The hatred and violence dictated by the state through the textbooks need to be challenged, which is only possible through the restoration of the students’ unions. The recent clashes between lawyers and doctors in Lahore as well as that between two student bodies in Islamic International University, Islamabad (IIUI) raised a serious question on quality of education that we are providing in our institutions. The reaction of official stakeholders and state-sponsored intelligentsia was both disastrous and anti-democratic. They believed that an authoritarian and bureaucratic control and mechanism system in civilian institutions, especially in education, can control these violent activities. Aren’t these educational institutions overdeveloped in authoritarian and bureaucratic control? The recording of private videos of female students at Balochistan University happened under the noses of the high control of Frontier Corps (FC) and the army, which proved that such accidents cannot be controlled by authoritarian measures. It is not so simple to measure why the response to violent accidents in Pakistan is always authoritative and security-centred. This complex issue can be understood from the securitised nature of the state and the state-civilians relationship. The security concept is not new, rather present from the centuries. However, it has changed its shape. In the past, a strong army was employed to control subjects. Brutal prisons were another tool to terrorise and discipline the subjects. But with the inception of modern institutions, like bureaucracy and education, the concept of hard security changed into soft security. As per Michael Foucault, now, people are being controlled by two means: consent (education and bureaucracy) and repressive measures (army). We have experienced the British security system in British India, where the British Raj used to control and discipline the Indians using two strong institutions: Military and Bureaucracy. These institutions were to be known as the steel framework of the British empire. Unfortunately, we inherited weak civilian institutions, including the parliament and judiciary, but strong security and disciplining institutions, like army and bureaucracy. The result, as a famous writer, Hamza Alivi, argued, was a more authoritarian state, which was overdeveloped and civilians were underdeveloped. This authoritarian nature of the state did not change in 70 years and the controlled democratic governments often surrendered authority. The disease pertains to why do students fight in educational institutions? Why are students committing suicide? Why are dead bodies of students found inside the campuses with strong security systems? It has become common sense that every response to any issue or incident would be authoritarian and security-centred. Having said this, it is necessary to come to the main point: the educational institutions were not free from this authoritarian control and securitised and bureaucratised to control the only nursery of progressive and enlightened people. This process of securitisation and authoritarian education was there since independence, but General Zia’s policies were hard in this regard. He banned the students’ unions in the country and violent political organisations were allowed to control the campuses and exclude the progressive elements from educational institutions. Alongside, the institutions started being controlled by the bureaucrats and retired army officers. They had direct control on matters like the appointment of teaching faculty, activities of teachers and students. The securitisation of education was started by Zia, but the legacy is still alive. Skirmishes between two bodies of students are always resolved by authoritarian and securitised measures. The state is fighting symptoms, not the disease. The disease pertains to why do students fight in educational institutions? Why are students committing suicide? Why are dead bodies of students found inside the campuses with strong security systems? And why do the students opt for violence in place of debate? The answer is not simple, and we have to question the quality of education and textbooks being taught in institutions in the country. The Mashal Khan Case is a good study to carry in this regard. Therein, educated people killed a young progressive co-fellow on the false charges of blasphemy. The word “educated” that I referred to, meant that these students had passed certain classes in the educational institutions and learned hatred and violence in the textbooks. Mashal Khan raised certain questions on the administration of the university, but the alarming situation was when instead of helping him, the students killed him. Now, here the disease is our curriculum, based on hatred and violence, and results in the killing of young progressive students. The case, which I would build here, is for the restoration of the students’ unions. If there had been an elected student body present in Abdul Wali Khan University, there could be no lynching of Mashal Khan. The hatred and violence dictated by the state through the textbooks need to be challenged, which is only possible through the restoration of the students’ unions and the unity of the students across the country. Students should engage in debates over certain issues and resolve the problems through debates. I am not saying the students’ unions will be completely free from the violence, but the situation would be far better than today, where students kill their friends and celebrate their murders. In the presence of a strong student’s union, it could not be possible to leave students at the mercy of such murderers. Secondly, the students’ unions will try building a democratic environment in campuses where students will believe in democracy as the only way forward to oppose the views of the people and to engage with them democratically, not violently. They will show their power in the elections and gradually, they will develop a democratic society where no one would impose certain ideas on others, rather engage everyone in a discussion. Lastly, I would tell the people to please not link the recent activities with the campaign for the restoration of students’ unions. These violent activities are happening in the educational institutions, largely because the students’ unions were banned and political wings were allowed to act on their behalf. The solution is neither securitisation nor an authoritative control of the educational institutions, but, as I have repeatedly mentioned above, fighting the disease, not its symptoms. The writer is an MPhil Scholar at National Institute of Pakistan Studies, QAU, Islamabad