Viksit Bharat needs future-ready universities

This article is authored by Gurudev Somani, co-founder & CEO, MasterSoft AI (Edtech ERP).

India’s ambition to become a developed nation by 2047 will depend not only on how many young people enter education, but on what they learn, whether they complete their education and how effectively they can apply that learning. The next phase of education reform must therefore focus on a question that receives less attention than new policies or technology: Can institutions translate reform into better learning outcomes? There are useful lessons across the education system.

Education (Representative file photo)

Consider Rajasthan’s Shikshak app, an AI-assisted assessment initiative described in a NITI Aayog report. Teachers can use it to analyse students’ answer sheets and identify learning gaps in subjects such as Hindi, English and mathematics. The purpose is not simply to digitise assessment; it is to give teachers information they can use to plan remedial teaching. The report describes assessments conducted three times a year, creating a feedback loop between evaluation and classroom intervention. The lesson is straightforward: technology has educational value when it changes the next decision an educator makes. Universities must apply the same principle, but to a more complex set of challenges.

Under the National Education Policy 2020, students are meant to have greater flexibility to pursue multidisciplinary learning and, subject to applicable rules, enter or exit programmes at different stages. The Academic Bank of Credits provides infrastructure for storing and transferring eligible academic credits. Yet a digital record alone cannot guarantee that a receiving institution will recognise those credits smoothly. Universities need clear equivalence rules, coordinated academic departments and transparent procedures for students seeking to resume or change their studies.

This is where the distinction between announcing reform and executing it becomes critical. If a student must repeatedly chase departments to establish which credits count towards a qualification, flexibility exists on paper but remains difficult to exercise. Institutional readiness must, therefore, be judged by how reliably these pathways work for students, not simply by whether a university has adopted a platform.

A recent EY-Parthenon–FICCI study on higher education’s AI transition, identifies a gap between students’ growing use of AI tools and institutions’ readiness to integrate them meaningfully. IIM Bangalore is among the institutions exploring customised generative-AI tools in assessments to evaluate critical thinking. The significance lies in the shift in what is being assessed: Not merely whether students can produce an answer, but whether they can reason through a problem and demonstrate independent judgement. Universities will need to rethink assignments, examinations and faculty development accordingly. Banning AI outright is unlikely to prepare students for workplaces where such tools are increasingly available. Equally, allowing unrestricted use without changing assessment risks rewarding polished outputs over genuine understanding.

These challenges cannot be addressed through technology procurement alone. A university needs faculty who can redesign learning, academic leaders who can coordinate change, and institutional systems that turn information into timely action. When attendance, assessment and academic progression remain disconnected, early signs that a student is struggling may go unnoticed. Better-connected information can help educators intervene, provided it is used responsibly and protects student privacy. Nor can every institution follow the same modernisation timetable. A research-intensive university may be ready to experiment with advanced AI applications, while a college elsewhere may need to strengthen faculty capacity, academic records and examination processes first. National policy must support both ambitions rather than allow the technology divide to become another measure of educational inequality.

This is why higher education deserves sustained priority in India’s development strategy. Investment must extend beyond campuses and digital infrastructure to research, teacher development, institutional leadership and partnerships that expose students to real problems. Progress should be measured through outcomes: Whether students learn, progress, complete qualifications and develop capabilities that remain useful as industries change. A Viksit Bharat will not be built by policy announcements or technology adoption alone. It will require institutions capable of turning both into meaningful educational experiences. The real measure of a future-ready university is not how modern it appears, but how effectively it prepares people to shape the future.

(The views expressed are personal)

This article is authored by Gurudev Somani, co-founder & CEO, MasterSoft AI (Edtech ERP).