The Digital Divide in the Age of AI

Artificial intelligence is often presented as the next great equaliser: a tool that can put knowledge, services and opportunity within everyone’s reach. For a student, it may explain a difficult lesson; for a farmer, help interpret weather or market information; for a small business, make tasks easier and cheaper. Yet this promise rests on a basic condition that is too often overlooked: people must first be able to get online, access a suitable device and use digital tools with confidence. In Jammu and Kashmir, that condition is far from universal. The digital divide is not merely a question of who has an internet connection and who does not. It reflects differences in the quality and reliability of connectivity, the cost of devices and data, digital literacy, language access and the availability of support. Geography and income shape each of these. A household in a well-connected urban neighbourhood does not face the same barriers as a family in a remote village, a student sharing one phone with siblings, or an older person trying to navigate an online service without help. The arrival of AI makes these inequalities more consequential. When public services, schools and workplaces increasingly rely on digital platforms, those who lack access risk being left out of essential opportunities. When AI tools become common in education, students who can use them effectively may gain an advantage over those who cannot. When businesses adopt automation, people with relevant skills may find new avenues, while others face greater insecurity. Technology does not distribute its benefits automatically; access, design and public policy determine who gains. That is why the debate about AI in Kashmir must begin not with slogans about innovation, but with the realities of everyday access. Can a student rely on a stable connection to attend an online class or research a subject? Can a family afford a device that does more than run basic messaging apps? Are digital services available in languages people understand? Can users get assistance when an online form fails or an automated system does not recognise their needs? These are not minor details. They determine whether digital transformation is useful in practice or merely impressive in policy documents. Connectivity remains the foundation. Intermittent or slow internet can make an AI tool inaccessible even when a phone is available. In hilly and remote areas, infrastructure gaps can turn a routine online task into a frustrating exercise. For students, unreliable access can disrupt learning; for entrepreneurs, it can limit the ability to reach customers; for patients, it can weaken the promise of telemedicine. Digital services cannot be called inclusive if they work smoothly only for those already served by strong networks. Affordability is another barrier. A smartphone may be present in a household, but that does not mean every member has meaningful access to it. One shared device cannot reliably serve several students, workers and family members at once. Data costs, repairs and the need for newer hardware can also place digital tools beyond the reach of low-income households. As AI applications become more demanding, the gap between having a phone and having a device capable of using modern tools may grow. The skills gap is just as important. Access to an AI platform does not guarantee that a person can judge its answers, protect personal information or distinguish reliable guidance from error. AI systems can produce convincing but inaccurate responses. They may also reflect biases in the data on which they were trained, or fail to account for local contexts. Users need more than instructions on which buttons to press. They need the confidence and critical understanding to question what a system tells them and to know when human expertise is essential. This challenge is particularly important in education. AI can help teachers prepare material, offer students additional explanations and support learning at different speeds. But it should complement teachers, not become a substitute for them. A student with a dependable connection, a personal device and guidance in using AI responsibly will not have the same experience as a student who is sharing a phone and struggling to get online. If schools adopt AI without addressing these differences, technology could widen learning gaps rather than close them. The same caution applies to public services. Digital platforms can reduce paperwork and make information easier to access. AI may help people navigate procedures or find answers more quickly. But an automated system that is confusing, inaccessible or unable to handle a person’s circumstances can become another barrier between citizens and the services they need. Essential services must retain human assistance and accessible alternatives. A digital-only route is not efficient if it excludes the people it is meant to serve. There is also a matter of language and local context. Many AI systems work best in widely represented languages and may struggle with regional speech, local terminology or the realities of life in Kashmir. A tool that cannot understand how people communicate will not serve them equitably. Local institutions, educators and technology developers have a role in ensuring that AI systems are tested with diverse users and adapted to the languages and needs of the communities in which they are used. The response cannot be limited to distributing devices or expanding network coverage, although both are necessary. Digital inclusion requires a coordinated effort: reliable infrastructure, affordable access, practical training, accessible interfaces and safeguards for privacy and data. Schools and colleges can help students learn how to use AI critically. Community centres and libraries can provide access and support for people who do not have suitable devices at home. Public institutions can ensure that online systems are backed by human assistance and clear information. The region’s young population gives Kashmir a significant stake in this transition. With the right support, AI can help students broaden their learning, enable entrepreneurs to reach new markets and make information more accessible. But these gains will remain uneven if access is treated as an individual responsibility rather than a public priority. A person cannot benefit from a technology that their network, device, language or circumstances prevent them from using. AI will not erase the digital divide simply because it is powerful. Without deliberate action, it may make the consequences of that divide more visible: one group equipped to learn, work and access services through new tools, and another left to navigate systems that increasingly assume digital fluency. The question for Kashmir is not whether AI will arrive. It is whether the region will prepare people to use it—and ensure that the benefits are not reserved for those who were already connected. The promise of AI should be measured not by how quickly it is adopted, but by how many people can use it safely and meaningfully. That means investing in connectivity and skills before celebrating transformation, keeping human support within reach, and designing digital services around the people they serve. If Kashmir is to share in AI’s promise, bridging the digital divide must come first. (The Author is Lecturer in HED and a columnist)