IPMAT Indore: Verbal AbilityReading Comprehension. Free, no login required.

Who has not often observed two dogs, members of the same household, communicating with each other? Pug and Gyp were two animals that belonged to the family where I spent a summer vacation. They thought much of each other when romping together in the yard, or in foraging the neighbouring woods and fields for rabbits and groundhogs. Never would they start out on an expedition for game without having previously laid their plans. It was interesting and amusing to watch them. They would bring their heads into close contiguity, remaining in this position for two or three minutes, when, by mutual consent, they would separate, look each other in the eyes, and then start off in different directions for the scene of their projected enterprise. Times out of number I have observed such behaviour and have always discovered that they meant something of the kind. There were no audible utterances, no visible gestures, yet there was an interchange of ideas. Through the medium of the eye were the thoughts conveyed. It was spirit speaking directly to spirit, conveying by a single glance of the eye thoughts which whole volumes would fail to express.

Each species of animal has its own dialect. Yet there is another language, a sort of animal lingua franca, which is common to all. A cry of warning, no matter from what bird or animal it emanates, is understood by them all, as is well known to many a sportsman who has lost his only chance of a shot by reason of an impertinent crow, jay or magpie which has espied him, and has given its cry of alarm. There is not a bird of garden or orchard, or a fowl of the barnyard or door-side, that does not understand the peculiar cry of the rooster when a hawk is seen careering overhead or perched upon the summit of a nearby tree. With one accord they flee to their coverts, and there remain until the danger is past.No more quarrelsome and pugnacious species of bird exists than the English sparrow. It appropriates every available locality for nesting purposes, and our native species are driven to the necessity of fighting for their rights, or of seeking quarters in the rural districts which these birds do not infect. Thus, it is that many a useful robin, bluebird or martin is driven from our midst. Many have witnessed encounters between these birds and the robins. The author once saw a contest between a pair of sparrows and a pair of robins for the possession of a certain tree that grew in his yard. Now the robin, single-handed, is more than a match for a sparrow. In the engagement referred to, the robins were getting the better of the sparrows, which the latter were not slow in perceiving. Instantly the sparrows set up the wild, ear-piercing harangue for which they are peculiarly noted, when more than a score of friends from the immediate vicinity gathered to their assistance. But the war cry which they sounded not only summoned help to their standard, but it was equally understood by all the other birds of the neighbourhood, who flocked to the defence of their brethren against the alien. The battle waged warm and fiercely for some minutes, when the sparrows were forced to seek safety in retreat.

Who has not often observed two dogs, members of the same household, communicating with each other? Pug and Gyp were two animals that belonged to the family where I spent a summer vacation. They thought much of each other when romping together in the yard, or in foraging the neighbouring woods and fields for rabbits and groundhogs. Never would they start out on an expedition for game without having previously laid their plans. It was interesting and amusing to watch them. They would bring their heads into close contiguity, remaining in this position for two or three minutes, when, by mutual consent, they would separate, look each other in the eyes, and then start off in different directions for the scene of their projected enterprise. Times out of number I have observed such behaviour and have always discovered that they meant something of the kind. There were no audible utterances, no visible gestures, yet there was an interchange of ideas. Through the medium of the eye were the thoughts conveyed. It was spirit speaking directly to spirit, conveying by a single glance of the eye thoughts which whole volumes would fail to express.

Each species of animal has its own dialect. Yet there is another language, a sort of animal lingua franca, which is common to all. A cry of warning, no matter from what bird or animal it emanates, is understood by them all, as is well known to many a sportsman who has lost his only chance of a shot by reason of an impertinent crow, jay or magpie which has espied him, and has given its cry of alarm. There is not a bird of garden or orchard, or a fowl of the barnyard or door-side, that does not understand the peculiar cry of the rooster when a hawk is seen careering overhead or perched upon the summit of a nearby tree. With one accord they flee to their coverts, and there remain until the danger is past.No more quarrelsome and pugnacious species of bird exists than the English sparrow. It appropriates every available locality for nesting purposes, and our native species are driven to the necessity of fighting for their rights, or of seeking quarters in the rural districts which these birds do not infect. Thus, it is that many a useful robin, bluebird or martin is driven from our midst. Many have witnessed encounters between these birds and the robins. The author once saw a contest between a pair of sparrows and a pair of robins for the possession of a certain tree that grew in his yard. Now the robin, single-handed, is more than a match for a sparrow. In the engagement referred to, the robins were getting the better of the sparrows, which the latter were not slow in perceiving. Instantly the sparrows set up the wild, ear-piercing harangue for which they are peculiarly noted, when more than a score of friends from the immediate vicinity gathered to their assistance. But the war cry which they sounded not only summoned help to their standard, but it was equally understood by all the other birds of the neighbourhood, who flocked to the defence of their brethren against the alien. The battle waged warm and fiercely for some minutes, when the sparrows were forced to seek safety in retreat.

Who has not often observed two dogs, members of the same household, communicating with each other? Pug and Gyp were two animals that belonged to the family where I spent a summer vacation. They thought much of each other when romping together in the yard, or in foraging the neighbouring woods and fields for rabbits and groundhogs. Never would they start out on an expedition for game without having previously laid their plans. It was interesting and amusing to watch them. They would bring their heads into close contiguity, remaining in this position for two or three minutes, when, by mutual consent, they would separate, look each other in the eyes, and then start off in different directions for the scene of their projected enterprise. Times out of number I have observed such behaviour and have always discovered that they meant something of the kind. There were no audible utterances, no visible gestures, yet there was an interchange of ideas. Through the medium of the eye were the thoughts conveyed. It was spirit speaking directly to spirit, conveying by a single glance of the eye thoughts which whole volumes would fail to express.

Each species of animal has its own dialect. Yet there is another language, a sort of animal lingua franca, which is common to all. A cry of warning, no matter from what bird or animal it emanates, is understood by them all, as is well known to many a sportsman who has lost his only chance of a shot by reason of an impertinent crow, jay or magpie which has espied him, and has given its cry of alarm. There is not a bird of garden or orchard, or a fowl of the barnyard or door-side, that does not understand the peculiar cry of the rooster when a hawk is seen careering overhead or perched upon the summit of a nearby tree. With one accord they flee to their coverts, and there remain until the danger is past.No more quarrelsome and pugnacious species of bird exists than the English sparrow. It appropriates every available locality for nesting purposes, and our native species are driven to the necessity of fighting for their rights, or of seeking quarters in the rural districts which these birds do not infect. Thus, it is that many a useful robin, bluebird or martin is driven from our midst. Many have witnessed encounters between these birds and the robins. The author once saw a contest between a pair of sparrows and a pair of robins for the possession of a certain tree that grew in his yard. Now the robin, single-handed, is more than a match for a sparrow. In the engagement referred to, the robins were getting the better of the sparrows, which the latter were not slow in perceiving. Instantly the sparrows set up the wild, ear-piercing harangue for which they are peculiarly noted, when more than a score of friends from the immediate vicinity gathered to their assistance. But the war cry which they sounded not only summoned help to their standard, but it was equally understood by all the other birds of the neighbourhood, who flocked to the defence of their brethren against the alien. The battle waged warm and fiercely for some minutes, when the sparrows were forced to seek safety in retreat.

