After the infamous incident at Hathras, Uttar Pradesh more than year ago I had tweeted: “Handling situations like the one at Hathras or improving governance doesn’t really require artificial intelligence (AI). It requires attitude and empathy, critical parts of emotional intelligence. Let us get ‘real’ before we get sold out to the ‘artificial’” This Tweet caught the fancy of the “Twitterati”
Use of AI in governance has been highlighted in a number of articles in the recent past. There is perhaps no doubt about its use as is already being demonstrated in some parts of the world. Hence, AI needs to be understood, pursued and its utility, efficacy and necessity communicated in an intelligible manner to all the stakeholders. What will also be necessary is to understand its limitations and not present it as a panacea for all ills. Like all other technologies (AI also being a technology though an evolved one), AI is also a tool and is as good as the person who uses it. However, the purpose of any technology, especially in the context of governance, is to make life easy for the common man.
My 38-year experience in the government, both at the Centre and the State, makes me convinced that real problem is not with technology but with attitude. AI (Artificial Intelligence) without the other AI (Attitudinal Intelligence) will serve no purpose. Hathras was just an example of how technology can do nothing if the attitude is not right. In most of such situations, and such situations arise every day for an administrator, technology can be of little use. Such situations require empathy and that has nothing to do with technology. Ironically, even the use of technology requires right attitude. There is indeed a vast area where technology can transform governance as has been demonstrated repeatedly. The Prime Minister Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) and its precursor Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) ride on technology. Transparent coal block auctions during 2015-16 and clearance of record number of projects through the facilitation of the Project Monitoring Group during 2013-14 happened on account of use of technology. The paper-less and transparent transactions were hailed as successful models. Hence, technology is available and is being used. However, the scale at which it should have happened to improve governance hasn’t. And, the problem is that of attitude. How else do you explain that a number of Ministries/Departments in the Central Government have still not gone digital? They still have voluminous files moving (if they are moving) in the corridors of the Secretariat even though the Prime Minister has repeatedly focused on the use of technology. Everyone agrees that technology can make life easy, it can make processes transparent and improve accountability. Then what could be the reason for the existing state of affairs? Is it on account of inertia and/or fear of unknown? Or, perhaps to remain unaccountable? Or, a combination of these? Whatever may be the reason, it can all be attributed to “attitude”. ‘Sufficient’ technology is indeed available and it can also solve a number of problems. We are quick to use technology when it relates to “us” (the way we have all gone digital in our personal lives is quite incredible) but when the problem relates to someone else, we refrain from using technology because we treat them as problems of “others” and not “ours”. Hence, it is an attitudinal problem and has nothing to do with technology. If we are unable to induce those in the government to use existing technology, how do we expect them to make use of much more complex and esoteric artificial intelligence?
Be that as it may, the real problem is not the non-availability of technology. The issue is how attitude can be changed both in the context where technology is not an issue (in incidents like Hathras) and where technology can be a game-changer in terms of governance? The issue is how to develop this other AI, Attitudinal Intelligence? It is not easy but it can be done. In the short-run, the efficacy and utility of technology can be demonstrated to the users. This is already being done but has to be given a greater push. This would apply to such cases where use of technology impacts governance. What is being attempted in Haryana by Samagra to eliminate physical interface between government officials and the common man for delivery of services can and should be replicated in other parts of the country. How use of technology and transparency can protect civil servants from getting caught in political cross-fire can be good enough inducement for the civil servants to use technology. Technology can also reduce a lot of drudgery. All this is not very difficult. Perhaps more complex is the change in attitude in handling Hathras-like situations. This can’t happen overnight. As mentioned in “Ethical Dilemmas of a Civil Servant”, the issue will have to be looked at comprehensively as a part of management of civil services. “What really needs to be done is to look at the manner in which recruitment takes place, the in-service training, mentoring, transfers, assessment of officers, incentives, and disincentives by the ways of promotion and selections to critical posts”. The objective should be to select such persons who have leadership qualities or have the potential to become leaders, and leaders worthy of respect. The training should also centre around building a positive and empathetic attitude. Mission Karmyogi announced by the Prime Minister gives us a lot of hope. Technology can then be put to a comprehensive use and in improving governance. Perhaps then “artificial” (AI) could become “real”. Even then, we will have to be mindful of the concerns of the common man about the potential misuse/abuse of personal data collected by the government and its agencies through use of technology.
Aadhar faced such issues. We will have to accordingly build such foundations for AI as are beyond any doubt. Transparency would help but whether one wants to be transparent or not depends not on technology but on one’s attitude.
