IIT Gandhinagar's startup goes beyond classrooms to build India’s next changemakers

Identifying the Problem Before Building the Product

Q. You founded AB6 Robotics in September 2024 with the vision of creating ‘robotics changemakers at scale’. What sparked this idea? Was there a specific experience or moment that made you realise robotics education in India needed a different approach?

Prof Harish P M: There wasn’t one particular moment. The idea came from several years of observing a structural problem in education. Indian education has traditionally been strong in conceptual and information-based learning, but hardware, product development and robotics receive comparatively less attention. The gap was between knowing how something works and actually being able to make it work.

Robotics seemed like a natural place to begin because it is inherently interdisciplinary. It brings together mechanics, electronics, sensors, software, perception and control. Students can understand each of these components individually and still struggle to put them together into a working system.

There was also an opportunity in the timing. AI is already experiencing its boom, while robotics has always been on the rise but hasn’t seen its peak yet. There is tremendous interest now in industry, in education, and startups in robotics, and there is a significant need to build the ecosystem around it.

Mr Suyash Patidar: My own experience with hands-on engineering was an important part of that thinking. As a student, I co-founded Moksha Motorsports, IIT Gandhinagar’s first automobile club. We built a go-kart and later an ATV with no established playbook for students who wanted to combine mechanical, electrical and other disciplines to actually build something.

We even built our first vehicle from scratch in just two to three months, starting without an established budget or infrastructure. The vehicle did not move, but it moved our confidence forward, showing us that even the most difficult problems can be attempted, if we are willing to learn along the way.

Later, working in robotics reinforced the same observation. Students from some colleges could build impressive hardware for competitions, but lacked theoretical grounding. In contrast, students from IITs often had strong theoretical knowledge but were less comfortable working directly with hardware. This contrast highlighted the gap between knowing and doing.

That experience shaped the thinking behind AB6. Robotics was the starting point, but the larger ambition was always to develop a model for hands-on learning that could eventually extend to other hardware-centric engineering disciplines.

Reimagining What a Robotics Classroom Looks Like

Q. Your platform enables schools and colleges to teach robotics without hiring expert faculty, setting up expensive labs, or spending years developing curriculum. What shortcomings did you repeatedly observe in existing robotics education that convinced you this model was necessary?

Prof Harish P M: One of the biggest misconceptions is that robotics can be taught primarily through classroom instruction, with practical exposure added later through a workshop, competition or a few laboratory sessions. In reality, hardware-centric fields do not work that way. There is a significant difference between understanding something on paper and actually making it work in a physical system.

The problem begins with the infrastructure required. Someone can start learning Python with just a laptop and an internet connection. Robotics is different. Institutions need hardware, laboratory space and people who understand robotics well enough to teach it. Since robotics itself is a relatively new field, many institutions do not have faculty who were formally trained in it. The challenge is particularly significant for Tier 2 and Tier 3 colleges.

Mr Suyash Patidar: That was the gap we wanted to address. We don’t see AB6 as several separate products. It is one learning platform that combines physical robotics hardware with software, curated learning content, challenges, coding tools and progress tracking.

In a sense, the ambition is to create the ‘laptop of robotics’ – hardware compact enough to sit on a tabletop but designed to provide capabilities relevant to industrial robotics. This makes capabilities that would traditionally require a large industrial setup, accessible through a compact system connected to a laptop. The software provides videos, notes and challenges, while students can write and execute their own code and interact directly with the robot. The platform can also evaluate their work using sensory data generated by the physical system, and support multiple courses rather than being limited to a single workshop or project.

Making Hands-on Learning Accessible

Q. Robotics is often seen as an expensive, specialised field. How did you design your platform to make robotics education accessible for institutions with limited resources, while still ensuring students receive meaningful hands-on learning?

Mr Suyash Patidar: One of our core ideas is that students don’t need a huge industrial robot to learn industry-relevant robotics skills. A large industrial robot can cost ₹20–25 lakh, while even some simpler educational robots can cost around ₹1.5 lakh. Our platform is priced at around ₹1 lakh per unit, and roughly three to four students can comfortably learn on one platform. For a batch of 40 students, an institution could therefore use around 10 platforms rather than investing in a much larger number of industrial systems.

A conventional industrial robotics setup involves a three-phase infrastructure, including controllers, computers, power infrastructure, laboratory space and technical support. Our product merges those components together in a single portable platform. 

