Welcoming the constitution of the National Social Security Boards one year after the Code on Social Security came into force, the editorial argues that their centralised design — chaired by the Union Labour Minister and nominated by the Centre — may limit outcomes for a workforce that is overwhelmingly informal, in a subject that falls in the Concurrent List.

• Centralisation: the Union Government chairs both Boards and nominates all members; the editorial argues that Central Trade Unions and State Governments are not adequately represented.
• Federal principle: since labour is a Concurrent subject, Centre and States must work together; a report prepared for the Kerala government (Justice V. Gopala Gowda, 2026) flagged provisions it considered anti-federal and suggested amendments.
• Coverage claims vs reality: the Government cites social protection coverage rising from 19% (2015) to 64.3% (2025) — about 94 crore people — but informal workers, over 90% of the workforce, largely lack comprehensive protection in the ILO sense.
• Unfinished agenda: many NCEUS recommendations remain unaddressed; trade unions and States should be brought on board.

• Government’s perspective: a national Board ensures uniform standards, portability for migrant workers and coordination with aggregators operating across States; States can also constitute their own Boards and schemes.
• Measuring coverage: headline coverage figures often count anyone receiving at least one benefit (e.g. food or cash transfers), which differs from comprehensive cover against all major risks — a distinction worth noting in answers.
• Design questions: tripartism (government–employer–worker) is a core ILO principle; the balance of nominated vs elected or union-chosen members affects legitimacy and trust.
• Balanced view: the Boards are a necessary institutional step; their effectiveness will depend on funding, notified schemes and genuine consultation.

The author describes India–China relations as “managed coexistence” and argues that peaceful coexistence is possible: conflict would set back both countries, China’s military edge is often overstated, and India should avoid treating China as an existential threat — while better understanding Chinese intentions and preventing incidents like Galwan (2020).

• Beyond Galwan: the 2020 clash, in which 20 Indian soldiers died, does not by itself explain the depth of mistrust; the roots lie in 1962 and in poorly delineated boundaries.
• Lost momentum: the 1988 opening was a watershed whose gains were later “frittered away”; recent initiatives risk becoming a zero-sum game, with Chinese strategists reading India’s role in the Quad as part of containment.
• No existential threat: conflict would derail China’s long-term goals; China’s military, though advancing, is “not yet world-class”, and India is a match in the high Himalayas.
• Existing commitments: the 2005 Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles commits both sides to not using or threatening force and to protecting settled populations in any boundary settlement.
• Prescription: better understanding of China’s intentions and internal frailties; clear instructions to border forces to avoid incidents; a relationship of “strategic stability”.

• Security concerns: many analysts point to China’s rapid border infrastructure build-up, the 2020 transgressions that upset agreed norms, the China–Pakistan partnership, and upstream projects on the Yarlung Tsangpo as reasons for caution.
• Economic asymmetry: India runs a very large trade deficit with China and depends on Chinese inputs for electronics, pharmaceuticals (APIs) and solar equipment.
• Strategic choice: India’s participation in the Quad reflects multi-alignment rather than alliance; India also engages China through BRICS and the SCO.
• Academic frame: the author’s view leans towards liberal-institutionalist reassurance; a realist reading stresses capabilities and power balance. A balanced answer combines deterrence with dialogue.

Marking Ashoke Sen’s receipt of the Oskar Klein Medal — the first Indian to win it — a fellow physicist argues that theories can remain untested for decades yet prove profoundly useful, and that India’s institutions must protect the freedom to pursue such ideas.

• Patience pays: like the Klein–Gordon equation, string theory has generated rich theoretical insight even without direct experimental confirmation.
• Sen’s contributions: showing that consistency of strings in curved spacetime yields Einstein’s equations with corrections; evidence for duality that unified different string theories into one web; and work on black holes; over 300 papers.
• Institutional ecosystem: Sen worked at TIFR, HRI and ICTS — autonomous institutes of the Department of Atomic Energy — whose founder, Homi J. Bhabha, valued freedom of inquiry.
• Concern: some scepticism of string theory within India’s physics community may reflect limited appreciation of how frontier science works.

• The falsifiability debate: critics argue that a theory without testable predictions risks drifting from empirical science (the Popperian criterion of falsifiability); supporters reply that mathematical consistency and explanatory power are themselves scientific progress.
• Resource allocation: in a country with modest R&D spending (well under 1% of GDP), there is a debate on balancing curiosity-driven and mission-oriented research — the ANRF aims to fund both.
• Policy lesson: autonomy, long-term funding and tolerance of uncertain outcomes are common features of institutions that produce breakthrough research.