top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Wise Intervention

If the Centre’s response to the NEET protests has been an admixture of vacillation, force and defensiveness, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s unequivocal endorsement of Gen Z may prove to be the most politically astute intervention since the agitation began. By recognising the legitimacy of young Indians’ grievances instead of questioning their patriotism, Bhagwat may have prevented a crisis over examination leaks from becoming a lasting rupture with the ruling BJP’s future electorate. While...

Wise Intervention

If the Centre’s response to the NEET protests has been an admixture of vacillation, force and defensiveness, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s unequivocal endorsement of Gen Z may prove to be the most politically astute intervention since the agitation began. By recognising the legitimacy of young Indians’ grievances instead of questioning their patriotism, Bhagwat may have prevented a crisis over examination leaks from becoming a lasting rupture with the ruling BJP’s future electorate. While protesters are readily caricatured as troublemakers or political pawns, Bhagwat has consciously rejected that temptation. By insisting that young demonstrators are neither anti-national nor outsiders but India’s own next generation, he has reframed the debate from one of confrontation to one of responsibility. While the protests spearheaded by Abhijit Dipke and his Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) took a notably ugly turn, leading many citizens to cast aspersions on the motivations on the protestors and their credibility, the controversy over examination leaks is nevertheless a serious and burning issue reflecting deeper anxieties among millions of young Indians about fairness, merit and opportunity. Bhagwat’s admission that “something that shouldn’t happen” had indeed happened, and that such failures indicated “a deficiency” requiring correction, was an important recognition that government institutions must be capable of introspection. Equally striking was his understanding of generational change. His observation that his own generation accepted authority while Gen Z demands logical answers was a graceful acceptance that democratic engagement has evolved. Young Indians today question institutions because they have higher expectations of them. Mature democracies do not fear such questioning, and that is what Bhagwat’s remarks implied. His approach may carry considerable political significance for the ruling BJP. India is one of the world’s youngest democracies, with more than half its population below the age of 35. By 2029, Gen Z will constitute one of the country’s most influential electoral constituencies. Alienating them through dismissive rhetoric or excessive force would have been politically costly. Bhagwat’s unequivocal expression of trust - going so far as to say that if asked to trust blindly, he would trust Gen Z - offers a markedly different message. It tells young Indians that criticism of administrative failures need not place them outside the national mainstream. In doing so, Bhagwat may also have blunted attempts by politically motivated groups to convert legitimate student grievances into a broader campaign of perpetual confrontation. Every democracy contains forces that seek to transform dissatisfaction into lasting alienation from constitutional politics. The surest antidote is not denunciation but through engagement. By recognising the legitimacy of protest while emphasising dialogue and democratic methods, Bhagwat has reduced the space for those seeking to escalate anger into indiscriminate agitation.

The Intelligence Paradox

In the age of AI, the deeper challenge is whether human judgment can keep pace with the machines we have built.

AI generated image
AI generated image

A student today can write an essay in minutes with the help of artificial intelligence. A doctor can consult AI systems to analyze medical scans, and a lawyer can generate a legal draft within seconds. Tasks that once required hours of human effort can now be completed almost instantly, illustrating how rapidly intelligent machines are entering professional and everyday life.


Artificial intelligence is advancing at a pace that would have seemed unimaginable just a decade ago. Machines can write essays, translate languages, detect diseases, compose music, and assist scientists in complex research. As these capabilities expand rapidly, a quieter but far more important question arises: is human intelligence keeping pace with the technologies we are creating?


This question is no longer theoretical. Artificial intelligence is already reshaping classrooms, workplaces, and homes. Schools are introducing AI tools into learning environments, companies are redesigning work around automation, and governments are beginning to frame policies to regulate its expanding role. Precisely because AI is becoming so powerful, it is worth asking what this transformation means for the development of human thinking itself.


Natural Intelligence

To address this question, we must first understand what natural intelligence really means. Natural intelligence is not merely the ability to recall information or retrieve facts. It is the living activity of the human brain, which constantly interprets, evaluates, and responds to the world.


