Nagaland’s announcement of a more than Rs 10-crore partnership with Google for school education is certainly worth attention. Technology, artificial intelligence and digital skills can open new possibilities for young people in a State where geography has often limited access to opportunities. But such announcements should also invite a more fundamental question about what exactly this investment will change in the lives of ordinary students.
There is a broader issue with the language surrounding such initiatives. Terms such as AI, future-ready skills, digital transformation, innovation, robotics, data analytics, geospatial technology, drones, e-sports and global opportunities are politically attractive. But they can easily obscure the more mundane foundations of education: competent teachers, functioning schools, reliable electricity and internet, adequate classrooms, libraries, laboratories and, above all, students actually acquiring basic skills. Technology is not a substitute for these foundations.
The promise of connecting Nagaland’s young people to national and global opportunities is reasonable. A student in a remote village can, in principle, access learning resources, training and opportunities that were once available only in major cities. But having a computer or an AI platform does not by itself create an educated or employable young person. Technology becomes meaningful only when students have the teachers, infrastructure and support needed to use it effectively.
This is why the government’s announcement should be followed by greater clarity. What exactly will Google’s investment fund? How many schools and students will benefit? Over what period? What measurable outcomes have been established? Who will implement and monitor the programme? And how will the public know whether those targets have actually been met?
These are not questions intended to diminish the initiative. They are necessary precisely because public money, public institutions and the future of thousands of students are involved.
There is also a danger in allowing grand technology projects to become concentrated in Kohima and Dimapur while students in smaller towns and rural areas remain disconnected. If technology is genuinely being presented as a means of overcoming Nagaland’s geographical constraints, its success should ultimately be visible beyond the major urban centres.
Governments are naturally inclined to announce achievements. The public, however, has a right to see results. A Rs 10-crore partnership should therefore not be measured by the announcement ceremony, the presence of a global technology company or the number of fashionable terms in a speech.
It should be measured by something much simpler: How many children learned something they could not learn before? How many teachers became better equipped? How many schools gained meaningful access to technology? And what opportunities did those children actually gain?
The real test of this partnership will not come on the day the MoU is signed. It will come years later, when we can look beyond the promises and see what was actually delivered.