Who has not often observed two dogs, members of the same household, communicating with each other? Pug and Gyp were two animals that belonged to the family where I spent a summer vacation. They thought much of each other when romping together in the yard, or in foraging the neighbouring woods and fields for rabbits and groundhogs. Never would they start out on an expedition for game without having previously laid their plans. It was interesting and amusing to watch them. They would bring their heads into close contiguity, remaining in this position for two or three minutes, when, by mutual consent, they would separate, look each other in the eyes, and then start off in different directions for the scene of their projected enterprise. Times out of number I have observed such behaviour and have always discovered that they meant something of the kind. There were no audible utterances, no visible gestures, yet there was an interchange of ideas. Through the medium of the eye were the thoughts conveyed. It was spirit speaking directly to spirit, conveying by a single glance of the eye thoughts which whole volumes would fail to express.

Each species of animal has its own dialect. Yet there is another language, a sort of animal lingua franca, which is common to all. A cry of warning, no matter from what bird or animal it emanates, is understood by them all, as is well known to many a sportsman who has lost his only chance of a shot by reason of an impertinent crow, jay or magpie which has espied him, and has given its cry of alarm. There is not a bird of garden or orchard, or a fowl of the barnyard or door-side, that does not understand the peculiar cry of the rooster when a hawk is seen careering overhead or perched upon the summit of a nearby tree. With one accord they flee to their coverts, and there remain until the danger is past.No more quarrelsome and pugnacious species of bird exists than the English sparrow. It appropriates every available locality for nesting purposes, and our native species are driven to the necessity of fighting for their rights, or of seeking quarters in the rural districts which these birds do not infect. Thus, it is that many a useful robin, bluebird or martin is driven from our midst. Many have witnessed encounters between these birds and the robins. The author once saw a contest between a pair of sparrows and a pair of robins for the possession of a certain tree that grew in his yard. Now the robin, single-handed, is more than a match for a sparrow. In the engagement referred to, the robins were getting the better of the sparrows, which the latter were not slow in perceiving. Instantly the sparrows set up the wild, ear-piercing harangue for which they are peculiarly noted, when more than a score of friends from the immediate vicinity gathered to their assistance. But the war cry which they sounded not only summoned help to their standard, but it was equally understood by all the other birds of the neighbourhood, who flocked to the defence of their brethren against the alien. The battle waged warm and fiercely for some minutes, when the sparrows were forced to seek safety in retreat.

Who has not often observed two dogs, members of the same household, communicating with each other? Pug and Gyp were two animals that belonged to the family where I spent a summer vacation. They thought much of each other when romping together in the yard, or in foraging the neighbouring woods and fields for rabbits and groundhogs. Never would they start out on an expedition for game without having previously laid their plans. It was interesting and amusing to watch them. They would bring their heads into close contiguity, remaining in this position for two or three minutes, when, by mutual consent, they would separate, look each other in the eyes, and then start off in different directions for the scene of their projected enterprise. Times out of number I have observed such behaviour and have always discovered that they meant something of the kind. There were no audible utterances, no visible gestures, yet there was an interchange of ideas. Through the medium of the eye were the thoughts conveyed. It was spirit speaking directly to spirit, conveying by a single glance of the eye thoughts which whole volumes would fail to express.

Each species of animal has its own dialect. Yet there is another language, a sort of animal lingua franca, which is common to all. A cry of warning, no matter from what bird or animal it emanates, is understood by them all, as is well known to many a sportsman who has lost his only chance of a shot by reason of an impertinent crow, jay or magpie which has espied him, and has given its cry of alarm. There is not a bird of garden or orchard, or a fowl of the barnyard or door-side, that does not understand the peculiar cry of the rooster when a hawk is seen careering overhead or perched upon the summit of a nearby tree. With one accord they flee to their coverts, and there remain until the danger is past.No more quarrelsome and pugnacious species of bird exists than the English sparrow. It appropriates every available locality for nesting purposes, and our native species are driven to the necessity of fighting for their rights, or of seeking quarters in the rural districts which these birds do not infect. Thus, it is that many a useful robin, bluebird or martin is driven from our midst. Many have witnessed encounters between these birds and the robins. The author once saw a contest between a pair of sparrows and a pair of robins for the possession of a certain tree that grew in his yard. Now the robin, single-handed, is more than a match for a sparrow. In the engagement referred to, the robins were getting the better of the sparrows, which the latter were not slow in perceiving. Instantly the sparrows set up the wild, ear-piercing harangue for which they are peculiarly noted, when more than a score of friends from the immediate vicinity gathered to their assistance. But the war cry which they sounded not only summoned help to their standard, but it was equally understood by all the other birds of the neighbourhood, who flocked to the defence of their brethren against the alien. The battle waged warm and fiercely for some minutes, when the sparrows were forced to seek safety in retreat.

Who has not often observed two dogs, members of the same household, communicating with each other? Pug and Gyp were two animals that belonged to the family where I spent a summer vacation. They thought much of each other when romping together in the yard, or in foraging the neighbouring woods and fields for rabbits and groundhogs. Never would they start out on an expedition for game without having previously laid their plans. It was interesting and amusing to watch them. They would bring their heads into close contiguity, remaining in this position for two or three minutes, when, by mutual consent, they would separate, look each other in the eyes, and then start off in different directions for the scene of their projected enterprise. Times out of number I have observed such behaviour and have always discovered that they meant something of the kind. There were no audible utterances, no visible gestures, yet there was an interchange of ideas. Through the medium of the eye were the thoughts conveyed. It was spirit speaking directly to spirit, conveying by a single glance of the eye thoughts which whole volumes would fail to express.