Prof Harish P M: But hardware is only one part of the equation. If a college buys a robot, it still needs faculty or experts to teach students, curriculum, advisors, laboratory infrastructure and a way of evaluating learning. Those costs and capabilities are often overlooked when comparing the price of a standalone robot.

That is why we don’t see hobby-level robots as direct competitors. They can be useful for someone exploring robotics as a hobby, but they don’t necessarily provide the structured learning pathway or industry-relevant skills that we are trying to develop. 

The broader idea is to make the learning ecosystem more accessible, so institutions can provide sustained exposure to robotics without having to make a very large upfront investment in infrastructure and expertise.

Hardware, Pedagogy and Delivery

Q. You describe your solution as a combination of hardware, pedagogy, and delivery. Which of these three pillars took the longest to get right, and what lessons did you learn while building them?

Mr Suyash Patidar: We are still refining all three. Hardware itself has multiple dimensions. We develop our own hardware, but we also want the platform to eventually integrate commercially available, off-the-shelf robots. We have already experimented with integrating some such systems and want to generalise that capability further.

Prof Harish P M: One important lesson has been that building hardware as a project is very different from building hardware as a commercial product. In a laboratory, if something fails, someone is usually there to fix it. A commercial product has to work reliably for months in another location, without the founders being present. Components cannot constantly fail, wires cannot become tangled, and the system has to remain dependable.

Mr Suyash Patidar: The same applies to software and delivery. Every deployment reveals something new. A student may misunderstand an instruction, a faculty member may struggle with an activity, or part of the workflow may not work as expected. Something that may seem obvious to us as builders may not be obvious to a student or faculty member, and those experiences continuously feed back into how the product and learning experience are designed.

Pedagogy is equally complex because the question is not simply whether a student can operate a robot. It is about what the student should learn, how they should progress and how increasingly difficult challenges should be introduced. The three pillars, therefore, have to evolve together rather than being treated as independent components.

Beyond Robotics: Learning to Solve Real-World Problems

Q. Could robotics education benefit students who do not ultimately want to become roboticists?

Mr Suyash Patidar: Absolutely. Robotics is useful because it forces students to bring multiple disciplines together. A problem may require sensors, mechanical systems, electronics, data processing and programming, all working together in the physical world.

That is also how many real-world engineering problems work. A washing machine, for example, may not be called a robot, but it still involves mechanical components, sensors, electronics, data and software that have to function together.

Prof Harish P M: That’s why the larger objective is not simply to create roboticists. Someone may eventually work in semiconductors, electronics, solar cells or energy harvesting, but the ability to understand how different engineering components interact remains valuable.

Robotics provides a strong environment for developing that ability. Once students develop the confidence to solve one difficult technical problem, they can carry that mindset into other domains.

Learning from IIT Gandhinagar

Q. You mentioned that IIT Gandhinagar supported you through incubation, product validation, and networking opportunities. Was there a particular interaction, mentor, or opportunity at IITGN that significantly influenced your entrepreneurial journey?

Mr Suyash Patidar: One interaction that stands out was with Prof Ashok Jhunjhunwala when AB6 was less than six months old. At that stage, we did not even have our own finished product. We primarily had a pitch deck and were demonstrating the concept using an existing commercial product. He later saw our work again through one of our workshops, which allowed us to show how the idea had evolved.

Beyond that particular interaction, the IITGN ecosystem has provided access to people, resources, grants, financial guidance and networks. For a young startup, many important things happen simply because the right connection becomes possible at the right time.

Prof Harish P M: Being part of IIT Gandhinagar also gives AB6 access to a strong academic and research environment. The credibility of the IIT ecosystem has helped in engaging with institutions and recruiting people, while the broader environment continues to provide access to researchers, students and networks.

The institute's credibility has also helped while engaging with educational institutions and potential partners. At the same time, being surrounded by researchers, students and an academic community continues to be valuable as the company develops. For AB6, the IITGN ecosystem has therefore been more than just an incubation space; it has been an environment that has helped the startup move from an early concept towards a deployable solution. 

From an Idea to a Sustainable Company

Q. Looking back, which milestone gave you the greatest confidence that you were building a sustainable company rather than just a promising startup?

Mr Suyash Patidar: The strongest validation came from putting the product in front of real users early. Rather than spending years trying to perfect it in isolation, we wanted to test it early and understand how students actually interacted with it, through workshops, institutional engagements and different go-to-market experiments.

