What Is Public Interest Technology and Why India Needs It Now

The first working day of a new year is a good moment to ask a deceptively simple question: what kind of technological future are we building, and for whom?

India is often described rightly as a digital success story. Aadhaar, UPI are the large-scale digital public infrastructure have transformed how the state delivers services and how citizens interact with markets. Yet alongside this success sits a quieter, more difficult question: how do we ensure that technology consistently serves the public interest, rather than unintentionally weakening trust, equity, or accountability?

Public Interest Technology is the extension of state.

This question is at the heart of what is known globally as Public Interest Technology (PIT).

Many technology systems that affect citizens: welfare platforms, education systems, sports, health systems, grievance portals, are not consumer products. They are extensions of the state. .

In the Indian context, this distinction matters. Many technology systems that affect citizens: welfare platforms, education systems, sports, health systems, grievance portals, are not consumer products. They are extensions of the state.

When a ration distribution system fails due to technical issues, families don't switch apps, they go hungry. When such systems fail, the consequences are not inconvenience; they are exclusion, denial of rights, or erosion of trust.

Public Interest Technology begins from the recognition that technical correctness is not the same as public legitimacy. A system may function flawlessly in technical terms—processing transactions quickly, maintaining uptime, generating accurate data—yet still undermine public trust if it's opaque, excludes vulnerable populations, or operates without meaningful accountability.

A recurring theme in PIT is a warning against technosolutionism, the belief that complex social problems can be solved primarily through better tools, more data, or smarter algorithms.

This matters deeply for India. Many of our hardest challenges: access to nutrition, learning outcomes, informal labour protection, financial inclusion, urban congestion are not data problems alone. They are problems shaped by institutional capacity, political economy, social hierarchies, and administrative incentives.

When technology is deployed without accounting for these realities, it can unintentionally reinforce existing inequities. Innovation must be embedded within social, legal, and ethical guardrails from the start. This leads to a broader question: what does "policy" actually mean in the context of technology deployment?

One of the most important insights from the Public Interest Technology policy framework is its definition of policy itself. Policy is not limited to laws or government notifications. It is better understood as a complex assemblage of processes, procedures, incentives, and constraints that shape what institutions can realistically do.

In India, this broader view of policy is essential. A digital system may be perfectly designed, yet fail because frontline officials are overburdened, grievance mechanisms are weak, or accountability is unclear. Conversely, modest technology can succeed when aligned with institutional workflows and clear ownership.

The PIT framework therefore treats policy, governance capacity, and technology as inseparable.

The framework also places strong emphasis on institutions universities, governments, funders, and civil society, because sustainable public-interest outcomes rarely come from isolated projects.

For India, this insight is particularly relevant. Our challenge is no longer experimentation alone; it is institutionalisation at scale. That requires trained public technologists, interdisciplinary thinking that bridges engineering and public administration, and governance structures that reward long-term public value rather than short-term deployment.

Public Interest Technology is not optional infrastructure. It is essential civic infrastructure.

For India, standing at the intersection of scale, diversity, and digital ambition, this lesson is especially timely. The next phase of our digital journey will not be judged only by reach, but by fairness, resilience, and trust.

Avinyum is anchored in this understanding of Public Interest Technology. Our focus is not on building tools in isolation, but on strengthening the policy-technology interface where intent often breaks down into outcomes.

As we begin this year, our work remains centred on a simple principle: technology should expand state capacity without weakening democratic accountability or social equity.

That is the promise of Public Interest Technology. And that is the work ahead.