Each species of animal has its own dialect. Yet there is another language, a sort of animal lingua franca, which is common to all. A cry of warning, no matter from what bird or animal it emanates, is understood by them all, as is well known to many a sportsman who has lost his only chance of a shot by reason of an impertinent crow, jay or magpie which has espied him, and has given its cry of alarm. There is not a bird of garden or orchard, or a fowl of the barnyard or door-side, that does not understand the peculiar cry of the rooster when a hawk is seen careering overhead or perched upon the summit of a nearby tree. With one accord they flee to their coverts, and there remain until the danger is past.No more quarrelsome and pugnacious species of bird exists than the English sparrow. It appropriates every available locality for nesting purposes, and our native species are driven to the necessity of fighting for their rights, or of seeking quarters in the rural districts which these birds do not infect. Thus, it is that many a useful robin, bluebird or martin is driven from our midst. Many have witnessed encounters between these birds and the robins. The author once saw a contest between a pair of sparrows and a pair of robins for the possession of a certain tree that grew in his yard. Now the robin, single-handed, is more than a match for a sparrow. In the engagement referred to, the robins were getting the better of the sparrows, which the latter were not slow in perceiving. Instantly the sparrows set up the wild, ear-piercing harangue for which they are peculiarly noted, when more than a score of friends from the immediate vicinity gathered to their assistance. But the war cry which they sounded not only summoned help to their standard, but it was equally understood by all the other birds of the neighbourhood, who flocked to the defence of their brethren against the alien. The battle waged warm and fiercely for some minutes, when the sparrows were forced to seek safety in retreat.

Anger can be a useful emotion. It can play a key role in building a strong individual psyche, as also a just society. But the algohacking of our brains to keep them in a state of incessant anger? That's pure poison. Some companies and individuals draw colossal profits from it, but at terrible cost to general well-being. That rage bait has been declared Oxford English Dictionary's word of 2025 is indicative of the spread of this poison. In 2024, it was brain rot that came on top. Both speak of the same diseased online ecosystem. All of this is bad enough for adults, but what it's doing to children is a great nightmare.

Specifically, rage bait refers to online content designed to elicit anger or outrage. Once tech platforms figured out how this kind of content spirals user engagement, the algorithms got tweaked to feed us more and more of the same, activating a diabolical incentive structure of hate. Of course, in this swamp, reality is completely distorted. You could take any major event of recent times as an example and the difference between your newspaper's reportage and your online feed would be dramatic. Reading responsible accounts of pollution, a terror attack, an election result etc. would give you food for thought. On social media, you would be targeted with stuff doctored to send you into troll mode.If you block the accounts that most inflame you, you deprive them of your attention, you refuse to buy the hate they are selling. Blocking even hurts them with the algorithm. David did defeat Goliath. And make no mistake, this is a civilisational battle. We must fight against the atrophy of our attention, its capture by the most terrible types of things that human nature can be drawn to, and to regain our sense and sensibility.

Anger can be a useful emotion. It can play a key role in building a strong individual psyche, as also a just society. But the algohacking of our brains to keep them in a state of incessant anger? That's pure poison. Some companies and individuals draw colossal profits from it, but at terrible cost to general well-being. That rage bait has been declared Oxford English Dictionary's word of 2025 is indicative of the spread of this poison. In 2024, it was brain rot that came on top. Both speak of the same diseased online ecosystem. All of this is bad enough for adults, but what it's doing to children is a great nightmare.

Specifically, rage bait refers to online content designed to elicit anger or outrage. Once tech platforms figured out how this kind of content spirals user engagement, the algorithms got tweaked to feed us more and more of the same, activating a diabolical incentive structure of hate. Of course, in this swamp, reality is completely distorted. You could take any major event of recent times as an example and the difference between your newspaper's reportage and your online feed would be dramatic. Reading responsible accounts of pollution, a terror attack, an election result etc. would give you food for thought. On social media, you would be targeted with stuff doctored to send you into troll mode.If you block the accounts that most inflame you, you deprive them of your attention, you refuse to buy the hate they are selling. Blocking even hurts them with the algorithm. David did defeat Goliath. And make no mistake, this is a civilisational battle. We must fight against the atrophy of our attention, its capture by the most terrible types of things that human nature can be drawn to, and to regain our sense and sensibility.

Anger can be a useful emotion. It can play a key role in building a strong individual psyche, as also a just society. But the algohacking of our brains to keep them in a state of incessant anger? That's pure poison. Some companies and individuals draw colossal profits from it, but at terrible cost to general well-being. That rage bait has been declared Oxford English Dictionary's word of 2025 is indicative of the spread of this poison. In 2024, it was brain rot that came on top. Both speak of the same diseased online ecosystem. All of this is bad enough for adults, but what it's doing to children is a great nightmare.

Specifically, rage bait refers to online content designed to elicit anger or outrage. Once tech platforms figured out how this kind of content spirals user engagement, the algorithms got tweaked to feed us more and more of the same, activating a diabolical incentive structure of hate. Of course, in this swamp, reality is completely distorted. You could take any major event of recent times as an example and the difference between your newspaper's reportage and your online feed would be dramatic. Reading responsible accounts of pollution, a terror attack, an election result etc. would give you food for thought. On social media, you would be targeted with stuff doctored to send you into troll mode.If you block the accounts that most inflame you, you deprive them of your attention, you refuse to buy the hate they are selling. Blocking even hurts them with the algorithm. David did defeat Goliath. And make no mistake, this is a civilisational battle. We must fight against the atrophy of our attention, its capture by the most terrible types of things that human nature can be drawn to, and to regain our sense and sensibility.

Anger can be a useful emotion. It can play a key role in building a strong individual psyche, as also a just society. But the algohacking of our brains to keep them in a state of incessant anger? That's pure poison. Some companies and individuals draw colossal profits from it, but at terrible cost to general well-being. That rage bait has been declared Oxford English Dictionary's word of 2025 is indicative of the spread of this poison. In 2024, it was brain rot that came on top. Both speak of the same diseased online ecosystem. All of this is bad enough for adults, but what it's doing to children is a great nightmare.

Specifically, rage bait refers to online content designed to elicit anger or outrage. Once tech platforms figured out how this kind of content spirals user engagement, the algorithms got tweaked to feed us more and more of the same, activating a diabolical incentive structure of hate. Of course, in this swamp, reality is completely distorted. You could take any major event of recent times as an example and the difference between your newspaper's reportage and your online feed would be dramatic. Reading responsible accounts of pollution, a terror attack, an election result etc. would give you food for thought. On social media, you would be targeted with stuff doctored to send you into troll mode.If you block the accounts that most inflame you, you deprive them of your attention, you refuse to buy the hate they are selling. Blocking even hurts them with the algorithm. David did defeat Goliath. And make no mistake, this is a civilisational battle. We must fight against the atrophy of our attention, its capture by the most terrible types of things that human nature can be drawn to, and to regain our sense and sensibility.