When we think, imagine, judge, empathize, or make decisions, billions of neurons communicate through intricate networks shaped by experience. These neural connections are not fixed. They continuously reorganize as we learn, reflect, and solve problems. Intelligence, therefore, involves much more than processing information. It includes understanding meaning, weighing consequences, exercising judgment, and accepting responsibility for decisions.


The brain does not simply calculate answers. It integrates knowledge with experience, emotion, context, and values. This integration allows human beings to interpret situations, anticipate outcomes, and make responsible choices. That depth of understanding gives natural intelligence a richness that artificial systems have not yet replicated.


Much of the excitement surrounding artificial intelligence centers on computational speed. Modern computers can perform billions or even trillions of calculations every second, allowing them to analyze enormous datasets quickly. Yet speed alone does not define intelligence.


Power of Human Brain

The human brain operates with extraordinary efficiency. It consumes only about twenty watts of energy, roughly the power needed to light a small bulb. From this modest energy emerge language, imagination, creativity, emotional awareness, and moral reasoning. Despite decades of technological progress, no artificial system integrates all these capacities within a single coherent entity.


Computers and brains, therefore, represent different forms of intelligence. Computers excel at rapid calculations and pattern detection, while the human brain integrates perception, memory, emotion, and meaning. Artificial intelligence systems analyze massive datasets and generate responses based on statistical patterns, but they do not live experiences or confront moral dilemmas.


The comparison reminds us that intelligence is not defined only by speed or computational power. It is defined by understanding, judgment, and responsibility.


The digital age has given humanity unprecedented access to information. With a few keystrokes we can retrieve facts that once required hours of searching through books and libraries. This ease of access is one of the major achievements of modern technology and has transformed education, research, and communication.


However, the availability of information can sometimes create an illusion of understanding. Information and wisdom are not the same thing. Information tells us what is known, knowledge helps us understand it, and wisdom helps us decide what matters.


Information can be copied endlessly and transmitted instantly across the world. Wisdom grows slowly through experience, reflection, and engagement with uncertainty. It cannot simply be downloaded or generated automatically.


The brain grows stronger when it is challenged and used regularly. Analyzing arguments, solving difficult problems, and reflecting carefully before making decisions reinforce neural connections and deepen understanding. Intellectual effort is therefore not merely an academic exercise; it is the process through which thinking develops.


When machines perform many intellectual tasks for us, however, there is a risk that we gradually lose the habit of deep thinking. The paradox of the AI age is that as machines become better at answering questions, human beings must become better at asking the right ones and judging the answers.


Intellectual Passivity

For this reason, the danger is not that machines will become too intelligent but that human beings may become intellectually passive. Concerns about job losses due to automation are understandable, but the more fundamental challenge lies in preserving the habit of thoughtful reasoning.


These concerns are already visible in educational settings. Artificial intelligence can personalize learning, provide rapid feedback, and make knowledge more accessible to students. These benefits are real and should not be ignored.


Yet foundational intellectual abilities must develop before such tools dominate the learning process. Teachers have observed an interesting pattern. Essays generated with AI assistance may appear polished and fluent, but when students are asked to explain their reasoning, many struggle to articulate the arguments they have submitted.


A child who uses a calculator before understanding numbers may never develop number sense. Similarly, students who rely heavily on AI before learning to reason independently may fail to develop intellectual clarity. Reading carefully, writing ideas in one’s own words, and solving problems step by step remain essential mental exercises.


The implications extend far beyond education. Democracies depend on citizens capable of independent thought and informed judgment. Scientific progress requires researchers who question established ideas and test them rigorously. Leadership demands individuals who can weigh evidence carefully and make decisions under uncertainty. If societies begin to confuse instant answers with deep understanding, the quality of public debate may weaken.


Throughout history, technological tools have changed rapidly, but the quality of human judgment has always determined how those tools are used.


The future will not be decided by which system calculates faster. It will depend on whether human beings preserve depth of thought, independence of judgment, and responsibility for action.


(The author is an ANRF Prime Minister Professor at COEP Technological University, Pune; former Director of the Agharkar Research Institute, Pune; and former Visiting Professor at IIT Bombay. Views personal.)


Comments

bottom of page