Purely artificial

Sir — There is a new social media site for Artificial Intelligence agents only. Moltbook, an internet forum in the style of Reddit, was unleashed onto the web recently. The idea is that AI agents — forms of AI software that can carry out extended tasks without human oversight — are allowed to post and talk to one another, and humans can only observe. Moltbook is already full of bot manifestos, conspiracy theories, and Marxist complaints about robot exploitation. Predictably, the internet responded with panic. But Moltbook does not reveal an emerging AI society. It reveals how easily social media habits — gossiping and hatching conspiracies — can be automated.

Noopur Baruah,
Tezpur, Assam

Read the fine print

Sir — At the centre of the current debate on the India-United States of America interim trade framework lies a troubling issue of process and communication (“Devil is in the detail”, Feb 8). Although described as a joint declaration, the statement was released by the White House before the Indian government could brief Parliament or the public. This matters because trade agreements affect farmers, exporters, workers, and consumers, and democratic accountability requires that an elected government explains such decisions to its own citizens first.

The early announcement from Washington created confusion, forced hurried clarifications from Indian ministers, and allowed the narrative to be shaped externally. It also raised questions about whether India had full control over the timing and messaging of an agreement that carries serious economic and strategic implications. When a partner country sets the pace and tone of disclosure, it weakens public confidence at home. Transparency is not only about sharing details. It is also about who speaks first, to whom, and on whose terms.

Murtaza Ahmad,
Calcutta

Sir — The India-US interim trade framework needs close scrutiny. Tariff cuts on American industrial goods and selected farm items could lower prices for Indian consumers. The 18% US tariff on Indian exports still leaves many small exporters struggling. Parliament should demand item-by-item schedules, timelines, and safeguards. The Union commerce minister, Piyush Goyal, says sensitive crops and dairy stay protected. But that claim needs to be tested against the fine print of the deal and its enforcement.

Brij B. Goyal,
Ludhiana, Punjab

Sir — A trade deal is only as fair as its detail. The joint statement promises India will reduce tariffs across US industrial goods and many agricultural products. It also says commitments can change if the other side changes tariffs. That clause invites uncertainty for Indian businesses planning orders and investments. The government should publish a clear list of taxable items and thresholds for reversal.

T. Kabiraj,
Calcutta

Sir — Farmers deserve facts, not slogans. Dried distillers’ grains, red sorghum, tree nuts, fruit, soybean oil, wine and spirits are specific categories named for tariff relief. Some are inputs for animal feed, some compete with local produce, some affect food processing. Each has winners and losers across regions. The Union agriculture minister, Shivraj Singh Chouhan, has said that major crops and dairy remain shielded. Farmers' unions should be shown the list of exclusions, quotas, and inspection rules before the final Indo-US deal is signed in March.

Avinash Godboley,
Dewas, Madhya Pradesh

Sir — The Indo-US agreement’s non-tariff section matters more than most headlines. India has agreed to address concerns on long-standing barriers to the trade in US medical devices. That could mean changes in standards, testing, pricing rules, or licensing. Patients and hospitals care about affordability and safety. Domestic manufacturers care about predictable regulation. The government should publish what exactly will change, which ministries will act, and how conflicts will be resolved.

Alok Kumar,
Gaya, Bihar

Sir — The energy purchase figure stated in the Indo-US deal is startling: it mentions $500 billion worth of American energy products, aircraft and aircraft parts, precious metals, technology products, and coking coal over five years. That is about $100 billion a year. India should clarify whether this is an aspiration, a procurement plan, or a binding commitment. Foreign exchange costs, pricing benchmarks, and delivery schedules matter. Energy security should remain driven by price and reliability, not political messaging.

Mohammad Hasnain,
Mumbai

Sir — The politics around the Indo-US trade framework is already noisy, so scrutiny must be disciplined. Opposition leaders like Jairam Ramesh, Manish Tewari, and Priyanka Chaturvedi have raised concerns about the wording and the balance of concessions. The government has celebrated the 18% tariff cut from a reported 50%. Businesses need a comparison against pre-escalation tariffs and sector averages, not against the worst recent number. Parliament should hold a clause-by-clause debate with independent economic analysis before negotiations harden into commitments.

Bal Govind,
Bengaluru