 (8).png)
1 day ago
1
ARTICLE AD BOX
Summary
India withdrew an NCERT textbook that cast the judiciary in dim light. In general, we must aim to secure the law’s supremacy even if it has gaps and needs to evolve. Think of the rift between the Pentagon and Anthropic over AI weapons in America.
School textbooks rarely get recalled after their rollout, but it happened this week with a social science book withdrawn by India’s National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), a government institution. Of the 38 copies sold on Monday at an NCERT counter in Delhi, 16 had been taken back by Wednesday, as reported, with UPI data trails being sought to retrieve a few proving hard to trace.
This recall followed a swift order from the education ministry in response to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s objection to a part on “corruption in the judiciary.”
A thin online sample suggests two kinds of reactions popped up on social media to the court’s intervention. Some teenagers wondered why it’s such a big deal if AI chatbots could scroll out so much on that topic anyway. A cynical few joked about how a scandalous copy could turn into a collector’s item worthy of an auction someday.
For all the banter that NCERT’s rollback may have inspired among students, this episode should prompt us to reflect on the majesty of law—a solemn matter in any republic.
Among the effects of the prevailing digital overload is a marked loss in the weight of the written word. Social media has relaxed the use of language to a level so casual that even printed text has been a casualty.
Officially issued texts, however, must resist that tide and meet a far higher bar of formality and truth. School textbooks are in a special category. This is not voluntary reading. These texts are prescribed as part of a syllabus on which students are tested for academic proficiency. Hence, in general, such study material must always take a minimalist approach.
As a matter of prudence, foundational texts must not stray beyond what’s essential to the subject, especially into territory that can inspire harmful forms of conjecture.
Coverage of the judiciary must follow this principle all the more strictly for the dignity of law to prevail as common sense across society. Given the power of public perception, the Rule of Law risks a loss of traction should its interpreters, our courts of justice, come under a cloud.
While India’s contempt-of-court law makes space for truthful arguments and critiques under some conditions, it exists for exactly that reason: as a safeguard against a popular spiral into cynicism. The caveat is that this law should be invoked judiciously.
Respect for the law is vital, but we cannot deny that nuances exist. A dilemma could arise if legislation lags the evolution of ethics. Take this week’s standoff between the US Pentagon and Anthropic.
On the face of it, the Pentagon’s pressure on this Agentic AI startup to let it deploy its Claude AI tools for all lawful military action sounds justified. Who can object to that? Anthropic, however, has reportedly barred Claude’s use for domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons.
These are hazards that do not seem to ruffle US lawmakers, gripped as they might be by the fear of China sneaking ahead in an AI arms race. Pentagon policy on AI-guided arms does ask for appropriate levels of human judgement, as it should, but Anthropic has a valid point of safety in not letting its technology venture into the danger zone of AI-taken calls on life and death. If this startup gets stared down, its effort to plug a legislative gap will come to nought.
As this case shows, legal frameworks can be inadequate in some instances. Even so, it is incumbent upon every republic to uphold the supremacy of law over individual authority.
English (US) ·