Anger can be a useful emotion. It can play a key role in building a strong individual psyche, as also a just society. But the algohacking of our brains to keep them in a state of incessant anger? That's pure poison. Some companies and individuals draw colossal profits from it, but at terrible cost to general well-being. That rage bait has been declared Oxford English Dictionary's word of 2025 is indicative of the spread of this poison. In 2024, it was brain rot that came on top. Both speak of the same diseased online ecosystem. All of this is bad enough for adults, but what it's doing to children is a great nightmare.

Specifically, rage bait refers to online content designed to elicit anger or outrage. Once tech platforms figured out how this kind of content spirals user engagement, the algorithms got tweaked to feed us more and more of the same, activating a diabolical incentive structure of hate. Of course, in this swamp, reality is completely distorted. You could take any major event of recent times as an example and the difference between your newspaper's reportage and your online feed would be dramatic. Reading responsible accounts of pollution, a terror attack, an election result etc. would give you food for thought. On social media, you would be targeted with stuff doctored to send you into troll mode.If you block the accounts that most inflame you, you deprive them of your attention, you refuse to buy the hate they are selling. Blocking even hurts them with the algorithm. David did defeat Goliath. And make no mistake, this is a civilisational battle. We must fight against the atrophy of our attention, its capture by the most terrible types of things that human nature can be drawn to, and to regain our sense and sensibility.

Anger can be a useful emotion. It can play a key role in building a strong individual psyche, as also a just society. But the algohacking of our brains to keep them in a state of incessant anger? That's pure poison. Some companies and individuals draw colossal profits from it, but at terrible cost to general well-being. That rage bait has been declared Oxford English Dictionary's word of 2025 is indicative of the spread of this poison. In 2024, it was brain rot that came on top. Both speak of the same diseased online ecosystem. All of this is bad enough for adults, but what it's doing to children is a great nightmare.

Specifically, rage bait refers to online content designed to elicit anger or outrage. Once tech platforms figured out how this kind of content spirals user engagement, the algorithms got tweaked to feed us more and more of the same, activating a diabolical incentive structure of hate. Of course, in this swamp, reality is completely distorted. You could take any major event of recent times as an example and the difference between your newspaper's reportage and your online feed would be dramatic. Reading responsible accounts of pollution, a terror attack, an election result etc. would give you food for thought. On social media, you would be targeted with stuff doctored to send you into troll mode.If you block the accounts that most inflame you, you deprive them of your attention, you refuse to buy the hate they are selling. Blocking even hurts them with the algorithm. David did defeat Goliath. And make no mistake, this is a civilisational battle. We must fight against the atrophy of our attention, its capture by the most terrible types of things that human nature can be drawn to, and to regain our sense and sensibility.

Meta is recalibrating content on its social media platforms as the political tide has turned in Washington, with Mark Zuckerberg announcing last week that his company plans to fire its US fact-checkers. Fact-checking evolved in response to allegations of misinformation and is being watered down in response to accusations of censorship. Social media does not have solutions to either. Community review - introduced by Elon Musk at X and planned by Zuckerberg for Facebook and Instagram - is not a significant improvement over fact-checking. Having Washington lean on foreign governments over content moderation does not benefit free speech. Yet, that is the nature of the social media beast, designed to amplify bias.

Information and misinformation continue to jostle on social media at the mercy of user discretion. Social media now has enough control over all other forms of media to broaden its reach. It is the connective tissue for mass consumption of entertainment, and alternative platforms are reworking their engagement with social media. Technologies are shaping up to drive this advantage further through synthetic content targeted precisely at its intended audience. Meta's algorithm will now play up politics because it is the flavour of the season. The Achilles' Heel of social media is informed choice which could turn against misinformation. Its move away from content moderation is driven by the need to be more inclusive, yet unfiltered content can push users away from social media towards legacy forms that have better moderation systems in place. Lawmakers across the world are unlikely to give social media a free run, even if Donald Trump is working on their case. Protections have already been put in place across jurisdictions over misinformation. These may be difficult to dismantle, even if the Republicans pull US-owned social media companies further to the right. Media consumption is, in essence, evidence-based judgement that mediums must adapt to. Content moderation, not free speech, is the adaptation mechanism. Musk and Zuckerberg are not exempt.

Meta is recalibrating content on its social media platforms as the political tide has turned in Washington, with Mark Zuckerberg announcing last week that his company plans to fire its US fact-checkers. Fact-checking evolved in response to allegations of misinformation and is being watered down in response to accusations of censorship. Social media does not have solutions to either. Community review - introduced by Elon Musk at X and planned by Zuckerberg for Facebook and Instagram - is not a significant improvement over fact-checking. Having Washington lean on foreign governments over content moderation does not benefit free speech. Yet, that is the nature of the social media beast, designed to amplify bias.

Information and misinformation continue to jostle on social media at the mercy of user discretion. Social media now has enough control over all other forms of media to broaden its reach. It is the connective tissue for mass consumption of entertainment, and alternative platforms are reworking their engagement with social media. Technologies are shaping up to drive this advantage further through synthetic content targeted precisely at its intended audience. Meta's algorithm will now play up politics because it is the flavour of the season. The Achilles' Heel of social media is informed choice which could turn against misinformation. Its move away from content moderation is driven by the need to be more inclusive, yet unfiltered content can push users away from social media towards legacy forms that have better moderation systems in place. Lawmakers across the world are unlikely to give social media a free run, even if Donald Trump is working on their case. Protections have already been put in place across jurisdictions over misinformation. These may be difficult to dismantle, even if the Republicans pull US-owned social media companies further to the right. Media consumption is, in essence, evidence-based judgement that mediums must adapt to. Content moderation, not free speech, is the adaptation mechanism. Musk and Zuckerberg are not exempt.

Meta is recalibrating content on its social media platforms as the political tide has turned in Washington, with Mark Zuckerberg announcing last week that his company plans to fire its US fact-checkers. Fact-checking evolved in response to allegations of misinformation and is being watered down in response to accusations of censorship. Social media does not have solutions to either. Community review - introduced by Elon Musk at X and planned by Zuckerberg for Facebook and Instagram - is not a significant improvement over fact-checking. Having Washington lean on foreign governments over content moderation does not benefit free speech. Yet, that is the nature of the social media beast, designed to amplify bias.

