Editor,
Islamic terrorism initially spread worldwide through organized groups such as ISIS, LeT, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda and others with the perception that ordinary Muslim individuals were not involved in violent acts. Recent incidents, however, mark a paradigm shift, as individuals unaffiliated with these groups such as MBBS doctors in the Delhi blast, attackers at Bondi Beach in Australia and the pre Christmas attack in Germany have been found involved. These developments have led to widespread global sense of insecurity among non-Muslims leading to cancellations of Christmas celebrations in parts of Europe. Therefore, non Muslim communities need to come together and formulate strategies to confront these perceived threats to their survival.
Yours etc.,
NK Kehar,
Shillong-3
The Messi Mirage
Editor,
In cricket-obsessed India, football limps along on under-funding and mismanagement. The AIFF’s latest fiasco: tenders for ISL commercial rights (Rs 37.5 crore annual guarantee over 15 years) and I-League (Rs 6 crore) closed on October 16, 2025, with zero bidders from private firms or governments—despite the low stakes for nurturing talent.
Enter the irony: a Rs 100-150 crore Messi tour across four cities in early December 2025, promising GOAT magic with tickets up to Rs 50,000. Over 50,000 fans showed, but chaos ensued—overcrowds, denied entries, and political overtones souring the vibe. “SPEND THOSE 150 CRORE ON INDIAN FOOTBALL!!!!!!”
Worth it? No. That cash could’ve funded academies or fixed the ISL gap. Instead, India slumps to 142nd in FIFA rankings (December 2025, worst in a decade), behind Latvia and Liberia. Even the expanded 2027 AFC Asian Cup (24 teams) eluded them: top-seeded Blues crashed 1-2 to Singapore on October 14, 2025, exposing systemic rot—absent stars, shoddy prep, flailing youth and clubs.
Salvation; not celeb stunts or investor-repelling tenders please. AIFF needs governance reform, long-term focus. As ESPN quipped: “Millions for Messi, none for the beautiful game.” Reliance or state backing could help—if AIFF loosens grip and adds commercial smarts. Otherwise, football’s dreams stay as bloated and brittle as event budgets.The ball is in the AIFF’s court; it’s time they stopped kicking it away.
Yours etc.,
Anil Thapa,
Via email
MNREGA renamed
Editor,
Government has introduced MNREGA in a new form with two main differences. Now the total number of days of employment will be 125 instead of 100 and second is that states will contribute 40 percent and not 10 percent as it was earlier.
The NDA government’s proposal to overhaul the programme, without holding any consultations with the States, has raised legitimate concerns over the future of the rights-based guarantee law. It is not just about erasing Mahatma Gandhi’s name and renaming it as the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Bill, 2025;
The new legislation promises to provide a statutory guarantee of 125 days of wage employment in every financial year to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to undertake unskilled manual work. Within six months from the date of commencement of the scheme, States will have to make a scheme consistent with the provisions of the new law. The financial liability would be shared between the Centre and the State governments in the ratio of 60:40. The fear is that it would end up replacing a rights-based guarantee law with a conditional, centrally controlled scheme opposed to the interests of both the States and the working class.
Under RAM G, the Centre will determine the state-wise normative allocation for each financial year, based on “objective parameters” as may be prescribed by the central government itself. Any expenditure incurred by a State in excess of its allocation will be borne entirely by the State government. Experts have warned that a legal employment guarantee is now sought to be reduced to a centrally managed publicity scheme, at the expense of the States. Despite the Centre’s claim of increasing guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, the Bill, in reality, opens the door to the exclusion of large sections of rural households in the name of the “rationalisation” of job cards. The rebranded avatar resorts to cost-shifting and restrictive conditions that run counter to the spirit of federalism.
The increase in guaranteed workdays needs to be seen in the context of how MGNREGA has functioned in practice. Although the Act speaks of “not less than 100 days,” of employment, bureaucratic and technological constraints have turned that floor into a ceiling for most households. Additional days have been permitted only in narrowly defined circumstances — for tribal households in forest areas or during officially declared disasters. By codifying 125 days as a statutory entitlement, the new Bill appears to correct this anomaly
The Bill’s emphasis on weekly wage payments is perhaps its most worker-friendly feature, addressing one of MGNREGA’s chronic failures: delayed wages. Faster payments can significantly enhance the scheme’s credibility and utility for households that rely on it for subsistence. Retaining compensation for delayed payments is also an important continuity, signalling that worker rights have not been entirely subordinated to administrative convenience. Yet here too, the absence of greater clarity on enforcement raises questions .
Taken together, the VB-G Ram G Bill reflects a government attempt to reconcile competing imperatives: expanding social protection, managing fiscal exposure, supporting agriculture, and imposing administrative discipline. The risk is that in seeking balance, the Bill blunts the transformative edge of a rights-based guarantee. Rural employment schemes work best when they are simple, predictable and responsive to need. If the new framework shifts too far towards conditionality and ceilings it may deliver neither robust welfare nor fiscal comfort.
The challenge for Parliament is not merely to pass the Bill, but to refine it so that the promise of “Viksit Bharat” is built on a foundation of genuine rural security rather than false promises.
The fiscal design is another difference. It imposes additional burden on the states but offers them little say in decision making. The Centre met the entire cost of wages in MGNREGA and up to 75 per cent of the material component outgo in works. In the proposed VB-G RAM G, the cost sharing will be 60:40 except the 90:10 formula for North-Eastern states. Given some states’ precarious fiscal situation and shrinking revenue generating capacity, this will be a tight call. In the case of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, the failure of many states to make timely payments of their 50 per cent premium subsidy share has led to its sub-optimal perform-ance. There is no doubt that the flagship MGNREGA needed reform in tune with time. But the abrupt overhaul, without prior consultation, does raise questions about the motive. The VB-G RAM G undermines the fundamental guarantees that MGNREGA provided.
For the time being, the Bill has not been rushed and wisely referred to a joint parliamentary panel for wider discussions. The ferocious reaction to the scrapping of a flagship scheme named after the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi is not unexpected. However, the scheme that replaces it raises many other critical concerns. MGNREGA provided India’s rural people entitlements beyond 100 days of work, helped reform rural governance and empowered them to fight for and secure their right to work. Barring transparency in implementation and social audits, the Bill does away with most of these entitlements. It is important to note that the MGNREGA was passed in 2005 amidst chants of “rozgar guarantee zindabad” with a historic consensus between all parties. The government’s attempt to stealthily repeal the law is not just a disservice to the dignity of labour, but also undermines the basic tenets of democratic consensus-building.
Yours etc.,
Yash Pal Ralhan,
Via email
