chairperson, Higher Education Commission Pakistan, Engr. Syed Imtiaz Hussain Gilani
To: Other current and former officers of HEC
Cc: Distribution List [ http://tinyurl.com/Plagiarism-Pakistan ]
Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:10 PM PST
Dear Mr. Syed Imtiaz Hussain Gilani, and other current and former officers of HEC
I draw your kind attention to the following open letter. Is HEC planning to reinstate this plagiarist like it did once before? The plagiarist is going around defaming those who caught him red handed and has managed to remove at least one public reference to his crime.
I would like to put you on notice that the following infamy had transpired before your tenure began, and what is presently transpiring under your very nose that the plagiarist is defaming those who caught him with impunity. Perhaps you have hitherto been unaware of it. You no longer are.
What are you going to do about it?
More private white-washing, or, like a man taking the bulls by the horn and making a public statement regarding this plagiarism case? I would like to hope that your tenure will better the previous two Chairpersons' and their common Executive Director's. No, not in more idiotic national educational policies that remain indefensible, but in actually doing something good for the people of Pakistan by cleaning your own house first --- before you attempt to clean up Pakistan's higher education system.
You can only do that if you perceptively understand what you have inherited, and also harbor a sensible vision of where you wish to take the nation's higher education system. These two start and end points, of your choosing, will determine the straight and narrow path that our young generation eager for national guidance will march on under your tenure.
Higher education plays the most crucial and defining role in modernity as you will surely agree. It can either craft integrity-free likkha-parrha jahils with degrees and third-rate publications, often plagiarized, tattooed on their forehead, or it can fashion a ba-shaoor nation that can carve out its own destiny. Today, we don't even comprehend the enemy, as both your predecessors, as well as our national leaders demonstrate. Their begging bowl before the World Bank has funded the most idiotic academic programs in Pakistan putting us further in debt.
I encourage you to not be so autocratic like your predecessors as if HEC and its pious stewards, and their military and political benefactors, alone understand what is good for the nation. I encourage you to convene a working group of dissenting citizens and concerned academics from Pakistan to examine the past and current record of HEC to better understand these initial conditions that you have inherited. The same working group may be charted to make recommendations for the national direction of higher education in Pakistan which may be debated publicly. These policies, and no other, and especially not those bequeathed and aided and abetted by the World Bank and the IMF, must be the rational purview of any national body chartered to guide the nation's higher education.
I invite you to craft at least one university in Pakistan as your legacy for which your own children and grandchildren will give up their admission to MIT and Harvard. It can be done.
There is a lot more untapped talent in Pakistan which is routinely harvested by the West which can be put to national reconstruction. But not if our brightest minds become economic widgets of the West. The rest end up making up the bulk of their local marketing and sales force.
As this open letter betrays, there is evidently no shame among some Pakistanis. But that brings great shame to the entire nation. Please do something about it.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Zahir Ebrahim
California, United States

















13.0 Seeding a genuine Education System Transformation in Pakistan
Education System Transformation in Pakistan
Seeding a radical and genuine transformation - outside the purview of HEC

Super IratePakistani
(Zahir Ebrahim)

IratePakistani.blogspot.com
March 15, 2007
PLEASE READ THIS FIRST
After many unsuccessful attempts at engaging the Higher Eduction Commission of Pakistan (HEC) in a productive problem solving oriented conversation between Jan 15, 2007 and February 15, 2007 over email, I had sent a comprehensive letter of feedback to HEC discussing the several shortcomings of their reconstruction of Pakistan's higher education system, and making some modest suggestions for opening up the process to public participation and more procedural adjudications of their expensive projects from its present whimsical ad hoc unaccountable mechanisms. After HEC failed to respond in what I felt was a reasonable manner (their response letter entirely ignored the contents of my feedback letter, and instead cited the accolades from the World Bank, as well as itemized some other genuine accomplishments - all irrelevant to my feedback letter), I initially attempted to make my feedback letter available to a select few members in the Planning Commission, as well as to select key notable academics and concerned governmental leaders in the nation. I imagined that I could seed a private problem-solving discussion-space on how best to go about transforming the education system K-16 and prevail upon the Planning Commission, using logic and rationalism, to clamp down on HEC funding of ill thought out "mega projects". I initially felt that working quietly behind the scenes might produce more efficacious results than making public brouhahas in the media, as we really aren't a public-opinion driven nation. But after impatiently waiting for these busy peoples to even be bothered with reading my documentation, I now believe that the old-wood is so mites-eaten, and so rotten to the core, that it will require being burnt down to ashes, and new treated engineered-lumber employed in brand new reconstruction by a brand new construction crew to make any genuine transformation even possible in our pathetic education system at every level.

Thus, while still not making brouhahas in the media (as its efficacy is entirely zero), I am now making my humble feedback letter available publicly in the hope that many more concerned peoples can view it, motivated students demanding a better future can read it, concerned parents can examine what it is suggesting, intelligent educators can think about how to contribute to the solutions spaces that I propose, influential business and industry leaders and rich tycoons can think about how they might fund some of these infrastructure projects that I outline through their generous altruistic benefaction as is the norm in Western nations in a unique private-public partnership, and a general grass-roots level momentum among the public themselves created to drive the changes forcibly upon our rulers who seem to think that the nation is their inheritance to dictate terms to its peoples at will.
They only think so because we continually allow them to think so. No more! At some point, confrontation is inevitable. Let's not wait until our progeny curse us for our uncourageous inaction - let's make it happen now while we can still sow a better future for our children and grandchildren! Let's confront using constructive means, rather than perennially bitching and moaning, by planting the seeds of reconstruction with our own hands!

Please take the time to study this document, and to follow up on every single one of the cited 27 references. They are there for a purpose - an informed peoples cannot be so easily (mis)led! It is at most, a single full days worth of self-study. If education is important to you, you can spend the time educating yourself first. I have left the names and contact information intact where appropriate in the HEC feedback letter, as these are Government of Pakistan public servants paid from the state's treasury, and their contact information is easily available to anyone. Feel free to communicate to them, as public servants chartered to serve in your best interests, how you feel about what you read here. You want your rights, you gonna have to fight for it one right at a time! No one is about to hand it to us on a platter! Didn't happen that way in the West, and it isn't likely to happen in Pakistan, or anywhere else.
Highlights
In the feedback letter, after expressing my considerable frustration with what I see as silly single-purpose single-focus engineering universities being constructed in Pakistan according to an outdated model of education that has been rejected in the West itself in favor of multi-disciplinary universities, I make specific proposals. Please click on "Proposal for Restructuring" below if you are not interested in hearing me moan and lament in the first half of the feedback letter at the squandering of public monies and golden opportunities. Following the feedback letter, are two additional proposals for two task forces that I had submitted to HEC on the dates noted (for which I received no response). These task forces are self explanatory. I now propose that we seed these task forces through private-public partnership, and fund them entirely from non-governmental monies. Please also see my letter to the editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education http://iratepakistani.blogspot.com/2007/03/ letter-to-chronicle-editor.html.










Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:21:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "Super IratePakistani"
To: "Chairman Atta-Ur-Rahman" chairman@hec.gov.pk, "Exec Dir. Sohail Naqvi" snaqvi@hec.gov.pk

Subject: feedback letter - are you screwing up monumentally, or making fantastic progress?

Dear Sohail and Atta - distinguished academics and friends,

Please find the attached detailed letter that addresses the question posed on the Subject line. I have tried to shed some light on the questions what are you doing wrong, or what is it that you should be doing and are not.

I hope you will find the letter useful and not irrelevant. It took a lot of effort and angst to write, and even more to send.

Please note that in the letter I have requested your kind permission to forward it to the Planning Commission, the Ministry of Education, the President, and the Prime Minister, in addition to making its contents public. There are some time-lines noted in the letter for your response.

Warm regards,

Super IratePakistani





To: Prof. Atta-Ur-Rahman, Chairman, HEC
To: Prof. Sohail Naqvi, Executive Director HEC
From: Super IratePakistani - an ordinary concerned Pakistani
Subject: HEC - my friends, is Alice in wonderland?
In Reference To:
Is HEC screwing up monumentally, or making fantastic progress?
Attachments: Three appendices, see end
Documents: See citations at end

Dateline:
Saturday February 10, 2007 - Thursday February 15, 2007


My Dear Distinguished and learned Academicians, friends, Atta and Sohail,

As Salaam Alekum - may peace be with you.

It is with a great deal of consternation and effort that I write this letter as a concerned Pakistani citizen. I do not possess any imposing credentials or impressive accomplishments, Nobel prize, or medals of honors, and nor do I occupy, elected or otherwise, any powerful positions of influence or authority or seniority that might make me qualified for writing this letter or make me worthy of being quoted on ones' websites and in the news media.

My only entitlement to writing it, apart from my being your friend who is grateful for the friendship and support you have shown me and benefited me, is as an ordinary member of the Pakistani public in whose greater interest you deem to serve in your capacity as the enlightened stewards of the higher education system of Pakistan, and to whom you wish to benefit with your own diligent hard work as well intentioned public servants.

Because you serve in this capacity, and because I feel that you are failing to deliver on the promise and the mandate, I feel compelled to speak up honestly, frankly, and without any syntactic sugaring. I would do no less with my own sons, the pride and joy of my life, and whom I have raised lovingly as an active and involved parent these past several years, if they were in these public positions of fiduciary trust and responsibilities and I felt they were screwing up!

Why do I feel you are failing to deliver? I have tried to answer that here. Having sampled both good and bad higher and lower education systems, I have some sense for what a really good one feels, smells, and tastes like, and what a rotten one stinks like. Thus being an informed parent-consumer keenly interested in shopping for quality education for my own offspring, and hence by extension, for others' as well according to the adage: "choose for others what you would choose for yourselves", not only do I not see what I want presently on the shelves, but what is about to be put on them also stinks highway to heaven. I am not an expert nor an educator, only an ordinary citizen of this nation still in possession of at least some of my critical senses to realize I and others are being cleverly cheated by the grocers with fancy packaging! Please allow me to share with you how.

...

Follies of morons are usually minor, they haven't the imagination to wreck major havoc; it's the follies of the learned and the educated, that can be supremely monumental and leave an unrecoverable legacy for years to come. Witness Einstein's letter to Roosevelt that ushered in the nuclear age which is still keeping the world a perpetual hostage to the dangerous testosterone levels of a few war mongers while denying social spending on other more essential human development needs worldwide including in our own SE Asian region, or Nobel Laureate William Shockley's repugnant ideas on racial superiority of the white race, or philosopher-hypocrite par excellence, Bertrand Russell's misogynistic ideas in "The Impact of Science on Society" which I am sure you are both quite familiar with and from which I needn't quote here to make my point. And finally, a more contemporary example of the follies of the learned with many PhDs: who has more brain density of scholars and thinkers per square inch than the AEI - American Enterprise Institute, and you can see their neo-con agenda thinly veiled in "Noble Lies" for world conquest bringing untold death and misery to millions. All very educated and incredibly brilliant and accomplished peoples? Nay, monsters to those on the receiving end of their brilliance!

Thus personal brilliance and imposing academic credentials are no guarantee of good works - only the actual empirical results on the ground is evidence, as I am sure both of you, being of sound reasoning, will surely agree. Thus in this letter, I am going to overlook your imposing credentials and other distinguished awards and decorations, as impressive and incomparable as they are. Indeed, I have actually read your 37 page resume (Atta) and can surely attest to your love of your own people, as you spent almost all of your distinguished academic career serving within Pakistan and not abroad, and as you have yourself noted on your resume, your being elected to FRS for work done in a poor developing nation rather than in a developed nation, wonderfully bespeaks of your own personal brilliance. Similarly, I am also aware that you (Sohail) could have easily continued on in the United States in the academe or the industry and made tons of money and enjoyed a wonderful personal technical career, but you gave it all up for the love of your people and came back to Pakistan to serve at a pittance. Thus, being cognizant of all these wonderful things about you, I am still going to focus on the reality on the ground because I find much wisdom in the ancient adage: "proof of the pudding is in its eating".

Most of your critics you are easily able to dismiss with an amazing nonchalance, as demonstrated in the recently published paper in the prestigious American journal of education, Chronicle of Higher Education: "In Pakistan, the problems money can bring", that appears to be a telling characteristic of overzealous people in positions of absolute power who are unable to listen Affectively to their customers, clients, and to whom they deem to serve in the single minded pursuit of doing good for them - almost like a doctor who is so focused on curing his patient that he does not listen to the patient screaming in pain and ends up killing him!

...

First of all, I must bring to your attention the incredible dichotomy in the projection of your works. Your HEC website is full of glossy PDF files and news releases, many of which I downloaded and read very carefully over the past month. I cite only one of your monthly reports to acknowledge the fact of your world view of how you yourselves have perceived your performance, and indeed that some of your initiatives are laudatory. You have also projected the problem space accurately in your writings and promotional material. These are quite consistent with the perceptions of the ordinary Pakistani consumers of what ails them. Here however, let me offer you an alternate view of the efficacy of some of your many acts and generous spendings on some of your more questionable unilateral initiatives that substantially differ with your own self-projections of your work on your website. You have applauding hailed many of your own brainchild schemes to the media, both in the nation and abroad, as incredible progressive moves that will transform our higher education system, producing impressive looking mind boggling numbers on glossy slides. These projects of yours have also seen much adulation and projection by those who have appointed you in these powerful positions and are favorably disposed towards you. So everything is hunky dory as far as you see the world from your prominent and higher visibility perches.

And thus there is a genuine dichotomy here. You don't even seem to perceive why all your critics are complaining and why there is a growing resentment in the country against you. You do sense that people are unhappy, but don't understand why. The questions what are you doing wrong, or what is it that you should be doing and are not - entirely bedevils you. In your own mind, I suspect you are inclined to simply dismiss your detractors as a bunch of communist/socialist malcontents who just long to have power and are jealous of your successes, or are just silly lazy students or third rate academics who know no better, or simply want to create trouble for political gains, or are greedy for their 15 minutes of fame at your expense.

Mes amis, this dichotomy cannot be explained away as mere jealous malcontents and/or prejudicial political detractors who know no better. I am neither jealous, nor political, nor malcontent, and nor do I have any nefarious ax to grind, nor harbor misguided Utopian dreams. I won't deny some of the other alleged perceptions noted above as it may become rather self-serving. Furthermore, each one of the referenced citations is specifically and minimally culled for a specific purpose, and not merely to show how thoroughly I have investigated and analyzed your performance - which is based more on my own hands-on direct and grass-roots experience in Pakistan since 2005 and my own long experience of my nation, rather than recorded opinions of others - and nor to convey to you any one else's opinion of your work, but to demonstrate my own independent thinking and experience that is substantiated by others' opinions both inside and outside the country. I am not a scholar and neither could I write an erudite paper if my life depended on it. Indeed, I can even proudly claim six publishers rejecting my first manuscript. Hence please forgive me for not more formally referencing these matters in this rather informal letter. But I hope that both of you will pay a little bit more affective attention to what I am saying than you have done to other critics.

The scathing questions asked in the article "HEC's Unconvincing Mega Projects" in Dawn today (Feb 10, 2007), while perhaps shocking for many in the country, are nothing new, and should not come as a surprise to either of you. While I consulted for you at HEC in 2005, I was asked to look at, and approve by signing off, as perhaps another informal adjudication of the scheme, the 6 PC-1s for six new foreign universities that were to be imported from Europe at considerable expense to the national exchequer. Now from the news article, I understand they have become 9!

As you will surely recall, I had passionately argued against this hair brained scheme while it was still on paper. May I further recall for you, my most compelling point, that we needed to produce an entirely different type of engineers and scientists for the future who were multi-disciplinary, well versed in both sciences and humanities, and that we needed more multidisciplinary programs rather than single purpose engineering universities that would just create more of the same - an outdated education model that the West itself was discarding. And furthermore, that these PC-1s were a waste of our resources, that instead, we ought to examine MIT's opencourseware program and its interdisciplinary philosophy of education to adapt it to our existing universities by shoring up their existing facilities first at a minuscule of the cost of these expensive PC-1s, so that at least there was one decent university in Pakistan to which I would consider sending my own kids. Your response? And I quote from memory: "I am not interested". And my follow up question: "when will your ideas bear any results?" Your response? And I quote from memory again: "in ten years". My follow up question (from memory): Have you signed a bond with the Government of Pakistan to be around that long to see what comes of it, fruits or thorns? Your response? Silence! And we said goodbye on that day and shook hands in my temporary office in HEC, where one of you (Atta) had so generously stopped by to thank me for my day-and-night efforts during my short 2-week stay at HEC, and to wish me well, and which is where I had grabbed 15 minutes of your precious time to speak to you directly about these PC-1s as you were running late to catch your flight to Saudi Arabia.

After your almost four and a half years running HEC, there still isn't a single good university in Pakistan, a fact as you already well know and also agree with. [
Sentence redacted] My problem is, why couldn't you construct even one single decent university program in all these years in power [phrase redacted]? This is the first question I had raised at HEC in 2005, to both of you, asking for one decent university program where I could send my own kids. Where is it? You may have considered overhauling an existing engineering university for instance, and incorporated the tremendous amount of intellectual capital that is now available freely from opencourseware collaboration from many Western universities. No need to spend money for curriculum or course material. Incredibly intelligent and progressive programs can be crafted out from what some universities are generously giving away - their crown jewels - an unheard of phenomenon in modern times. And clearly you were familiar with it because you attended its presentation at MIT in February 2003, even before I came to you proposing to adapt MIT opencourseware for Pakistani engineering universities in the Summer of 2005.

Knowing all this, and you could not construct one single good science-engineering-humanities oriented multidisciplinary program where [
we might consider sending our own children - phrase modified], and instead, got carried away in importing billions of rupees worth of debt financed universities from who knows what kind of credentialed programs and what kind of unevaluated, unadjudicated, foreign garbage we might be ending up with to create more of the same crappy engineers and scientist that we are presently producing, albeit certainly with a foreign unpronounceable name on their degrees. I still can't pronounce them properly myself!

You came to HEC in 2002, got a carte blanche with a certified blank check drawn on the World Bank - and not by reducing the defense budget as you have mistakenly, perhaps out of ignorance of the inner workings of the national financing structure, claimed in your interview with the Chronicle. An interesting claim by you that can be trivially shown to be false considering our debt financed economy. Please stop fooling yourselves and others by bringing up bombastic GDP numbers in isolation, look at GDP/cumulative-debt ratio, what percentage of GDP is being taken out of the country by foreign multinational investors by depleting our foreign currency reserves, and what percentage of GDP is actually going for debt servicing also from the foreign currency reserves. Whatever remains after the debt is subtracted is what we net earned domestically - not GDP! Living on debt is not earned money my dears! Your claims are just number and accounting wizardry that I am perhaps more familiar with than the Chronicle reporter who interviewed you and did not have the wherewithal to challenge any of your statements, perhaps more interested in maintaining congeniality, than giving you a proper grilling. Our minuscule social spending and large defense expenditures come largely from debt deferment while it continues accumulating interest. All mostly pseudo secretive stuff that few in the public really know about in actual quantitative numbers but most senior and privileged persons in the Finance Ministry and the State Bank, I can assure you, as every single former and current Finance Minister, knows it at least qualitatively, and if they are any good at their jobs, they will also know the exact numbers and what was signed away in the fine prints for the further privilege of borrowing for some more silly toys and things, but mainly to pay just the rapidly accumulating interest without defaulting - the classic lenders' trap! So what indeed can you show for this blank check today that the lenders will return to demand their pound of flesh soon enough for, with the next tranche of structural adjustment schemes and new demands for the privatization of our public commons sacredly held in trust by the state for the common good of all our peoples, other than beautiful glossy slides and amazing magical numbers? Even you are now compelled to seek admissions for your kids elsewhere - almost five precious years wasted! Pathetic? You tell me!

I am actually more irate than you can read between the lines here because several existing universities in Pakistan, with a little bit of genuine imagination and determination, could have been repaired and updated with modern interdisciplinary curriculum, facilities, and inspiring leadership in its upper echelons, within this period making them attractive for more educated and skilled peoples to join them - instead of forcing whatever few that did stay on even in the existing dilapidated state, to depart! All located in major cosmopolitan cities and enjoying spacious acreages, they would have made immense impact as imposing historical traditions renovated and carrying on. The West does not throw away their heritage as they move to acquire new things of modernity as we in the East, especially in the Muslim nations, seem to want to, or being encouraged to, be doing. Look at Saudi Arabia, all our Islamic heritage being deliberately replaced by MacDonalds et. al. And not a decibel of protest is heard from any nation. We seem to be on the same band wagon to blindly adopt modernity at full speed discarding or ignoring our own crown jewels. Some of the best universities in the world are the oldest! Your (Atta) own included. Trying to chase down India blindly by emulating their large numbers of engineers and scientists that is presumably attracting foreign corporations, we are shooting ourselves in the foot! We cannot recreate the Indian experience like this. As learned scientists in your own fields, you must surely rationally see that neither the set of initial conditions, nor the transfer function, and nor the ambient parameters are the same. How do you expect to get the same output? When your superiors ask you to perform these miracles which are against the laws of non-linear system dynamics, what happens to your courage to just say no? Or perhaps you wish to continue to operate with "blinders on" deliberately?

It is a major puzzlement to me, how, despite having yourselves studied in prestigious universities abroad, and having been exposed to their remarkable interdisciplinary programs, you can advocate these silly imported one-of-a-kind engineering universities for your own nation, and keep defending those ad hoc decisions without even expressing any reservations or self-doubts whatsoever despite all the rational and coherent reasons put before you to the contrary! Dare I call you fundamentalists? No I won't, but some arguably might. Indeed, what is fundamentalism? Please permit me to suggest a laconic definition: Inability to rationally examine axioms! Alternately: Blind fanatic adherence to unexamined axioms. Can you suggest a better or more universal one? And to some possessed of even a modicum critical thinking skills, it might appear that your blanket refusal to rationally re-examine your premise upon which you have selected these foreign universities is being "fundamentalist", no difference in its essence than any self-righteous religious fanatics! Nuts? I know, but that's what your attitude might suggest to some. Examine for yourselves!

The worthy directive of the President of Pakistan to increase the number of engineers and scientists in the nation, as you have stated, seems to being pursued without regards to what kind of scientist and engineers and scholarship is needed in the future. The yes-man bureaucracy that you are surrounded with in HEC, compounds this problem, as I was even told in so many explicit words after heated exchange on why they weren't speaking up (direct quote): "ours [place] is not to question, but to implement, that is what we are taught in civil service bureaucracy", even when they privately confided in me that the schemes outlined in those six PC-1s did not make sense when I unraveled and dismantled it before their eyes. But despite my urging them to speak up, they would not volunteer their genuine opinion on these 6 PC-1 proposals that they had on their desk. Their outlook frankly confided to me after I broke through their outer facade of glazed look? If their views were needed, they would be asked for! It was their superiors job to know whether these proposals made sense or not, theirs was only to implement the directive issued to them. Is HEC a military command?

Please permit me to continue further.

I had energetically pointed out to you (Sohail) in the course of our often long and passionate conversations on nation building and our own imperatives, that we were a debt financed nation, and all this money for these PC-1 projects, while ostensibly coming from the national exchequer, will likely never leave New York or London or Paris, and for which yours and mine children and grandchildren will be beholden to the lenders through their collective noses. Your response, and I approximately quote from memory using almost your own words which I still distinctly recall as they had taken me by surprise coming from such an intelligent man like you (Sohail): "I have blinders on with a very narrow focus, I am here to do good work and I don't care where the money comes from so long as the Government keeps releasing it, it's their problem to worry about, not mine!" My response? And I quote from memory: "We cannot build sandcastles on the beach and not be cognizant of the tide!" Indeed, I had further pointed out that we were being deliberately encouraged to spend these borrowed monies on various and sundry white elephants, which the lenders well knew were white elephants and will never bear any fruits, to purposely keep us a debt laden dependent nation. I even gave you this famous cliche, again quoting from memory: "they would continue lending us money if we told them we needed it for a thousand men to dig up a trench, and another thousand to fill it back up, and needing to repeat that cycle a thousand times!", repeatedly cautioning you that these PC1-s were no different, that they will eventually be financed with an outstretched begging bowl, and will serve their interests perfectly, but none of ours!

No importation of foreign universities has produced any scholarship, as I learnt myself in my business visit to Qatar and Dubai in 2003-2004. The land replete with foreign sounding imported universities and more being planned at the time, where entire tracts of vast open lands had been given away for a song to these universities and schools, and yet, amazingly, not a single modern public library with current books, or public technical-scientific reading room to boot in either place that I could find - and I had asked! Education of the mind or low-tech mindless skilled fodder for multinationals? When I spoke to the second-in-command of Dubai Silicon Oasis in 2004 while exploring technical business opportunities, and subsequently wrote them a detailed feedback on how to genuinely pursue developing the high-tech for design and innovation, silicon valley style, pointing out "silicon valleys" are not created by constructing more huge buildings situated in fancy districts named "knowledge village" anymore than engineers and scientists are created by wishing them into existence, I was merely responded with a glazed incomprehensible thank you. At least they were courteous and gracious at receiving the feedback. Subsequently, several of my colleagues informed me that they had done the same, and lo and behold, today DSO Dubai has a new management, and I have heard that their new CEO is pursuing ideas along very similar lines outlined to them a few years ago!

The same incomprehensible look now bespeaks your own implementations of your "unconstrained imaginations", but for which there are not even thank yous for the feedback you receive. Either only deafening silence is heard, or only incomprehensible defensive posturing which does not even address the questions raised, and is instead often full of hypotheses asserted as truths that have no bearing in empirical evidence for efficacy of positive impact anywhere else on Earth.

And we now see the fruits of such unilaterally asserted thinking in the worsening of our higher education system, the few gains which you did make - and for which I have also complimented you in our recent email conversations - being quite overshadowed by the monumentality of your other blunders which were so easily avoidable had you chosen to form proper technical working groups and accommodated a diversity of views, skills, and professional space from the arts, sciences, and education, to vett your raw ideas and benefit them through the rational cycle of imagination, analysis, culling, transformation, refinement, or outright rejection, that is the norm in the developed nations for any matter, be it in the corporate, or in the public sector!