Information and misinformation continue to jostle on social media at the mercy of user discretion. Social media now has enough control over all other forms of media to broaden its reach. It is the connective tissue for mass consumption of entertainment, and alternative platforms are reworking their engagement with social media. Technologies are shaping up to drive this advantage further through synthetic content targeted precisely at its intended audience. Meta's algorithm will now play up politics because it is the flavour of the season. The Achilles' Heel of social media is informed choice which could turn against misinformation. Its move away from content moderation is driven by the need to be more inclusive, yet unfiltered content can push users away from social media towards legacy forms that have better moderation systems in place. Lawmakers across the world are unlikely to give social media a free run, even if Donald Trump is working on their case. Protections have already been put in place across jurisdictions over misinformation. These may be difficult to dismantle, even if the Republicans pull US-owned social media companies further to the right. Media consumption is, in essence, evidence-based judgement that mediums must adapt to. Content moderation, not free speech, is the adaptation mechanism. Musk and Zuckerberg are not exempt.

Meta is recalibrating content on its social media platforms as the political tide has turned in Washington, with Mark Zuckerberg announcing last week that his company plans to fire its US fact-checkers. Fact-checking evolved in response to allegations of misinformation and is being watered down in response to accusations of censorship. Social media does not have solutions to either. Community review - introduced by Elon Musk at X and planned by Zuckerberg for Facebook and Instagram - is not a significant improvement over fact-checking. Having Washington lean on foreign governments over content moderation does not benefit free speech. Yet, that is the nature of the social media beast, designed to amplify bias.

Information and misinformation continue to jostle on social media at the mercy of user discretion. Social media now has enough control over all other forms of media to broaden its reach. It is the connective tissue for mass consumption of entertainment, and alternative platforms are reworking their engagement with social media. Technologies are shaping up to drive this advantage further through synthetic content targeted precisely at its intended audience. Meta's algorithm will now play up politics because it is the flavour of the season. The Achilles' Heel of social media is informed choice which could turn against misinformation. Its move away from content moderation is driven by the need to be more inclusive, yet unfiltered content can push users away from social media towards legacy forms that have better moderation systems in place. Lawmakers across the world are unlikely to give social media a free run, even if Donald Trump is working on their case. Protections have already been put in place across jurisdictions over misinformation. These may be difficult to dismantle, even if the Republicans pull US-owned social media companies further to the right. Media consumption is, in essence, evidence-based judgement that mediums must adapt to. Content moderation, not free speech, is the adaptation mechanism. Musk and Zuckerberg are not exempt.

Meta is recalibrating content on its social media platforms as the political tide has turned in Washington, with Mark Zuckerberg announcing last week that his company plans to fire its US fact-checkers. Fact-checking evolved in response to allegations of misinformation and is being watered down in response to accusations of censorship. Social media does not have solutions to either. Community review - introduced by Elon Musk at X and planned by Zuckerberg for Facebook and Instagram - is not a significant improvement over fact-checking. Having Washington lean on foreign governments over content moderation does not benefit free speech. Yet, that is the nature of the social media beast, designed to amplify bias.

Information and misinformation continue to jostle on social media at the mercy of user discretion. Social media now has enough control over all other forms of media to broaden its reach. It is the connective tissue for mass consumption of entertainment, and alternative platforms are reworking their engagement with social media. Technologies are shaping up to drive this advantage further through synthetic content targeted precisely at its intended audience. Meta's algorithm will now play up politics because it is the flavour of the season. The Achilles' Heel of social media is informed choice which could turn against misinformation. Its move away from content moderation is driven by the need to be more inclusive, yet unfiltered content can push users away from social media towards legacy forms that have better moderation systems in place. Lawmakers across the world are unlikely to give social media a free run, even if Donald Trump is working on their case. Protections have already been put in place across jurisdictions over misinformation. These may be difficult to dismantle, even if the Republicans pull US-owned social media companies further to the right. Media consumption is, in essence, evidence-based judgement that mediums must adapt to. Content moderation, not free speech, is the adaptation mechanism. Musk and Zuckerberg are not exempt.

Meta is recalibrating content on its social media platforms as the political tide has turned in Washington, with Mark Zuckerberg announcing last week that his company plans to fire its US fact-checkers. Fact-checking evolved in response to allegations of misinformation and is being watered down in response to accusations of censorship. Social media does not have solutions to either. Community review - introduced by Elon Musk at X and planned by Zuckerberg for Facebook and Instagram - is not a significant improvement over fact-checking. Having Washington lean on foreign governments over content moderation does not benefit free speech. Yet, that is the nature of the social media beast, designed to amplify bias.

Information and misinformation continue to jostle on social media at the mercy of user discretion. Social media now has enough control over all other forms of media to broaden its reach. It is the connective tissue for mass consumption of entertainment, and alternative platforms are reworking their engagement with social media. Technologies are shaping up to drive this advantage further through synthetic content targeted precisely at its intended audience. Meta's algorithm will now play up politics because it is the flavour of the season. The Achilles' Heel of social media is informed choice which could turn against misinformation. Its move away from content moderation is driven by the need to be more inclusive, yet unfiltered content can push users away from social media towards legacy forms that have better moderation systems in place. Lawmakers across the world are unlikely to give social media a free run, even if Donald Trump is working on their case. Protections have already been put in place across jurisdictions over misinformation. These may be difficult to dismantle, even if the Republicans pull US-owned social media companies further to the right. Media consumption is, in essence, evidence-based judgement that mediums must adapt to. Content moderation, not free speech, is the adaptation mechanism. Musk and Zuckerberg are not exempt.

According to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, commodities available for consumption are not inherently negative things. Baudrillard tried to interpret consumption in modern societies by engaging with the 'cargo myth' prevalent among the indigenous Melanesian people living in the South Pacific. The Melanesians did not know what aeroplanes were. However, they saw that these winged entities descended from the air for white people and appeared to make them happy. They also noted that aeroplanes never descended for the Melanesian people.

The Melanesian natives noted that the white people had placed objects similar to the aeroplane on the ground. They concluded that these objects were attracting the aeroplanes in the air and bringing them to the ground. Through a magical process, the aeroplanes were bringing plenty to the white people and making them happy. The Melanesian people concluded that they would need to place objects that simulated the aeroplane on the ground and attract them from the air. Baudrillard believes that the cargo myth holds an important analogy for the ways in which consumers engage with objects of consumption. According to Baudrillard, the modern consumer "sets in place a whole array of sham objects, of characteristic signs of happiness, and then waits for happiness to alight". For instance, modern consumers believe that they will get happiness if they buy the latest available version of a mobile phone or automobile. However, consumption does not usually lead to happiness. While consumers should ideally be blaming their heightened expectations for their lack of happiness, they blame the commodity instead. They feel that they should have waited for the next version of a mobile phone or automobile before buying the one they did. The version they bought is somehow inferior and therefore cannot make them happy. Baudrillard argues that consumers have replaced 'real' happiness with 'signs' of happiness. This results in the endless deferment of the arrival of total happiness. In Baudrillard's words, "in everyday practice, the blessings of consumption are not experienced as resulting from work or from a production process; they are experienced as a miracle". Modern consumers view consumption in the same magical way as the Melanesian people viewed the aeroplanes in the cargo myth. Television commercials also present objects of consumption as miracles. As a result, commodities appear to be distanced from the social processes which lead to their production. In effect, objects of consumption are divorced from the reality which produces them.

