S. Radha Chauhan,
New Delhi, Feb 19 (.) Artificial Intelligence is reshaping the foundations of governance and work. Algorithms increasingly inform decisions about welfare targeting, tax compliance, urban planning, agricultural advisories, and health interventions. Generative systems draft notes, analytics engines forecast risk, and automated workflows accelerate service delivery. The possibilities are vast, and the momentum is undeniable.
Yet, amid this rapid transformation, one fact remains constant: the effectiveness of AI in government depends far less on the sophistication of technology than on the preparedness of its human resources. For many countries, especially across the Global South, the core challenge is not whether AI solutions exist. It is whether civil servants possess the confidence, skills, and institutional support required to use them responsibly, interpret them correctly, and remain accountable for outcomes.
The AI era requires a shift from sporadic training to continuous capability development. Traditional systems were designed for stability, with slow curriculum changes and gradual policy evolution. Today, rapid technological advances outpace institutional cycles, regulations must adapt swiftly, and citizens expect transparent, responsive services. As knowledge quickly becomes outdated, governments must cultivate a workforce committed to ongoing learning and agile adaptation.
AI now permeates public administration, from procurement and strategic decision-making to auditing and frontline service delivery. Because its applications vary across roles, capacity building must be both broad and role-specific. A tiered proficiency model distinguishing users, supervisors, and leaders allows targeted skill development while maintaining a shared foundation across the system. Foundational digital literacy ensures civil servants understand AI, data privacy, and accountability. Applied proficiency enables supervisors to interpret outputs, ensure compliance, manage risks, and make informed decisions. Strategic leadership equips senior officials to design governance frameworks, address ethical challenges, and align AI use with national priorities.
Another critical facet of capacity building in AI-age is ethical and responsible use. Governments operate within constitutional frameworks that protect rights, ensure fairness, and demand transparency. Civil servants must therefore understand issues such as privacy, proportionality, documentation, and grievance redressal in the context of AI. Technological sophistication without ethical literacy can undermine legitimacy.
Finally, the introduction of AI often requires redesigning processes themselves. Workflows may change; responsibilities may shift; communication with stakeholders must evolve. Skills in change management and service design become indispensable to ensure that innovation translates into durable improvement.
Designing for Accountability & Inclusion
At the heart of capacity building for the AI-age lies a principle that deserves explicit emphasis: humans must remain in the loop. No matter how advanced algorithms become, they do not bear constitutional responsibility, democratic legitimacy, or social empathy. They cannot weigh political trade-offs, interpret cultural nuance, or assume accountability before citizens. Public servants must therefore retain authority to question, validate, and, when necessary, override technological outputs.
AI should expand administrative reach, reduce drudgery, and illuminate options. It should not displace human judgment. This human-centred approach is also essential for inclusion. Many governments serve populations speaking multiple languages and living in geographically dispersed areas. Systems must therefore be accessible on basic devices, adaptable to local contexts, and usable by frontline functionaries. If AI capability is concentrated only in elite segments, the promise of digital transformation will remain unfulfilled.
When these new-age competencies are strengthened systematically, the dividends can be substantial. Policies can be implemented more rapidly, resources targeted more precisely, leakages reduced, and monitoring improved. Citizens encounter administrations that are both empathetic and efficient. Most importantly, institutions become capable of learning continuously as technology evolves.
But building individual knowledge and skills is only half the task. Institutional stewardship is equally important. Governments require mechanisms to define competency standards, validate learning resources, align development with workforce planning, and measure whether investments translate into improved outcomes. Without such architecture, training risks becoming disconnected from performance.
India’s Mission Karmayogi, the National Programme for Civil Services Capacity Building, offers a powerful case study in how to prepare future-ready public servants at scale. Anchored in the principle of competency-driven learning, the mission shifts civil service training away from episodic, generic instruction toward continuous, role-linked capability development.
At the heart of this reform is the Capacity Building Commission (CBC), established in 2021 to drive civil services transformation. It sets competency standards, validates learning resources, and aligns training with national goals such as Viksit Bharat @2047, ensuring measurable improvements in governance outcomes.
The iGOT Karmayogi portal brings this vision to life, onboarding over 14.9 million users and offering 4,300 courses with more than 73 million completions. By integrating AI, it enables personalized learning, anticipates emerging skill needs, and delivers adaptive content across roles—from strategic leadership to frontline service delivery.
Together, under Mission Karmayogi, this model positions India’s reform as a scalable Digital Public Good. It demonstrates how large civil services—especially in the Global South—can access continuous, role-based learning at scale. By prioritizing skills, ethical safeguards, and human oversight, India is shaping an AI-era governance model focused on trust, accountability, and better public service outcomes.
(The author is a retired civil servant. Views expressed are personal.)
. .