As remarkably educated and learned as you both are, you have repeatedly failed to see that numbers do not produce scholarship or science, but instead that love of learning, spirit of inquiry, and irreverence for wisdom du jour collectively do, and that these qualities are produced by having decent and accessible modern libraries in every city and locality, decent K-12 programs where the kids are allowed to explore and thrive according to their own innate potentials, and that undergraduate and graduate schools are the harvest of fruits planted in these early stages of education and that a tree cannot be resurrected from gathering and counting its leaves, and instead, your deliberate emphasis on fantorgasmic red herrings such as numbers of papers published in foreign journals to wish science, technology, and scholarship into existence, and to award pay raises and professorships based upon it quite out of context and character of the underfunded under-resourced departments in the vast majority of our dilapidated universities that has now created only the expected culture of plagiarism and regurgitated rehash to advance their limited careers as human nature would predictably dictate, or acquiring foreign faculty from third and second tier European nations who are as much victims of economic conscription in their own nations as people in third world nations, and expecting them to produce the miracles of science and technology in our poor nation which is even worse off than their own. Indeed, due to short sighted ill thought out planting of seeds that can only yield weeds, then anemically yelling at the weeds once they take root
"why are you a weed!" only to have the weeds move on to another field quite happily without any consequence to their plagiarizing intellectual property and passing it off as their own, is continually bringing disgrace internationally. A generation being created and nurtured without ethics and integrity precisely because all the wrong incentives have been conjured up by your "unconstrained imaginations". All of these missteps taken collectively, including many more outlined in the cited references, rationally demonstrate to any non-sycophant capable of even a modicum of rational thought, your profound inability to understand and comprehend not just the process of education, but the global realities that surround our beleaguered nation.

Indeed, the inexplicable obscurantism demonstrated by both of you over the past several years, from the pressing issue of ignoring the exposes on fake degrees, to proliferating substandard universities and diploma mills through uncourageous inaction, to persisting in autocratic administration of a public service rather than creating collaborative task forces in which notable ideas can be subjected to proper vetting, analysis, refinement, culling, and rejection cycle among a jury of peers and area experts, to zealously pursuing the unilateral product of your own "unconstrained imaginations" that is not subject to any discussions or rational debate and that is rushed into immediate implementation as the next best invention since sliced bread and which is glamorously pitched as such to all an sundry in glossy slides using the credibility of your own distinguished names, is not just abuse of fiduciary trust and responsibility entrusted to you, but criminal negligence of your duties as one endowed with unelected public power and debt financed public money and spending the privilege foolishly. For the fleeting pleasures of your fantorgasmic indulgences, our children and grandchildren, yours and mine, will now be footing the bill. This must be a crime in some just judges book. Would you perhaps have made the same ad hoc choices had your own expensive homes in Pakistan and elsewhere, including all your material and intangible assets, been put up as collateral for your various hair brained schemes only to be returned to you if your schemes bore sweet fruits, and to revert to the state in compensation if only weeds grew? How much more due diligence might you have done when your own money was at stake?

These are strong words indeed mes amis, but I deploy them to entirely capture my outrage so that you can glimpse, past all the logic and debate, why some of your more informed consumers of your largess actually feel so upset! And it is even more troublesome to me because I know that you are well intentioned and want to do good works, as opposed to past mercenaries and opportunists who have largely been out to loot the treasury for personal gain, and thus I am even more perturbed that you are caught in an Alice in wonderland and don't seem to realize it. The consequence of this is drastic because your distinguished names and other distinctions acquired in science and technology are being used to peddle rotting fish to the nation with your direct and engaging complicity. This should be a matter of grave concern to any conscionable person able to discern fact from fiction, and I hope that what I am pointing out here is helping you see it - someone has to tell the emperors they have no clothes on!

Thus witness as evidence of no clothes on, what your own intransigence has wrought. Your continued failure to positively respond to any suggestions made by many competent and courageous peoples from your own community of peers who have for many years been pointing out your follies and foibles quite patiently, has not only let down your own nation's peoples' enormous expectations of you, but also caused a national disgrace by having the lack of substance in your policies now highlighted in the prestigious American Journal the "Chronicle of Higher Education" - making Pakistan look even more foolish and incompetent despite having such pedigreed people at the helm of affairs with blank signed checks in their pockets! It is true that the article is presented in a typical modern journalistic style of merely quoting different sides of the issues and allowing the readers to make up their own minds without editorializing too much - guess what minds the half a million or so educators and other learned readers of the Chronicle across the world are making? Did this article even bother you guys?

While we certainly must not take our cues from foreign journals with their respective unexpressed biases and agendas, and ought to have the foresight and self-assurance to listen to the feedback of our own peoples first without needlessly getting defensive and preventing Affective Listening from becoming our friend and mentor, the fact that what a distinguished physicist has been consistently and courageously echoing the past several years is now finding further independent echoes in the august ivory halls of a prestigious international education journal by a credentialed writer (and I made it a point to examine the writer's impressive resume), vindicates all the many low key courageous critics over the years as well as the cited high profile Pakistani gadfly physicists and prolific writers. With such distinguished names as yourselves as the gatekeepers preventing any proper system design of our higher educational system that makes any sense, your further ineptitude and inability to receive and react constructively to feedback, have brought us national disgrace and wasted opportunities.

Perhaps I am overreacting? It's only a bloody article or two? Who reads them anyways! If that's what is going through your minds, please allow me to assure you that it's not the articles in the press that I am reacting to, it's your uncanny ability to snatch failure from the jaws of success that I am lamenting; when you are so empowered to make an amazing long term impact that few get the opportunity for, and that capital is being squandered through obduracy making matters worse for the long term rather than better.

Hence, as someone concerned for his peoples and its youth, for which, since 2005, I have been working without pay or compensation in Pakistan from my own meager earned savings to benefit my few humble skills any way I could for progressive causes, I must very rationally suggest that you now open up your authoritarian style. You must consider the following recommendations for structural reorganization seriously for the greater common good of our peoples for whom there is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that you immensely care about. You are indeed fortunate that your superiors have trusted you with the nation's most important future reins by giving you so much power. Please use it wisely, for there is surely a just judge taking notes, somewhere, the foremost one being our own conscience, if only one will allow it to sight for one.
So please permit me to offer some concrete suggestions now to fix the operational problems as I have perceived them.
These operational problems, apart from your authoritarian rule, are largely the reason for HEC's remarkable failure to produce sweet fruits despite the carte blanche powers enjoyed by you. In order to rectify this failure comprehensively, the root cause must be attacked. Merely replacing the existing "you" for instance, with the new "perfect you" - Mr. congenialities - will still not achieve the overall education transformation we desire as a nation. The core problems are inherently systemic in the very structure of the institutional framework in Pakistan in which the two of you have operated, or found yourselves inheriting. While you and others in the Government of Pakistan quite appreciated the enormity of the problem space, the correct solution space was not appreciated, nor developed, nor even visualized, due to the short term short sighted immediate gratification mode of everyone who has ever come to power in our nation. Plans and noble thoughts look wonderful on paper, the devil however is in the details of its execution over the long term, and in producing sweet fruits that can be harvested over and over again for the continuing benefit of our peoples, which is where we always get bitten and smitten to dust. So let's fix it at the core. And let's put aside for the moment, all cynicisms related to realpolitik.

In additions to the recommendations below, I have also already before you two proposals, TFI-21 and TFI-MIT, emailed to you on January 17, 2007, which you (Sohail) acknowledged on January 19, 2007 asking me to hold on to my horses, which I have been holding since. I will not repeat what is in TFI-21, but will incorporate it here by reference. I am including below two appendices for your benefit since you haven't seen either one before, an email letter I wrote to a Stanford University faculty member who I was informed is joining LUMS' new School of Science and Engineering and is interested in initiating a Faculty training program; and my first order comments on Government of Pakistan Ministry of Education's interesting new White Paper. Please do review these before continuing further in order to understand the underlying contexts for these recommendations. Some of the relevant cited references also provide a broader general context.

After observing the dismal performance of the entire education system, the culture of subordination and yes-men that has been fostered in HEC as your autocratic largess, and the immense complexity of the problem space that not just you but the entire country keenly recognizes, it appears that an organizational restructuring is highly necessary. There must be made a manifest separation of education systems architecture, design, policymaking, and implementation-planning, from its execution, and ongoing operational sustainment and administration. Further, monitoring must be entirely split off into its own space. Let's take each of these points one by one.

HEC must be rechartered by the Government of Pakistan to only become the implementation and sustaining arm of higher education, not the design, new ideas, and new solutions arm. There needs to be a similar implementation, and sustaining arm for K-12 grades of the public and private school systems. For the purpose of this document, allow me to refer to it simply as EHS - Elementary-Highschool System.

Monitoring must be entirely split off into a watchdog agency outside of those chartered for managing the ongoing operations and sustainment in order to create a more rational and efficacious system of checks and balance, and also to offload the departments chartered to do the implementations and ongoing administration of the education system from being burdened by the monitoring process which in itself is an all encompassing huge task requiring a separate budget of its own.

For the purpose of this document, please allow me to refer to the monitoring agency as NAMS - National Academic Monitoring System. Its charter with commensurate powers to make it effective, would be an all encompassing one, from monitoring schools and university performance, to adjudicating cases of plagiarism and fake degrees which have now become the most common problem plaguing the academe worldwide. NAMS would have regional cells in each major city with additional sub-cells as required for on the ground effective monitoring. This effective split from the governance has the potential of making this checks and balance work. But without real sharp teeth in NAMS through being empowered to award exemplary punishments where the major underlying principle is future deterrence for the types of crimes brought before it for adjudication, it will end up being as much an eyewash as any other accountability measure has been in the nation. Thus in its crafting and construction, remaining cognizant of political realities and cronyism as well as selective political victimizations and abuse, would require much due diligence in architecting its structures and mechanisms such that it can have self-balancing forces within it to make it self-policing. If this can be executed efficaciously, then your major angst mes amis, "...But how can we do anything by issuing statements from Islamabad?" is automatically resolved in many different contexts, not just the one in which you (Atta) uttered it to the Chronicle reporter.

Both of the aforementioned new implementation arms, HEC and EHS, as well as the new watchdog agency, NAMS, must be coordinated by a new overarching education "systems" organization that has the charter for the overall education system architecture, design, and implementation-planning for K-18, under perhaps the Federal Ministry of Education, or another federally administered independent structure, arbitrarily referred to here as NESC - National Education Systems Council.

NESC must be staffed with professional educators. Not people with PhD degrees in science or specialized obscure fields as their only primary qualification to work in defining the education process, not bureaucrats who follow orders, not sycophants out for a pecuniary gain, but professional educators from the arts, sciences, and humanities, men and women of letters who are in the business of education and understand and comprehend the education process itself as opposed to merely in possession of a PhD and teaching in a university or school, are experienced in defining organizational structures to bring to bear their expertise on designing a proper delivery system and services for education, are capable of independent thought, and unafraid to express them in a collaborative, problem solving oriented, egoless teams setting. The former types of people now seem to occupy the rank and file of HEC, which makes it an eminently suitable organization for being the timely execution agents of well thought out plans made elsewhere, with a bit of restructuring, appointment of suitably experienced and congenial administrators from the professional bureaucracy, and the removal of lofty charters from its undeserving plate. The need for defining an education system that makes rational and practical sense, and which caters to the needs of the vast majority of peoples in Pakistan and not just its ruling minority English enabled elite, is indeed the task of the latter types of peoples. One does not need many of them, and they are actually to be found right here in Pakistan if one has the eyes and imagination to recognize them.

In order for the education systems transformation to be genuine and not merely lip service, unless we can develop and nurture interests in reading, inquisitiveness, and pursuit of passionate interests and hobbies among the general public starting from when they are young children, no amount of restructuring is going to transform the input to the educational system - the kids, youngsters, young men and women, who must be weaned from rote learning, mindless street gawking, and all shades of fundamentalist fanaticism and mind numbing television, into new realms of imagination, inquiry, talent development, and reading! In order to do so, public libraries are a must in every locality and city, much like hospitals, and other essential services. Since we are so far behind on this, a federal initiative is now mandatory to make up for it, which I arbitrarily refer to here as PLCC - Public Libraries and Community Centers. It would include, apart from a modern general library, apart from specialized technical and historical general interest wings located in select libraries, many aspects of community center activities that we regularly see in the West in every small city and community, to nurture talent in the arts, humanities, performing arts, and indeed, the sciences, by bringing kids and youth off the streets and into the library buildings where they can learn and grow their interests and their talents. That's how we create good engineers and scientists and scholars and artists and an educated work force for the 21st century! Possession of mere paper degrees does not make it so. If the West does it that way through its substantial investment in its children and in its own future with libraries and community centers up the wazoo in every nook and cranny in their cities and towns, why should we feel we have a shortcut path shown to us by the Almighty? It's elevation in priority to the same level as Higher Education is of utmost urgency, and an imperative for a nation that has no modern public libraries and which aspires to transform its peoples along with its education systems. One without the other is quite meaningless.

This bit of wisdom expressed above for restructuring an organization that is inherently malformed for the task at hand, and creating new structures more appropriate to what really needs to get done, is but common sense gleaned from years in the corporate world where results, not good intentions, is the pragmatic yardstick of performance. Broken or ineffective organizations and ineffective leaderships are continually reorganized and restructured, sometimes disbanded and replaced, to get the job done. When we are borrowing so much blindly from the West, there is no reason not to also borrow some good horse sense.

However such gestalt shifts in thinking and its execution will take some time, whereas the needs are immediate. Thus in the near term, in order to mitigate the impact of all powers vested in a bunch of oligarchs and subject to ad hoc decision making, you may consider devoluting your powers into well defined and publicly documented processes within HEC for project proposal, adjudication, and approval cycle. Within those processes, constitute committees whose membership is drawn through another well defined process. The deliberation process of the committees is also well defined, including appropriate appeals process. All decisions and approvals at HEC are then taken only through these well defined processes. And if you tried to make participation in these committees inclusive, rather than exclusive, seeking out a diversity of experts rather than incestuous self-reinforcement, you have a winning formula in the immediate near term that can carry over to the new organization structural rearrangements when they transpire.

And the first thing you ought to do with these new processes at HEC, is send your already approved existing programs through them for re-validation, rejection-in-retrospect, or amendment, as appropriate! If you keep the system transparent and can courageously push back on vested and political interests that will surely be annoyed at this and will fight you every step of the way, you may yet be able to redeem some of your efforts. If this process, comprising a diversity of views and seeing a vigorous debate in public conducted without undue influence from political quarters, adjudicates favorably upon your new university projects, then so be it. I also look forward to learning what is so damn incredible about these projects beyond what I already know from their PC-1s that would enable them to pass a properly designed and debated vetting process!

I also feel compelled to draw your kind attention to the cynical ground reality around us. The cited references amply demonstrate the complexity of the global stage we live on, the agendas of different developed nations when they offer us gratuitous help (often reminiscent of Greeks bearing gifts), and our uncanny inability to progress due to our own follies of consistently accepting or acquiescing to leadership who cannot lead. If by some Machiavellian outlook, the unstated goals of our education system however have all along been to merely perpetuate a subservient client state by deliberately creating generations of students incapable of taking over the reins of their own destiny; to merely keep the nation perpetually engaged in providing frontline proxy services to the ever evolving imperatives of global superpowers on the Grand Chessboard - one day "noble jihadis carefully nurtured in the madrassahs invited up to the White House to win World War III", the next day "Islamofacist terrorists and suicide bombers against whom a lifetime of World War IV is to be waged"; to merely make us perpetual consumers of greedy multinationals where our factory churned, college educated, English enabled elite may find easy employment for sales and tech-support, and our lower strata of marginally educated society - educated enough however to follow directions of their task master supervisors - conveniently harvested as "slaves" through economic conscription where none of the labor laws that apply in the "civilized" developed nations, apply in the name of globalization and trade treaties that developing nations are left with no choice but to sign due to their heavy debt burden; then for all these subterfuges, the present policies and actors, well intentioned though some of them may arguably be, are absolutely the perfect choices.

Since I don't believe the aforementioned Machiavellian hypothesis, that these subterfuges have indeed been anyone's deliberate unstated goals, and nor would any conscionable Pakistani, nor any other person of honor and self-respect regardless of national boundaries, be he or she in the West or the East, the North or the South, ever subscribe to these treasonous aspirations against their own peoples, even though many may, and indeed have become unwitting or unwilling participants to it throughout Pakistan's long troubled history, I must rightly conclude that as men of honor and dignity with substantial accomplishments in your own respective technical fields, your ineffective stewardship of HEC up to this point has merely been due to dramatic and substantial incongruence, a mismatch of skill sets to the problem domain and job description.

The nature of the problem space to bring a rational transformation to our education system is indeed too big in the civilian sector to be dealt with in such military style autocratic fashion by a handful of technocrats compartmentalizing the problem with a military mindset arbitrarily into higher education and lower education, when a more holistic and systems approach for the entire education system with a much more open and collaborative style of strategic effort and long term planning and execution, is the job requirement.

Thus while I am absolutely not suggesting that you step down at this time, additional skilled people more suited to the collaborative nature of the tasks at hand must be brought on the job to complement your own single minded passions for doing unilateral good works. The restructuring seeded above, with appropriate refinements from professionals more astute and experienced than I in the ways of managing very large scale complex programs and projects, while addressing the problem space more efficaciously, also automatically broadens and enlarges the pie, creating plenty of leadership work to go around on everyone's plate. A necessity in order to attract additional competent peoples in pivotal decision making roles, and to introduce a system of checks and balances that is sorely missing today.

Noam Chomsky, my erstwhile and distinguished college professor, once wrote an interesting article on "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" in 1967. Fortunately, not being from among them, and thus not being burdened by their cross, I merely wrote a simple question to one of the most distinguished scientists in Pakistan today on "dilemma of power to influence". ... I am taking the liberty of including [it] at the end as an appendix question for you as well. Both of you being far more educated and learned than I, can perhaps genuinely shed some light on it.
The questions, what are you doing wrong, or what is it that you should be doing and are not, have now been answered to the best of my limited abilities.

Finally, in conclusion, please permit me to once again remind you that prima donnas taking on public roles to solve the nation's problems must be held accountable commensurate with their positions. Good intent alone, or specialized primary expertise and/or distinction acquired in unrelated fields, are not an excuse to acquire public power and to hold on to it come what may. And as the purpose of this whole education system transformation is so that we can move our poor beleaguered and often sold out nation to a civil, participatory, and actively engaged vibrant and progressive society, we must begin by setting the expectations of its very designers.

And also kindly allow me to leave you with this question to ponder: Cross pollination of anything, from DNA to pollen, and including ideas, is the primary source for the continuation of life, its vibrancy, its creativity, and its remarkable breadth of diversity and concomitant beauty. I am sure you enjoy the pleasures of this beauty as much as anyone else. Are you going to encourage and nurture the secret sauce to the recipe so to speak, for the beauty of the Renaissance that you seek?

And to end with this last significant request. I would like to ask your permission to make this personal letter to you public on the Internet, and also to forward it to the Minister(y) of Education, the Planning Commission, the President of Pakistan, and the Prime Minister. I seek this permission because of several reasons. Firstly, I have reproduced here several conversations that were private, and essentially among friends. Thus without your permission, I couldn't make them public. If you don't feel that I should make our private speak public but are okay with the letter in general being made public, kindly redact the portions of the conversations that concern you, and mail the pdf back to me for review. Secondly, I feel that the purpose of this letter is to really provide you a sanity check for 'on the ground realities' and to compel you to examine your own performance. The best and lasting changes can only come about through internal changes within ourselves with judicious introspection and soul searching, as indeed the wisdom of the sages and all prophets of antiquity have empirically demonstrated. As such, you will surely benefit from other concerned Pakistani citizens also commenting on this letter for your benefit - and hopefully in the same constructive spirit as this. Thirdly, the analysis and recommendations provided here can be subjected to public debate for my own sanity checking - just in case I have been living in some altered reality and my empirical comprehension of the world is based on fiction and a product of my own "unconstrained imagination", and that indeed your accomplishments are as glorious as depicted on your website and thus this letter is entirely esoteric - as well as seed useful problem solving oriented discussions among a wider public audience, policy makers, educators, and your millions of young eager customers and their worthy parents. Such debates in a civil society is the norm and can only bring about a change for the better in the national interest.

Your forthright agreement to this request for public dissemination of this letter, with our conversations intact if possible, and perhaps even your active support in propagating this letter on your own website by creating a discussion blog for feedback to HEC with this letter seeding it, will also demonstrate to the entire nation and to the world, your new and genuine openness and willingness to listen to constructive criticism, and to work collaboratively with others of diverse viewpoints in order to serve the public interest in the most efficacious way possible. Even the CEOs of major American corporations, presidents of nations, many prominent lawyers and statesmen, and very influential and powerful people world wide are now blogging to get closer to the people whom they purport to serve. Why don't you too? Your first blog entry can be a cogent response to this letter. It will be a tremendous positive step in repairing and healing the national front on their frustration with the education system and legitimate perceptions of a non-responsive imperial HEC. Any one can dispatch orders from a perch given a megaphone. It takes genuine statesmanship to actually lead with honesty and openness. About time, don't you think?

A mea culpa is both human, and forgivable. And can be endearing as well. I know, I am constantly having to do it with the people I love and care about!

I eagerly await your considered response. Permit me to suggest that if you don't respond in a reasonable period of time, I will construe it as it being okay with you to make this letter public and to forward it to concerned members and departments in the Pakistan Government so that they may also think twice and thrice before blindly approving anymore PC-1s from HEC, and to put what has already been approved into reevaluation mode as they too hold fiduciary responsibilities and positions of trust on behalf of the peoples of this nation. I am compelled to give you this courtesy of first right to disapprove and/or suggest amendments because of my deep personal respect for both of you as men of personal integrity, while at the same time attempting to do what is right and following the diktats of my own humble conscience.

And I remain your friend and well wisher,

With warm regards,

Super IratePakistani

(Zahir Ebrahim)

(after several false starts and much angst, finished writing on Feb 15, 2007)



Referenced Documents:

'Alice in wonderland'

01: Article in today's Dawn: HEC's Unconvincing Mega Projects -
http://dawn.com/2007/02/10/ed.htm#4

02: Article in today's Dawn: Another plagiarising professor -
http://dawn.com/2007/02/10/ed.htm#3

03: Article:
Engineering education prepares for 2020 - Keynote Leah Jameison, IEEE 2007 President, Feb 1, 2007

04: Article:
In Pakistan, the Problems That Money Can Bring - S. Neelakantan, Chronicle, Jan 19, 2007

05: Article:
The great giveaway - Education Guardian, Jan 17, 2007

06: Article:
The Height of Higher Education - Q. Isa Daudpota, May 31, 2006

07: Article:
Assessing Pakistani Science - Pervaiz Hoodbhoy Feb 21, 2006

08: Magazine: News and Views - Monthly magazine of HEC,
Jan 2006.

09: Article:
Reforms! What Reforms? - Pervaiz Hoodbhoy July 8, 2005

10: Article:
Reforming Pakistan’s Universities -- I & II - Pervaiz Hoodbhoy Jan 4, 2005

'Uncourageous inaction'

11: Article:
Plagiarism and Academia: Personal Experience - Bruce Schneier Aug 1, 2005

12: Article:
Chairman HEC Takes Serious Note of Plagiarism - Online

13: Website:
Permanent Faculty Urdu university, snapshot Feb, 2007

14: Article:
Fake Degrees for the Big Boys in Pakistan - Q. Isa Daudpota, Nov 28, 2004

15: Article:
Dubious Universities - Q. Isa Daudpota, Nov 4, 2004

16: Article:
The Scandal of Fake and Madrassa Degrees - Q. Isa Daudpota, Jun 15, 2003

'Begging bowl and national consequences for our children and grandchildren'

17: Article:
US offers $100m for education reforms - Dawn Dec 1, 2006

18: Slides:
Institutional Uplift and Quality Enhancement of Higher Education - Session-V-Atta-Ur-Rehman.pdf, April 26, 2005 (one billion Dollars in debt to the World Bank?)

19: Article:
Cloak and Classroom - David Glenn, Chronicle, Mar 25, 2005

20: Book:
A Game As Old As Empire Feb 2007 www.bkconnection.com/agameasoldasempire/

21: Book:
Confessions of an Economic Hitman, 2005, John Perkins www.economichitman.com/

'state of affairs prior to HEC'

22: Article:
How Not to Reform Universities - Pervaiz Hoodbhoy July 9, 2002

23: Article:
Defending the Indefensible - Pervaiz Hoodbhoy Jan 7, 2001

24: Article:
Education Reforms: Yet Another Sham - Pervaiz Hoodbhoy Jan 7, 2001

25: Article:
The Menace of Education - Pervaiz Hoodbhoy July 9, 2000

26: Article:
What are they Teaching in Pakistani Schools Today? - Pervaiz Hoodbhoy April 15, 2000

27: Article:
Why The War On Ghosts Was Lost - Pervaiz Hoodbhoy Mar 8, 1999






Appendix_A: Letter to Stanford professor on Faculty training in Pakistan and MIT OCW
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:33:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Super IratePakistani"
To: Professor [] @Stanford.edu
Subject: Faculty training in Pakistan and MIT OCW

Dear Professor []


I am pleased to hear from [..] that you have these aspirations. As [..] has noted, and I concur with him to some extent, that this is an important need.

I don't wish to jump straight into the point solutions however.

Many such point solutions have been proposed here and there. And I believe that this is not sufficient as an overarching approach, to willy nilly identify this and that components missing, and zealously going after them in overdrive. These "greedy optimizations" often don't work from a systems design perspective, and can often work to degrade the system. More likely, they end up being red herrings, or worse, white elephants.

I would like to do a proper systems design of the education system, K-16, perhaps K-18 now that masters degrees are becoming essential for professional opportunities, for which I too have some point technologies and point ideas to bring to bear. But not the entire system architecture which needs proper rethinking through a proper exploration of the solutions space in conjunction with local educators, teachers, and other local persons from the letters and the arts. By local, I mean Pakistani. I have been trying to get these guys in Pakistan to create a forum where such matters can be discussed properly, a coherent system architected, and issues worked out in depth, rather than through these superficial one of a kind seminars that are being held across the country where some really intelligent peoples present their wonderful ideas as papers and move on. As a systems person myself, no system can be designed that way. Although it's a great way of sharing ideas, but it's terrible for debating or discussing them, and evolving them into the "right thing to do" space through analysis, culling, and refinement.

The problems domain in Pakistan have been well fleshed out, by many visionaries, including []'s own many insightful critiques, as well as []'s who is also Cc'ed on this email.

The solution space however has been the least explored, and always with a priori assumptions of a particular solution, and allowing micro options thereof.