The summer programmes were particularly valuable because they brought together students from different backgrounds and levels of experience. Our first workshop in December 2024 was an early confidence boost. The larger robotic summer school in 2025 was even more significant because, by then, the product had been refined enough for us to see that the model could potentially scale which gave us confidence that the model was creating genuine value.

Those deployments gave us real-world data about what could go wrong, what students needed and which parts of the business model were viable. We were not only testing the product; we were learning the business itself.

Prof Harish P M: The most powerful validation came from seeing what students did after using the platform. Some pursued robotics internships, some went on to higher studies in robotics, and one even started a robotics company.

That showed that meaningful exposure to hardware can influence a student’s trajectory and encourage them to take on problems that they might otherwise have considered too difficult.

We were not simply providing educational hardware. We were creating an environment where students could attempt difficult engineering problems much earlier than they otherwise might, and eventually become capable of building things of their own.

Understanding Different Learners

Q. Your collaborations span universities, training institutions, and organisations such as ATLAS SkillTech, KR Mangalam University (KRMU), PP Savani University (PPSU), International Automobile Center of Excellence (iACE), and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). What differences have you observed in how schools, higher education institutions, and industry approach robotics education?

Prof Harish P M: The needs and constraints are quite different across these groups. Colleges can be particularly complicated because the person who benefits from the product is not necessarily the person who makes the purchasing decision. The conversation may begin with a Head of Department, then involve a purchase committee and other stakeholders, before the product is eventually handed over to a faculty member who may not have been part of the original discussion. That can create a disconnect between buying and actual use, and the decision-making process can also make the sales cycle longer.

Schools are somewhat different. Principals and teachers are generally quite enthusiastic about robotics because they recognise the value of exposing students to emerging technologies. The challenge is often on the resource side. Schools may have smaller budgets, limited infrastructure, and no dedicated robotics faculty, so the solution must work within those constraints.

Industry presents another challenge. Companies generally understand the value of robotics training, but taking employees away from their existing responsibilities for an extended period can be difficult. So the issue is often not whether training is valuable, but whether an organisation is willing to invest the time required to build internal capability.

So, the challenge is not always convincing institutions that robotics training is valuable. It is about understanding the realities of each learner and institution, and designing the learning experience so that it can fit within their existing constraints.

Patenting the Future of Robotics Education

Q. You’ve filed patent applications related to AI-assisted hardware education and automated robotics skill assessment. Without revealing confidential details, could you explain the problem these innovations solve and why they’re significant for engineering education?

Prof Harish P M: We have filed two patent applications, both are yet to be granted. Both patents address challenges that emerge when students learn robotics through physical hardware. The first focuses on evaluating a student’s learning and performance. If a student is given a robotics challenge, the system needs to determine whether the task was completed correctly, whether the expected learning has taken place, and whether the intended outcome was actually achieved on the hardware. The software therefore, needs to understand what was supposed to happen and compare that with what actually happened.

The second focuses on personalising the learning experience. Students enter a robotics course with very different levels of knowledge. One may be an experienced coder, while another may be learning programming for the first time. Similarly, their mathematical backgrounds can vary considerably. The learning system therefore needs to adapt to these differences.

Mr Suyash Patidar: For example, an experienced coder could be asked to write the code for a challenge independently, while a beginner could receive a code template and be asked to complete only a few lines. The AI mentor is part of this broader vision. It is intended not just to answer a student’s questions but to change the learning experience to meet their individual needs.

This personalisation is not part of the current commercially available product. It is being developed for a future version. Some initial ideas have already been tested, and those experiments informed the patent applications.

Why Start with Robotics?

Q. Your long-term vision extends beyond robotics to creating an AI-powered learning infrastructure for hands-on engineering disciplines. Why begin with robotics, and which other domains do you believe are ready for this transformation?

Prof Harish P M: Robotics was a natural starting point because we already have the experience and understanding of the domain, which gives us a better sense of the market and the challenges within it. At the same time it brings together different engineering disciplines, so solving the learning problem here could provide a foundation for addressing similar challenges elsewhere.

That makes robotics a particularly useful environment for developing the ability to solve complex technical problems. It also reflects how many real-world products work. So, not only is robotics a great way to train students in many different fields and thought processes, it is also an ideal way to train students’ mindset, character, and work ethic, which will be their true differentiator in world that is quickly evolving and many new fields and skills will emerge over one’s career. 

Mr Suyash Patidar: The larger opportunity is therefore not limited to robotics. The approach is about creating infrastructure for hands-on learning in hardware-centric disciplines.

