Letters to The Editor — January 3, 2026

Learning and attendance

I am a professor and found the article, “Mandating student presence, erasing learning” (Editorial page, January 2), thought-provoking. The refusal of stasis is the moot point to judge whether we are facilitating discovery or merely disseminating information. The question of curiosity versus compliance, quality of teaching and surveillance, coercion and dialogic encounters are bound to stir the mind. Ensure engagement of the mind.

Udai Bhan Singh,

Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh

As a college student, I found the reflections on transforming student attendance rules to be accurate and a refreshing take. I would not miss a day if classes were engaging and worth the time they take. The experience of my friends in other institutes echoes how physical presence seems to be the priority for the administration in colleges while learning takes a back seat and critical thinking is forgotten. My peers and I often spend lecture time studying from YouTube or finishing pending assignments. It would be transformative if more time was spent teaching students how to think, and not what to.

Avvishi Saxena,

Agra, Uttar Pradesh

Contamination, right to life

A state that fails to protect its water sources from contamination cannot credibly claim to uphold the right to life under Article 21. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that this right includes access to clean water and a healthy environment. When these are compromised, the constitutional guarantee becomes illusory. The incident in Indore exposes the fragility of our executive machinery and the persistent disconnect between policy announcements and ground-level implementation. Flagship programmes such as the Jal Shakti Abhiyan, Swachh Bharat Mission and the National Water Mission risk being reduced to slogans in the absence of monitoring and accountability.

Suchhanda Banerjee,

Chandannagar, West Bengal

Women’s emancipation

The judgment of the Supreme Court, in Belide Swagath Kumar vs. State of Telangana & Another, stating that financial dominance of a husband over his wife will not amount to cruelty and certain other findings will leave women in despair. Describing the situation of the wife, an engineer who was asked to resign and remain a housewife, and who had to plead with her husband to meet her daily needs, as a reflection of the “daily wear and tear of marriage”, fails to recognise women’s rights and constitutional guarantees. Further, to describe a man’s total financial control of the wife as a mirror reflection of Indian society is refusing to see ground realities. The Court seems to be oblivious to the plight of the women and its refusal to come out of the past reinforces male chauvinism. To describe the actions of the wife seeking action against the husband as “a gateway or a tool to settle scores” is refusing to see the helpless nature of women whose emancipation the Constitution seeks.

N.G.R. Prasad,

Chennai