An excellent example of this is the White Paper from the Government of Pakistan's Ministry of Education in which they outlined their "formula" for how to fix things. You can take a look at this white paper yourself if you haven't already, and form your own impressions. Mine are quite different from others' reactions, including []'s who is impressed.

Similarly, I was forwarded a faculty training strawman proposal developed a few years ago that postulated a central large training center in Islamabad - big numbers everywhere in it. I don't believe a one of kind center in the middle of Islamabad, or Lahore, or Karachi makes any sense at all. It's an elitist luxury we can ill afford. Adult education is an ongoing process. Not a one of thing. We encounter it in the West regularly. In a systems perspective, it would make more sense to have many small adult teacher-learning and training centers spread out throughout Pakistan, where teachers, faculty, and educators can go locally for further training on an on-going basis throughout their teaching careers. They can take classes in the evenings, and learn as they teach during the day. Sometimes they may attend week long workshops for specialty training. The teacher-teachers who might teach in these training/community centers can be brought to a central location for training however as needed. The country is too poor to have all its teachers and educators take a year off, or have them pay a year's worth of tuition with no income coming in and come to an expensive city to live. And the level of training or rather re-training that is required is likely to the extent - from all the pessimistic accounts I have heard - that it must be a life-long or at least a multi-year learning process in order to create effective teachers and educators. Not a one shot deal. The economics of these things from the teachers/faculty perspective, makes it infeasible for them to come to Lahore or Islamabad or Karachi and stay in these expensive cities for a year. The scaling factor makes a central center an infeasible and ineffective option in my humble view. But it can still be examined properly, only when the big system architecture is in front of us.

And this is what I mean by point solutions. If a complete system is thought out, such weaknesses become immediately obvious. But they don't seem to get noticed in isolation at all as in all these point solutions. I won't even delve here into the Foreign Faculty Hiring programs or some of the bandaids that are being put on systemic cancerous maladies in the hope that the patients will miraculously recover. And the prime reason for these is that there is no process whereby a system can be designed/discussed. Indeed, wherein even point proposals can be discussed, dissected, debated, improved, or discarded as appropriate. Today anyone with power just gets whatever they dream up, implemented.

Thus I am now very point-solutions averse!

With all this aforementioned as background, I am attaching a strawman proposal for a task force I had made to HEC. It's intent was to actually explore the solution space and define an education system that will meet the goals stated therein. I am still awaiting a response from them.

In addition to this big picture stuff, I am also very interested in implementing MIT's opencourseware in Pakistan. An initial strawman proposal for a task force that I has sent HEC is also attached for your reference. I am once again, still awaiting a response from them. Since that time however, I have been in touch with MIT OCW, and evolved the idea considerably. I don't have a writeup for it completed yet - but it is to create a degree granting program that uses mit opencourseware, but more importantly, adopts/adapts MIT's entire philosophy of education - the secret sauce to the recipe, so to speak. And for this program, we would need to train the existing faculty, culled for the program from Pakistani public universities, in the ways of MIT. An enormous challenge. But this is only intended to be a pilot program and the scale is rather small.

Do let me know if any of this interests you. However I would be delighted to discuss with you any matter at any level of abstraction you wish, and be happy to lend you any assistance I can.

Kind Regards,
Super IratePakistani.






Appendix_B: First order comments on Ministry of Education's new White Paper
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:34:22 -0500 (EST)
From: "Super IratePakistani"
To: Professor Pervaiz Hoodhboy @QAU Islamabad
Subject: Re: THE WHITE PAPER on Education Policy (fwd)

Dear Pervaiz,

I read the Education Ministry's white paper last night, not very carefully, and am starting a second more careful analytical read now. But I have to confide in you my initial misgivings, so that if warranted, you may guide me to perhaps focus on specific things as I do my second more detailed read.

The last 10 pages of this document are simply fantastic. I learnt a lot staring at it. Kudos to them for presenting the history of education policy over the last 60 years in this succinct form.

Please observe the following in the last column National Education Policy 1998-2010 -

"Continuing on the 1979 & 1992 policies, this policy makes several leaps. First, in 21st century it visualizes Pakistan as an ideological state ... the country cannot survive and advance without putting the entire system of education on Islamic foundations....the only justification for our existence is our total commitment to Islam as out sole identity. Second, education is perceived as an instrument to 'build the sound Islamic society'. Third, Islam and Islamic values should not be part of Islamic studies alone but also all other disciplines."
Unless I missed it, this white paper no where unequivocally states that this education policy should be reconsidered for the 21st century. How do you make consistent the above statements and the goal that an education system must not be based on a national ideology so that is is not used for indoctrination of the values of the state? How do you reconcile the above policy with the articulated desire to create critical thinkers who are allowed to explore and question and argue and add to the intellectual life of a nation and yet accept the above indoctrination without question?

It does not state anywhere (unless I missed it again) that teaching of ethics from the earliest grades is necessary to make decent, civic minded, and moral humanbeingsfirst out of the kids, and that this is far more essential than making them Muslims first. This point was very forcefully made by Dr. Ghammadi, himself a religious scholar, in the May 2006 education conference, where he argued that Islamic teachings should not even be introduced until 5th or 6th grade (when a kid is around 10 years old); but this really enlightened stuff does not seem to have entered this whitepaper.

If the above 1998-2010 policy is the pedestal upon which the education building of the 21st century is to be constructed, then the beautiful description of all the facade, the doors and windows and other architectural details is quite meaningless. And I grant you there are many beautiful words mouthed in this white paper, and much excellent data on the current state presented, what I call the problem-space. The building however, on such a pedestal, will still stand handicapped, and possibly be quite anachronistic. They have talked about Islam and nostalgia, and how we need to overcome all the baggage of history and become progressive and dynamic, etc. etc. No where do they mention the How to do that? The education system is now going to take on the fiqhs and the religious establishment to get them to reform our comprehension of Islam?

The "diversity" model so eloquently outlined in your own speech at Indus valley school is far more easily implementable (as hard a sell as that might be to some conservative elements), than the above. It is far easier to accept differences and agree to disagree, rather than to get everyone to agree on the same thing!! The former does not threaten anyone's faith and belief system and hence can be more palatable if marketed properly; the latter is next to impossible to achieve as it threatens almost everyone!!!

But while they mention diversity someplace, it's not clear how it is actually reconciled with the policy goals outlined above of Pakistan being an ideological state, Islamic state, and "someone's" version of Islam will be taught to all Muslims.

Why can't a public school system be constructed to be diverse? Why does it all have to be one type? Or have the same one curriculum? Why can't some schools be more liberal arts, some more performing arts, some more science, some more literature-centric, some philosophy centric, and some more parochial by sect as demanded by the local community, etc? They all teach the basics of reading, writing, thinking and communication skills at each grade level, they may also have some rudimentary curriculum requirements for each grade level, but do they all have to have the same complete curriculum? Why can't there be more "functional" schools?

That's my problem with this document - it does not explore the solution space at all. It is all too easy to fill up pages with coherent problem description, we all know them. But instead of exploring the solution options, they provide point solutions and micro options based on their own peculiar comprehension of what the end system must look like a priori. That's not exploring the solution space, that's preconceiving a solution. I haven't seen solution-A vs. solution-B vs. solution-C debated in this paper.

I have to re-study their detailed policy recommendations more carefully, but my initial reaction was (and it was 4 am when I finished so these could be misperceptions) that they really do not solve the problem even in their preconception of a solution. That the goals they have outlined, actually cannot really be met. For instance, the hodge podge of switching of languages, and bringing benefits to all Pakistanis equitably, are all fraught with implementation perils which I don't see how they can solve it in reality even if they give it 20 years!

As far as the problem space description and many statements with respect to the overarching goals and vision are concerned, they are excellent. But it's mostly still motherhood and apple pie. There is really nothing new or revolutionary here. If you stare at the previous policy goals from 1947, you will see similar statements were also made earlier. When I first started reading this paper, I was simply amazed at all the good things they were saying. Fast forward to page 83-92 and you realize it has all been uttered before. Indeed, if you look at the policy progression, it is actually regressive and politically opportunistic, rather than in the best interest of the kids themselves!!!!!!!!!!

I thought it was strange that the Citizens Foundation, which runs hundreds of schools in poor neighborhood from private money, was not mentioned as a model of "functional" organization to examine for public schools.

My question is, can public schools be run in a similar "functional" organizational structure, rather than the governmental structure that runs it today? Why do the two structures have to be the same, i.e. why can we not create a new more functional structure for the delivery of education?

Why can't we look at how school districts are managed in the US public school system? I haven't studied their innerworkings myself. Did anyone from among the participants listed in this document do a careful case study of it and try to identify workable ideas and implementation efficiencies that could be adapted to Pakistan?

The paper uses really sophisticated terminology though!

Have I fundamentally misperceived the white paper? I think they need to spend more time examining solutions for restructuring the delivery system by studying what other nations have done. What are your views on it?

Thanks.

Kind Regards,
Super IratePakistani.






Appendix C: Letter of inquiry to Pakistan's most prominent scientist on "Dilemma of power to influence"
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:15:20 -0500 (EST)
From: "Super IratePakistani"
To: Distinguished Professor Riazuddin @National Center for Physics, Islamabad
Subject: dilemma of power to influence


Dear Prof. Riazuddin,

This has been bothering me for a while - please allow me to explain:

Einstein is quoted in a children's biography book on having lamented loudly upon hearing of the first bomb drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki "it is better to not take any action". We know of Einstein's well publicized role in the letter to Roosevelt that kicked of the Manhattan project to need further elaboration.

For what I am about to inquire, it is irrelevant whether this lament actually occurred or is mythology. The point it highlights is crucial: when important peoples, with immense credibility and visibility, have power to influence many momentous events, how must they conduct themselves?

A silly guy like Nobel Laurette William Shockley argued for the superiority of races - had some role to play in the founding of Cold Springs Harbor research institute where Watson worked after his DNA research, and where David Baltimore got his own start in research. Over there, they may still believe in his ideology. It is rather fortunate that Shockley's ideas on racial superiority of white races did not, or have not become an overt policy guide for the nations of the North. But it could have, and it may yet be their covert thinking vis a vis the Global South. But it does not make it into any overt public policy initiatives which is a good thing!

At the turn of the last century however, similar racial and eugenics programs were in vogue in the US quite openly, all founded and supported by influential thinkers, scholars, and erudite scientists with influence such that when they spoke - ordinary well meaning peoples believed them and caused irreparable harm to countless others. German Nazis when accused of their racial programs against non-white [non]Germanic races actually pointed to the American progenitors in their defense.

Thus persons of influence, when they speak, often carry enormous weight. Not necessarily for the content of their speak, but who they are. This is in the nature of things and cannot, and will not, change.

Recognizing this non-linear impact on others just because of their name, a thoughtful scientist like Carl Sagan, who made Astronomy and the exploration of heavens an accessible pleasure and wonderment for the ordinary peoples around the world, and was likely the most recognized man after Mohammad Ali on the entire planet, always refrained to share his views on the existence of god in public.

In one interview that I saw of Sagan, he explicitly declined to comment stating he did not want to cause undue influence upon others by virtue of his authority on something entirely unrelated - i.e., astronomy vs. personal faith of others. On that day, I liked him as a person. Before that, I had always liked him as a scientist despite his slight arrogance (with Marvin Minsky and Isaac Asimov) which I could often overlook.

Therefore, when a conscionable person of some influence and moral leanings is faced with the prospects of presenting their views in public on pressing matters du jour, what are some of the considerations before them? How do they know they are doing the right thing by taking public positions based on their personal views?

A person of influence can do both immense good, as well as irreparable harm. How must they proceed? Following Einstein's loud missive would be silly. At the same time, not following Sagan's path would be peddling undue and unfair influence. On the other hand, not reacting to pressing and urgent needs intelligently would be foolish when one has the power to affect change for the better.

Not that I will ever be afflicted with this problem of influencing others, but this is bothering me.

Please do share your insights.


Kind Regards,
Super IratePakistani.






Education system for the 21st century Task Force Initiative
A brief strawman at what this task force initiative might do
rev 0.0
January 17, 2007
This task force initiative (TFI21) is intended to be entirely complementary to, and not competitive with, HEC's pursuit of improving Pakistan's higher education system. While HEC generally operates in a very tactical mode and under many relatively short term directives from the President of Pakistan (such as to create foreign universities to increase the number of engineering graduates pronto) which they are chartered to implement as quickly as possible, TFI21 takes a longer range strategic and generational view starting with a clean slate to come up with a complete "system" of education for K-16+ ab-inito.

TFI21 addresses the question:- what is the right thing to do for a largely backward, and highly socially corrupt developing nation like Pakistan which has no general culture of learning, where the primary and secondary education are largely through rote learning and memorization, where no love of learning for the sake of learning is inculcated, no interests and passionate pursuits of curiosity developed nor rewarded nor any innate talents and skills and extracurricular interests nurtured and fostered, where obedience in thinking and action is demanded both in school and home, and where these very same systems end up feeding our equally anemic colleges and universities transferring along their baggage of "waiting to be spoon fed" and "waiting to be told" what to do next while pursuing an entirely boring and outdated college and university curriculum taught by equally lack-luster and anemic staff who themselves generally came up through the same system and show an equal contempt to the concept of love of learning, inquisitiveness, independent thinking, and extended reach. In this rather optimistic appraisal of how the Pakistani system is today, because in reality it is even worse whereby cheating, deceit, intolerance, and rampant hypocrisy has made the society largely morally bankrupt, one cannot expect to produce innovative scientist, independent thinkers, creative engineers, wise scholars, moral statesman and leaders, imaginative social scientists, erudite historians, expert linguists, amazing artists, and in general, an actively engaged moral citizenry that is capable of participating productively and proactively in a civil society with a developed sense of social responsibility and ethics. The seeds of attitude towards education and learning start in the home, is carried on into the classroom in Kindergarten, and by the time one is 18 and ready to enter a university, the die is pretty much cast. We are today at "either fuck someone first or be fucked by them" and "jis ki lathi us ki bhais", and from here we want to get to a modern progressive non-oppressive egalitarian industrialized Muslim society that is intent on learning, activism, and social justice while fully engaged in the pursuits of life, liberty, and happiness. So what system of education do we need to accomplish that? Let's define it.

TFI21 further addresses the question: what is the right thing to do in a largely agrarian population that lives in rural areas, and where the soon to be 200 million population distribution ranges from 5% incredibly wealthy ruling elite, to almost 30-40% living in over-crowded cities with increasing urbanization due to ongoing migration from rural to city, to more than 50% still living in rural areas and villages, and more than half of all students in the nation from K-12 only being exposed to sub-standard "urdu-medium" public elementary and secondary schools. TFI21 addresses the question:- is quality K-16 education supposed to be only the right of the ruling elite and those who can afford expensive private schools, - or is it the right for all the peoples of the nation? How can we bring quality K-16 education to all the masses so that anyone with interest, inclination, and opportunity can attend post-graduate education? What sort of system do we need to replace the almost apartheid like system of private "English-medium" vs. public "Urdu-medium" system we have today such that any child in the nation, not just the privileged rich, can grow up to compete competitively at the university level and for employment and career opportunities with anyone?

TFI21 also addresses the question: what is the best way to increase the educated talent pool of the nation, and how to produce more technically adept and proficient engineers and scientists at the world class level, and at least at the levels of neighboring nations like China and India. How can we improve the substance and level of research in our universities for the generation that will emerge from the new K-16+ program after its-overhaul. TFI21 addresses the issues of diversity of educational institutions types catering to different needs, from community colleges to social science and liberal arts universities to science and engineering institutions.

TFI21 finally addresses the question: what sort of educational programs need to be instituted at the national level, and what sort of budgets need to be allocated to implement such programs.

These questions are obviously too broad based, but capture the essence of why such a strategic task force is needed to design the architecture of a new educational system, suggest implementation plans, and identify the levels of resources over the next generational period that will be needed to be invested before we will begin to see world class scholars, thinkers, scientists, and engineers emerge from our universities and out compete the IIT, and other highly progressive and rapidly developing Chinese and South Korean educational systems (of which we need to undertake a study of what they are doing and how they have been able to bootstrap themselves so effectively). Despite the seeking of immediate gratification culture that the Americans have taught us, we continually need to remind ourselves that "Rome wasn't built in a day" and instead seek a page out of our oriental neighbors books. We need to adopt long range views and long range plans, and then sustain our pursuit of them in the long haul - somehow (not clear how this long-haul thing is realizable in a nation where you go to bed at night not knowing who will be in charge the next day). These things are not impossible to achieve at all. Most industrialized nations have it. If we want to get there, well this is the road to it.

TFI21 task force will comprise social scientist, educators, teachers, scholars, area and experts. It would be structured into smaller working groups reporting into TFI21 with specific responsibilities and deliverables. It must be headed by some distinguished and energetic academic luminary who can command respect even under disagreements and skilled enough to be able to lead and guide the task force towards its goal amicably.

Okay this is only a raw first cut to seed the discussion. Please help refine and prune it.

Please also provide points on why this is not a good idea, why it should not be constituted - so that we can preemptively address objections (perhaps from our own minds initially) and record them as a faq for others who will join us in the task force and will likely wonder on similar points. It will also help crystallize the proposals better.

My own first objection is "why bother, who cares, it's a freaking thankless job, it's a dictatorship, how can you impact policy, who the hell do you think you are to dream this big". I would welcome your erudite response to this first set of objections. I am already stumped!





Task Force Initiative to examine adaptation of MIT OCW educational framework for Pakistani engineering and science undergraduate education
A brief strawman at what this task force initiative might do
rev 0.0
January 17, 2007
This task force initiative (TFIMIT) is intended to develop an adaptation plan for MIT open courseware web based instruction program for undergraduate and science degree programs in Pakistani universities.

There are many hurdles to this and this task force will flesh out the issues and solve them. It will lay out implementation plans for a pilot program to implement a few selected degree options in a few selected universities and oversee their first implementation.

The mission of the TFIMIT would be to create a practical framework to facilitate the adoption of other degree programs beyond the pilot in a distributive self-administered fashion throughout Pakistan. The task force will create guidelines on how to asses student body skill level, how to appropriately create prerequisites so that the students can engage and learn productively based on their academic preparation and not have to expect all students to be MIT level prepared or caliber in order to benefit from the education, and how to tailor the courses to adapt to the student needs. TFIMIT will also layout the requirements for lab work to support the courses, and outline the new labs and new experiments that would need to be created in Pakistani universities to support the MIT coursework. The task force will also layout the requirements for budget and faculty training to administer the program.

An interesting leverage point for the MIT OCW program that makes it eminently suitable for implementation in poor developing nations that do not have the benefit of seasoned and experienced professors and abundance of teaching staff, is that the courses are already fleshed out in sufficient depth and breadth that an effective program of teaching can be created that significantly utilizes graduate teaching assistants and existing professors. All they need to do to teach the course effectively is to take it first themselves using MITOCW material. How beautiful!!

Thus this task force will be both the architecture, and the implementation arm for running the pilot program and creating all the collateral material to make the pilot program successful. Based on the outcome, the distributed nature of the process will enable other universities to adopt MIT educational framework on their own without further involvement from the task force.

Thus the life of the task force is the duration of the pilot program and seeing it being successful.

Initially, based on the interests of the participants, it may be that physics (MIT course 8), math (course 18) and electrical engineering and computer science (course 6) might be good candidates for the pilot. Other disciplines may also be candidate if we can find champions for them. A few selected areas of concentration within these disciplines may be further selected to tailor the program to local resources, interest, and skill level. Furthermore, MIT Institute requirements for science and humanities as well as extensive communication and writing requirements all have to be figured out - such that a course 6 major can actually get almost the entire breadth of multi-disciplinary coursework as an actual MIT student does. There are limits of course, but that is the intent of the task force to figure these things out and create the teaching base for it in the pilot project. The thesis requirement also has to be figured out.

The TFIMIT task force isn't operating in the dark, nor would it be the first one, as there are several other adaptations in the world, and we can collaborate and exchange experience with them. Singapore has close program running with MIT and we can look at their collaboration. I don't know however if a complete university system as adapted MITOCW. I can inquire from MIT. A further step would be to create an international accreditation body to sort of accredit the implementation of MIT OCW in various instances of its implementation worldwide. The impact of such an accreditation would be that an MITOCW graduate from such a university will have some substantial recognition as having graduated from the same coursework as taught at MIT. Such a local MITOCW graduate from a properly implemented local program can beat any local engineering university graduate in skill and education level hands down. The pilot program should further be able to demonstrate this (how, what metric to use)? This would be another criteria to determine whether national adoption makes sense or not.

The TFIMIT task force must be lead by a distinguished academic who commands substantial respect and is skilled in the art of selling ideas and motivating senior people to operate on short but realizable deadlines in order to not loose steam in the project. The selling job will have to be done at the highest university levels to garner interest from the university management in adopting the pilot project.

Okay guys, this is my first cut. Please chip in with your views and help refine it.

I would also very much appreciate some contrarian views of why we should not do this as a formal adoption into a Pakistani university. Why is it a bad or infeasible idea. Then we will try to address those questions and compose a faq and put all the objections with answers in it.

My own first objection is this: are the ordinary Pakistani university students, coming up through the lousy Pakistani secondary education system, capable of handing an MIT curriculum? How much would it have to be broken up into smaller chunks, or reduced and water-downed, in order to be successfully administered in the 8 semesters (4 years). Please provide your input to this question as I am once again stumped. My gut feel is why the hell not. And it is the purpose of the pilot program to come up with a framework where it is worthwhile.

Addendum

For more information on the intellectual capital upon which TFIMIT proposal is based, please see the news stories cited below. Do note that this proposal is singularly unique in that it proposes creating a degree granting university program based on the free intellectual capital of MIT opencourseware, as well as utilizing MIT's rich philosophy of education - the secret sauce to the recipe so to speak. It is this "secret sauce" that is the cornerstone of TFIMIT and which distinguishes it from other deployment proposals of opencourseware. This "secret sauce" is not offered or elaborated upon explicitly by MIT in its opencourseware gift to the world and is indeed its 'family jewels'. Only an Alum who has gone through the grind can appreciate what it is - "the hell" for which the lucky parents still willingly dole out $50,000 per year - and this is what I wish to bring to bear on Pakistan's higher education transformation for science and engineering, for a mere song.

The kind of skilled, inventive, and imaginative technical peoples we must endeavor to create in the 21st century to advance as a self-reliant and progressive peoples - rather than just stay minions and fodder for foreign corporations as cheap off-shored technical labor force in these times of globalization - we cannot produce by investing in antiquated instruction methods and outdated education philosophies of the previous centuries in the name of progress as we seem to be doing today. We must strive to intelligently understand and nurturingly adopt - rather than blindly transplant what is foreign to the native soil - what the West itself sees as the new challenges that they must overcome by introducing newer teaching methods and dynamic education focus that endeavor to create a more resilient and adaptable peoples. The Dean of Engineering of Purdue University, and President of IEEE, Prof. Leah Jameison, in her February 1, 2007 Keynote speech
Engineering education prepares for 2020, also emphatically noted some of these challenges facing the West today: 'In many ways, the world is changing, ... Are our graduates going to have the skills they need over the next 40 years? ... The "half life" of an engineer's knowledge — the point at which half of what the engineer knows is obsolete — may now be as little as five years'!

There is little sense today in building a dozen new antiquated universities in our nation. The decision makers least understand the modern education challenges, and nor do they agree to empower those who do. Let's change that by capturing the initiative with this tremendous opportunity. Please review the following for additional information:
MIT to put its entire curriculum online free of charge, EE Times, March 13, 2007
MIT's OpenCourseWare Project Nears Completion, The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 12, 2007
MIT to offer courses free on Internet, The Gulf Times, March 12, 2007
Polytechnic (Namibia) Teams Up with American Institute, New Era, March 09, 2007
How open source changes education: 10 success stories, InfoWorld, March 04, 2007

OCW Consortium -- Site of the Week, eSchool News Online, February 21, 2007
An MIT education - no charge, NPR Marketplace, February 21, 2007
The great giveaway - Education Guardian, Jan 17, 2007
How to go to M.I.T. for free, Christian Science Monitor, January 04, 2007
Yale on $0 a Day, Wall Street Journal
Read more current news on OpenCourseware Consortium News page
http://ocw.mit.edu
http://ocwconsortium.org
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/HowTo/index.htm













14.0 Letter to the Editor, The Chronicle of Higher Education

Letter to the Editor
The Chronicle of Higher Education
http://chronicle.com/

March 12, 2007

In Reference To: “
In Pakistan, the Problems That Money Can Bring”, by S. Neelakantan, Chronicle, Jan 19, 2007

In reference to your above cited article on Pakistan's Higher Education Commission's role in transforming the higher education in our country, and the follow up letters of commendation for HEC written by HEC friends and employees, I would like to have my own small plebeian voice also heard in your august magazine. I am a consumer of education, a parent, and an ordinary Pakistani citizen.

From where I see it, your reporter was rather mild in her criticism of HEC. Lot's of facts and figures have been put out by HEC, and they are all over HEC's website. But the reality on the ground is that I still don't have a single good multidisciplinary university where I might send my own kids. And I wanted to have them study in Pakistan, but where? In the single one of a kind specialized engineering universities that the West itself has rejected as a model of education as it steps into the challenges of the 21st century (please see this EE Times article “
Engineering education prepares for 2020” - Keynote address Leah Jameison, IEEE 2007 President, Feb 1, 2007)? But we are building 6 or 9 more of these silly things for billions of rupees! Instead of overhauling our existing infrastructure, perhaps employing the enormous amount of intellectual capital freely available in opencourseware - universities giving away their crown jewels for free, an unheard of phenomenon in the past (please see “The great giveaway” - Education Guardian, Jan 17, 2007) - we are instead borrowing funds from the World Bank to finance our development or siphoning it off from our other national projects in our debt financed economy! The only thing the World Bank constructively does is enable an inextricable lenders trap upon the developing nations through its WB-IMF structural adjustment lending schemes. That this view is shared by many informed critics of the World Bank, including substantiated by disclosures by former World Bank consultants in exposes such as “A Game As Old As Empire” and “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” (both available from Amazon.com), discredits the World Bank as an "unbiased" source of evaluation of its own funded programs, even as mildly critical as they are of HEC.

So who must evaluate? Who is an objective source of evaluation? How about the local consumers themselves? Why do we need foreigners to tell us how we are doing? Are we so far gone that we cannot even evaluate our own programs? Does the United States go to ask Europe how they are doing for their own domestic policies? Should any self-respecting nation (solely) rely upon the World Bank and other outsiders to tell them how they are doing?

