Coaching not a substitute for education
India’s education system is facing a paradox. We have more schools, colleges and universities than ever before, yet millions of students increasingly feel that success in examinations is impossible without private coaching. Coaching classes were originally intended to supplement formal education. Today, particularly for competitive examinations, they have become a parallel education system, placing financial, health and mental pressures on students and their parents. Many students now rely almost entirely on coaching classes, treating them as an alternative to schools and colleges. The difference in teaching approaches can also lead students to lose interest in formal education and ignore what is taught in classrooms. The coaching culture has further created a divide between those who can afford it and those who cannot. Students from economically weaker and underprivileged backgrounds are placed at a disadvantage when competing with those who have access to expensive professional coaching. The excessive academic pressure associated with coaching can also contribute to stress, depression and, in some cases, suicides. If all students are expected to compete in entrance examinations, there must be a level playing field.
Paul Pereira, Utorda
Bhagwat’s words on
Gen Z deserve scrutiny
Mohan Bhagwat, sarsanghchalak or chief of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), response to the students’ protests is timely and welcome, because the first thing he did was to demolish any criticism of Gen Z protesters as anti-national. Immediately, while echoing Bhagwat’s call days after calling protesting youngsters ‘generation gutter’ and criticising their language and behaviour, actress-cum-politician Kangana Ranaut has now shifted her stance on Gen Z. Though, on July 30, Atul Limaye, joint general secretary of the RSS, said that the Gen Z protest saw anti-national slogans at Jantar Mantar. He also said about Gen Z that now “is the time to decode this, understand it and take precautions against such anarchist forces, which are detrimental to the nation”. Ranaut has now praised Gen Z as India’s strength, calling them ambassadors of the country’s culture and identity. She also insisted that only a handful of people are giving Gen Z a bad name. This isn’t the first instance when the RSS chief has said something different. In June 2022, he said that there was “no need to look for a shivling under every mosque”, or “now we will not be involved in any campaign”, whereas BJP’s top leadership maintained a strategic silence on the shrill voices that rose on the Gyanvapi controversy.
Bidyut K Chatterjee, Faridabad
Meta must abide by Indian laws and norms
Meta’s insistence on using blanket global policies instead of abiding by Indian law is deeply troubling. Hosting hundreds of millions of users in India brings a clear responsibility to follow local regulations. Yet Meta continues to allow harmful deepfakes to reappear and fails to proactively wipe out child sexual abuse material. Relying on automated moderation systems that lack human review and local language understanding puts user safety at risk. Under Section 79 of the IT Act, platforms receive legal safe-harbour protection only when they strictly comply with national laws. Meta must add human moderators who understand India’s unique context rather than letting algorithms amplify harmful content. No foreign tech giant can stand above sovereign laws.
Dr Vijaykumar H K, Raichur
Need unified RTI portal for all states
Are the RTI websites of Indian states proactive and efficient? Transparency would have been ensured if a centralised, unified national portal had been launched alongside the Right to Information (RTI) Act in 2005, covering all states and Union Territories. Instead, the digital infrastructure developed in fragments, creating a complicated landscape for citizens. The fragmented reality is that the Central government eventually launched the RTI Online portal (rtionline.gov.in) in 2013. The scope was limited, as the portal covers only central ministries, departments and specific public authorities. However, the mission should have been to cover all major and minor offices of India from all corners. State governments were left to build their own independent filing systems. But how many states are ready with completely functional RTI portals? My 60 RTI applications are pending replies. Many states took years to launch online portals, and some still rely heavily on physical postal applications. Why? Is there no funding? Or is it an attempt to avoid transparency? Why are governments facing operational challenges? One cannot use the central portal to file an RTI regarding state-level issues, such as local police, state schools, civil registration, panchayats or municipal corporations. Why? Are data silos creating complications? Each state maintaining its own servers and databases prevents a truly unified, single-window, “All India” experience. So, where does RTI stand in Digital India?
Rajesh Banaulikar, Arpora