According to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, commodities available for consumption are not inherently negative things. Baudrillard tried to interpret consumption in modern societies by engaging with the 'cargo myth' prevalent among the indigenous Melanesian people living in the South Pacific. The Melanesians did not know what aeroplanes were. However, they saw that these winged entities descended from the air for white people and appeared to make them happy. They also noted that aeroplanes never descended for the Melanesian people.

The Melanesian natives noted that the white people had placed objects similar to the aeroplane on the ground. They concluded that these objects were attracting the aeroplanes in the air and bringing them to the ground. Through a magical process, the aeroplanes were bringing plenty to the white people and making them happy. The Melanesian people concluded that they would need to place objects that simulated the aeroplane on the ground and attract them from the air. Baudrillard believes that the cargo myth holds an important analogy for the ways in which consumers engage with objects of consumption. According to Baudrillard, the modern consumer "sets in place a whole array of sham objects, of characteristic signs of happiness, and then waits for happiness to alight". For instance, modern consumers believe that they will get happiness if they buy the latest available version of a mobile phone or automobile. However, consumption does not usually lead to happiness. While consumers should ideally be blaming their heightened expectations for their lack of happiness, they blame the commodity instead. They feel that they should have waited for the next version of a mobile phone or automobile before buying the one they did. The version they bought is somehow inferior and therefore cannot make them happy. Baudrillard argues that consumers have replaced 'real' happiness with 'signs' of happiness. This results in the endless deferment of the arrival of total happiness. In Baudrillard's words, "in everyday practice, the blessings of consumption are not experienced as resulting from work or from a production process; they are experienced as a miracle". Modern consumers view consumption in the same magical way as the Melanesian people viewed the aeroplanes in the cargo myth. Television commercials also present objects of consumption as miracles. As a result, commodities appear to be distanced from the social processes which lead to their production. In effect, objects of consumption are divorced from the reality which produces them.

According to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, commodities available for consumption are not inherently negative things. Baudrillard tried to interpret consumption in modern societies by engaging with the 'cargo myth' prevalent among the indigenous Melanesian people living in the South Pacific. The Melanesians did not know what aeroplanes were. However, they saw that these winged entities descended from the air for white people and appeared to make them happy. They also noted that aeroplanes never descended for the Melanesian people.

The Melanesian natives noted that the white people had placed objects similar to the aeroplane on the ground. They concluded that these objects were attracting the aeroplanes in the air and bringing them to the ground. Through a magical process, the aeroplanes were bringing plenty to the white people and making them happy. The Melanesian people concluded that they would need to place objects that simulated the aeroplane on the ground and attract them from the air. Baudrillard believes that the cargo myth holds an important analogy for the ways in which consumers engage with objects of consumption. According to Baudrillard, the modern consumer "sets in place a whole array of sham objects, of characteristic signs of happiness, and then waits for happiness to alight". For instance, modern consumers believe that they will get happiness if they buy the latest available version of a mobile phone or automobile. However, consumption does not usually lead to happiness. While consumers should ideally be blaming their heightened expectations for their lack of happiness, they blame the commodity instead. They feel that they should have waited for the next version of a mobile phone or automobile before buying the one they did. The version they bought is somehow inferior and therefore cannot make them happy. Baudrillard argues that consumers have replaced 'real' happiness with 'signs' of happiness. This results in the endless deferment of the arrival of total happiness. In Baudrillard's words, "in everyday practice, the blessings of consumption are not experienced as resulting from work or from a production process; they are experienced as a miracle". Modern consumers view consumption in the same magical way as the Melanesian people viewed the aeroplanes in the cargo myth. Television commercials also present objects of consumption as miracles. As a result, commodities appear to be distanced from the social processes which lead to their production. In effect, objects of consumption are divorced from the reality which produces them.

According to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, commodities available for consumption are not inherently negative things. Baudrillard tried to interpret consumption in modern societies by engaging with the 'cargo myth' prevalent among the indigenous Melanesian people living in the South Pacific. The Melanesians did not know what aeroplanes were. However, they saw that these winged entities descended from the air for white people and appeared to make them happy. They also noted that aeroplanes never descended for the Melanesian people.

The Melanesian natives noted that the white people had placed objects similar to the aeroplane on the ground. They concluded that these objects were attracting the aeroplanes in the air and bringing them to the ground. Through a magical process, the aeroplanes were bringing plenty to the white people and making them happy. The Melanesian people concluded that they would need to place objects that simulated the aeroplane on the ground and attract them from the air. Baudrillard believes that the cargo myth holds an important analogy for the ways in which consumers engage with objects of consumption. According to Baudrillard, the modern consumer "sets in place a whole array of sham objects, of characteristic signs of happiness, and then waits for happiness to alight". For instance, modern consumers believe that they will get happiness if they buy the latest available version of a mobile phone or automobile. However, consumption does not usually lead to happiness. While consumers should ideally be blaming their heightened expectations for their lack of happiness, they blame the commodity instead. They feel that they should have waited for the next version of a mobile phone or automobile before buying the one they did. The version they bought is somehow inferior and therefore cannot make them happy. Baudrillard argues that consumers have replaced 'real' happiness with 'signs' of happiness. This results in the endless deferment of the arrival of total happiness. In Baudrillard's words, "in everyday practice, the blessings of consumption are not experienced as resulting from work or from a production process; they are experienced as a miracle". Modern consumers view consumption in the same magical way as the Melanesian people viewed the aeroplanes in the cargo myth. Television commercials also present objects of consumption as miracles. As a result, commodities appear to be distanced from the social processes which lead to their production. In effect, objects of consumption are divorced from the reality which produces them.

According to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, commodities available for consumption are not inherently negative things. Baudrillard tried to interpret consumption in modern societies by engaging with the 'cargo myth' prevalent among the indigenous Melanesian people living in the South Pacific. The Melanesians did not know what aeroplanes were. However, they saw that these winged entities descended from the air for white people and appeared to make them happy. They also noted that aeroplanes never descended for the Melanesian people.