Therefore, recognizing this fact of self-reliance of a developing nation being an axiomatic imperative of its free peoples in order to stay a free peoples, as a parent-consumer, I have provided a very detailed first hand evaluation to HEC, which they unfortunately felt compelled to respond with the same sort of meaningless World Bank kudos that one of their writers noted in her letter to the editor of the Chronicle. My detailed evaluation and feedback, written as an ordinary plebeian Pakistani consumer of education, who is compelled to educate his own kids abroad because he can't find a decent school system in Pakistan, who seeks for others' kids what he seeks for his own kids, and who consulted for two weeks in the summer of 2005 for HEC and knows its Chairman and Executive Director well and is their friend and well wisher rather than an antagonist, can be provided to the Chronicle if they wish to print it without modification and with its full context intact. It might make an interesting feature length case study or cover story, all 19 pages of it, for how not to transform an education system in developing nations with World Bank funding, how not to operate its execution in military style dictatorial and entirely unaccountable manner, and how indeed to create the essential infrastructures necessary to genuinely seed such transformations in a third world developing nation.

I applaud the objectivity of your Chronicle reporter. She attempted to show both sides of the story, and as I informed her by sending her an unsolicited compliment via email, she in fact did not go far enough to uncover all the dirt that is being shoved under the rug. I find it shameful that an august educator from HEC, in her blind zealotry to defend HEC, did them a discourtesy when she questioned the reporter's integrity based on the latter's ethnic origin just because your reporter tried to expose some of the candid views of local Pakistanis themselves without any syntactic sugaring. Indeed, it is interesting how the reporter has allowed both sides to speak in their own voices, rather than provide any penetrating analysis of the matter.

This missing component was the main purpose of my detailed feedback letter to HEC, and it was indeed prompted by the article written by your reporter and news reports appearing in the local Pakistani newspapers criticizing HEC's performance and demanding a public accountability (please see oped “
HEC's Unconvincing Mega Projects”, Dawn, Feb 10, 2007, and the more recent “Bring HEC back to earth”, Daily Times, March 03, 2007). Please let me know if your distinguished half a million educators and learned readers would be interested in seeing the world from an ordinary plebeian, but still an informed consumerist point of view. After all, we are indeed the consumers of HEC products. In a rational world, our (i.e., the peoples) humble assessments must prevail over the World Bank's, shouldn't it?


An IratePakistani
(Zahir Ebrahim)













Appendix-A : Snapshot of Plagiarized Book Chapters, November 2011 Emails
Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch0 forgery.JPG












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch0 xi forgery.JPG












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch0 xviii forgery.JPG












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch0 xx forgery.JPG












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch1 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch2 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch3 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch4 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch5 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch6 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch7 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch8 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch9 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch10 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch11 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch12 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch13 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch14 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch16 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cacheof Scientific Writings Durrani ch17 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )












Cache of Google book review Durrani Fairytales.JPG












Cacheof Fairy Tales Durrani ch0 forgery.JPG












Cacheof Fairy Tales Durrani ch1 forgery.JPG
( Compare to archive-PDF )















Amazon.com Customer Reviews Written by Aaron J Clauset (Albuquerque, NM United States)
( also see exposures at link1, link2, link3, link4, link5, link6, link7, link8, link9, link10 )











Caption The HEC Distinguished National Professor (DNP), Dr. Asghar Qadir's Letter to Zahir Ebrahim, Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:10 AM.
Caption The HEC Distinguished National Professor (DNP), Dr. Asghar Qadir's Letter to Zahir Ebrahim, Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:10 AM. http://tinyurl.com/AQ-SN-HEC-nov262011-jpg.
Witness the learned DNP Gloat in self-adulation as if he actually contributed anything, and even more pathetic, the calculated minimization of the broad scope of the systemic problem that I had most carefully detailed. They all sup from the same national gravy-train, why would they ever want to kill the golden goose that feeds them; so it is thinly wrapped in the pathetic appeal to patriotism, don't rock the boat in the national interest: Bringing them down harms us.”!
Yes indeed, bringing them down harms them --- but not the suffering public saddled with an inept and corrupt system kept in being by shameless mercenaries. Their day of accountability is sooner than they might think. Perhaps NAB should get this report!
Dear Zahir, Here is the response of Dr. Sohail Naqvi to my e-mails. The HEC did take action and Ijaz Durrani is no longer involved with any Public Sector University. One needs to give the HEC a chance to fulfill its duties rather than right away assuming that they will do nothing. Also, one needs to avoid casting aspersions on people who have not done anything wrong but have only not been pro-active. Pakistan needs to build its institutions, not destroy them. Both the HEC and the Distinguished National Professors are Pakistani institutions. The former in the more generally recognized meaning of the word and the latter in the alternate meaning: they are role models. Bringing them down harms us. When necessary, we can push them to do what is right. I would strongly urge a more positive attitude from you. All that was needed was to bring the matter to my notice and leave it to my persistence to get the official action, or statement, out of the relevant bodies. Best regards, Asghar"





Caption The HEC gravy-train feeding its Distinguished National Professors - Don't rock the boat!
Caption The HEC gravy-train feeding its Distinguished National Professors - Don't rock the boat! See List of HEC DNP
“The Higher Education Commission has launched an 'HEC Distinguished National Professors' program to use the services of outstanding senior Professors and Scientists in Universities and R&D Organizations and utilize their services in national organizations.

Selection Committee for the selection of HEC Distinguished National Professors has selected the following four scholars for the yea 2010-2011 as HEC Distinguished National Professors: ”

1. Dr. Atta-ur-Rehman (Chemisty)
2. Dr. Shahida Husnain (Botany)
3. Dr. Mujammad Sharif (Mathematics)
4. D. G. Murtaza (Physics)”











Appendix-B : Ulta chore kotwal ko dante (Urdu proverb: thief scolding the detective) 2014-2016
The plagiarist, too stupid to even steal with competence, eventually retracted his two plagiarized books with the statement to the publisher MELROSE BOOKS:
This document accentuates the fact that the publishing /marketing and other auxiliary and ancillary facets attendant to a Publishing Agreement stand annulled de jure with effect from this day i.e. Friday October 24, 2014. I, Dr. I.R. Durrani as the copyrighted author published two books with the estimable M/s Melrose Books Publishing House based in Ely, Cambridgeshire, UK. The book titled Scientific Writings bearing ISBN: 978-1-906561-08-6 was published in 2009 and the second titled œ Fairy Tales , The end the Science and the Resurrection bearing ISBN : 978 1 907040 31 3 was published in 2010. For some unfortunate reasons , I am constrained to take the following measures which inter alia exhaustively and comprehensively circumscribe the Termination of the Agreement between the two parties mentioned above.
1- I, Dr I.R. Durrani hereby retract the two books detailed above. The text of the two books is rendered obfuscated. The books are removed and deleted.
2- I, Dr I. R. Durrani , relinquish authorship of the books at issue. I reiterate that I cede, forsake, abnegate and renounce authorship of the said books. I am no longer the copyright holder. I forfeit my intellectual property right forthwith” ;
and retracted all his plagiarized papers published with the paper-mill BPAS with the statement:
FAO: Dr. A.K Sharma ; Editor, BPAS, India. The articles published under my name in the Journal Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences (BPAS)June 2011, February , 2012 and July 2012 are being retracted herewith” ;
without admitting guilt, without apologies, without remorse or sense of shame, without any apparent penalties, legal entitlements for fraud and deceit, legal entitlements for benefiting from that fraud and deceit in furthering one's profession, or any other legal, academic or social consequence that has come to public light.
Subsequently, the plagiarist also retracted two additional books with the statement:
For some unfortunate reasons and under severe duress , I have deleted/removed two books published by a vanity Press VDM Verlag Dr Muller titled " Taming of the Infinite" 363936161X (ISBN13: 9783639361612) and "Billiards - An introduction to Dynamical Systems with Impact: Elements of impact theory, genetic method, integrable and non integrable billiards, KAM theory " ISBN-13: 978-3639313017 ISBN-10: 3639313011 The Publishing Agreement stands revoked and the books are deleted/removed with effect from 31st December , 2015.”
Four books retracted by Pakistan's masterful forger who had perfected the art of accurate counterfeit reproduction with cut-and-paste plagiarism! This is indeed masterpiece of plagiarism, four technical books, and who knows how many others! And none of the super Distinguished National Professors of Pakistan, and HEC's hoity-toity head honchos with their plagiarism policies, ever caught any of it until I came along. Just reading back on our conversations with HEC and Pakistan's academe, it is amazing to me that two ordinary people, Ehsan and I, took on the entire academic establishment of Pakistan, responded to their every load of crap with logical responses that they could not counter, and painstakingly unmasked Peter washing Paul as the systemic festering boil in the undies of Pakistan's holy lady of academe. Iss hammam mein sub nangain hain (all are naked in this bath house)!
And the result? Instead of hanging his head silently in shame and disappearing from public view, the behavior of the plagiarist some two years after being caught red handed in September 2011, became grotesquely belligerent. Soon after the sad demise of the most prominent scientist / theoretical physicist of Pakistan in September 2013 who knew the plagiarizing physicist well, and nothing was hidden from him concerning this matter as he was the first one I had approached with my discovery as evidenced in my seminal letter to the editor of October 07, 2011, the plagiarist started publicly threatening anyone who cited my report, including me, with lawsuits, abuse, and what not. The plagiarist heaped all this abuse to the stoned silence of Pakistan's holy HEC and academe. The plagiarist also attempted to whitewash his fraud by trying to remove all traces of documentation of his plagiarism from the public eye. Again to the silence of HEC. Perhaps the incompetent fraudster had been taken in by this brilliant dialog between two crooks in a Bollywood film titled DON 2: “if there is no evidence there is no crime.”
After the excerpt below documenting his abuse, are snapshots of the plagiarist's retractions at Amazon and elsewhere. Observe that the remorseless reason given for the multiple retractions by the culprit is a case study unto itself in public relations; how to reinstate virginity when caught red handed with the pants down --- never admit guilt, hope that it all blows away, attack those who caught you, and if none of that works, get rid of the evidence of the crime and pretend that the fraud never happened --- “if there is no evidence there is no crime.”!
The following is an excerpt from reference [10]: Open Letter to the Academe of Pakistan on the Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan Revisited January 14, 2014.
Begin Excerpt
This Open Letter pertains to the shocking case of the Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan I had uncovered in September-October 2011.
That shocking discovery was also submitted to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Islamabad, twice. for their suo moto notice as a full report after it was hushed up and whitewashed by HEC (it was only wishful thinking of course that the court would take notice on something as “inconsequential” as mere academic plagiarism when the entire Pakistani nation and all its officialdom are plagued with cancers far more immediate).
However, to my surprise, no academic in Pakistan stood up to publicly condemn this travesty.
No newspaper headlined nor inner-paged that discovery.
No one at HEC stood up to take the blame, never mind resigned as an act of conscience at the failure of their own policies that despite the protestations, in fact rewards the villainous pursuit of paper-mills and mediocrity. A full deconstruction of it is in the report submitted to the Supreme Court (see [2] above)
And the most bold chutzpah of it all, the plagiarist, the so called physicist of Pakistan, has written the following brazen tirade, reproduced below.
The one thing I am no longer surprised at in this masterpiece wholesale theft of intellectual property in academic plagiarism is the attitude of the lofty and learned academics of Pakistan, the various Distinguished National Professors, the tenured professors, and the wanna be tenured and DNPs, all sucking off of the gravy-train of HEC, and remaining silent to this travesty.
With the notable exception of physicist Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, who is evidently no friend of mine after I had him pegged as the Jewish ventriloquist voice of Daniel Pipes (see The Niggers of Pakistan ), and one or two other bold academic names who have publicly written in general against HEC's policies in the Dawn and other Pakistani dailies but shrewdly stayed publicly silent on this most grotesque and shocking discovery of plagiarism that was directly aided and abetted by the institutional policies crafted by HEC and its head honchos, no one evidently cared enough to speak up. I do applaud the few names noted in the full plagiarism report who did speak up privately in email. But not sufficiently loud enough, nor boldly enough, nor accurately enough, to make any difference.
Indeed, of the 110 plus Vice Chancellors and senior academics of Pakistani public and private sector universities who were apprised of this case of plagiarism by yours truly (see the names of these public individuals occupying the highest pulpits of Pakistan's academia in the plagiarism distribution-list), not one spoke up publicly as far as this scribe is aware.
To the credit of my confrere Ehsan Legari, a non-academic private citizen of Pakistan, who is maligned in the tirade by the plagiarist, was the only person evidently man enough in all of Pakistan to speak up on this egregious theft of intellectual property while all and sundry paid professors of Pakistan just watched silently. Am I permitted an explicative here?
I am writing this Open Letter to ask the good Pakistani Academic: Do any of you Pakistani academics care that this plagiarist is now boldly living up to the adage after the recent passing away of his friend, protector, and colleague, Professor Riazuddin in Pakistan: “ulta chore kotwal ko dante?” (translation: thief scolding the judge after being caught red-handed with his hand in the cookie-jar!)
The chutzpatic tirade of the plagiarist is reproduced below. Here is an amusing statement by this sorry fellow: "Finally Mr Ehsan Leghari is Mr Zahir Ebrahim's protege , who has been maligning the author and the HEC, for reasons purely mundane as he could not get a slot as an HEC Visiting Faculty Member and was/is condemned to live as a carpetbagger across the pond. An anarchist to boot Mr ZE should not let his Gehenna spillover on others." Google Durrani AND Plagiarism.
This evidently newly “traumatized Jew” so piously protesting that “Palestinians are throwing stones at his right to occupy their homeland”, is also going around to webmasters and to Google Groups, trying to remove all public references to his being caught red-handed in his villainy by making it sound like those who caught him red handed are the ones at fault: “The POST submitted by Mr ZAHIR is grotesque and carries all the marks of a distorted mind---it violates DMCA with impunity, it criminalizes the WIPO laws, it imputes criminally and then its cuts athwart the strict guidelines laid down by the estimable google groups forum. There is absolutely no space on this Forum neither for the UR L nor its malicious and fallacious comments. I entreat you the webmaster, to clear the forum of this trash ASAP. If Drones were not enough the US let loose a daisy cutter in the ungainly form of ZAHIR EBRAHIM with his brand of profane and distorted.logic. I am sure you will acquiesce to my request and rip off the URL and the content and make this FORUM a respectable place for exchange of intellect rather than wallow in morbidity of some alien carpetbagger!!”.
The plagiarist carries on his chutzpah in evidently his 2014 New Year's resolution crusade to get rid of all public references to his being caught with his pants down, on Jan 02, 2014 in Google forum presspakistan: “I would like to one last time under pin the fact that posts presented by PressPakistan should conform to the guidelines laid down A case in counter point is ZAHIR EBRAHIM'S OBNOXIOUS POSTING. How it got through the filtering process beats me. It (the post) is full of venom, is totally treacherous and vindictive and cuts athwart all boundaries of civilized human behaviour. It breaks into smithereens the WIPO act, it violates the DMCA which is a crime; ZAHIR commits the crime of imputation . In short the POST is sanguinary and may lead to violence, It would be better to rip it down and/or hang it around ZAHIR's bloated neck. Carpet baggers are traitors in all cases they should be forbidden and be ostracised from interacting with their ex colleagues. IF Z had a grouse with the HEC he should have had the moral courage to come out all guns blazing rather than act as a nondescript mouse eating into the vitals of innocent people. Dr IR Durrani”. The posting referred to in that tirade was an early version of the Letter to Editor [1].
Evidently the plagiarist has succeeded because the Letter to Editor has disappeared from presspakistan. The plagiarist however could not persuade the famous Nizami brothers' new online Pakistani newspaper, Pakistan Today, to remove their column on this plagiarism story written by columnist Umair Javed, titled: The academic epidemic, March 18, 2012: “Mr Umair Javed has committed a grave error of judgement .After the passage of 60%of his article a sentence commences with "five months ago --the next 2 sentences concern me and I must say that Mr Zahir Ebrahim has led Umair to the path of sheer travesty. That man Zahir committed criminal DMCA violation and criminal imputation. Had he ( ZE) been here in Pakistan I would have sued him to his last sinew. What UJ has done has violated the Policy and Tos of an estimable NP like PakistanToday. The webmaster or the author himself is requested to delete the three lines concerning me as they comprise of yellow journalism and border on criminality. Thanks. Dr Ijaz Durrani”; followed by the threat: “UNLESS UMAIR JAVED REDACTS HIS THREE OFFENDING LINES I WILL MOVE THE COURT OF LAW FOR WILFUL DEFAMATION!!” ; followed by some more fulminations: “I don't even know Umair javed and yet he has the temerity and audacity to defame me. What sort of journalism is that . Is he paid to perform this criminality? UJ is just a waste of space a piece of meat who should have been well left unborn! Than to turn out to be a journalistic scrooge!”. Read the column to see what these “three offending lines” are that the plagiarist wants to have cleansed from public memory. And evidently, as of this update, the plagiarist has again brazenly succeeded in having the reference to his name and to his crime of theft of intellectual property removed from even that article; see the original version on archive.org's WayBackMachine. The plagiarist evidently also tried to have Google expunge all references to his crime as shown in Google's Transparency Report. Incredible! (More here: link1, link2, link3, link4, link5, link6, link7, link8, link9, link10 )
It would not at all surprise me if this plagiarist once again makes an appearance gainfully employed in Pakistan's academia with renewed blessings of the new crop of leaders at HEC. The way the former HEC leadership hushed up the plagiarism scandal in 2011, and its noble beneficiaries living off of its gravy-train managed to keep the scandal out of the press while putting all the blame privately on the plagiarist, something is surely afoot to quietly reinstate the plagiarist as was done once before when the same plagiarist was dismissed for the same crime of intellectual property theft from the Punjab University only to reappear a few years later at the University of Gujrat where I caught him. Well, the shameless fact of the matter as of this update is that this same plagiarist indeed went on to hold other academic positions in Pakistan after he was let go at the University of Gujrat, including as Vice Chancellor of University of South Asia, Lahore! ( see link7) My goodness... Do I have a crystal ball? This plagiarist is really plugged into the web of power in Pakistan. What is the value of this glorified white elephant called HEC? The brainchild of the former dictator in-chief of Pakistan, army strongman and president General Pervez Musharaf, and run by his hand picked sycophants and obsequious yes-men at the top who set the precedent for those who have followed them under other political governments, this idiotic and inept institution which has destroyed the higher education system of Pakistan by its foolish and poorly implemented policies that have empirically only fostered academic corruption until this very day, cannot even enforce its own feigned protestations: “HEC has NEVER condoned any act of plagiarism anywhere. We are all shocked by this blatant act of plagiarism but are certainly not responsible for it. Dr. Durrani alone is responsible for what he has done and not his colleagues, University of Gujrat, HEC etc.” (see HEC Executive Director's email below). They don't seem to care.
Here is the shameless chutzpah of the plagiarizing physicist (snapshot taken Jan 06, 2014):
Begin Quote
User reviews
User Review - Flag as inappropriate
Mr Ehsan Leghari has involved himself in DMCA violation. The book is copyrighted in my name , and has an ISBNs 1906561087,9781906561086, attached to it yet the reviewer has the temerity to act in violation of the terms and conditions . The review may be deleted as being grossly inappropriate. Mr Ehsan Leghari has involved himself in criminal DMCA violation which is punishable under the law and has also torn to shreds the rules and regulations guide-lined by the estimable Search Engine Google. The review should be taken down as the chilling effect has also issued a cease and desist notice to that effect. Finally Mr Ehsan Leghari is Mr Zahir Ebrahim's protege , who has been maligning the author and the HEC, for reasons purely mundane as he could not get a slot as an HEC Visiting Faculty Member and was/is condemned to live as a carpetbagger across the pond. An anarchist to boot Mr ZE should not let his Gehenna spillover on others. BTW: The list Mr Ehsan Leghari has provided in his blatantly malicious review is a particularly germane example of criminal imputation.The cease and desist notice has been enforced on the abominable review of Mr Ehsan Leghari below. The review is fallacious constituting criminal DMCA violation and it is requested that it be ripped off and the reviewer banished from the Google Group for having wilfully and with malafide intent torn to shreds the R&R pertaining to a viable review. Thanks
Dr. IR Durrani
The Author

User Review - Flag as inappropriate
Excellent example of plagiarism taken to the EXTREME. About 99.95% of the whole book is straight-out copied from the work of others:
Chapter 1: An investigation of Time in Relativity
100% copied from SC Benzahra - 2002 paper of the same title
Chapter 2: Deviation of the Lorenz Force from Maxwell's Equations
100% copied from Valery P. Dmitriyev's 2002 paper titled "Can we derive the Lorentz force from Maxwell’s equations?"
Chapter 3: Gravitation and electromagnetism
100% copied from Valery P Dmitriyev's 2002 paper of the same title
Chapter 4: The Relativistic Mass Increase and Classical Physics
100% copied from MV Lokajicek's 2007 paper titled "The velocity increase of mass and the classical physics"
Chapter 5: On the Concept of Mass in Relativity
100% stolen from P M Brown's 2007 paper of the same title
Chapter 6: The Role of the Two Postulates of Special Relativity
100% copied from Alfred Ziegler's 2007 paper of the same title
Chapter 7: How to Create a Universe
100% copied from Gordon McCabe's 2008 paper of the same title
Chapter 8: The Simple Complex Numbers
100% copied from Jaroslaw Zale ´sny's 2008 paper of the same title
Chapter 9: Creativity and the New Structure of Science
100% copied from Andrei Kirilyuk's 2004 paper of the same title
Chapter 10: The Last Scientific Revolution
100% copied from Andrei P. KIRILYUK's 2007 paper of the same title
Chapter 11: A Brief History of Economics
100% copy of Bikas K. Chakrabarti's 2007 paper with the full title "History of Economics: An Outsider's Account"
Chapter 12: Angst and the Stock Market
100% copy of 2006 paper by Mogens Jensen, etc. with the title "Fear and its Implications for Stock markets"
Chapter 13: Terrorism: An Attempt At Its Explanation
100% copy of 2005 paper by A. S. Elgazzar, etc. titled "On complex adaptive systems and terrorism"
Chapter 14: The Effect of Nuclear Terrorism (Fizzles)
100% copy of Theodore E. Liolios's 2002 paper of the same title
Chapter 15: On Reducing the Power of Terrorism: A Hint from Physics
100% Copy of S. Galam and A. Mauger's 2003 paper On reducing Terrorism Power: A Hint from Physics by
Chapter 16: Towards a New Democracy: Consensus Through Quantum Parliament
99.99% copy of Diederik Aerts' 2005 paper of the same title (99.99% because things like "We compare..." have been replaced "This chapter compares...")
Chapter 17: Mona Lisa -- Ineffable Smile of Quantum Mechanics
100% copied from 2003 paper by Slobodan Prvanovic of the same title
Oh, and btw, the "Introduction" comes mostly from The World of Physics: The Aristotelian Cosmos and the Newtonian System : The Einstein Universe and the Bohr Atom : The Evolutionary Cosmos and the Li, Volume 1 by Jefferson Hane Weaver, Lloyd Motz, Dale Mcadoo from 1987
Ehsan Leghari
Lahore, Pakistan
End Quote
End Excerpt
For the sake of completeness, here is image of the original version of Mr. Umair Javed's March 18, 2012, article on Pakistan Today, The academic epidemic, and the plagiarist I. R. Durrani's tirade and threats, from copy at archive.org:
Caption Tirade and Threats by plagiarist I. R. Durrani, The academic epidemic by Umair Javed, Pakistan Today, 18mar2012
Caption Tirade and Threats by plagiarist I. R. Durrani, The academic epidemic by Umair Javed, Pakistan Today, 18 March 2012, Archive.org




