Break the cycle
Sir — The word, ‘rage bait’, has been formally recognised by Oxford University Press. This reflects the prevailing dynamics of the digital sphere. Online discourse is engineered to provoke irritation and algorithms have been all too willing to elevate such content. Nuance is relegated to the margins while provocation reigns supreme. But the marked increase in the term’s usage illustrates a public increasingly aware of being steered by calculated emotional cues. The articulation of this phenomenon offers an advantage. A precise label exposes the mechanisms shaping online behaviour and encourages a more measured response. With a clearer understanding of these tactics, individuals can decline to participate in the cycle of contrived hostility.
Yashodhara Sen,
Calcutta
Dangerous idea
Sir — Reports stated that the Centre had asked smartphone companies in India to pre-install on their devices a State-developed cybersecurity application, Sanchar Saathi, that allows users to report fraudulent calls and messages and stolen mobile phones. The Centre has now stated that the app can be deleted. Concerns about the State’s access to personal devices remain. A pre-installed application with privileged permissions creates an environment in which surveillance can occur quietly. Citizens could face a tool that sits deeper in the phone than most commercial software. Such placement invites risk in a country where data safeguards remain inconsistent. Useful services do not offset the unease created when a government application becomes an unavoidable presence. Public trust requires restraint, not compulsory installation.
Brij B. Goyal,
Ludhiana
Sir — A compulsory cybersecurity application on phones would have threatened to normalise constant monitoring. Privileged access inside the operating system would gives the State an unobstructed view of how citizens use their devices. Once such access is granted, additional permissions can arrive through silent updates. Citizens therefore would be left with little control over what a mandated application learns about them. This pattern undermines confidence in digital governance. A democratic society requires safeguards that prevent the State from becoming an unblinking observer. It is unwise to create surveillance potential and rely on institutional goodwill to limit its use.
Kunal Kanti Konar,
Calcutta
Sir — The government’s insistence on an app pre-installed in citizens’ phones places citizens in a precarious position. Any breach of the app’s privileged layer could expose millions of devices to malicious actors. The State cannot guarantee absolute security and history offers many reminders of official systems compromised by external attacks. A tool designed to strengthen digital safety then becomes a prime target. Citizens shoulder the risk of having their lives disrupted. This imbalance calls for transparency, technical checks, and independent oversight before any mandate reaches the public.
Mayukh Mukherjee,
Calcutta
Sir — The practice of bundling powerful applications into smartphones reduces the autonomy of users. Pre-installed software tends to bypass normal permission barriers. A State-developed tool with such access invites temptation for surveillance. Additional monitoring features can be justified as public safety measures and added quietly. Citizens then inhabit a digital landscape shaped by expanding authority rather than clear legal boundaries. Protecting national security does not require turning every handset into a potential observation post. Strong safeguards and verifiable limits must be non-negotiable.
Tuhin Das,
Calcutta
Sir — The broader trend behind Sanchar Saathi deserves attention. Recent directives targeting messaging platforms already push digital communication into a more controlled space. When combined with a pre-installed software, the effect is unmistakable. Citizens face rising surveillance pressure built through administrative orders rather than parliamentary scrutiny. The risk lies not only in misuse but in normalising such measures. A democracy gains nothing from creating a population accustomed to quiet monitoring. Public trust erodes when power moves faster than accountability.
Tapomoy Ghosh,
East Burdwan
Sir — Artificial Intelligence systems now sit close to the core of public life, yet the
2025 Human Development Report warns that they mirror existing inequalities.
A tool that amplifies social bias can easily become one that monitors citizens without restraint. Surveillance justified as safety often grows quietly. Once deployed, such systems gather data with relentless efficiency and little transparency. Oversight rarely keeps pace with technological reach. A society that values dignity must question any design that transforms daily interactions into records for unknown review.
Manas Mukhopadhyay,
Hooghly
Sir — The expansion of AI into routine governance creates new risks for civic freedom. A system trained on skewed datasets can misread behaviour and assign suspicion where none exists. Constant data capture produces profiles that follow people into work, education and public services. Errors in these systems are difficult to challenge. Such conditions weaken trust between
people and public institutions. A democracy gains stability only when surveillance remains both limited and accountable.
Sush Kocher,
Jaipur
Glitter trap
Sir — Gold’s surge now strains inflation, imports and policy choices. A metal prized for sentiment has created instability in the economy. Sensible guidance is required before speculation turns this glitter into real trouble.
Arun Gupta,
Calcutta