The Melanesian natives noted that the white people had placed objects similar to the aeroplane on the ground. They concluded that these objects were attracting the aeroplanes in the air and bringing them to the ground. Through a magical process, the aeroplanes were bringing plenty to the white people and making them happy. The Melanesian people concluded that they would need to place objects that simulated the aeroplane on the ground and attract them from the air. Baudrillard believes that the cargo myth holds an important analogy for the ways in which consumers engage with objects of consumption. According to Baudrillard, the modern consumer "sets in place a whole array of sham objects, of characteristic signs of happiness, and then waits for happiness to alight". For instance, modern consumers believe that they will get happiness if they buy the latest available version of a mobile phone or automobile. However, consumption does not usually lead to happiness. While consumers should ideally be blaming their heightened expectations for their lack of happiness, they blame the commodity instead. They feel that they should have waited for the next version of a mobile phone or automobile before buying the one they did. The version they bought is somehow inferior and therefore cannot make them happy. Baudrillard argues that consumers have replaced 'real' happiness with 'signs' of happiness. This results in the endless deferment of the arrival of total happiness. In Baudrillard's words, "in everyday practice, the blessings of consumption are not experienced as resulting from work or from a production process; they are experienced as a miracle". Modern consumers view consumption in the same magical way as the Melanesian people viewed the aeroplanes in the cargo myth. Television commercials also present objects of consumption as miracles. As a result, commodities appear to be distanced from the social processes which lead to their production. In effect, objects of consumption are divorced from the reality which produces them.

According to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, commodities available for consumption are not inherently negative things. Baudrillard tried to interpret consumption in modern societies by engaging with the 'cargo myth' prevalent among the indigenous Melanesian people living in the South Pacific. The Melanesians did not know what aeroplanes were. However, they saw that these winged entities descended from the air for white people and appeared to make them happy. They also noted that aeroplanes never descended for the Melanesian people.

The Melanesian natives noted that the white people had placed objects similar to the aeroplane on the ground. They concluded that these objects were attracting the aeroplanes in the air and bringing them to the ground. Through a magical process, the aeroplanes were bringing plenty to the white people and making them happy. The Melanesian people concluded that they would need to place objects that simulated the aeroplane on the ground and attract them from the air. Baudrillard believes that the cargo myth holds an important analogy for the ways in which consumers engage with objects of consumption. According to Baudrillard, the modern consumer "sets in place a whole array of sham objects, of characteristic signs of happiness, and then waits for happiness to alight". For instance, modern consumers believe that they will get happiness if they buy the latest available version of a mobile phone or automobile. However, consumption does not usually lead to happiness. While consumers should ideally be blaming their heightened expectations for their lack of happiness, they blame the commodity instead. They feel that they should have waited for the next version of a mobile phone or automobile before buying the one they did. The version they bought is somehow inferior and therefore cannot make them happy. Baudrillard argues that consumers have replaced 'real' happiness with 'signs' of happiness. This results in the endless deferment of the arrival of total happiness. In Baudrillard's words, "in everyday practice, the blessings of consumption are not experienced as resulting from work or from a production process; they are experienced as a miracle". Modern consumers view consumption in the same magical way as the Melanesian people viewed the aeroplanes in the cargo myth. Television commercials also present objects of consumption as miracles. As a result, commodities appear to be distanced from the social processes which lead to their production. In effect, objects of consumption are divorced from the reality which produces them.

Recently, India was in the news again as a world leader – but this time for the wrong reason. According to the Swiss firm IQAir’s assessment of the air quality of world cities 2023, New Delhi is back to being the world’s most polluted capital. New Delhi’s annual air quality rating is 19 times the World Health Organization’s annual limit recommended in 2021 for its pollutant level. The picture is no better as far as the larger Union Territory of Delhi is considered – its annual record of pollutant levels makes it the third most polluted region globally.

Delhi may have hogged the headlines on air pollution, but the problem is far from unique to metropolises. IQAir’s findings reveal that even lower-tier cities and towns in India are choking because of very poor air quality. Indeed, Begusarai in Bihar is the world’s most polluted city. Partly industrialized, housing among others an oil refinery, Begusarai is primarily agrarian. And Begusarai is not an outlier: Mullanpur in Punjab, which is transitioning to an urban settlement, and Siwan in Bihar are among the 42 Indian cities/towns that are among the 50 most polluted globally. Many judicial pronouncements have upheld “the right to clean air” as a corollary to the fundamental right to life and pushed governments to act. But Delhi’s bad air is despite the introduction of CNG in public transport and the building of a metro network in the early years of this decade, and in spite of the presence of a Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) that kicks in when the air quality turns bad and becomes more stringent as the air quality worsens. Improving air quality across Indian cities requires three fundamental changes. One, governments must turn to science to understand, measure, and monitor the problem. Two, they have to understand that the response will have to include behavioural changes and use a combination of incentives and penalties to achieve this. And three, clean air has to be seen as a common public good. To be sure, it is not just the responsibility of the Centre or a battle for courts to wage, but a fight that states and municipal governments have to be a part of. This is the battle for our future.

Recently, India was in the news again as a world leader – but this time for the wrong reason. According to the Swiss firm IQAir’s assessment of the air quality of world cities 2023, New Delhi is back to being the world’s most polluted capital. New Delhi’s annual air quality rating is 19 times the World Health Organization’s annual limit recommended in 2021 for its pollutant level. The picture is no better as far as the larger Union Territory of Delhi is considered – its annual record of pollutant levels makes it the third most polluted region globally.

Delhi may have hogged the headlines on air pollution, but the problem is far from unique to metropolises. IQAir’s findings reveal that even lower-tier cities and towns in India are choking because of very poor air quality. Indeed, Begusarai in Bihar is the world’s most polluted city. Partly industrialized, housing among others an oil refinery, Begusarai is primarily agrarian. And Begusarai is not an outlier: Mullanpur in Punjab, which is transitioning to an urban settlement, and Siwan in Bihar are among the 42 Indian cities/towns that are among the 50 most polluted globally. Many judicial pronouncements have upheld “the right to clean air” as a corollary to the fundamental right to life and pushed governments to act. But Delhi’s bad air is despite the introduction of CNG in public transport and the building of a metro network in the early years of this decade, and in spite of the presence of a Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) that kicks in when the air quality turns bad and becomes more stringent as the air quality worsens. Improving air quality across Indian cities requires three fundamental changes. One, governments must turn to science to understand, measure, and monitor the problem. Two, they have to understand that the response will have to include behavioural changes and use a combination of incentives and penalties to achieve this. And three, clean air has to be seen as a common public good. To be sure, it is not just the responsibility of the Centre or a battle for courts to wage, but a fight that states and municipal governments have to be a part of. This is the battle for our future.