Here is I. R. Durrani's Retraction of his two plagiarized books at Amazon.com book page. Retraction is dated October 24, 2014. Snapshot taken on Nov-12-2018. ( link to Archive.org's copy )
Caption Plagiarist I. R. Durrani's Retraction of his two plagiarized books at Amazon.com book page, dated October 24, 2014. Snapshot taken on Nov-12-2018.
Caption Plagiarist I. R. Durrani's Retraction of his two plagiarized books at Amazon.com book page, dated October 24, 2014. Snapshot taken on Nov-12-2018.
But not before the saintly plagiarist had acidly attacked everyone who stood up to his brazen theft:
Caption Plagiarist I. R. Durrani's tirades against Amazon reviewer Aaron Clauset at Amazon.com book page. Snapshot taken on Nov-12-2018
Caption Plagiarist I. R. Durrani's tirades against Amazon reviewer Aaron Clauset at Amazon.com book page. Snapshot taken on Nov-12-2018.
The plagiarist, a physicist by Phd in physics, vehemently asserted his virginity in his above captured tirade on the Amazon book page using the uncertainty principle: make so many malicious and false accusations against those who caught you that onlookers too lazy to examine the comparisons between original texts and stolen texts for themselves, become uncertain of your guilt, especially when the stolen texts are no longer so easily accessible as when you were caught, principally due to your almost successful efforts in removing all traces of the crime scene from the public's eye.
Begin Quote (emphasis added)
This book is about basic science and its application to more mundane problems. It is expressly recommended for Graduate and PG Students. It would be rather presumptuous to write a review of one's own book so I would rather warn the general reader of the reviewer Mr Aaron Clauset, who has for some very malicious reason written a mendacious review at the behest of an anarchist Mr Zahir Ebrahim and his side kick Ehsan Legahri. The review is not Aaron Clauset's; he has cut and pasted from the postings of Zahir, a gross academic misconduct and that man AC has the temerity to blame me. AC has indulged in
1- Gross DMCA infringement and WIPO violation both criminal offenses.
2- Rank Slander and defamation again culpable crimes punishable under law.
Mr Aaron Clauset is warned to either redact his inanity which he professes to be a review or face three years of imprisonment together with considerable fine, when he is sued for slander.
I apologize from the readers for my public defense , but it had to be done in the larger interest.
Thanks for your time Dear Readers!
Dr. IR Durrani
( copyrighted Author)”
End Quote
When the threats of lawsuit fell upon deaf ears, the plagiarist added the following disclaimer to his Amazon book page:
Begin Quote
The book has been retracted with effect from October 24, 2014. No review abusive or otherwise is valid after that date. As the product has been obfuscated wef that date. No product no review!!”
End Quote
Here is a sampling of the plagiarist's repeated abusive tirades and threats of violence in his brazen attempts to remove all references to documentation of his plagiarism from the internet:
Caption Plagiarist I. R. Durrani's tirade threatening violence to remove reference to his Plagiarism published on PressPakistan - Journalist Network, Jan022014
Caption Plagiarist I. R. Durrani's tirade threatening violence to remove reference to his Plagiarism published on PressPakistan - Journalist Network, Jan022014:
I would like to one last time under pin the fact that posts presented by PressPakistan should conform to the guidelines laid down A case in counter point is ZAHIR EBRAHIM'S OBNOXIOUS POSTING. How it got through the filtering process beats me. It (the post) is full of venom, is totally treacherous and vindictive and cuts athwart all boundaries of civilized human behaviour. It breaks into smithereens the WIPO act, it violates the DMCA which is a crime; ZAHIR commits the crime of imputation . In short the POST is sanguinary and may lead to violence, It would be better to rip it down and/or hang it around ZAHIR's bloated neck. Carpet baggers are traitors in all cases they should be forbidden and be ostracised from interacting with their ex colleagues. IF Z had a grouse with the HEC he should have had the moral courage to come out all guns blazing rather than act as a nondescript mouse eating into the vitals of innocent people. Dr IR Durrani”
Caption Plagiarist I. R. Durrani's abusive tirade to remove reference to his Plagiarism published on Presspakistan from doap.com, Jan092014
Caption Plagiarist I. R. Durrani's abusive tirade to remove reference to his Plagiarism published on Presspakistan from doap.com, Jan092014:
The POST submitted by Mr ZAHIR is grotesque and carries all the marks of a distorted mind---it violates DMCA with impunity, it criminalizes the WIPO laws, it imputes criminally and then its cuts athwart the strict guidelines laid down by the estimable google groups forum. There is absolutely no space on this Forum neither for the UR L nor its malicious and fallacious comments. I entreat you the webmaster, to clear the forum of this trash ASAP. If Drones were not enough the US let loose a daisy cutter in the ungainly form of ZAHIR EBRAHIM with his brand of profane and distorted.logic. I am sure you will acquiesce to my request and rip off the URL and the content and make this FORUM a respectable place for exchange of intellect rather than wallow in morbidity of some alien carpetbagger!!
Here is another pertinent sampling of the plagiarist's tirade making the same assertions of virginal nobility and heaping slander on the kotwal in rebuttal against another physicist from Pakistan who evidently checked the comparisons between the original papers and plagiarised papers, and reached the same logical conclusions of massive fraud. The physicist wrote of his discoveries in a detailed letter to the chairman of HEC, Mr. Javaid Laghari, titled: A letter to HEC on fake ‘journals’, from Q. Isa Daudpota, and published on Pakistani Viewpoint. This is what Dr. Daudpota stated about the discovery of this plagiarist in a subsection of his letter titled: Holmes and Watson discover Durrani.
Begin Quote (emphasis originally in the letter)
Holmes and Watson discover Durrani
Let me remind you of the recent outstanding detective work of Zahir Ehrahim and Ehsan Leghari:
My earlier interest and involvement in academic fraud was revived by their work.
In my note to Dr Ghulam Murtaza (supervisor and reviewer of the work of the offending Dr Ijaz Durrani) of Oct 11, which I had copied to you and other academics, I mentioned this work and the other past oversights of the HEC. My letter was a corrective to what had appeared in emails from the executive director of the HEC stating that:
Dr. Durrani alone is responsible for what he has done and not his colleagues, University of Gujrat, HEC etc… HEC has NEVER condoned any act of plagiarism anywhere.”
As part of the dialogue on the Durrani scandal it may be useful to re-read what Dr Abdullah Sadiq wrote:
Ijaz Durrani's recent case of plagiarism is the result of ignoring, if not condoning, by the academic community, academic institutions and HEC of a long list of such cases by other individuals and institutions, including his earlier case of plagiarism at Punjab University. Ignoring such malpractices and continuing to associate with such individuals and institutions has led to this shocking state of affairs.
Why was an individual who had earlier resigned from the University of the Punjab on plagiarism charges inducted into a senior faculty position and made a Director at GU and an HEC approved PhD supervisor? What about the MSc, M Phil and PhD thesis of GU that he may have supervised? Why did some very senior academicians of the country NOT ring the alarm bells when he presented them his plagiarized books with one of them, a Distinguished National Professor and Abdus Salam Professor even writing or endorsing its glowing review? Why was an obviously fake journal included in HEC’s approved list of journals?
To date one hears that Dr Durrani has resigned, but that’s surely not enough! The HEC, given your recent clearly stated stand, ought to tell us how it is tackling this issue on a larger scale and to continually update reports via your website – being candid is vital for any such effort to succeed! Past errors have to be recognized and stated publicly, followed by a speedy, efficient and long-term effort to greatly reduce, if not completely remove, the curse of academic fraud. Zahir Ehrahim and Ehsan Leghari (Sherlock Holmes and Watson in our context) may be consulted to assist in this.
End Quote
Daudpota's letter to Dr Javaid Laghari, Chairman, Higher Education Commission, Pakistan, 25 Nov 2010, Subject: Re: Fake Publications. Let’s clean up and encourage high quality scholarly publishing, URL:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181118212101/https://strings.lums.edu.pk/a.doc
Dr. Isa Daudpota asked the same obvious questions that indicate a systemic problem in Pakistan's academe and its administrator HEC, to the HEC Chairman, as I had asked. The plagiarist repeated his fulminations in his rebuttal article almost two and half years later, 18 September 2014 --- just a month before retracting both his plagiarized books in question and all his plagiarized papers from BPAS --- to Dr. Isa Daudpota's letter which was published on Viewpoint on 16 February 2012.
Begin Quote (emphasis added)
Written by Ijaz Durrani Thursday, 18 September 2014 17:31
I am constrained to write a rebuttal for posting in Viewpoint concerning the above article (url: http://www.viewpointonline.net/component/content/article?id=1540:a-letter-to-hec-on-fake-journals-) written by Dr Isa Daudpota. While I have nothing against the author, nor do I know him, and neither am I interested in most of the article 's contents, what chagrins me is why has he maligned and slandered me. In the section 'Holmes and Watson Discover Durrani' Mr Isa has involved himself in:
1- Gross DMCA infringement and WIPO violation
2- He has defamed me in no uncertain terms and slandered me most callously.
3- He has used derogatory language for no reason at all
All this he has done at the behest of his mentor a blogger and self-confessed anarchist by the name of Zahir Ebrahim whom he (Isa) has quoted time and again. I am approaching you with the request for posting my version in Viewpoint as soon as possible, to clear any cobwebs of doubts that may linger in the minds of the readers. To clinch the issue I attach copyright pages of the two books that are being maligned. This will make the readers realize that Dr Isa Daudpota has committed a blatant crime. Why an estimable magazine like Viewpoint, allows such inanities to get to a printing stage without filtration, is beyond me to decipher. The veracity or otherwise of the submission should be ascertained before it is published. I hope my submission will be posted with alacrity that you promised. I will most certainly approach the court for charges of slander and willful defamation against the author of the obnoxious article (the section dealing with me), unless the ‘estimable’ Dr Isa Daudpota posts a redaction and an unqualified apology. I have also very politely communicated with Dr Daudpota but he has refused to respond. Hence my submission for a possible posting.”
End Quote
Caption Plagiarist's I. R. Durrani's tirades and threats of lawsuit against Pakistani physicist Q. Isa Daudpota, for “All this he has done at the behest of his mentor a blogger and self-confessed anarchist by the name of Zahir Ebrahim whom he (Isa) has quoted time and again.”
Caption Plagiarist I. R. Durrani's tirades and threats of lawsuit against Pakistani physicist Q. Isa Daudpota, for his crime of: “All this he has done at the behest of his mentor a blogger and self-confessed anarchist by the name of Zahir Ebrahim whom he (Isa) has quoted time and again.”













Appendix-C : HEC in 2018 & Victimization Case of its Executive Director – What's going on? What lies behind the 2018 NAB corruption case brought against former VC of Punjab University?
Final Friday, November 30, 2018
The 2018 plagiarism case of scientist Prof. Dr. Arshad Ali,
Executive Director HEC, Principal at the NUST School of EECS
Dr. Arshad Ali's case is most bizarre, to say the least. His co-authors are internationally renowned faculty along with one or more of his undergraduate students. [12] [12a] [12b] [12c] [12d] [12e] If this calibre of scholars was going to steal, they'd be at least smart enough to use semantic plagiarism and steal something of consequence worth risking their career and their good name for! Not this idiocy. Such lunacy is usually seen in single authored papers as the case of the masterpiece of plagiarism by I. R. Durrani. Dr. Arshad Ali's case in question, as reported in the news [12c]:
'However, the commission has apparently failed to take any action against its own Executive Director. Dr Arshad’s CV (available online at [ Resume Apr 2013 ]) mentions his paper: “A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment,” published in July 2004. But the problem is when the same paper is tested with Turnitin, a software which has been officially provided by HEC to the universities, it appears that Dr Arshad’s work is mainly copied from already published paper titled “Survey and Taxonomy of Grid Resource Management Systems” [ link ] authored by Chaitanya Kandagatla University of Texas, Austin America in February 2004.'
It is item number 28 in Dr. Arshad Ali's CV Resume Apr 2013.pdf, which lists a total of 112 publications on its pages 9-17:
28. Ali, A; Anjum, A; Mehmood, A; McClatchey, R; Willers, I; Bunn, J; Newman, H; Thomas, M; Steenberg, C, “A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment” California USA, CHEP 05 July 2004
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0407/0407012.pdf
The authors appear to be alphabetically listed, so it is hard to tell just from the paper who is the first author. Here is pg1 of that paper which lists 9 authors. According to Arshad Ali [12e], it is mainly the work of his undergraduate student Atif Mehmood at NIIT, and Arshad Ali claims [12e] the paper was withdrawn in 2004 before it was presented, as presumably the cut and paste job was detected by the lead investigators. In his earlier resumes, CV_05-2010 and CV Feb 17, 2007, the same co-authored paper is listed at the same item number 28 on page 9; an old listing that's probably been there since the plagiarized paper was created in 2004. It at least indicates that Dr. Arshad Ali was likely not even aware of its contents being mostly cut-and-paste job by his student from the very beginning, or he'd be the most stupid professor in history to list an inconsequential survey paper by an undergraduate student knowingly on his otherwise most accomplished resume.
Caption Arshad Ali, Atif Mehmood plagiarism compare CHEP05July2004 arxiv 0407012.pdf Page1
( compare to KandagatlaReport.pdf )
Here is the last page of the paper which lists the source paper (Kandagatla item 3) that it is copied from:
Caption Arshad Ali, Atif Mehmood plagiarism compare CHEP05July2004 arxiv 0407012.pdf Page8
Here is the paper withdrawal notice on arXiv.org, but it is dated January 14, 2018: “(Submitted on 5 Jul 2004 (v1), last revised 14 Jan 2018 (this version, v2))”. Whether or not the plagiarized paper was withdrawn from CHEP 2004 before the conference as claimed by Arshad Ali [12e], the notice of withdrawing the paper from arXiv.org, its main repository site since July 2004, is only from 14 Jan 2018 (14 years later).
Caption “This article was submitted in error in 2004. The author list is incorrect and the body of the paper should be attributed to another paper. We request withdrawal of the paper forthwith to avoid inconsistency in our records. Submission history From: Richard McClatchey [v1] Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:48:43 UTC (169 KB), [v2] Sun, 14 Jan 2018 15:17:42 UTC (0 KB)”
Caption “This article was submitted in error in 2004. The author list is incorrect and the body of the paper should be attributed to another paper. We request withdrawal of the paper forthwith to avoid inconsistency in our records.
Submission history From: Richard McClatchey
[v1] Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:48:43 UTC (169 KB),
[v2] Sun, 14 Jan 2018 15:17:42 UTC (0 KB)” [ link ]
What is the plagiarizing student's complete name, as he is listed sometimes as Atif Mehmood and other times as Muhammad Atif? Is it the same student or two different people? Nope, same student. Paper number 45 on Arshad Ali's CV listed his full name: Muhammad Atif Mehmood.
Caption Full name of the student listed as co-author: Muhammad Atif Mehmood
Caption Full name of the student listed as co-author: Muhammad Atif Mehmood
This identification is necessary in order to follow this student all the way to his Phd at ANU to examine his subsequent papers and Phd thesis. He is listed at ANU as Muhammad Atif. As also on this NUST page that called him “defaulter of the Government of Pakistan” (see Arshad Ali Take-2: With More Time On My Hands below).
Here is Dr. Arshad Ali's home page at NUST before it was taken down:
Caption Prof. Dr. Arshad Ali, Distinguished Scientist Award Recipient, motto: “Success is being happy on a personal level and being useful on a social level”, NUST, Archive.org, 20170508
Caption Prof. Dr. Arshad Ali, Distinguished Scientist Award Recipient, motto: “Success is being happy on a personal level and being useful on a social level”, NUST, Archive.org, 20170508
Caption Prof. Dr. Arshad Ali, NUST Backgrounder, Archive.org 20170804
Caption Prof. Dr. Arshad Ali, NUST Backgrounder, Archive.org 20170804 Dr. Arshad Ali's Resume Apr 2013.pdf.
The news report states: “The allegation of plagiarism against Dr Ali was established after three consecutive meetings which reviewed his three sample papers out of 26 alleged papers.” [12a] What those other two sample papers were, is not mentioned in the news reports. It is possible that one of these is paper 39 on Dr. Arshad Ali's resume. It is the exact same paper presented at a second conference, the DCABES 2004 held in September in Wuhan, China. Many questions arise here. I address those pertinent to the student below and those pertinent to the paper in subsection: Arshad Ali Take-2: With More Time On My Hands.
It seems to me that Dr. Arshad Ali is at least guilty of having listed a plagiarized student paper on his resume that he claims was mainly the work of one of his own undergraduate students at NIIT (12e). Here are some questions that beg commonsensical answers just from that observations:
  1. Why did Arshad Ali's student plagiarize?
    (did the student intend to deceive, or, was he just victim of poor academic grooming by his mentors as an undergraduate student at the time; Dr. Muhammad Atif Mehmood, the student in question, who later went on to do a moderately decent hands-on Phd thesis in high performance clustered-computing from Australian National University (ANU). I have read Atif's Phd thesis, and many Phd thesis in that field in the United States are the same medium calibre, small experimental and focussed projects making incrementally tiny contributions to the field. The remarkable advancements in clustered computing that has brought us the ubiquitous cloud computing today, has relied not on superheroes and prima donnas as in, say, shared memory and distributed shared memory symmetric multiprocessing which was a far more intellectually and technologically sophisticated problem to solve, but principally on thousands of small applied contributions by the collaboration of academe and industry, just like this one. Clearly, the student did well later in life, at least towards the completion of his Phd thesis in 2011, which I downloaded and scan-read. It's well-written, but rather mundane and boring topic on the fringe side-lines of high performance computing. Such topics and associated grunt labors are easily off loaded to a third world country like Pakistan without high expectations from its crop of poorly prepared student body and professors who are mostly coveting the name branding anyway more than any love and passion for their field or they'd never accept such low calibre participation – as most of the collaborative work of Arshad Ali with Caltech and CERN is as far as I can tell – and for the same reason, given to its equally poorly prepared graduate students studying in Western universities who are principally seeking the glories attached to a Phd more than anything else. This is the run of the mill Phd in engineering from third and fourth tier universities in the West that Pakistanis are adept at acquiring for the benefit of putting “Dr.” before their name. And within that category, Atif's is moderately decent hands-on Phd thesis. But back in 2004 in the plagiarized paper in question, the student did cite the reference from which he had copied his paper. So, did he really intend to plagiarize? Minimally, in hindsight, one can at least ask the pertinent question on this lapse in ethical standard: why was there no grooming for ethical standards and scholarship standards in Dr. Arshad Ali's group in 2004, especially with their high profile international collaboration? The first thing one might teach an engineering and science student is how to write a technical paper, especially survey papers which is typically the first assignment given to students to develop both their domain knowledge and their writing skills. Or is that just part of any learning curve and undeserved prominence was thrust upon a poorly prepared undergraduate student before he was ready? Arshad Ali had joined NIIT in March 2000 as Director, and promoted to Director General of NIIT in March 2003 as per his resume. A rather long learning curve for a seasoned administrator and educator. Or, is Dr. Arshad Ali's real forte more in administration and internation collaboration, fund generation, macro organizational and educational issues, as he mentions them all on his resume, rather than direct undergraduate student supervision that he perhaps left to his grad students and junior faculty as is even the case in the best American universities? As an anecdotal personal data-point to illustrate that this is not unusual, in my first UROP (Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program) at MIT, which was in the Center for Space Research, I worked for a grad student in X-ray astronomy as data analyst, and got a tiny mention in Acknowledgment in her paper co-authored with other senior researchers and the head of the lab. I was even surprised by that generous note of “thanks” as I didn't think I really contributed anything as a newbie on a learning curve. The lab head didn't even know that I existed, except perhaps when signing the weekly paycheck. My grad student mentored me during the time I worked in her lab. Is that what happened with Arshad Ali and the young lad in his lab? The buck still stops at the head man nevertheless, if he put his name down on his student's paper and it turned out to be mostly plagiarized! One can certainly fault Dr. Arshad Ali for poor student supervision and grooming, and for greedily taking credit for all work done in his lab by putting his name down as co-author on every paper produced in the lab which is customary in academe, but even when he didn't read them, which is not. However, did Arshad Ali plagiarize anything himself?)
  2. Why didn't Dr. Arshad Ali know?
    (if he's still listing the withdrawn 2004 paper in his 2013 resume, how did the other co-author, Richard McClatchey, know that the paper was copied and immediately withdrew the paper in 2004 before it was presented, as per Arshad Ali [12e], and Arshad Ali did not know, and they did not bother to inform the head of NIIT and their chief collaborator in Pakistan? As noted above, the arXiv site was only notified of its withdrawal in Jan 2018. That seems rather unnatural and bizarre, that Richard McClatchey would withdraw the paper in 2004, not inform Arshad Ali or any of the Pakistani co-authors, not reprimand the student, and only leave a notification on the paper's depository site after the scandal broke in Pakistan, 14 years later! So, it appears to me, that either none of them knew that the paper is plagiarized until HEC software detected it, which is also bizarre since it is a survey paper for heaven's sake with name-branded 9 co-authors and none of them knew, or all of them knew and did not report it sooner. The latter is also bizarre because high standards of ethics in Western academe invoke heavy penalties for not disclosing, lying by omission, lying after the fact to hide the fact, called obstruction of justice. It is almost always career-ending in Western academe when caught, which is why only fools would steal intellectual property so stupidly as to cut-and-paste plagiarize an inconsequential survey paper, and none of these academics appear to be particularly foolish.)
  3. Why did Dr. Arshad Ali not review his own student's paper?
    (if he did review it, why didn't he catch the copy-job himself? The paper in question is really a survey paper which anyone competent in the field would or should have known about? Lack of student supervision and student interaction that Arshad Ali could not tell that his own undergraduate advisee on his team could not have come up with the taxonomy himself; obviously that wasn't expected either from an undergraduate student. What was expected is that the student compose the survey in his own words, for surveys, by definition, are not original but reporting on existing work. A minor oversight in supervision on a) how to write a student paper; and b) reviewing it first before sending it on?)
  4. What was the consequences for the student?
    (evidently none if Dr. Arshad Ali is still listing the withdrawn 2004 paper in his 2013 resume; more importantly, the student acknowledges in his Phd thesis that he had won a scholarship from NUST to do his Phd at Australian National University; the thesis he completed in 2010 (the version I read), with his last few years funding coming from the Australian university --- obviously, this was no longer the naïve undergraduate who had not known how to write a survey paper; his Phd thesis is well written. Was there a reprimand and/or gentle corrective guidance given to him in 2004 so as not to demotivate a bright lad, but to groom him academically? Who did this grooming, obviously not Dr. Arshad Ali, otherwise why would he continue to list that cut-and-paste job on his own resume were he aware of this specific failing of his student that appears to have been corrected by the time he arrived in Australia? Dr. Arshad Ali should explain this rather inconsequential matter and all these questions posed here for his own self-interest, and that of NUST, and his hundreds of students who surely looked up to him and are now confused at the adverse media attention; if he is innocent of doing plagiarism himself as he appears to be, he should have shown HEC the finger and told them to do what they want, that he was not resigning on this ground no matter what and despoiling his name in perpetuity for “saving” [12m] a corrupt organization. By his own admission, Arshad Ali caved in only under immense pressure [12e] which he is trying to rectify in court. He can really only rectify it by coming clean with precision on all questions raised herein. This case has been blown way out of proportion in 2018 by HEC while all the real crooks with fake degrees and fake papers and fake reviews of plagiarized books given to their relatives and friends are still supping off the national gravy-train! And of course, only in the national interest!)
  5. What were the consequences for his team?
    (also evidently none as Dr. Arshad Ali continues to list the same three of the international authors as his references on pg. 8 of his 2013 resume since 2007: Harvey B. Newman, Caltech; Dr Ian Willers, CERN; Dr Richard McClatchey, University of The West of England, Bristol. Which means, one may intelligently surmise, that the matter was not deemed serious enough by such distinguished faculty, nor evidently seriously taken by them.... until January 2018 when they retracted the paper from arXiv.org after it had became a scandal in Pakistan, all of which indicates that this is making mountain of a mole hill, and begs the question: who is doing it at HEC, and why? There may be other issues with this case not touched upon in the newsmedia, but addressed in depth in Arshad Ali Take-2: With More Time On My Hands, which may turn out to be consequential for all co-authors. Their story doesn't add up.)
In the scheme of things gone awry at HEC and Pakistan's higher and lower education system, these are rather banal, pertinent more to NUST than to HEC. To see if there is a discernible pattern of lack of ethics and academic integrity in his NUST team, Dr. Arshad Ali's other papers listed on his resume co-authored with his plagiarizing student Atif Mehmood, including the many citations to the plagiarized paper which is troublesome, and Atif's Phd thesis and papers in ANU, are examined below in Arshad Ali Take-2: With More Time On My Hands.
Prima facie, something else appears to be in play at HEC to force Dr. Arshad Ali to resign under pressure for listing an unpublished plagiarized student paper on his resume, that even cites the paper from which it is mostly copied in its own references. Strange that HEC initially did not act for a whole year [12] [12a] (does not take that long to examine plagiarism, it took me just a few minutes to read both papers to adjudicate), and then came down hard on its own ED with the force of hammer. HEC has never done that before as far as one can tell. There have been other cases of plagiarism among HEC top honchos as reported in the press, and nothing ever happened, just as nothing happened for a year in Arshad Ali's case [12f] [12g] [12h] [12i] [12j], until the new government took charge which appears to have emboldened the new HEC chairman to finally cut all ties to legacy under any pretext. [12m] [12n]
Dr. Arshad Ali's counter-charges against the fakery Mafia operating in collusion with HEC, is existential. [12d] [12e] But are they really what's primarily behind the drive to oust Dr. Arshad Ali, or something else entirely?
What lies behind the 2018 NAB corruption case brought against former VC of Punjab University?
It appears to me that given the heavy-handed way in which the specious case of corruption against Dr. Mujahid Kamran, former VC of Punjab University, has been publicly handcuffed by NAB and the respected professor unceremoniously jailed without a competent law court passing indictment, there is concerted effort afoot to discredit any remaining decent professionals in Pakistan's academe with extreme measures. Perhaps to set en example for others. Where does this happen any place else on earth? No, it happens only in Pakistan. What's going on?
The powers that be only want a decrepit wreck left of the nuclear armed nation before their coup de grâce of de-nuking Pakistan with the help of her own fifth columnists. Fourth and Fifth generation warfare which demoralizes the targeted nations from within, is what is being waged against Pakistan for a very long time. Only off late has its recognition even become part of the public discourse, with the Army Chief calling it by the misnomer “hybrid war”. There is nothing more hybrid about it just because it has a variety of modalities than there is about Third-gen warfare fought on land, sea and air (and space and cyberspace) with a variety of weapons and its own modalities. It's a new more diabolically unified type of whole warfare with its underlying political theories, of which fabricating all the “colored” revolutions, internal chaos, debt-burden leading to austerity measures and local discontent, economic collapse, loss of domestic tranquility, terrorism, heightened and perpetual climate of fear, civil war, are all equally an integral part of the whole. Its overarching purpose is to defeat nations and their sovereignty from within, with the threat of Third-gen warfare only as the backdrop that is cunningly brought in at the right times under pretext of solving intractable problems that they have themselves manufactured. Ultimately, the coup de grâce, either as the merciful savior on victor's terms, or dismemberment / re-partition under victor's justice in the interest of peace. Not much different in final outcome than during World War I and II which successively remade the world order.
We are headed for the next phase of that, towards another world order. The final outcome sought is Global Governance under a single international political and financial authority, also called one-world government. Nations and regionalized Unions may continue to fly their own flags, but under global laws and global policies which are enforced from the central place. To transition to this one-world order, this new type of warfare has been chosen, as Third-gen warfare alone could not take a fiercely nationalistic world clinging to national sovereignty, to that outcome.
This modus operandi already has its own developed taxonomy and its own final outcome that is being sought in small baby-steps. Read the war literature of which plenty is available publicly from the Pentagon, private foundations and their liberally funded think-tanks, and in the writings of political philosophers seeking that final outcome. My old articles, and former Pakistani journalist now living in exile, Abid Jan's articles, already spoke to this treacherous warfare more than a decade ago, right after 9-11. Then, we were only 'conspiracy theorists'. Now that Pakistan's Army Chief has only partially woken up to its reality and speaking to it publicly in subdued tones, without identifying the principal nemesis or the final outcome sought, the pseudo intellectuals of Pakistan are suddenly echoing the same as if they have chanced upon a brilliant discovery or knew it all along. Better late than never, but sometimes, it is too late to be late. As the cliché goes, in love and war, matters are time-critical.
Defending against this type of intellect-driven warfare needs intellectual sophistication and bold cunning, not weapon systems hardware and large standing armies. Even the USSR could not survive this diabolical type of imposed warfare, which was only in its preliminary stages during the Cold War. Today, it demands even more sophistication to thwart, which is evidently entirely lacking in the Pakistani national psyche – elites and plebes alike – regardless of how piously patriotic the establishment may pretend to be. Only sophistication in thought and sophistication in warfare can ease Pakistan out of its long running dilemma as a servile client state, not more begging bowls and more outstretched hands. From the war-mongers' point of view, getting rid of establishment minds capable of such sophistication among their nemeses is the first order of business. That recognition also appears to be lacking in Pakistan's intelligentsia and its establishment thinkers, that it is by design that mental midgets, only cunning in the modalities of domestic corruption, but otherwise compliant to every will of the massa regardless of its morality or long-term consequences to the nation, continually preside over her destiny. Does it take rocket science to discover that? Or only commonsense? Or perhaps having the courage of one's convictions?
None in the universe can tolerate a Muslim nation being nuclear armed (with real teeth as opposed to boogieman's show-teeth) at this stage of the world in transition to Global Governance, and here we have our newly elected super-patriotic Prime Minister along with the notable Army Chief going out with begging bowls in delegations once again to tyrannical and murderous rulers. Why are they seeking charity from the same proxy-service providers of powers that be who'd like to see Pakistan de-nuked? Are they too stupid, or too savvy? What is the quid pro quo being offered, and has already been committed to over the years as payment for our services in secret handshakes?
In my five open letters to Prime Minister Imran Khan, and one open letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mian Saqib Nisar, I had boldly advocated breaking the bonds of servitude to our masters in both form and substance. And here I see our rulers pursuing exactly the opposite course of action while making all the appropriate noises in public relations. Acts speak louder than words even in 'naya Pakistan'! I am certain the big brass know what they are doing when they shake all those dirty hands, for heavy lies the head that wears the crown. It is the public who does not know, and has to intelligently add two plus two to make four amidst the sea of deception and co-option that the rulers appear to be a part of. Should we all shut our eyes lest we glimpse the unspeakable truth, or, heaven forbid, dare to speak the unspeakable? Summun, bukmun, umyun, appears to be the better part of valor in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan!
Destroying Pakistan's higher and lower education system is very much a part of this Fourth and Fifth Gen warfare, to produce only fanatics, useful idiots, mental midgets and cunning mercenaries among its new generations, and get rid of any intellectual opposition. Make the nation so starved, and so without ma'arifat (wherewithal), that they'd be easy to control by house niggers cunningly installed by the massa employing its staple of workhorses, from dictatorships to crippled democracies.
I see what's happening to both Dr. Mujahid Kamran and Dr. Arshad Ali partially in the light of this overarching backdrop. Nothing in a “system” is ever in isolation. All its matters, big and small, are interconnected, but like the 90% of iceberg, may remain submerged beneath the surface. As Max Planck had observed, and the tracing of which had led to discovering the plagiarism case examined in this report:
Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each part by itself, since such a method often implies the loss of important properties of the system. We must keep our attention fixed on the whole and on the interconnection between the parts.” --- Max Planck
This “interconnection” is easily visible at least in the case of Dr. Mujahid Kamran, who happens to be the only institutional scholar in Pakistan who has even had the courage to commonsensically question and deconstruct the official narratives of empire, while all the rest of likkha-parrha jahils in the establishment of Pakistan and its barren intellectual space simply tow the official party-line whatever it may happen to be at any given time. The critics too retain the core axioms and presuppositions of the party-line in their mostly gibberish dissent. If the axioms are specious, the theorems and corollaries will be gibberish no matter how eruditely conceived! Only mental midgets and house niggers unable to reason from observations and first principles despite high-falutin credentials, are ever deceived by them. The rest are mercenaries!
I am, in fact, surprised that it took so long to nab Dr. Mujahid Kamran, and this tells me that his former political bosses had protected him. Why? I don't know, since they themselves towed the empire's party-line no matter how patently absurd, to stay in power. All politicians, all prominent public intellectuals in Pakistan with one exception, including our learned supreme court chief justices and retired military generals who routinely come on television to enlighten the masses, either publicly echo the same absurdities, or stay silent on them as if they see nothing. The lone prominent exception in Pakistan, of a respected and accomplished institutional intellectual straying away from the party-line, is Dr. Mujahid Kamran. The world sees 10% of visible iceberg and is easily burdened by it. I am burdened seeing all the rest of it and none pay any attention. But someone evidently paid attention to Dr. Mujahid Kamran. Not the kind he had intended, but surely expected. Socrates only partake of Hemlock, nothing else. That is the burden of seeing the rest of the iceberg, and being foolish enough, or driven enough, to shout it to warn the Titanic merry-makers before the fact. See Mujahid Kamran Take-2: With More Time On My Hands below.
Similarly, only in the new government is Dr. Arshad Ali suddenly strong-armed, while earlier the allegations of plagiarism did not seem to muster much weight even within HEC. Is that the quid pro quo for Imran Khan coming to power? To eliminate difficult intellectuals and decent professionals from Pakistan in his 'naya Pakistan'?



