Sorry state
Sir — Apologies used to mean something. They were about taking responsibility and making amends. Now they have become a marketing prop. The latest social media trend is to say sorry, but for being too good at what one does. Chefs apologise for ruining diets, designers for causing style envy, and car companies for being too desirable. Social media has turned the apology into a punchline. In the meantime, real apologies — those awkward, uncomfortable, necessary ones — have quietly vanished from public life. If language reflects culture, this trend shows how rare sincerity has become.
Kiran Agarwal,
Calcutta
Loose framework
Sir — The India AI Governance Guidelines attempt to balance innovation with protection (“Quite toothless”, Nov 8). The decision to avoid a new law on Artificial Intelligence and depend on existing legislation may appear pragmatic, but it leaves significant gaps. Voluntary compliance rarely ensures accountability, especially when it comes to a technology that evolves faster than regulation. Ethical promises cannot replace enforceable safeguards. AI systems can amplify bias, erode privacy, and distort truth before oversight mechanisms even respond. A governance model built on trust rather than authority risks becoming symbolic. Citizens deserve protection that is binding.
A.K. Sen,
Calcutta
Sir — The call for transparency in AI decision-making is commendable, but transparency without enforcement achieves little. India’s recently-released guidelines speak of understanding how systems make decisions, yet stop short of requiring that understanding to be mandatory. Regulators cannot depend on goodwill to uncover algorithmic bias or misuse of data. A voluntary norm will fail when corporate interests outweigh ethical ones. India’s ambition to lead in AI governance must rest on verifiable standards. Openness must be a legal obligation.
Ajay Tyagi,
Mumbai
Sir — India’s voluntary AI framework contrasts sharply with the European Union’s risk-based regulation. The EU treats AI as a matter of rights and liability. India’s preference for flexibility suits innovation, but flexibility without
consequences creates loopholes.
Anil Bagarka,
Mumbai
Relevant voice
Sir — The centenary of Ritwik Ghatak highlights how his cinema continues to echo through contemporary crises. His portrayal of displacement and loss was not limited to Partition but spoke to an enduring human condition. The Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal has revived similar fears of identity erasure and homelessness (“The moment in art”, Nov 9). Ghatak’s lens would have found this moment tragically familiar. His art warned of the violence of exclusion long before such fears became policy concerns. Commemoration of his centenary must thus involve reflection on why his themes remain disturbingly current.
Anupam Neogi,
Calcutta
Sir — The renewed admiration for Ritwik Ghatak comes at a time when his concerns seem painfully alive. His characters carried within them the ache of Partition; their descendants carry new documents to prove their right to exist. The SIR has turned citizenship into a test of endurance. Ghatak’s work reminds us that belonging cannot depend solely on papers or politics. It is rooted in memory, empathy and recognition. His films must not be viewed as history but as continuing testimony.
Arun Gupta,
Calcutta
New era
Sir — The removal of the royal titles of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is a decisive act that acknowledges the public’s growing demand for accountability. The monarchy cannot afford to appear detached from moral or ethical standards. King Charles III has acted with firmness, but this must mark the beginning of wider reform, not the end. Transparency in finances and clearer definitions of royal roles are essential to maintaining public trust. The British monarchy survives not just on lineage but also on legitimacy. The era of quiet indulgence must give way to visible integrity.
Asim Boral,
Calcutta
Sir — King Charles III’s decision to strip his brother of royal status is both principled and pragmatic. However, the rot goes deeper than one errant prince.
Brij B. Goyal,
Ludhiana
Cost of freedom
Sir — Living alone has always promised autonomy, but that autonomy comes with a heavy price tag. An unwritten ‘singles tax’ penalises independence in every major city. From rent to utilities, every figure reminds the solo resident that the system rewards shared living. India’s singles spend lakhs more per year simply to occupy space alone. Urban planners and policymakers rarely consider this demographic. Affordable housing for individuals must be treated as a serious concern, not a lifestyle choice. Independence should not feel like an economic punishment.
Ireima Imsong,
Imphal