Recently, India was in the news again as a world leader – but this time for the wrong reason. According to the Swiss firm IQAir’s assessment of the air quality of world cities 2023, New Delhi is back to being the world’s most polluted capital. New Delhi’s annual air quality rating is 19 times the World Health Organization’s annual limit recommended in 2021 for its pollutant level. The picture is no better as far as the larger Union Territory of Delhi is considered – its annual record of pollutant levels makes it the third most polluted region globally.

Delhi may have hogged the headlines on air pollution, but the problem is far from unique to metropolises. IQAir’s findings reveal that even lower-tier cities and towns in India are choking because of very poor air quality. Indeed, Begusarai in Bihar is the world’s most polluted city. Partly industrialized, housing among others an oil refinery, Begusarai is primarily agrarian. And Begusarai is not an outlier: Mullanpur in Punjab, which is transitioning to an urban settlement, and Siwan in Bihar are among the 42 Indian cities/towns that are among the 50 most polluted globally. Many judicial pronouncements have upheld “the right to clean air” as a corollary to the fundamental right to life and pushed governments to act. But Delhi’s bad air is despite the introduction of CNG in public transport and the building of a metro network in the early years of this decade, and in spite of the presence of a Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) that kicks in when the air quality turns bad and becomes more stringent as the air quality worsens. Improving air quality across Indian cities requires three fundamental changes. One, governments must turn to science to understand, measure, and monitor the problem. Two, they have to understand that the response will have to include behavioural changes and use a combination of incentives and penalties to achieve this. And three, clean air has to be seen as a common public good. To be sure, it is not just the responsibility of the Centre or a battle for courts to wage, but a fight that states and municipal governments have to be a part of. This is the battle for our future.

Recently, India was in the news again as a world leader – but this time for the wrong reason. According to the Swiss firm IQAir’s assessment of the air quality of world cities 2023, New Delhi is back to being the world’s most polluted capital. New Delhi’s annual air quality rating is 19 times the World Health Organization’s annual limit recommended in 2021 for its pollutant level. The picture is no better as far as the larger Union Territory of Delhi is considered – its annual record of pollutant levels makes it the third most polluted region globally.

Delhi may have hogged the headlines on air pollution, but the problem is far from unique to metropolises. IQAir’s findings reveal that even lower-tier cities and towns in India are choking because of very poor air quality. Indeed, Begusarai in Bihar is the world’s most polluted city. Partly industrialized, housing among others an oil refinery, Begusarai is primarily agrarian. And Begusarai is not an outlier: Mullanpur in Punjab, which is transitioning to an urban settlement, and Siwan in Bihar are among the 42 Indian cities/towns that are among the 50 most polluted globally. Many judicial pronouncements have upheld “the right to clean air” as a corollary to the fundamental right to life and pushed governments to act. But Delhi’s bad air is despite the introduction of CNG in public transport and the building of a metro network in the early years of this decade, and in spite of the presence of a Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) that kicks in when the air quality turns bad and becomes more stringent as the air quality worsens. Improving air quality across Indian cities requires three fundamental changes. One, governments must turn to science to understand, measure, and monitor the problem. Two, they have to understand that the response will have to include behavioural changes and use a combination of incentives and penalties to achieve this. And three, clean air has to be seen as a common public good. To be sure, it is not just the responsibility of the Centre or a battle for courts to wage, but a fight that states and municipal governments have to be a part of. This is the battle for our future.

Recently, India was in the news again as a world leader – but this time for the wrong reason. According to the Swiss firm IQAir’s assessment of the air quality of world cities 2023, New Delhi is back to being the world’s most polluted capital. New Delhi’s annual air quality rating is 19 times the World Health Organization’s annual limit recommended in 2021 for its pollutant level. The picture is no better as far as the larger Union Territory of Delhi is considered – its annual record of pollutant levels makes it the third most polluted region globally.

Delhi may have hogged the headlines on air pollution, but the problem is far from unique to metropolises. IQAir’s findings reveal that even lower-tier cities and towns in India are choking because of very poor air quality. Indeed, Begusarai in Bihar is the world’s most polluted city. Partly industrialized, housing among others an oil refinery, Begusarai is primarily agrarian. And Begusarai is not an outlier: Mullanpur in Punjab, which is transitioning to an urban settlement, and Siwan in Bihar are among the 42 Indian cities/towns that are among the 50 most polluted globally. Many judicial pronouncements have upheld “the right to clean air” as a corollary to the fundamental right to life and pushed governments to act. But Delhi’s bad air is despite the introduction of CNG in public transport and the building of a metro network in the early years of this decade, and in spite of the presence of a Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) that kicks in when the air quality turns bad and becomes more stringent as the air quality worsens. Improving air quality across Indian cities requires three fundamental changes. One, governments must turn to science to understand, measure, and monitor the problem. Two, they have to understand that the response will have to include behavioural changes and use a combination of incentives and penalties to achieve this. And three, clean air has to be seen as a common public good. To be sure, it is not just the responsibility of the Centre or a battle for courts to wage, but a fight that states and municipal governments have to be a part of. This is the battle for our future.

Recently, India was in the news again as a world leader – but this time for the wrong reason. According to the Swiss firm IQAir’s assessment of the air quality of world cities 2023, New Delhi is back to being the world’s most polluted capital. New Delhi’s annual air quality rating is 19 times the World Health Organization’s annual limit recommended in 2021 for its pollutant level. The picture is no better as far as the larger Union Territory of Delhi is considered – its annual record of pollutant levels makes it the third most polluted region globally.

Delhi may have hogged the headlines on air pollution, but the problem is far from unique to metropolises. IQAir’s findings reveal that even lower-tier cities and towns in India are choking because of very poor air quality. Indeed, Begusarai in Bihar is the world’s most polluted city. Partly industrialized, housing among others an oil refinery, Begusarai is primarily agrarian. And Begusarai is not an outlier: Mullanpur in Punjab, which is transitioning to an urban settlement, and Siwan in Bihar are among the 42 Indian cities/towns that are among the 50 most polluted globally. Many judicial pronouncements have upheld “the right to clean air” as a corollary to the fundamental right to life and pushed governments to act. But Delhi’s bad air is despite the introduction of CNG in public transport and the building of a metro network in the early years of this decade, and in spite of the presence of a Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) that kicks in when the air quality turns bad and becomes more stringent as the air quality worsens. Improving air quality across Indian cities requires three fundamental changes. One, governments must turn to science to understand, measure, and monitor the problem. Two, they have to understand that the response will have to include behavioural changes and use a combination of incentives and penalties to achieve this. And three, clean air has to be seen as a common public good. To be sure, it is not just the responsibility of the Centre or a battle for courts to wage, but a fight that states and municipal governments have to be a part of. This is the battle for our future.