At the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, organisers hoped to showcase India’s technological ambition. Instead, they exposed strains in its higher-education system. A private university displayed a robotic dog and billed it as home-grown innovation. Social media users and officials quickly identified it as a commercially manufactured Chinese model.
Promptly, the government asked the university to shut its stall, but the incident drew sharp criticism and dented its credibility. More importantly, it sparked a wider debate about how Indian universities are absorbing artificial intelligence into research, teaching and brand-building.
The uproar over the robotic dog distracts from a deeper shift. Across India, generative AI and algorithmic systems are rapidly entering academic life. Bengaluru’s tech ecosystem fuels campus partnerships; state governments draft digital strategies; universities open AI labs modelled on data-heavy research centres abroad; administrators talk of “AI factories”; classrooms experiment with large language model tutors.
Yet critics warn that technological adoption now outpaces pedagogical thinking. The scandal at the summit was not just about honesty. Instead, it revealed that prestige and speed are taking precedence over reflection and rigour.
Public policy often fixates on visible markers: how many AI labs opened this year? How large were the investment pledges? Which global tech firm signed the latest memorandum of understanding? And so on. Politicians and commentators present artificial intelligence as central to India’s economic future, arguing that AI will help India overcome constraints on research capacity and expand access to high-quality education.
In this framing, the goals are clear: train more graduates in advanced skills, publish more research, launch more start-ups, and attract more corporate partnerships. But if universities see themselves only as output factories, artificial intelligence may worsen old tensions.
Universities do more than produce degrees and papers. They sustain communities of practice—faculty mentor students; departments design curricula, and young scholars learn the fundamentals of research through repetition and critique. These routines look inefficient on paper, but they resist easy scaling. Yet they form the backbone of academic life. If they are replaced with algorithmic shortcuts, institutions change in character.
But it does not mean artificial intelligence lacks value. Hybrid systems are already reshaping daily academic routines. Students are using AI tools to summarise readings, outline essays and clarify concepts; faculty are drafting lecture notes and assessment rubrics with machine assistance. Researchers are scanning vast literature and testing code more quickly. Many Indian institutions have now permitted the use of AI tools in coursework; some have deployed adaptive learning platforms at scale.
These changes can widen access. For instance, AI tools can deliver explanations to students in remote areas, provide feedback when faculty numbers are limited, and reduce time spent on repetitive tasks. However, as reliance grows, so do risks. Institutions must decide how much they delegate and how much they retain.
Transparency poses a challenge. Conversational systems blur lines between human and machine learning. A student revising for an exam may not know whether advice comes from a teaching assistant or a chatbot. A lecturer may use AI-generated comments without full disclosure. When students cannot tell who is speaking, trust will weaken. Academic relationships depend on clarity about responsibility; when that clarity is removed, suspicion creeps in, and students start to question not just the answers but also their sources.
Accountability raises further problems. Who owns an idea shaped through iterative prompts? If a lecturer uses AI to design an assignment and a student uses AI to draft a response, what exactly does the assessment measure? Furthermore, the spread of machine-assisted writing complicates authorship, blurring the line between credit and responsibility.
Universities that chase global rankings and citation metrics must ask whether a publication reflects human insight, machine synthesis or both. They must define boundaries before those boundaries dissolve.
A deeper issue concerns cognition. Artificial intelligence removes drudgery. Few mourn the loss of manual citation formatting. Few miss debugging trivial errors line by line. But learning depends on struggle. Psychologists show that students retain knowledge better when they wrestle with problems. They call these “desirable difficulties.” Drafting a weak paragraph and revising it builds skill. Wrestling with a confusing theory sharpens comprehension. If AI smooths every bump, students may reach answers faster but understand less. They may lose the habit of thinking independently.
The episode at the India AI Impact Summit resonated because it touched raw nerves. It highlighted anxieties about authenticity and expertise. By presenting imported hardware as indigenous innovation, the university blurred the line between claims and substance. That blur mirrors a broader risk. Universities certify knowledge. They anchor trust in expertise. If they lean too heavily on opaque systems or inflate claims, they weaken that trust.
Autonomous systems intensify the stakes. Some laboratories already use robotic platforms to run experiments around the clock. These systems analyse results and automatically adjust protocols. Adaptive teaching platforms promise personalised instruction for thousands of students at once. Proponents say such tools will free academics to focus on creativity and mentorship. They may well ease workloads, but they may also displace the training ground that shapes future scholars.
If machines conduct most routine experiments, young researchers lose chances to learn by doing. If automated tutors handle day-to-day teaching, junior academics lose practice in explaining complex ideas. Over time, the pipeline of expertise may narrow. Universities may still produce papers and graduates, but fewer individuals will gain deep mastery of their craft. The system could look productive while hollowing out.
Undergraduates face a parallel risk. When AI offers instant summaries, model essays and ready-made explanations, temptation grows. Students may outsource the hardest parts of thinking. They may trade confusion for convenience. Education then becomes consumption, not formation. The result may be competent output without resilient judgment.
This is not an argument for rejecting artificial intelligence altogether. Nor is it nostalgia for a pre-digital campus. Technology will continue to shape universities, but the real question concerns purpose. Why do universities exist? If they exist to maximise throughput, automation fits neatly. If they exist to cultivate critical thinkers and responsible professionals, then process matters as much as product.
Indian universities must therefore articulate clear principles. They should define when AI assists and when it substitutes, and require disclosure when machines shape feedback or assessment. They should teach students not just how to use AI tools but how to question them. Governing bodies need rules on authorship and responsibility, and curricula must integrate ethics alongside technical skills. Assessment must reward reasoning.
These steps will not slow technological change. But they may anchor it in an educational purpose. Artificial intelligence has deepened its imprint on campuses and will continue to do so. Undoubtedly, that trend will continue. The harder task lies in deciding what kind of graduates institutions aim to produce.
A robotic dog at a summit may invite mockery. The deeper issue concerns the ecosystems behind such displays. If universities preserve the habits that build judgment and integrity, AI can strengthen them. If they neglect those habits, no amount of technological flair will compensate. Degrees will still be awarded, but they will be meaningless.
-30-
Copyright©Madras Courier, All Rights Reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from madrascourier.com and redistribute by email, post to the web, mobile phone or social media.Please send in your feed back and comments to [email protected]