Arshad Ali Take-2: With More Time On My Hands
Is Dr. Arshad Ali an honest competent scientist being victimized for an agenda other than what's presented on the surface by HEC as plagiarism? Or, am I simply mistaken about Dr. Arshad Ali and all along, he was just a stupid comic book character who heisted petty change from the bank teller instead of the loot in the bank vaults, and the newly appointed superhero HEC Chairman, the Harvard Phd establishmentarian economist imported from the University of Utah, Dr. Tariq Banuri, is finally rescuing Pakistan from its academic scum top down? Brought in to lead HEC as one of the last acts of PML-N substitute Prime Minister, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, [12k] I wonder if this superhero's tenure is also going to turn into another Alice in Wonderland show as everything else in HEC and Pakistan are --- Wrapped in Absurdities!
Not if the new head of HEC reads this report with patience, and at least the due diligence with which it has been written, acquires ma'arifat into the systemic problem of higher education in Pakistan, that it is not individuals, but the system that needs fixing. High quality papers don't just happen by magic. High quality papers require high quality research, and high quality projects to conduct such research in, and high quality professional interest with high quality love of learning to conduct such research, and high quality leadership under whose direction and mentorship research is led, and high quality in work ethics and personal integrity to not take short-cuts for pecuniary gain and accolades, and high quality in system egalitarianism rather than system cronyism that make seeking careers in academe both satisfying and rewarding rather than bastion of mediocrity to hide under.
Can the imported Pakistani superhero from the United States fix all that without the gestalt shift outlined in this report? Do we need Western imported Herculean superheroes to clean the Augean stables, or one fearless and competent local intellectual at the top who does not care for his own self-interest but for his nation? Just one such Pakistani is sufficient. Does that person exist in Pakistan? Otherwise, a hundred thousand successful and prized academics imported from the Untied States and the West are useless! HEC already experienced the tyranny of good intentions of Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman that has made a wreck of Pakistan's higher education! When house niggers preside over the destiny of a nation, they will always have imported saviors and other house niggers come rescue the field niggers. The end result is that nothing will ever change except for window dressing at best. To understand mental colonization and this non politically correct taxonomy which is well established, but infrequently employed to study the long-festering problems Pakistan faces, see [19], [19a], [19b], [19c], [19d].
In full disclosure, I met Dr. Arshad Ali for the first time in the summer of 2005 when I tried out HEC for exactly two weeks before leaving. A few years later when I had written him from the United States inquiring about the possibility of teaching at NUST, Dr. Arshad Ali invited me to join the NIIT faculty of which he was the Director General at the time. Unfortunately, I could not followup on his invitation. I have since not spoken to him. Dr. Arshad Ali was also not on the original 2011 email distribution list of this plagiarism report either. He may not even remember me. That's full disclosure.
Let's begin with Dr. Arshad Ali's CV ( Dr Arshad Ali Resume Apr 2013.pdf ) and examine all papers co-authored with his plagiarizing student Muhammad Atif Mehmood. “Atif Mehmood” and “Muhammad Atif” is the same student. Paper 45 lists his full name. The CV lists following papers:
28. Ali, A; Anjum, A; Mehmood, A; McClatchey, R; Willers, I; Bunn, J; Newman, H; Thomas, M; Steenberg, C, “A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment” California USA, CHEP 05 July 2004 (already examined above)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0407/0407012.pdf
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a81b/0d7e50d20e15a9536d63a9c37d2f158dff71.pdf
39. Arshad Ali, Ashiq Anjum, Ian Willers, Richard McClatchey, Julian Bunn, Harvey Newman , Atif Mehmood, “A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment” International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications to Business, Engineering and Scienc(DCABES),Wuhan, 2004.

[ Note that title of paper 39 is identical with paper 28 already examined above; the same paper was evidently submitted to two conferences simultaneously that were to be held two months apart! Most people at least change the title and add some new results or something. Analysis below]
45. Arshad Ali, Ashiq Anjum , Ian Willers, Richard McClatchey, Julian Bunn , Harvey Newman ,Atif Mehmood, "Predicting Resource Requirements of a Job Submission in Grid Environment" Chep 2004
[ Computing in High Energy Physics, Interlaken, Switzerland, 2004, paper 273.]
http://anjum.web.cern.ch/anjum/papers/Chep_04__Paper__Runtime_Estimation-13-10.pdf
[ Note that paper 45 mentions the full name of Atif: as Muhammad Atif Mehmood ]
55. "Resource Management Services for the Grid Analysis Environment", Arshad Ali, Ashiq Anjum, Tahir Azim, Adeel Zafar, Atif Mehmood, Harvey Newman, Ian Willers, Richard McClatchey, Julian Bunn, Waqas-ur Rehman, 2005 International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP-2005) Oslo, Norway [ The 2005 International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP-2005) Oslo, Norway, Pages: 53-60. DOI=10.1109/ICPPW.2005.76 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICPPW.2005.76 ]
http://anjum.web.cern.ch/anjum/papers/Resource%20Management%20Services%20for%20a%20Grid%20Analysis%20Environment.pdf
89. Muzammil A. Khan, H. Farooq Ahmad, Arshad Ali, Faran Javed Chawla, M. Atif, Hiroki Suguri, and H. Ghulam Mujtaba “An Efficient Algorithm for Aligning DNA Sequences”, ISCA 21st International Conference on Computers and Their Applications (CATA-2006), March 23-25, 2006 Seattle, WA, USA. pages 407—412
I was curious about the Phds done under Dr. Arshad Ali's supervision and went through the thesis mentioned on the CV:
PhD Thesis Supervision: under Joint Supervision
  1. Mr. Ashiq Anjum (Completed): “Physics Analysis Applications for handheld device in Grid environment” 2007 University of The West of England UK
  2. Mr Waseem Hasan (Completed): “MammoGrid: A Service Oriented Architecture based Medical Grid Application” 2009 University of the West of England UK
  3. Mr Sarmad Malik (Completed): “Distributed computing for high performance physics analysis applications” 2010 NUST, Pakistan
  4. Muhammad Atif (In Progress): “Adaptive Resource Relocation in Virtualized Heterogeneous Clusters” Australian National University 2011
  5. Abdul Ghafoor (In progress): “CryptoNET: Generic Security Framework For Cloud Computing Environments” KTH Stockholm, Sweden 2012
I located Muhammad Atif Mehmood's Phd. thesis supervisor: Peter Strazdins, at the Australian National University (ANU), who lists the following publications with Muhammad Atif (“Mehmood” appears to have been dropped from the name).
  • Muhammad Atif, PhD, July 2011. Adaptive Resource Relocation in Virtualized Heterogeneous Clusters (Jabberwocky project). Now Manager, HPC Systems and Cloud Services, NCI.
    TR-CS-11-01 Muhammad Atif and Peter Strazdins. Adaptive Resource Remapping InVirtualized Environments - Framework. May 2011
Cloud and Cluster Computing, Virtualization
http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~peter/papers/
  1. Claudio Barberato, Peter E. Strazdins, Eric McCreath and Muhammad Atif. Efficient Evaluation of Scheduling Metrics Using Emulation: A Case Study in the Effect of Artefacts, Proceedings of the 47th International Conference on Parallel Processing Companion, article 40, 10 pages, Eugene USA, August 2018.
  2. Muhammad Atif and Peter Strazdins, Adaptive parallel application resource remapping through the live migration of virtual machines, Future Generation Computer Systems, 37 (2014), pp 148-161
  3. Peter E. Strazdins, Jie Cai, Muhammad Atif, and Joseph Antony, Scientific Application Performance on HPC, Private and Public Cloud Resources: A Case Study Using Climate, Cardiac Model Codes and the NPB Benchmark Suite, Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops, Shanghai, May 2012, pp 1271-1276
  4. Muhammad Atif and Peter Strazdins, Adaptive resource remapping through live migration of virtual machines , Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing (ICA3PP 2011), Melbourne, Oct 2011.
  5. Muhammad Atif and Peter Strazdins, Optimizing Live Migration of Virtual Machines in SMP Clusters for HPC Applications, Proceedings of the 6th IFIP International Conference on Network and Parallel Computing (NPC 2009), pp. 51-58, IEEE, Gold Coast, October 2009.
  6. Muhammad Atif and Peter Strazdins, An Evaluation of Multiple Communication Interfaces for Virtualized SMP Clusters, Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on System-level Virtualization for High Performance Computing, European Conference on Computer Systems, pp 9-16, Nuremberg, Apr 2009, ISBN:978-1-60558-465-2 [CR]
Analysis of Citations of the Plagiarized Taxonomy Paper
In the book “Evolving Developments in Grid and Cloud Computing: Advancing Research”, Edited by Emmanuel Udoh, 2012, link, paper 39 in Arshad Ali's resume above, is cited by one of the papers reproduced in the book as: “Paper presented at the 2004 [September] International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications to Business, Engineering and Science (DCABES 2004), Wuhan, China”:
  • Peer-to-Peer Desktop Grids Based on an Adaptive Decentralized Scheduling Mechanism,
    Citation: on pg 64, Reference Item #2: (DCABES 2004, September), Wuhan, China,
    and the same on pg 317 under Compilation of References
    link1 & link2
That citation piqued my interest. Just a little bit of typing into Google scholar brought the following list of citations which reference this plagiarized Taxonomy paper (which automatically beg the commonsense observations listed at the end): https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=4710977255072797003&as_sdt=5,31&sciodt=0,31&hl=en
  1. Grid Resource Negotiation: Survey and New Directions, Kwang Mong Sim, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) ( Volume: 40 , Issue: 3 , May 2010 ) Page(s): 245-257, Date of Publication: 26 January 2010
    Citation: 18. A. Ali, A. Anjum, A. Mehmood, R. McClatchey, I. Willers, J. Bunn, H. Newman, M. Thomas, C. Steenberg, "A taxonomy and survey of grid resource planning and reservation systems for grid enabled analysis environment", Proc. Int. Sym. Distrib. Comp. Appl. Bus. Eng. Sci., pp. 1-8, 2004.
    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5398959/references#references
  2. Concurrent Negotiation and Coordination for Grid Resource Coallocation, Kwang Mong Sim ; Benyun Shi, Published in: IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) ( Volume: 40 , Issue: 3 , June 2010 ) Page(s): 753 - 766, Date of Publication: 30 October 2009
    Citaton: 1. A. Ali, Α. Anjum, J. Bunn, Η. Newman, M. Thomas, C. Steenberg, I. Willers, R. McClatchey, A. Mehmood, "A taxonomy and survey of Grid resource planning and reservation systems for grid enabled analysis environment", Proc. Int. Symp. Distrib. Comput. Appl. Bus. Eng. Sci., pp. 1-8, 2004.
    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5299171/references#references
  3. Relaxed-criteria G-negotiation for Grid resource co-allocation, Kwang Mong Sim, Newsletter ACM SIGecom Exchanges Homepage archive Volume 6 Issue 2, January 2007 Pages 37-46 ACM New York, NY, USA
    Citation:1 {1} A. Ali et al. A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment. Proc. of the 2004 Int. Sym. on Distributed Comp. and Appl. to Business Eng. and Science, Wuhan, China, pp. 1-8.
    https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1228625
  4. An adaptive decentralized scheduling mechanism for peer-to-peer Desktop Grids,Abdulrahman A. Azab ; Hisham.A. Kholidy ,Published in: 2008 International Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems Date of Conference: 25-27 Nov. 2008 Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 03 February 2009
    Citation: 8. Arshad Ali, Ashiq Anjum, Atif Mehmood, Richard McClatchey, Ian Willers, Julian Bunn1, Harvey, "A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment", International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications to Business Engineering and Science, 5 Jul 2004.
    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4773029/references#references
  5. Supporting resource reservation and allocation for unaware applications in Grid systems, Antonella Di Stefano, Marco Fargetta, Giuseppe Pappalardo, Emiliano Tramontana, Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience Volume 18, Issue 8, First published: 17 November 2005,
    https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.980 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cpe.980
    Citation:
    1. A. Ali, A. Anjum, A. Mehmood, R. McClatchey, I. Willers, J. Bunn, H. Newman, M. Thomas, and C. Steenberg. A Taxonomy and Survey of Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications to Business Engineering and Science, 2004.
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/238b/9aca3e195570286fce2713600eb4d372676d.pdf
  6. Framework for Resource Management in A Grid Environment, Chana, Inderveer Bawa, Seema (Guide), 9-Jun-2009Appears in Collections: Doctoral Theses@CSED
    Citation: [30] Arshad Ali, Ashiq Anjum, Atif Mehmood, Richard McClatchey, Ian Willers, Julian Bunn, Harvey, “A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment”, http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0407/0407012.pdf
    pg 152-153
    http://tudr.thapar.edu:8080/jspui/handle/10266/773
  7. A Concurrent G-Negotiation Mechanism for Grid Resource Co-allocation,Benyun Shi ; Kwang Mong Sim ,Published in: IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE'07) Date of Conference: 24-26 Oct. 2007, Date Added to IEEE Xplore: 12 December 2007
    Citation: 5. A. Ali et al., "A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment", Proc. of the 2004 Int. Sym. on Distributed Compo and Appl. to Business Eng. and Sci., pp. 1-8, 2004.
    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4402144/references#references
  8. A new resource allocation model for grid networks based on bargaining in a competitive market, S Somayyeh Haghtalabi, Reza Javidan, Ali Harounabadi - Journal of Soft Computing and Applications …, 2014, Available online at www.ispacs.com/jsca Volume 2014, Year 2014 Article ID jsca-00036, 17 Pages doi:10.5899/2014/jsca-00036
    Citation: [17] A. Ali, A. Anjum, A. Mehmood, R. McClatchey, I. Willers, J. Bunn, H. Newman, M. Thomas, C. Steenberg, A taxonomy and survey of grid resource planning and reservation systems for grid enabled analysis environment, in Proc. Int. Sym. Distrib. Comp. Appl. Bus. Eng. Sci.,Wuhan, China, (2004) 1-8.
    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25707204.pdf
  9. [C] Zarządzanie zasobami gridowymi z użyciem parawirtualizacji J Kosiński - 2009 - Ph. D. dissertation, AGH-University
    Citation: pg 189, [4] Arshad Ali, Ashiq Anjum, Atif Mehmood, Richard McClatchey, Ian Willers, Julian J. Bunn, Harvey B. Newman, Michael Thomas, Conrad Steenberg. A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment. The Computing Research Repository (CoRR), 27(1), styczen 2004
    http://winntbg.bg.agh.edu.pl/rozprawy2/10081/full10081.pdf
  10. Peer-to-Peer Desktop Grids Based on an Adaptive Decentralized Scheduling Mechanism, H. Arafat Ali (Mansoura University, Egypt), A.I. Saleh (Mansoura University, Egypt), Amany M. Sarhan (Mansoura University, Egypt) and Abdulrahman A. Azab (Mansoura University, Egypt) Source Title: International Journal of Grid and High Performance Computing (IJGHPC) 2(1) Pages: 20 DOI: 10.4018/jghpc.2010092801
    Citation: 2 Ali, A., Anjum, A., Mehmood, A., Richard, M., Willers, I., & Julian, B. 2004, September. A taxonomy and survey of grid resource planning and reservation systems for grid enabled analysis environment. Paper presented at the 2004 International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications to Business, Engineering and Science DCABES 2004, Wuhan, China.
    https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2439397
  11. Solving Scheduling Problems in Grid Resource Management Using an Evolutionary Algorithm, Karl-Uwe StuckyWilfried JakobAlexander QuinteWolfgang Süß, OTM 2006: On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE pp 1252-1262, Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4276),
    Citation: 10. Ali, A., Anjum, A., Mehmood, A., McClatchey, R., Willers, I., Bunn, J., Newman, H., Thomas, M., Steenberg, C.: A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Enabled Analysis Environment. In: Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications to Business, Engineering and Science, DCABES 2004, Wuhan Hubei, P.R. China, September 13th-16th (2004)
    https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F11914952_14
  12. Aglets Mobile Agent based Grid Monitoring System, Choudhury, Arindam Chana, Inderveer (Guide), 6-Aug-2009, Appears in Collections: Masters Theses@CSED
    Citation: pg 65 [23] Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications to Business Engineering and Science...
    http://tudr.thapar.edu:8080/jspui/handle/10266/843
    www.usd499.org/pages/uploaded_files/Galena%20School%20District%20Visi.pdf
  13. Intelligence in Scheduling for Grid Computing, R. JOSHUA SAMUEL RAJ, In partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, KALASALINGAM UNIVERSITY JANUARY – 2014
    Citation: 14. Arshad Ali, Ashiq Anjum, Atif Mehmood, Richard McClatchey, Ian Willers, Julian Bunn, Harvey Newman, Michael Thomas and Conrad Steenberg(2004), ‘A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment’, Proceedings of International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications to Business Engineering and Science.
    http://ir.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10603/78526/1/final%20pdf.pdf
Commonsense Observations on These Citations to the Plagiarized Taxonomy Paper
How can the plagiarized Taxonomy paper be cited if it is withdrawn from the conference? If the plagiarised paper was published in the proceedings from which it's being cited for years to come, what's the consequence to all its other co-authors? Why has no scandal been heard of thus far? What's the explanation?
Additionally, if this DCABES 2004 submission was not withdrawn alongside the CHEP withdrawal [12e], then his team actually presented the plagiarised paper in Wuhan China conference knowing that it was plagiarised and already withdrawn from the California CHEP conference two months earlier! Or did they not know when they showed up at the conference?
Here is the presenter list from the DCABES 2004 PROCEEDINGS Hardcopy, Wuhan, China September 13-16, 2004 --- Arshad Ali and his two students are listed at number 3 in the first session on Grid Computing. Did these Pakistani scholars et. al. actually show up, or was it a no-show? How can one verifiably ascertain that 14 years later? Note the funny statement in its Preface, of all papers in this proceeding being peer-reviewed!
One understands that proceedings are published ahead of time. But DCABES 2004 in Wuhan, China, September 13th-16th, was more than two months after the CHEP 05 July 2004 in California, United States, when the plagiarized paper was supposedly withdrawn as per claim made by Arshad Ali in [12e]. Even a time-slot is arranged for the presentation at Wuhan 2004, on Monday, September 13, 2004, 10.40 am, as mentioned in the DCABES program. The statement in the Preface is enjoyable if only for its considerable laughter therapy value ---- some peer-review! So, Arshad Ali's claim in [12e] is prima facie false that the plagiarized paper was not peer-reviewed! It was peer reviewed the same way everything else is “peer reviewed” [17]. In the information age where celebrity appeal more than content has become the inevitable yardstick of scholarship, who can resist Caltech / CERN name-branding to pay close attention?
Cacheof-DCABES 2004 PROCEEDINGS-Sept-13to16-PresenterList-Arshad-Ali.jpg
Cacheof-DCABES 2004 PROCEEDINGS-Sept-13to16-Preface-peer-reviewed-and-carefully-chosen-Ah!.jpg
Caption “It is the second time for the DCABES international conference to be held in Wuhan China. We are gratified that this time nearly 400 papers submitted which cover a wide range of topics, such as Grid Computing, ... All papers contained in this Proceedings are peer-reviewed and carefully chosen by members of Scientific Committee and external reviewers. Papers accepted or rejected are based on majority opinions of the referee’s. All papers contained in this Proceedings give us a glimpse of what future technology and applications are being researched in the distributed parallel computing area in the world.” [ link1 ] [ link2 ]
It's a minor survey paper which, on the face of it, appears entirely to be an oversight in giving to an unsupervised undergraduate to write, and not reviewing it before submitting it to conferences. However, what happened afterward is more interesting. The co-authors submitted the same plagiarized paper to two independent conferences on two continents where it is accepted by each one! Last time I checked, conferences discouraged that; it is considered unethical, but perhaps China is more forgiving? Not if we believe their Preface. The Western academe certainly isn't forgiving at all. To knowingly present the plagiarized paper at the second conference after Arshad Ali claimed it was not presented at CHEP?
Nothing makes any sense here, unless they all agree to say that none of them knew until HEC magic software caught it fourteen years later. So Arshad Ali would have to make a U-turn on his statement in [12e] if that were the case. Would anyone believe that even if all 9 co-authors agreed to state under oath that the first anyone learnt of the paper being plagiarized is when the scandal broke in Pakistan in December 2017? I sure would not. It would spell their doom even so, as a mediocre crappy group who don't know their own field and thought for fourteen years that the stolen paper they listed to pad their resumes was their own work! See analysis in first part above where the issues pertaining to not knowing are fleshed out in detail.
Since this paper is being used to victimize Dr. Arshad Ali, some clarity with extended precision in his explanation is required. Such “small” things can even bring down governments in the West, for lying!
Meaning, if one committed a crime, then lied about it when caught, the latter deceit is often seen to be more consequential to one's existence in the West! It is called “obstruction of justice”. Nixon's star fell principally because of that the last time I checked. Had he come clean immediately, arguably he may have survived his impeachment drive with a humble “Mea culpa”!
Prima facie facts betray that the paper was published, and presented, and only withdrawn this year after the scandal broke in Pakistan. That is a major problem, as someone is lying. The plagiarized paper has been cited by at least 13 separate papers as reproduced above from Google scholar indexing of these citations, all citing the Wuhan conference; and available for download from multiple places since 2004. This PDF-link on its arXiv.org page still works as of this writing (I saved the PDF and ArXiv page in Archive.org with today's timestamp). And while there is withdrawal notice on the latter as snapshot above, if one accessed the PDF-link directly, there is no notification that the paper is withdrawn. Since other co-authors don't seem to care very much about the implication of their plagiarized paper being cited over the past 14 years, there is obviously some simple explanation why they don't seem to care.
Aren't they worried that for 14 years the pretense was publicly kept up that the stolen paper was theirs? Nor did Arshad Ali seem to care until now, since he continued to cite both submissions of the plagiarized paper on his own resume. Something obvious must be missing here. What is it? An ex post facto “Mea culpa” in the waiting, and only after being caught? What's its worth?
That's what you get, mud in your face, for putting your name down on something that you know nothing about, or haven't read, in the greed to increase publication count, impact factor. Why 9 co-authors on a survey paper? Most of Arshad Ali's papers listed on his resume are like that --- many co-authors. They help each other artificially inflate their publication count --- because that's what it takes to get ahead under HEC rules for promotion and tenure. But what about the foreign authors? Did they even know that their names are on this paper? Obviously Richard McClatchey did. Did these co-authors do any of the work that is reported in these Arshad Ali papers? Obviously not on the plagiarized paper! So what's the big idea of putting 9 co-authors on a survey paper? Isn't a simple mention in Acknowledgment sufficient?
Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan! Integrity challenged across the board.
And yet, for all Pakistanis, it is still dil dil Pakistan, jaan jaan Pakistan.
However, despite that noble song which still sings on its own in many a broken Pakistani heart, until that pernicious disease is recognized as the fundamental first-cause of Pakistan's cancerous problems across the board, in every sphere of our existence, nothing is ever gonna get fixed in Pakistan regardless how many superheroes are imported from the West, and how many U-turns our illustrious leader and his circus clowns teach the public to make. Should be obvious. It is self evident.
Reading Atif's Phd Thesis and other Papers
So I went through the abovementioned papers and his Phd thesis. Nothing notable, nor negative. It is decent medium-level hands-on engineering thesis. Most of these types of theses are like this. They individually make no significant contribution to the field per se, but a hundred of these move the field incrementally forward. Mostly such work is undertaken not for making significant contributions to the field, but for earning the license to a respectable meal ticket that a phd gets one. The Western academic system keeps these poorly prepared scholars hungry for meagre academic work, honest despite the natural inclination to get ahead at all cost. Which is perhaps why his papers and thesis appear to be well-written, no more than two or three or four co-authors, one of which is his Phd advisor, with clear citation of what is from where, and in my quick read, I did not see any hint of cut-and-paste work. The thesis is tediously laborious and rather mundane work, making measurements of physicists' templated workloads to see what ad hoc predictions might be usefully extractable from patterns of execution to aid in future scheduling of compute and I/O intensive jobs typical of High energy physics more efficiently. I am sure some think it is an important problem to spend one's productive educational years on. Under the direct supervision of his Australian academic mentors, it would not have been possible, nor profitable in any case, to be crooked. Being honest in the West pays, just as being dishonest in Pakistan pays. So one goes where one is paid --- when one's ethics are dependent on the survival strategy outcome. This is Atif's academic page where he proudly announced his Phd: “I am PhD in high performance computing (Computer Science). Currently working at ANU Supercomputer Facility (also known as NCI-NF)”. I am sure his mother is very proud of her son.
However, and unfortunately so, this is the NUST page on Muhammad Atif Mehmood, the student who screwed his Pakistani professor due to the Pakistani professor's own lack of academic foresight and lack of academic ethics in ensuring that his student is supervised and groomed if he is a member of his team; teaching him no ethics, no sense of responsibility, no sense of pride in having dignity and self-respect in one's word; all up for sale to opportunism & expediency – which, our noble prime minister of 100 days, Dr. Imran Khan, has now transformed into a noble virtue that is next to godliness by asserting with a straight face: “those who don't make U-turns are not leaders” – making Dr. Atif Mehmood Phd, what he is today: “defaulter of the Government of Pakistan”!
Caption “Mr Muhammad Atif was awarded scholarship during Oct 2006 for Australian National University (ANU), Australia under NUST Faculty Development Programme for PhD in “Robotics & Automation”. He had signed a bond to serve NUST for 05 years after completion of PhD but he did not join back NUST to fulfill his bond obligations. Till date, the scholar has neither joined back NUST nor refunded the amount spent on him, which makes him defaulter of the Government of Pakistan.”
Caption “Mr Muhammad Atif was awarded scholarship during Oct 2006 for Australian National University (ANU), Australia under NUST Faculty Development Programme for PhD in “Robotics & Automation”. He had signed a bond to serve NUST for 05 years after completion of PhD but he did not join back NUST to fulfill his bond obligations. Till date, the scholar has neither joined back NUST nor refunded the amount spent on him, which makes him defaulter of the Government of Pakistan.”
Many such national scholarship defaulters from Pakistan are at large throughout the world. Their numbers are probably at least in hundreds, if not thousands. So here is one more making a U-turn.
However, in the thesis of his other more visibly competent student, Ashiq Anjum, one sees the following note of gratitude and praise for his mentor Dr. Arshad Ali, which is more heartening. My own brief interaction with Dr. Arshad Ali many years ago also exposed his avuncular personality:
“Third, I highly acknowledge the marvelous support, encouragement and counseling from Prof. Arshad Ali who is also my third supervisor. He always supported me financially, morally, technically and even psychologically when I used to be in trouble, always helped like an elder brother and father. He introduced me to the deep sea of research and I can still remember the mid-night video conferences with Caltech to sort out the research related issues in the early days of my research in 2002.” --- Ashiq Anjum, Phd thesis, Data Intensive and Network Aware (DIANA) Grid Scheduling, July 2007, Acknowledgment, page 3
Reading that, I instinctively liked Anjum. His thesis is also a bit more interesting to read on a sleepless night. It is revealing of personal character however, that Muhammad Atif Mehmood made no mention of Dr. Arshad Ali in his thesis, even while Arshad Ali lists him as being under his supervision (in item 4). Not seeing even a mention of his own professor who must have been instrumental in getting him the scholarship from NUST to attend ANU, I took an instinctive dislike to Atif. He did thank NUST though, in these vacuous words: “My very special thanks to National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Pakistan for providing me a scholarship for the first three years of my candidature at the Australian National University.” NUST has him in the wanted list.
The basic issue once again comes back to loss of ethics and integrity among Pakistanis. We are taught from birth, it seems, to be opportunists. We use others to get ahead. We are honest only until we are caught (or when it pays being honest)! And surely, the best scam is to appear to be a noble opportunist in the National Interest. U-turns are now legit. I think I am back in Alice in Wonderland! At least, Alice can always wakeup from her silly nightmare.
If Dr. Arshad Ali has no real case of plagiarism against him other than his student Atif Mehmood's; if HEC's new superhero, Dr. Tariq Banuri, wants his own dream team in place and wishes to get rid of legacy to start afresh, surely there is more ethical way to terminate the contractual services of Dr. Arshad Ali. Otherwise, I see little difference in opportunism, except for scale: one is of the pirate, and the other is of the emperor. It may be pertinent to end this study of Dr. Arshad Ali's strange case with the foundational thought that anchors the latter day Western civilization to its Hellenistic and Roman imperial roots. It is even ubiquitously on display in Pakistan as the epitome of ethical values that are actually cherished in Pakistani society, as opposed to those that we so religiously pay lip-service to:
“When the King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate defiantly replied: 'the same as you do when you infest the whole world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber, and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.'” --- The City of God against the Pagans, Page 148



