By Subrat Ratho
Artificial intelligence has moved rapidly from research laboratories into the everyday functioning of institutions. It shapes recruitment processes, financial risk assessments, healthcare diagnostics, logistics systems and increasingly, academic environments. Governments are investing heavily. Universities are eager to demonstrate capability. The language of innovation dominates institutional discourse.
Yet leadership in the age of AI cannot be confined to technological adoption.
Institutions – whether public bodies or universities – derive their authority not merely from competence, but from credibility. Their strength lies not only in performance, but in trust.
A recent incident prompted my reflection on this point. Public claims were made in front of TV cameras that two advanced technological artefacts on display – a Chinese robot and a Korean drone – were creations of an Indian University’s “Centre of Excellence.” These claims were made by a member of the faculty of Galgotias University in India’s AI summit and promoted me to post on LinkedIn yesterday about how shameful it is.
Also Read: Ajit Dada Pawar: What You Saw Is What You Got
Whether representations and claims made by any institution is as brazen as the one referred to above or merely ‘inaccurate’, my concern is not primarily about embarrassment. It is about standards and ethics.
Academic institutions occupy a distinctive position in society. They are custodians of knowledge, not merely participants in competition. Their authority rests on rigour, peer validation and intellectual honesty. When the boundary between aspiration and attribution becomes unclear, institutional credibility suffers – and with it, the credibility of the broader ecosystem.
This is precisely why the humanities retain enduring relevance.
Artificial intelligence raises profound questions that cannot be resolved by engineering alone. Issues of attribution, authorship, accountability and fairness are ethical questions before they are technical ones. The humanities – philosophy, history, law, literature – cultivate habits of discernment that help institutions navigate such questions with clarity.
From a purely technical standpoint, innovation can be demonstrated through prototypes and performance metrics. From an institutional standpoint, legitimacy depends on transparency and integrity. The distinction is not rhetorical; it is foundational.
The rapid expansion of generative AI in education further sharpens this challenge. If educational environments begin to prioritise output over understanding, speed over substance, or optics over originality, they risk weakening the very capacities they seek to advance.
In public life, one lesson remains constant: institutions endure not because they are swift, but because they are trusted. Technology can enhance processes. It cannot substitute for ethical discipline.
The integration of artificial intelligence into governance and academia will continue. The question is not whether we adopt these tools, but how. The societies that manage this transition well will be those that combine technical proficiency with moral seriousness.
The humanities are not competitors to innovation. They are safeguards.
In an age of accelerating algorithms, institutional integrity cannot be incidental. It is essential.
(Author Subrat Ratho is a former bureaucrat. An Indian Administrative Service officer (1986 batch, Maharashtra cadre), Mr Ratho held key positions at both the Centre and State, shaping policy and administration across diverse sections.)
