Age of nonsense
Sir — Cambridge Dictionary has decided to add ‘skibidi’, ‘delulu’ and ‘tradwife’ to its hallowed pages, proving that even the most venerable institutions now bow to TikTok trends. The editors insist these are words with staying power. This is an optimistic claim, considering that the life of online slang is shorter than a carton of milk in summer. Just take, for example, words like ‘YOLO’ and ‘fleek’ that were popular even a year or two ago. These have now retired into cultural oblivion. Dictionaries may argue that they are documenting the present, but this present is an especially slippery one. Future archaeologists will need multiple footnotes to decode our era and the bizarre language in which members of Generation Z choose to express themselves.
Asim Boral,
Calcutta
Nefarious motive
Sir — The Union home minister, Amit Shah, has tabled three contentious bills in Parliament that will allow the governors of states and lieutenant-governors of Union territories to sack a chief minister or any state minister if they are detained in jail for 30 consecutive days even if not convicted. While on paper the proposal offers a clear path to integrity, the last decade bears proof that the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is in power at the Centre, has used the Central investigative agencies to wrongfully incarcerate political opponents. This law would then just become yet another way for the BJP to topple popularly elected governments in states where it fails to come to power. This is insidious. If passed, it would truly signal the death of democracy in India.
Aayman Anwar Ali,
Calcutta
Sir — The proposal to remove a minister or chief minister after thirty days of detention without conviction undermines the presumption of innocence. Detention can be prolonged through administrative orders, often without trial. Giving governors and lieutenant-governors the power to act on such detention hands disproportionate leverage to the Union government over Opposition states. The rule could destabilise elected governments through misuse of law enforcement agencies. Member of the National Democratic Alliance should reject a measure that undermines democratic stability.
Jang Bahadur Singh,
Bengaluru
Sir — Central agencies already face allegations of selective action against Opposition leaders. The amendment proposed by Amit Shah would formalise a tool for dislodging rivals without facing the ballot box. The courts, not detention, decide guilt. If a conviction is not secured, dismissal from office would be arbitrary. The amendment reduces trust in constitutional protections and risks weaponising the criminal justice system.
Haran Chandra Mandal,
North 24 Parganas
Sir — Rules 19A and 19B of the Lok Sabha exist to ensure that lawmakers have time to review legislation of constitutional significance. Introducing bills of immense import in the last days of the monsoon session sidesteps these safeguards and erodes parliamentary credibility. A measure that affects the tenure of the prime minister, chief ministers and other ministers deserves exhaustive debate, not last-minute manoeuvres. Procedure is not a formality. Rushing this bill into law invites suspicion about motive and weakens institutional respect.
S.S. Paul,
Calcutta
Gatekeeping
Sir — Visva-Bharati’s refusal to allow a lecture on the Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen, is both petty-minded and damaging to its own reputation. The explanation about “overlap with heritage events” does not convince anyone when professors themselves have confirmed that no such clash existed. Academic spaces should encourage dialogue, not silence those seen as inconvenient. By shifting the lecture to a private hall, the organisers preserved the spirit of free thought but the university lost an opportunity to honour its own Nobel laureate. Intellectual insecurity weakens institutions more than criticism ever could.
Manzar Imam,
Purnea, Bihar
Sir — The cancellation of Jean Drèze’s lecture on Amartya Sen reflects poorly on Visva-Bharati. Universities exist to promote free inquiry. Shielding students from ideas associated with individuals deemed politically inconvenient undermines that mission. The prompt removal of a professor associated with the event suggests that the refusal was not about scheduling but control. This pattern is troubling in a space built on the legacy of open learning. Visva-Bharati should be a guardian of academic freedom, not a gatekeeper guided by political expediency.
Prasun Kumar Dutta,
West Midnapore
Weak response
Sir — The Union government’s reply in Parliament to a question on press freedom avoids the issue. The concern raised was about intimidation, violence and legal harassment of journalists. Instead, the reply listed the number of publications and channels. A large media industry is not the same as a free press. Numbers cannot mask the real question: whether journalists can do their work without fear. Evasion of a direct answer only deepens the suspicion that the government is unwilling to face uncomfortable truths.
Sreemoy Ghose,
Jamshedpur
Sir — The government insists that India does not need validation from foreign organisations on press freedom. This is a convenient deflection. The issue is not the rankings but the incidents that produce those rankings. Journalists in India have been assaulted, threatened and targeted with cases that drag on for years. Pointing to the Constitution or the Press Council of India means little if institutions remain weak in practice. A confident government would welcome scrutiny and strengthen protections instead of dismissing the question altogether.
Jayanta Datta,
Calcutta