Mujahid Kamran Take-2: With More Time On My Hands
Is Dr. Mujahid Kamran an honest competent intellectual being victimized for an agenda other than what's presented on the surface by NAB as corruption in recruitment at Punjab University outside the established bureaucratic protocol for faculty recruitment?
In full disclosure, I knew Dr. Mujahid Kamran's late father and late uncle, brothers, cousins, family, and as a teenager and best friends with his equally brilliant younger brother, read every book his dear father ever published that I found at his home. These were the honest men of intellect of Pakistan of the yore who set high standards of personal and professional ethics for themselves. I harbor the belief that integrity and ethics are Mujahid Kamran's pedigree just as crookedness may be others. We watch our parents while growing up, and we become what they feed us!
While I also keenly comprehend co-option; how good people sell-out their conscience one day at a time, regardless of the color of their blood. It is equally inconceivable to me that one can be so high placed as the VC of the most distinguished public sector university of Pakistan in corruption and mediocrity entrenched Pakistan, and not have made any Faustian bargains with the political masters who put one there. Thus, I am keenly interested in figuring out Dr. Mujahid Kamran's case from the public records, as I believe that the reason he is in trouble with NAB has little to do with academe, and everything to do with him being a politically savvy intellectual who also has some ma'arifat of the powers that run the world, and is unafraid to publicly express it. That character trait of genuine gadfly with some ma'arifat has become rare and unusual in Pakistan; never tolerable in a slave-state being brought to its knees.
I must surmise therefore, and disclose my presumption going into this inquiry, that part of any quid pro quo with his political masters was the obvious protection he received. What he did for them in return to deserve that longevity as the free-wheeling VC of Punjab University, one will never really know from the public record alone. Much of such quid pro quo is in nods, winks, handshakes, and looking the other way; not in signatures that can be traced back to you. All signatured corruption is always done “legally” by intelligent crooks, through approved bodies and other people. This is rather obvious and an open secret. I even read about it as a teenager in Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. The most effective operators easily take it to the next logical level in a politically charged climate --- how to get things done without one's name being associated with it.
Therefore, whether honest excuse or crooked caveat, Mujahid Kamran's singular public defence against NAB's charges of recruiting hundreds of competent faculty outside the public sector university's official recruitment protocol, is something to the effect that can be expected from a man with smart brains: “Syndicate approved it”, and “there is not a single piece of paper with my signatures on it in this matter”. Neither is Dr. Mujahid Kamran a bhole-badshah (a new born baby), nor am I. If the administrator found a short-cut to hiring competent people, I look at that as cutting the red tape of bureaucracy --- being an effective administrator --- but then I come from a no nonsense competitive private sector background and don't have much patience for bureaucratic procedures that give safe harbor to age, seniority, and degree pile over competence.
The problem is that in the public sector, it is illegal to bypass bureaucratic procedures and established standards regardless --- only the top-brass can circumvent laws without consequence as these are mostly for the underlings to follow anyway in a country like ours! Thus, smart operators find creative ways to circumvent “legalities” when it gets in the way of their getting their job done. Both honest ones seeking noble ends, as well as crooked ones seeking ignoble ends. The cliché “ends and means both noble” only works in text books. Advanced societies have altered that platitude to “ends and means both legal” with which they abide by, even in making immoral wars under the sound of trumpets. In the case of Dr. Mujahid Kamran who has not been charged by NAB with benefiting either his relatives or himself through these recruitment short-cuts, arguably he was only being an effective no nonsense administrator who wanted to attract competent faculty to raise the academic standards at his university in a hurry.
Therefore, barring discovery of evidence to the contrary, as far as I am concerned, NAB charges appear to be an eyewash and a non-issue. The matter of persistently circumventing procedure in recruitment could easily have been addressed in a proper way within the university system itself or some other higher body. NAB's involvement and its humiliatingly handcuffing Dr. Mujahid Kamran, keeping him in oppressive jail conditions for interrogation without indictment, lumping him with the politicians who are in its custody for massive open corruption that the entire country sees, is very very peculiar indeed.
Thus, I look more closely at the big picture in “system context” in Mujahid Kamran's case. Why does Mujahid Kamran have to be discredited the moment the new government comes into power? Neither PPP nor PML-N ever bothered with him, and he was VC of PU during both their tenures, irrespective of the pertinent question of how he got to that top position in the first place without some quid pro quo. Why in Imran Khan's new government is he being brought up on this low order bit charge of out-of-band faculty recruitment, when much bigger fish having done far greater corruption in significantly higher order bits, still roam freely? What's really going on?
I should also disclose that while I knew his family well, I don't know Dr. Mujahid Kamran personally; I may have met him once only, if memory serves me, when I visited his cousin, Dr. Mansoor Sarwar, who is head of PUCIT (Punjab University College of Information Technology) and is my good friend and classmate from UET Lahore from the 1970s; correspond with him occasionally on current affairs (mostly send him my articles to which he never responds); and Dr. Mansoor Sarwar over a decade ago managed to invite me to come teach computer science at PUCIT under Dr. Mujahid Kamran's watch as VC. Sadly, I could not followup up on that invitation. I should also disclose that in all of Pakistan, Dr. Mujahid Kamran is the only intellectual to ever cite any of my humble work in current affairs [19], even if it was only a sentence or two of gratuitous praise in his oped in Dawn. That's full disclosure.
Let's find out about Dr. Mujahid Kamran. Let's begin at his website: http://www.mujahidkamran.com to locate his CV ( MK CV details Jan 2017_2.pdf ). It mentions the following publications summary:
PUBLICATIONS:
Sixty three (63) research publications in refereed journals outside Pakistan / presented at conferences abroad (list appended; 48 in foreign (impact factor) journals, 2 in local journals, 13 Conference presentations / contribution in International Conferences abroad)
Ninety four (94) articles, mostly on aspects of science and higher education, as well as on global politics, published in national and international magazines and newspapers (list appended)
Fourteen (14) books including two text books (4 of the 14 are in Urdu language; 5 of these books deal with the lives and works of great physicists of the twentieth century).
The published books of particular interest are:
  • 2) M. Kamran: The International Bankers, World War I, II and Beyond: University of the Punjab Press, 2015; 560 pages, ISBN 978‐969‐9325‐24‐3
  • 4) M. Kamran: Saniha e September aur Nia Aalmi Nizam (Urdu translation of 9/11 & the New World Order by Mohsin Peerzada): University of the Punjab Press, 2014; 452 pages, ISBN 978‐969‐9325‐17‐5
  • 5) M. Kamran: 9/11 & the New World Order (English): University of the Punjab Press, 2013; 396 pages, ISBN 978‐969‐9325‐13‐7
  • 7) M. Kamran: The Grand Deception ‐ Corporate America and Perpetual War: Sang e Meel Publications,2010, 429 pages ISBN‐10: 969–35–2406–3, ISBN‐13: 978–969‐35‐2406‐2
The under preparation books of particular interest listed on his CV are:
  • 4. M. Kamran: Operation Gladio: Global Subversion: 126 pages written so far
  • 5. M. Kamran: The JFK Assassination: 217 pages written so far
  • 6. M. Kamran: The World Order: How It Works; 289 pages written so far
None of these topics are new or first hand researched. While I have not read his published books, there are already tons of books, articles, essays, exposés, on these subjects, many I have read with a yawn, and these are some of the topics that I have also researched and written about since 2003. It is difficult to say without actually having read his books, what new and original insights Dr. Mujahid Kamran has to contribute to this space of current affairs and recent history. But apart from his own analysis which I am sure would be interesting to read and perhaps unique in magical ways, the factual material is down into its fourth or fifth or even sixth generation regurgitation. I have immersed myself in this domain full time over the past two decades and I am hard pressed to see what new understanding someone sitting in his Vice Chancellor's office in Lahore Pakistan without any first hand knowledge of the facts but with access to an internet connection to look up what others have amply written of these facts, can uniquely come up with that others have not yet seen. In any case, this is how understanding of political reality that is almost always wrapped in layers upon layers of deceit, incrementally moves forward. Forensically un peeled, layer by layer, by people of courage revisiting data. This is the domain of finer activist-historians who study “contemporary history” --- history that is contemporaneously in the making --- with the potential of disrupting its making if purdah-faash (unmasked) prematurely; before events become fait accompli. But academic contribution to the domain is not the issue, even if there may be some unique aspects to Dr. Mujahid Kamran's perspectives which I look forward to reading someday, hopefully without a yawn, and improving my own meagre understanding of reality.
The issue at hand is something entirely different. And this needs to be understood perceptively, with ma'arifat. The cowards won't get it, nor will mental midgets and mercenaries. You are what you eat!
The issue is to speak up on unpopular truth, and dispel popular falsehoods. It does not matter who else has done it before you, or is doing it now, or not doing it at all. In this space, one man who has it right is sufficient majority to act alone despite the threat of hemlock. If it is now your truth, then regardless of who else holds it, it's now as much yours as the ones whom you may have learnt it from. Those who make that principle their categorical imperative, they continually strive to implement it to the capacity of their very being. In this context, it is not what academic contributions Mujahid Kamran may or may not have made to the field of current affairs. That is an irrelevant and impertinent question.
What is relevant and pertinent in our context is that once you learn what the truth of a matter really is, a) you strive to bring that truth to your audience, to your society, to your people, to warn them, to awaken them; and b) you live that existence come what may, the best way you can. For an academic scientist, it is through writing books and in public speaking that she might take a stand, just as Muhammad Ali, the peerless world heavy-weight boxing champion, took his bold stand by taking a bold step backwards when called upon to serve in Vietnam. That stand is of their conscience. But even that would not be so remarkable for any ordinary person taking it by the diktats of her awakened conscience --- that's the majority of plebeian conscientious objectors to the villainous narratives of power. No one pays any attention to plebes.
What is remarkable here is that a prominent establishmentarian Muslim from Pakistan, an academic and administrative head commanding respect and stature in society, a physicist no less whose mind none can believably fault as not being logical nor analytical, should be speaking up.
Dr. Mujahid Kamran is the only Pakistani establishmentarian that I can recall, who has called 9/11 an inside job, years after many stellar minds in the West had already done so. But no respected Pakistani living in Pakistan commanding the respect of his audience, can be permitted that luxury in a client-state whose utility is still apparent on the Grand Chessboard. The sacred axioms of empire must continue to remain the official narrative of its principal client-state for its imperial mobilization agendas, as the precondition for filling its begging bowls and permitting it to limp along without the kind of economic sanctions being forced upon Iran. These may not be too far away if Pakistan's establishment actually drifts into giving up America's sacred axioms to chart its real independence.
If an established physicist is unafraid to call a spade a spade, and does not wear the chains of mental servitude in a slave colony, my goodness, that can be precedent setting for other intellectuals to follow suit. And we cannot have that, now can we?
The Roman empire set a catching precedent for that, for not tolerating any setting of precedent for resistance, no matter how inconsequential it may appear in the beginning. Even as Johnny come lately, real resistance – as opposed to faux dissent that is the staple of empire's own toolkit for manufacturing consent on its sacred axioms by crafty social engineering – is intolerable for massa's colonies.
Dissent is only tolerated in the West because it lends useful illusions to its democratic dispensations under which Western hegemony, Western primacy, Western supremacy, Western values, and Western products are easily promulgated throughout the world. And dissent is only tolerated so long as it remains ineffective. Which is why all Western dissent has always turned out to be ineffective in derailing any of empire's imperial mobilization projects. Dissent in the West is a well-calibrated steam-valve that maintains necessary illusions of freedom. Those illusions are also maintained in the Global South somewhat, but not of real dissent with empire's own core truths, if empire can help it.
It is pertinent to end this case study with words of wisdom from empire's own mouthpiece, its famed columnist writing for its famed opinion maker news rag:
“The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist -- McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. "Good ideas and technologies need a strong power that promotes those ideas by example and protects those ideas by winning on the battlefield," says the foreign policy historian Robert Kagan. "If a lesser power were promoting our ideas and technologies, they would not have the global currency that they have. And when a strong power, the Soviet Union, promoted its bad ideas, they had a lot of currency for more than half a century." ” --- Thomas Friedman, A Manifesto for the Fast World, NYT, March 28, 1999
The exercise of that “strong power” to promote its axiomatic truths and values unchallenged in its colonies, is what lies behind disgracing Dr. Mujahid Kamran – a free man with a free mind unafraid to speak up – in public. The handcuffs, incarceration as a petty criminal for investigation of a low order bit issue which could have easily been conducted in a more civilized manner, all part of that game-plan to which the enabling participants may not even be privy themselves. The brown sahib is often more white than the white man. He carries the white man's burden with alacrity and discipline. He obeys every wish before it becomes a command. And when the truth of the matter is brought before it, like the inveterate house nigger gratefully collecting crumbs fallen off the massa's table, glibly asks: where's the proof! Proof, my dear Watson, is in being able to add two plus two to make four!













Appendix-D : References
Zahir Ebrahim's Pertinent Plagiarism References for this Report
[1] Seminal Letter to Editor October 07, 2011 Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan under the Watchful Eyes of its Distinguished Stewards of Science and Higher Education, Zahir Ebrahim, https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/masterpiece-of-plagiarism-in-pakistan/
[2] Oped Published October 16, 2011, Whistleblowing: Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan with Systemwide Collusion, Zahir Ebrahim, https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/oped-whistleblowing-masterpiece-of-plagiarism-in-pakistan-with-systemwide-collusion-by-zahir-ebrahim/
[3a] Correspondence with HEC and Pakistan Academe October 2011, What a load of crap! Zahir Ebrahim, https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/what-a-load-of-crap/
[3b] Correspondence with HEC and Pakistan Academe October 31, 2011, What a load of crap Part-II: Physics Nobel Laureate Sheldon Lee Glashow terms Durrani’s PhD thesis ‘rather pedestrian’ Zahir Ebrahim, https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/what-a-load-of-crap-part-ii-nobel-laureate-sheldon-lee-glashow-evaluates-durrani-phd-thesis-rather-pedestrian/
[4] Summation Letter to All Pakistan Academe October 20, 2011, Psychopathy requires legal entitlement, not logic or shame, Zahir Ebrahim, https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/summation-letter-on-plagiarism-case/
[5] Letter To HEC Chairperson on HEC Coverup November 28, 2011, Zahir Ebrahim, https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/letter-to-hec-chairperson-on-hec-coverup-by-zahir-ebrahim/
[6] Letter To Editor Nature: Fraud in Science November 22, 2011, Zahir Ebrahim, https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/letter-to-editor-nature-fraud-in-science-by-zahir-ebrahim/
[7] Letter To Editor Nature: An intellectual fraud seldom occurs in a social and intellectual vacuum November 10, 2011, Zahir Ebrahim, https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/letter-to-editor-nature-an-intellectual-fraud-seldom-occurs-in-a-social-and-intellectual-vacuum-by-zahir-ebrahim/
[8] Letter to Editor Science Insider November 04, 2011, Zahir Ebrahim, https://zahirebrahim.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/letter-to-editor-science-insider-by-zahir-ebrahim/
[10] Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan Revisited - Open Letter January 2014 : Open Letter to the Academe of Pakistan on the Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan, January 14, 2014, Last Updated December 20, 2015, Zahir Ebrahim, https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/01/masterpiece-of-plagiarism-in-pakistan.html
[11] Letter to HEC Chairperson - Is HEC planning to reinstate the plagiarist like it did once before? January 22, 2014, Zahir Ebrahim, https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2014/01/is-hec-planning-to-reinstate-plagiarist.html





