Close shave

Sir — That the chainsaw is responsible for species extinction is a fact that is fairly well-known. Who knew that a shaving razor could wreak the same havoc. In an unexpected twist on conservation efforts, the Dutch biologist, Kees Moeliker, has issued an unusual call to arms — save the pubic louse from extinction. Moeliker has compared the growing trend for intimate grooming to environmental deforestation, arguing that Brazilian waxing practices have left these tiny creatures without suitable habitats. While there is no doubt that conservation should focus on even the smallest of species, one is forced to ask whether the world would really be worse off if the pubic lice go extinct. Some things are perhaps not worth saving.

Aloke Kumar Mookherjee,
Calcutta

Changed spirit

Sir — The National Democratic Alliance government is looking to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of 2005 with a Bill that proposes to effectively overhaul the rural jobs scheme that has long served as a social security net for the rural poor. The Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill — or VB-G RAM G Bill — proposes to raise the number of guaranteed wage employment days in a financial year from 100 to 125 and proposes joint funding between the Centre and the state, which will likely lead to a higher financial burden on states. Already, the Centre owes states more than Rs 13,000 crore in unpaid MGNREGA wages. This bill is a blow to the federal structure of the Indian Constitution.

Shayan Das,
Calcutta

Sir — The proposed shift from full Central funding to shared financing under the VB-G RAM G Bill raises serious administrative and fiscal concerns. States already operate under tight budgets, constrained further by limited revenue autonomy after cuts in the goods and services tax. Asking states to shoulder 40% of wage costs risks delayed payments to workers and uneven implementation across regions. A rural employment guarantee works only when funds flow predictably and on time. This change threatens to convert a legal right into a budget-contingent welfare measure. The Centre cannot shirk its responsibility.

A.G. Rajmohan,
Andhra Pradesh

Sir — Replacing a system that was built in response to people asking for work with one that fixes spending limits in advance changes the spirit of the MGNREGA at its core. The need for rural jobs rises and falls from place to place because of droughts, floods, migration and farm distress. A formula set in Delhi cannot keep track of these changes as they happen. When states cross these limits, they must pay more from their own pockets which would make them hesitant to offer work even when people need it.

A. Subhan Jogeshwary,
Mumbai

Sir — The VB-G RAM G Bill’s provision to pause employment guarantees for 60 days during sowing and harvesting appears neat administratively yet is socially blunt. Agricultural calendars differ widely across regions, crops and micro-climates. A uniform pause compresses the window of guaranteed work and leaves vulnerable households exposed during lean periods that do not align with official notifications. Farm labour availability depends on wages and conditions, not merely on the absence of public works. This clause risks undermining income security without offering a reliable alternative for rural workers.

Sravana Ramachandran,
Calcutta

Sir — The MGNREGA functioned as a rights-based programme with enforceable guarantees, time-bound work provisions, and unemployment allowances. The new Bill weakens this architecture by limiting demand responsiveness and centralising project selection. Employment becomes conditional on pre-approved plans rather than workers’ needs. Such restructuring alters the character of the scheme from a statutory right to an administratively managed programme. Rural households require certainty, not discretion. Any reform should strengthen enforceability rather than dilute the legal promise that defined the original Act.

Sunil Pradhan,
Nuapada, Odisha

Risky proposition

Sir — The Central government has introduced a new Bill in the Lok Sabha that scraps India’s strict liability law for suppliers in the event of nuclear accidents and also allows private companies to enter a sector hitherto reserved for specialised public enterprises. The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Bill, 2025, comes weeks after the prime minister, Narendra Modi, said that his government is preparing to open India’s nuclear industry to private players to bolster the country’s energy security and strengthen its technological capabilities.

The SHANTI Bill removes a safeguard deliberately built into the 2010 law after Bhopal’s long shadow. Defective equipment can now escape legal consequence, even when it causes harm. This change shifts risk away from multinational suppliers and places it squarely on operators, victims and the public exchequer. Nuclear energy involves hazards of an exceptional order. Diluting accountability at the supply stage weakens deterrence and erodes public confidence in safety assurances offered by the State.

M.N. Gupta,
Hooghly

Sir — By barring the jurisdiction of civil courts after a nuclear accident, the SHANTI Bill restricts access to justice at the moment citizens would need it most. Victims lose the right to pursue independent claims beyond a tightly defined compensation framework. Administrative bodies replace judicial scrutiny in matters involving life, health and environmental damage. Such restrictions privilege convenience over rights. In high-risk sectors, legal remedies act as safeguards.

N.V. Krishnan,
Chennai