The long-term vision is much larger than selling robotics platforms. It is about creating an ecosystem that can help students develop the confidence and ability to tackle complex engineering problems across domains.

AI as a Mentor, Not a Replacement

Q. AI is rapidly changing education, but hands-on engineering has traditionally depended on instructors and physical labs. How do you see AI complementing, rather than replacing, educators in practical learning?

Prof Harish P M: We don’t see AI replacing the human connection in education. The role of AI is to improve the efficiency of faculty. If one faculty member can effectively teach 10 students today, the technology could potentially allow that same faculty member to support 30 students without removing the educator from the learning process.

The AI mentor is also intended to do more than simply interact with students or answer their questions. It will be able to change the learning experience based on the student’s abilities and progress. Students have different levels of coding, mathematics and technical understanding, so they should not necessarily receive exactly the same instructions or challenges.

Mr Suyash Patidar: The idea is essentially customisation and personalisation. Students come with different levels of coding, mathematics and technical understanding, so they should not necessarily receive exactly the same learning experience. Like I mentioned, an experienced coder could be given a more open-ended task while providing greater scaffolding to a beginner. But this is not about removing faculty. Human guidance remains important. The technology is meant to help educators reach more students and focus their time on the areas where students genuinely need support.

At present, the AI mentor remains under development. The team has tested the concept internally, but it has not yet been incorporated into the commercially deployed product.

Reimagining Hands-on Robotics Education

Q. Having worked closely with educational institutions, what do you think is the biggest misconception about teaching robotics today? Is there something institutions continue to prioritise that you believe needs to change?

Prof Harish P M: The biggest misconception is that robotics can be taught through classroom theory and then supplemented with a one-day or two-day workshop or competition. The entire approach to learning hardware has to be different. Students cannot learn everything on paper and then deploy a piece of code on hardware at the end of the course and be expected to have developed meaningful practical skills.

Theory and practical learning are both important, but they need to be integrated differently, with hardware at the centre. Even when institutions say they provide hands-on learning, the exposure can be very suboptimal. They may genuinely believe they are providing hands-on experience, but the exposure is not deep or sustained enough.

Mr Suyash Patidar: The difference is similar to knowing how to describe a sport versus actually playing it. Someone can write about how Virat Kohli should improve his technique, but that doesn’t mean they can execute those techniques themselves. The difference becomes very clear when they actually have to face a bowler like Bumrah.

Robotics is similar. Writing about how a system works and actually making the hardware work are fundamentally different experiences. Students need sustained exposure to physical systems to understand what it means to troubleshoot, experiment and solve a real engineering problem. That is why hands-on learning cannot simply be an activity added at the end of a theoretical course; it has to be central to the learning journey.

Creating the Next Generation of Problem Solvers

Q. Looking ahead, what would success for AB6 Robotics look like over the next three to five years? Beyond business growth, what impact would you like your company to have on engineering education in India and globally?

Prof Harish PM: Business growth is certainly one measure of success, but the larger ambition is to bring hundreds and eventually thousands of students into an ecosystem where they learn to go beyond becoming conventional employees or engineers. The aim is to develop people who are willing to push the technological frontier and take on difficult problems.

India already produces highly capable professionals who go on to lead major technology companies globally. What is needed in greater numbers, however, is the confidence to look at an extremely difficult, multidisciplinary hardware problem and believe that it can be solved. Once someone learns that they can tackle one genuinely difficult technical problem, that confidence can carry into other domains as well.

Mr Suyash Patidar: Some of the early outcomes from the summer programmes have been encouraging. Students have gone on to work on technically challenging projects, including problems involving tactile sensing and coordinated manipulation. Seeing first- and second-year students attempt problems of that complexity is an indication of what sustained exposure to hardware can enable.

Prof Harish PM: The idea is not to create people who are simply good at operating robots. It is to build the mindset and confidence to look at a difficult problem, learn whatever is necessary, and persist until it is solved. We sometimes use Tony Stark as a reference for that mindset — not literally, but as a shorthand for someone who looks at a seemingly impossible problem and thinks, “I can figure this out.” The planned AI mentor draws a playful parallel with Jarvis, from Iron Man—an intelligent assistant that can support students as they learn and build. 

The ultimate measure of success, then, would not be how many robots AB6 builds, but how many people it helps believe they can build what once seemed impossible. 

AB6 Robotics is incubated at the Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar and develops robotics education solutions that combine physical hardware, software-enabled learning, structured challenges, and technology-driven assessment to build hands-on engineering skills. Click here to see AB6’s integrated platform in action.