News Reports on Lack of Integrity & Ethics Among HEC Head Honchos
[12] HEC fails to take action against executive director charged with plagiarism, October 18, 2018, Daily Times, Pakistan,
https://dailytimes.com.pk/311517/hec-fails-to-take-action-against-executive-director-charged-with-plagiarism/
[12a] No action initiated against HEC official despite proven plagiarism, October 18, 2018, Business Recorder, Pakistan,
https://fp.brecorder.com/2018/10/20181018416390/
Begin Excerpt
According to the documents available with Business Recorder, the Performance Evaluation Committee of HEC in its meeting held on 12-2-2018 and 23-2-2018 had recommended that as per HEC plagiarism policy punitive action must be taken by terminating Dr Arshad Ali's services. As per the committee's recommendation: "There is a major plagiarism in the paper referred to the news item and other papers mentioned above. It had recommended major penalty against the authors under the HEC plagiarism policy".
During the meeting, 11 major papers were reviewed by Quality Assurance Division through Turnitin and found high similarities index. Keeping in view the recommendations of the HEC plagiarism Standing Committee and Performance Evaluation Committee, it was imperative to implement the decision. A committee comprising of nine vice chancellors from major universities of the country was constituted to further review the process and provide an opportunity of personal hearing to Dr Arshad Ali. The allegation of plagiarism against Dr Ali was established after three consecutive meetings which reviewed his three sample papers out of 26 alleged papers. The opportunity of hearing was also provided to Dr Arshad Ali during the fourth meeting of the high powered committee on April 12, 2018. However, the committee agreed and endorsed the findings that major plagiarism has been committed.
Accordingly, former chairman HEC Dr Mukhtar wrote a letter to the then secretary ministry of federal education and professional training Akbar Hussain Durrani that major plagiarism has proved in research papers of Dr Arshad Ali. "I deem it appropriate to bring this matter into the notice of HEC Controlling Authority and the Ministry may therefore like to submit the summary to the controlling authority of the Higher Education Commission i.e. Prime Minister of Pakistan for necessary orders in this matter," the letter said.
End Excerpt
[12b] Senior HEC official quits over plagiarism, October 22, 2018, Dawn, Pakistan,
https://www.dawn.com/news/1440581/senior-hec-official-quits-over-plagiarism
Begin Excerpt
ISLAMABAD: The executive director of Higher Education Commission (HEC), Dr Arshad Ali, resigned amid allegations he was involved in plagiarism.
Executive Director is a powerful position in the HEC because the ED acts as principal accounting officer of the organisation. Mr Ali was appointed to the post in January 2016.
The plagiarism case against Mr Ali was initiated by HEC’s Plagiarism Standing Committee months ago and in April this year the then HEC chairman wrote to the ministry of federal education that the case had been established against the executive director.
However, the ED since then had been claiming that he did nothing wrong.
According to HEC’s Turnitin App, his research paper published in 2014 titled “A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment,” was heavily copied from a research paper of a foreign author.
The plagiarism committee’s finding was considered by the HEC which met the other day in which members expressed their concerns over plagiarism committed by the executive director.
HEC chairman Dr Tariq Bunari is scheduled to hold a press conference on Monday (today) to announce various decisions taken by the commission.
However, on Sunday it emerged that ED has tendered his resignation.
HEC spokeswoman Aayesha Ikram said: “Dr Arshad Ali has resigned on the basis of his own decision in order to prevent further adverse impact upon the organisation because of the ongoing controversy over the allegation against him.”
Efforts were made on Sunday night to contact Mr Ali to get his point of view, but he could not be reached.
End Excerpt
[12c] HEC software shows its director’s paper 88pc plagiarised, December 28, 2017, The News, Pakistan,
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/261617-hec-software-shows-its-director-s-paper-88pc-plagiarised
Begin Quote
ISLAMABAD: Fighting plagiarism is one of the major functions of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) but the commission’s own Executive Director has allegedly stole over 80 percent of his co-authored research paper from another publication.
As per the documents available with The News, the Curriculum Vitae (CV) of current Executive Director of Higher Education Commission (HEC) Dr Arshad Ali mentions a co-authored research paper which is over 88 percent plagiarised when tested with the official software of the commission.
According to HEC Act and rules, the Executive Director is the second most important official of the commission being the principal accounting officer of the body that manages about Rs90 billion budget annually. He acts as head of HEC Secretariat and also as the Secretary of the Commission’s governing body which makes policies on improving quality of education and fighting plagiarism. In an expression of its resolve against academic-theft, the commission has placed about 21 black-listed faculty members and researchers on its website along with its detailed anti-plagiarism policy.
However, the commission has apparently failed to take any action against its own Executive Director. Dr Arshad’s CV (available online at [ link ]) mentions his paper: “A Taxonomy and Survey of Grid Resource Planning and Reservation Systems for Grid Enabled Analysis Environment,” published in July 2004. But the problem is when the same paper is tested with Turnitin, a software which has been officially provided by HEC to the universities, it appears that Dr Arshad’s work is mainly copied from already published paper titled “Survey and Taxonomy of Grid Resource Management Systems” [ link ] authored by Chaitanya Kandagatla University of Texas, Austin America in February 2004.
The report of Turnitin confirms overall 88 percent similarity index against 19 percent limit set by Pakistan’s higher education body. In addition, 47 percent similarity index has been reported from single source “authored by Chaitanya Kandagatla against the 5 percent approved limit.
Dr Arshad Ali is main author of the paper along with several others including foreigners.
When contacted for his version, Dr Arshad Ali said that HEC would look into the matter according to its policy. He claimed that his co-authors were reputed professionals from institutions like CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research. When asked whether he could be dismissed from service if major plagiarism was proved in his reach paper, the HEC Executive Director said he could not speak on the basis of assumptions. Dr Arshad Ali was appointed as HEC Executive Director In January 2016 by the selection board and governing body headed by current HEC Chairman Dr Mukhtar Ahmed.
As per HEC policy, if most of the paper (or key results) have been exactly copied from any published work of other people without giving the reference to the original work, a major penalty of dismissal from service could be imposed.
The policy also mentions that such a plagiarist may be black listed and may not be eligible for employment in any academic/research organisation, and (c) the notification of “Black Listing” of the author(s) may be published in the print media or may be publicised on different websites at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor/Rector/Head of the organisation.”
HEC plagiarism policy also mentions, “any person listing his CV on the website or any current publication or applying for any benefit on the basis of published or presented work that is plagiarised will be liable to be punished as per prescribed rules.”
The HEC website defines plagiarist as the “one who steals the thoughts or writings of others and gives them out as his [sic] own”. It also bans self-plagiarism and verbatim copying portions of another author’s paper or from reports by citing but not clearly differentiating what text has been copied.
According to the list of 21 blacklisted faculty members posted on HEC website, more than 50 percent offenders were blacklisted on the charges of Plagiarised papers.
End Quote
[12d] FIA probing fake degrees attestation by HEC officials, November 12, 2018, The News, Pakistan,
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/392649-fia-probing-fake-degrees-attestation-by-hec-officials
[12e] Ex-HEC ED says fake degree mafia behind his ‘forced’ resignation, November 13, 2018, The News, Pakistan,
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/393032-ex-hec-ed-says-fake-degree-mafia-behind-his-forced-resignation
Begin Excerpt
ISLAMABAD: Former executive director of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) Dr Arshad Ali, who resigned last month, has claimed that he is a victim of fake degree mafia and his resignation was obtained under coercion. Dr Arshad Ali has also moved a petition before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) contending that his resignation was obtained under immense pressure so he wants to withdraw the same.
Dr Arshad Ali contended that he was the victim of fake degree mafia which was not happy with his action against fake diploma mills. The former ED of the HEC, who was accused of plagiarism in his research paper, claimed that allegations against him were untrue and his resignation has yet to be accepted so he should be allowed to withdraw his resignation. ...
Dr Arshad contended that he was fighting against corrupt mafia and took action against the HEC officials involved in attestation of fake degrees, which resulted in a campaign against him. He said the fake degree issue was a problem in the country.
“The extent and scope of such shady businesses can be imagined from the fact that there are 102 fake/illegal universities/institutes in Punjab, 36 in Sindh, 11 in KP, three in federal capital and three in AJK,” Ali, who remained the second most senior official of the regulatory body, said.
He said the campaign started against him when he took up the case of fake degrees, lack of quality education and organisational malpractices inside of HEC. He alleged that the nexus of commercialised education and media turned out to be a powerful force to stand up against. Dr Arshad said as the executive director of the HEC it was his ethical and moral responsibility to protect the good name of this prestigious institution and not let it be dragged into controversies. “Therefore, I did not respond through the media either directly by giving statements or by answering their queries,” he explained.
“A number of committees were convened (interestingly without having members from computer sciences or relevant fields who could objectively judge the charges against me) but at every stage, I was neither provided copies of the detailed minutes regarding the deliberations and allegations nor an opportunity to present my defence, ... The internet record from ARXIV shows that the paper was submitted by Prof Richard McClatchey on 5 July 2004 at 15:48:43 UTC. This paper did not go through a peer review process, and was produced by an undergraduate student (Atif Mehmood) as part of his project. This is also based on material put together for a project report, and the leading author Prof McClatchey has already confirmed this to be the case and the paper was withdrawn by the authors in 2004 before the conference. I therefore confirm no deliberate plagiarism has taken place in my case, and the accusations being made are totally baseless and inaccurate. An independently constituted committee of leading computer science editors can confirm the above,” ...
End Excerpt
[12f] Plagiarist at the helm of HEC’s affairs, May 22, 2018, Daily Times, Pakistan,
https://dailytimes.com.pk/243022/plagiarist-at-the-helm-of-hecs-affairs/
Begin Excerpt
The Expert committees, Plagiarism Standing Committee and high-powered committee working during December 29 2017 and 12 April 2018 to conclude investigation process, found Dr Arshad guilty of major plagiarism, his more than 20 research papers were found to have been plagiarised.
Unfortunately, no punishment for the crime of plagiarism has been handed down to the black sheep in question yet.
Despite this, after the retirement of Dr Mukhtar Ahmed on April 15, Dr Arshad acts as de facto chairman and has influenced the HEC management and turned tables in his favour as the HEC management mulls minor penalty where the man in question would be asked to render an apology and submit an affidavit that he would not cite that paper in his curriculum Vitae(CV).This leniency is being considered on the grounds that academic offence was committed in 2004while HEC’s plagiarism policy was formulated and put in place in 2007. This negates transparency.
Does this mean academic dishonesty was allowed before the HEC plagiarism policy came into effect? The logic offered is unconvincing. The research scholars are supposed to be whiter than white in their write-ups, research work and literary labour.
More importantly, according to HEC Acts and Rules, ED is the second most important officer of the commission, being the principal accounting officer of the body that manages about RS 90 billion annually. He acts as the head of HEC secretariat and also as the Secretary of the commission’s governing body which makes policies on improving quality of education and fighting plagiarism.
A man with questionable integrity cannot be entrusted with the responsibility of running the affairs of HEC. Allowing the plagiarist under discussion to be at the helm of HEC’s affairs and overseeing other scholars in terms of academic stealing, is akin to set a thief to catch a thief.
Besides, ED represents HEC at national and international forums. How can such a tainted character be representative of the commission whose own academic credibility has been questioned?
Warren Buffet rightly remarked that look for three things in a person: intelligence, energy and integrity.
If one does not have the last one, don’t even bother with the first two. ...
One is dismayed that the HEC management has cultivated soft corner over the years for the plagiarists who are serving in the premier higher education body or ex-officials who have served: in January 2014, a three-member inquiry committee found out that 30percent of the content of Javed Laghari’s research paper ‘Study of Pakistan Election System as Intelligent-e-Election’ had been plagiarised from a European Union report of ‘European Union Election observation Mission i-e Pakistan National and Provincial Assembly Election 10 October 2002’.
The HEC authorities first dilly-dallied on the action against Leghari simply because he had served as the HEC chairman. When media pressure builtup, it blacklisted the author. He is believed to have apologised through an email only.
Similarly, acting Director General of HEC’s Department of Learning Innovation Shaheen Khan’s PhD thesis submitted to the University of Karachi in 2009 was found to be plagiarised by the Committee. She continues to hold her position in the HEC as the university has been reluctant in declaring her thesis plagiarised. And HEC’s former member and former vice chancellor of the University of Haripur, Nasir Ali Khan was also found to have a plagiarised PhD thesis.
Since some senior rank HEC — both serving and ex — officials have been found guilty of plagiarism, the verifications of degrees and examination of research papers and theses of those presently working is imperative. HEC should not wait for newspaper headlines and letters exposing plagiarists; instead it should have robust monitoring mechanism and inbuilt filters to flush out the corrupt crop.
End Excerpt
[12g] Major plagiarism in two books of ex-chairman of HEC, April 30, 2018, The News, Pakistan,
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/310749-major-plagiarism-in-two-books-of-ex-chairman-of-hec
Begin Quote
ISLAMABAD: In a shocking revelation, it has emerged that two books published by recently retired chairman Higher Education Commission (HEC) and current candidate for reappointment have been plagiarised.
Interestingly, checking plagiarism is one of the major jobs of the HEC. The HEC official anti-plagiarism software Turnitin confirmed 88 percent similarity index in Dr Mukhtar Ahmad’s book titled “Organisational Behaviour in Education” and 69 percent similarity index in his book titled “Leadership & Team Management”.
The former chairman had claimed to have written, vetted, edited and published four books in his CV that he submitted to a search committee that is tasked with selecting the new chairman of Pakistan’s higher education’s top watchdog.
The quantum of similarity shows major plagiarism in two of the four books of Dr Mukhtar Ahmed. It is important to highlight that only 19 percent similarity of content is allowed by the HEC.
Dr Mukhtar has completed his four-year tenure as chairman HEC this month and he has applied as candidate for the next tenure. The former chairman has listed four books in his CV submitted for the post of chairperson of the HEC. These books include “Human Resource Management”, “Principles of Marketing”, “Organisational Behaviour in Education” and “Leadership & Team Management”.
However, the HEC’s own software has confirmed that “Organisational Behaviour in Education” is 88 percent plagiarised, whereas 85 percent of the book content was copied from the Internet sources. The content was also copied from other publications and student papers submitted to various universities.
Dr Mukhtar’s other book “Leadership & Team Management” is 69 percent plagiarised according to originality report of HEC’s official software. About 59 percent of the content was copied from various online sources while some content was taken from publications of other authors and students.
While contacted by The News, Dr Mukhtar Ahmad admitted that the books may contain text from more than one sources. However, he claimed that he did not mention these books as his own work in his curriculum vitae (CV). He said these books were transcription of his lectures delivered for Virtual University, compiled by his students.
However, a copy of the CV available with The News shows that actually the former HEC chairman had specially mentioned four books in the section of Book/Manuscripts and claimed that they were written, vetted and published which are being used by Virtual University students and other management/business administration departments and schools.
End Quote
[12h] HEC chief accused of plagiarism, August 21, 2013, Dawn, Pakistan,
https://www.dawn.com/news/1037245
Begin Excerpt
ISLAMABAD, Aug 20: Although it is the responsibility of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) to take action on plagiarism, a research paper allegedly copied from a European Union (EU) report has been moving from one office to another at the HEC without anyone taking action or at least holding an inquiry into it.
The reason behind it is that one of the authors of the research paper was Dr Javaid R. Laghari, the current chairman of the HEC.
On the other hand, the HEC management claims that it is a conspiracy against Dr Laghari because a summary for the extension of his contract is being moved to the prime minister.
An official of the HEC requesting not to be quoted told Dawn that the thesis “Study of Pakistan election system – ‘intelligent e-election’” was written by Mohammad Nadeem and Dr Javaid R. Laghari in 2003 when they were working at SZABIST.
“When the documents were received at the HEC, we checked it on the plagiarism detecting software -Turnitin - and found that 78 per cent content of the research paper was plagiarised.” It may be noted that 20 per cent plagiarism is ranked in the A Category (severe plagiarism). The official added: “We cannot take action on this because one of the authors of the paper is the current chairman of the HEC.”
Another official of the HEC on the condition of anonymity said both the EU report 2002 and the research paper (copy available with Dawn) showed that the research paper was copied from the EU report available on its website.
He said it was mentioned in the curriculum vitae of Dr Laghari (available with Dawn) that he had published “Study of Pakistan election system - ‘intelligent e-election’” in the Journal of Independent Studies and Research (Vol. 1, No 2, July 2003, pp. 2 – 7) along with Dr Mohammad Nadeem. ...
A senior officer, however, maintained that Dr Laghari was just a co-author of the research paper. He has never taken any benefit because of that research paper so action cannot be taken against him, he added.
The officer pointed out that the research paper was written in 2003 when there was no policy about plagiarism. “Dr Laghari just supervised that research paper so action can only be taken against Mohammad Nadeem,” he said.He said some political personalities, who were stopped from taking part in the general elections because of fake degrees, had been trying to make Dr Laghari’s personality controversial. They are creating hurdles in extension of his contract as the HEC chief, he said.
Prof Dr Fida Mohammad, a former president of the Federation of All Pakistan Universities Academic Staff Association, said it was a very sensitive issue and the HEC should confirm it carefully.
“Plagiarism is an offence, but I feel that the HEC officials cannot take action in this case so courts or the prime minister can be approached to get a decision,” he said. ...
This reporter tried to contact the HEC chairman, Dr Laghari, for three days. SMS were sent on his cellphone and even this reporter tried to contact the chairman through his subordinates, but he did not respond.
Dr Mukhtar Ahmed, the executive director HEC, told Dawn that he had been informed by someone about the matter. However, he added that he had not seen the documents.
“I personally asked Dr Laghari about the plagiarism allegation but he denied it and said it was a conspiracy,” he said.
“Although I am not aware of the matter, if plagiarism is proved, it will be unfortunate. The HEC shows zero tolerance against plagiarism,” he said.
In reply to a question, Dr Mukhtar said Dr Laghari should have announced that he was not involved in the writing of that research paper “but if he has been using it in his CV, I only can say that it is unfortunate.”
End Excerpt
[12i] Plagiarism probe: CTRL+C, CTRL+V, Javed Laghari found ‘guilty’, January 27, 2014, The Express Tribune, Pakistan,
https://tribune.com.pk/story/663781/plagiarism-probe-ctrlc-ctrlv-laghari-found-guilty/
Begin Quote
ISLAMABAD: A former head of the country’s higher education watchdog has been found ‘guilty’ of academia’s greatest crime — plagiarism.
A probe committee has found that 30 per cent of the content of a research paper authored former Higher Education Commission (HEC) chairperson Javed Laghari was plagiarised from a European Union (EU) report.
An HEC official said that the research paper was copied from a 2002 EU report which is still available online.
Interestingly enough, Laghari — who remained HEC chairman for four years until his contract expired on August 27 last year — has reapplied for the post along with over 100 others.
The three-member committee, headed by University of Agriculture Faisalabad Vice Chancellor Dr Iqrar Ahmad Khan, has completed its probe after including Laghari defence on the issue. Sources said that the findings of the probe will be sent to the HEC further action.
Under HEC rules, severe plagiarism was defined as 20 per cent of the work being unfairly copied. However, under the HEC policy, anybody found guilty of plagiarism before 2007 cannot be punished because the anti-plagiarism policy was adopted that year and was not retroactive, while Lagari along and his co-author produced the research paper in 2003.
This was also corroborated by Dr Ahmed who said that the plagiarism was done before the anti-plagiarism policy was adopted on September 27, 2007.
Ahmad confirmed that they detected the plagiarism by using plagiarism-checking software, and according to him, 30 per cent of the content of the paper was plagiarised. He said that such old plagiarism cases were not entertained under the current HEC policy. “If action is taken against such papers, there are other hundreds of other plagiarised papers from past decades which will have to come under HEC scrutiny, which is an impossible task,” he said.
Interestingly, despite being head of the probing team, he felt that the entire exercise was a “conspiracy” against Laghari.
The paper by Laghari and Mohammad Nadeem was published in the Journal of Independent Studies and Research in July 2003. Laghari presented the same paper at a national research conference held in Karachi in 2003 while he was teaching at Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute Science and Technology (SZABIST).
While speaking to The Express Tribune, Laghari claimed that it was not a research paper but only an article. He added that he did not contribute to the piece and only provided the data the Nadeem needed.
Laghari also said that the case did not fall under the HEC plagiarism policy as it was published in a magazine, adding “I never benefited from it and the co-author included my name without my knowledge.”
However, the research paper also figures in his curriculum vitae, still available on HEC website.
End Quote
[12j] Confession: Ex-HEC head apologises for plagiarism, March 28, 2016, The Express Tribune, Pakistan,
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1074053/confession-ex-hec-head-apologises-for-plagiarism/
Begin Excerpt
ISLAMABAD: Former chairperson of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) Dr Javed Laghari has formally apologised for plagiarising a research paper he co-authored with another faculty member of the Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology (SZABIST).
In January 2014, a three-member inquiry committee found out that 30 per cent of the content of Laghari’s research paper had been plagiarised from a European Union (EU) report. The HEC took a long time to blacklist him, fearing embarrassment for the commission’s former chairperson. ...
According to sources in HEC, Laghari has tendered an apology and stated that he had withdrawn the aforementioned paper from his CV and would not use it for any benefit in the future. ...
Dr Shamraz Firdous from the Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences (PIEAS) was also given the best research award in March 2015, though the cash award payment was stopped by the HEC. Similarly, his co-author in the same paper, Masroor Ikram, was conferred Tamgha-e-Imtiaz by President Mamnoon Hussain on March 23 for ‘contribution towards the study of science in Pakistan’.
No plagiarist punished
Over 50 professors, blamed for plagiarism, are teaching in their respective institutions, including those who have sought court help or in the words of HEC’s senior official ‘take cover of court to avert the embarrassment and prolong the cases.’
Ironically, not a single plagiarist has been punished at any of the universities as recommended by the HEC plagiarism committee.
End Excerpt
[12k] Dr Tariq Banuri appointed as HEC chairman, May 28, 2016, PakistanToday,
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/05/28/dr-tariq-banuri-appointed-as-hec-chairman/
Begin Quote
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi on Monday appointed Dr Tariq Banuri as the fourth chairman of Higher Education Commission (HEC), just days before the term of the government is due to expire.
A six-member selection committee including former health minister Dr Sania Nishtar, former lawmaker Shahnaz Wazir Ali, educationists Faisal Bari and Mirza Qamar Baig and Education Secretary Akbar Durrani presented a list of candidates for the post of HEC chairman. Renowned educationist Syed Babar Ali was the convener of the committee.
End Quote
[12m] HEC to Revisit Tighten Policy on Plagiarism, Says Chairman, October 22, 2018, HEC News,
http://www.hec.gov.pk/english/news/news/Pages/HEC-Revisit-Plagiarism.aspx
Begin Quote
Islamabad, October 22, 2018: The Higher Education Commission (HEC) will revisit and tighten its policy on plagiarism in terms of definition, standards and criteria, and procedures in order to ensure transparency for academics.
This was stated by Dr. Tariq Banuri, Chairman, HEC while addressing a press conference called in the backdrop of 33rd Commission Meeting.
He revealed that Dr. Arshad Ali, former Executive Director, HEC tendered his resignation in view of the charges of plagiarism against him, although he denies the allegations. The resignation has been accepted. He informed the media persons that the Commission did not make any judgment in any high profile plagiarism case including the case of Dr. Ali. "Dr. Arshad Ali has resigned in an honourable way in order to avoid prolonging his case", he said, adding that, "the Commission appreciated Dr. Arshad Ali's sacrifice to protect the organisation from further controversy."
Dr. Banuri said the Commission has directed HEC to review and reformulate the policy on plagiarism in order to address the loopholes, gaps and procedural glitches. The major objective is to ensure justice in the plagiarism cases so that the plagiarists are penalised and the innocent are not victimised.
He also announced that Lt. Gen. Muhammad Asghar, former Rector, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST) and currently a Member of the Commission, has been appointed provisionally as Acting Executive Director, subject to the approval of the Commission. The advertisement for new ED search will also be made immediately. "We will seek concurrence of the Commission on appointment of Lt. Gen. Asghar for an interim period, and announce the search process for filling position of Executive Director on permanent basis," he underlined.
End Quote
[12n] HEC’s new management prohibits staff from keeping contact with former management, July 30, 2018, Daily Times, Pakistan,
https://dailytimes.com.pk/275154/hecs-new-management-prohibits-staff-from-keeping-contact-with-former-management/
Begin Excerpt
ISLAMABAD: In an interesting move, the new management of Higher Education Commission (HEC) has prohibited all staff of the commission to abstain from contacting any predecessor for anything unless senior management personally approves such liaisons.
According to an email circulated among the staff of the HEC from executive secretary to the newly appointed HEC Chairman Dr Tariq Banuri, it was directed to all staffers that no official/officer is allowed to keep any kind of correspondence with former bosses without approval from incumbent boss.
“It is notified for the information of all concerned that any correspondence from any HEC official to any past chairperson of the HEC including Dr Attaur Rehman, Dr Javed Leghari and Dr Mukhtar Ahmed has to be personally approved by the chairman. No exception,” reads the circulated mail.
End Excerpt





Additional References to Zahir Ebrahim's Deconstruction of Issues in Academe
[13] Feedback Letter to HEC Chairman, Prof. Atta-Ur-Rahman, and Executive Director, Prof. Sohail Naqvi, on their hare-brained schemes, February 10, 2007 – February 15, 2007, Zahir Ebrahim, On the HEC living in wonderland and steps to take to wakeup from that self-delusion, 21 Pages, https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/Alice-in-Wonderland-TFI21-TFIMIT-Zahir-Ebrahims-Proposal-to-HEC-for-the-Reconstruction-of-Pakistans-Higher-Education-System-February152007.pdf
[14] Letter to the Editor, The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 12, 2007, Zahir Ebrahim, On the real agenda behind the borrowed monies so lavishly being spent by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan in pursuit of its idiotic and absurd policies, https://iratepakistani.blogspot.com/2007/03/letter-to-chronicle-editor.html
[15] Emailed Letter to Pakistani Academics, Groom them for top Ivy Leagues of America, November 09, 2012, Published December 04, 2013, Zahir Ebrahim, On the virtues of competitive education and training to excel rather than in mediocrity, https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/12/groom-them-for-top-ivy-leagues.html
[16] Emailed Letter to Pakistani Academics, My Dream University, November 15, 2012, Published August 5, 2016, Zahir Ebrahim, On building education systems and universities that serve the best interests of man rather than the State or Empire, https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2016/08/my-dream-university-by-zahir-ebrahim.html
[17] Reflections on Modernity, Climategate, Pandemic, Peer Review, and Science in the Service of Empire, November 30, 2009, Zahir Ebrahim, On the Corruption of Science and Epistemology in the Service of Empire, https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate.html
[18] Letter to Climate@MIT : Is Climate Science Religion or Science? October 30, 2018, Zahir Ebrahim, On the Corruption of MIT's Academia in the Service of Empire, https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2018/10/letter-climate-mit-religion-or-science.html







Additional References to Zahir Ebrahim's Analyses cited in Plagiarism Report
[19] The Niggers of Pakistan, 09/16/2011, Zahir Ebrahim, On the legacy of imperial colonization: mental colonization still persists in Pakistan, specifically among its educated elite, https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/09/the-niggers-of-pakistan-by-zahir-ebrahim.html
]19a] FAQ: What is an Intellectual Negro? February 9, 2010 | Last updated 09/16/2011, Zahir Ebrahim, more detailed than [19], https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-intellectual-negro.html
[19b] Report on the Mighty Wurlitzer, May 31, 2009 | Last Updated March 11, 2014, Zahir Ebrahim, Architecture of Modern Propaganda for Psychological Warfare, cited in [19], [19a], https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/05/note-on-mighty-wurlitzer.html
[19c] The Unknown Transformation of Malcolm X - Palestine: Seeking The Enemy Within, July 1, 2011 | Last updated April 5, 2016, Zahir Ebrahim, Malcolm X's long journey to extricate himself from the long chains of mental colonization and its lingering aftereffects, cited in [19], [19a], https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2011/07/palestine-enemy-within-by-zahirebrahim.html
[19d] Occidentosis: A Plague From the West, JALAL AL-I AHMAD, Translated by R. Campbell, Annotations and Introduction by Hamid Algar, Mizan Press Berkeley, 1984, 156 pages, cited in [19], [19a], necessary for learned Pakistanis looking to the West for solutions to understand, https://web.archive.org/web/20130603042500/http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cacheof-occidentosis-a-plague-from-the-west-by-jalal-ali-ahmad-translated-by-rcampbell-introduction-by-hamidalgar.pdf
[20] Introducing A Game As Old As Empire, Feb. 4, 2007, Zahir Ebrahim, On the privatization of public commons through WB-IMF tag team plunder of developing nations under the latter day neoliberal colonialism, https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/12/introducing-game-as-old-as-empire.html
[21] Who Killed Benazir Bhutto? In her own words!, February 04, 2008, Zahir Ebrahim, Excerpts from Profiles of Intelligence, Brigadier Syed A. I. Tirmazi, SI (M), 1995, https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/02/who-killed-benazir-bhutto-herownwords.html
[22] The Answer to the Burning Question du jour: Why was President Obama Gifted the Nobel Peace Prize? How to win the Nobel Peace Prize, October 09, 2009, Zahir Ebrahim, Excerpts from Zbigniew Brzezinski's statements on how he made patsies out of both Pakistanis and Afghanis and the world in the name of mujahideen's Islam, https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-to-win-nobel-peace-prize.html















do your duty as a human being first – act
on what differentiates you from a wolf:
it lives by the law of the jungle!












Thank you!











Report Version History:
First Report Published on October 07, 2011 as Letter to Editor, 30 pages [ link ]
Final Report Published on November 01, 2011 12:00 pm 132 pages [ link ]
Final Report Recap Published on February 23, 2012 6:00 pm 140 pages [ link ]
Final Report Reissued on Friday, November 30, 2018 12:00 pm 103511 358 pages [ link ]

Additions are: letters to editor, opeds, in-document inks to cache of plagiarized pages for self-containment, Précis, Extended Abstract, Appendix-A, B, C, D, added. The main exposé chapters of masterpiece of plagiarism by I. R. Durrani with system-wide collusion are in situ as in the previous two editions of this report. Initial versions of this Reissued Report are: November 21, 2018, 318 pages; and November 23, 2018, 330 pages. This version finalizes the 2018 case studies reported in Appendix-C.
Last updated for typofix and dcabes 2004 links in Appendix-C on December 2, 2018 12:00 pm 103608







<this page intentionally blank>

















Whistleblowing Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan - Pakistan Case Study in National Loss of Ethics 2011-2018 By Zahir Ebrahim 358 / 358