You don’t have permission to access “http://www.ndtv.com/health/as-menstrual-health-challenges-persist-homeopathy-can-be-sustainable-care-option-experts-11314108” on this server.
Reference #18.cdf5d217.1775454516.e8ebb55e
https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.cdf5d217.1775454516.e8ebb55e
AMBERNATH: Industrial units in the MIDC belts of Ambernath and Dombivli are incurring losses exceeding Rs 1,000 crore per month cumulatively as the West Asia conflict disrupts gas supply and raw material availability, severely affecting production. Nearly 50% of companies at Anand Nagar MIDC and 30% in Dombivli MIDC have been impacted due to shortages of chemicals, PNG and other essential inputs. The crisis has also triggered worker migration, further worsening the situation, industry representatives said.The Ambernath MIDC region houses around 2,000 companies, including nearly 400 chemical units. The Additional Ambernath MIDC area alone has 1,400 companies. Together, these industrial belts provide employment to over one lakh families. Officials said the conflict’s effect has been particularly felt by engineering, chemical, textile, confectionery and pharmaceutical units. PNG is crucial for these units. Umesh Tayade, president of the Additional Ambernath Manufacturers Association (AAMA), said PNG supply has been reduced by 50%. “Units are being forced to either cut production or procure additional gas at almost double the cost,” he said.Also, several industrial canteens have shut due to a lack of commercial LPG supply, while rising food prices at local eateries have made daily meals unaffordable. A large number of workers, particularly from UP and Bihar, rely on commercial gas for cooking. Due to shortages and rising costs, 20-25% of the workforce has returned to their native places. As a result, many companies have reported a 40-50% drop in output. Investment activity in the MIDC region has slowed, leaving entrepreneurs struggling to sustain operations.The industry body AAMA has written to the state government seeking relief measures, including subsidies, reduced loan interest rates, a six-month extension for GST payments, and easier access to diesel for industrial use. Tayade said, “There is no clarity on how long the conflict will continue. Industrial units in Ambernath alone have suffered total losses of over Rs 500 crore. In such a situation, govt support and relaxations are essential for our survival.“Kalyan-Ambernath Manufacturers Association president Deven Soni said efforts are being made to ensure food for workers. Prashant Ghorpade, vice-president of the association, said rising input costs – particularly for chemicals – have increased production costs, leading to a drop of nearly 30% in output in Dombivli MIDCs which he said have suffered over Rs 500 crore in total losses.
A small but telling moment involving Virat Kohli and Sarfaraz Khan caught the eye during Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s dominant win over Chennai Super Kings at the Chinnaswamy. As Sarfaraz walked back after a blazing knock, Kohli called out to him amid the noise of the crowd. When the CSK batter turned around, Kohli applauded and gave him a thumbs-up, acknowledging an innings that briefly brought life into an otherwise struggling chase. Sarfaraz had taken charge when CSK were in deep trouble. Reduced to 30 for 3 inside the first three overs while chasing 251, the visitors were staring at an early collapse. It was then that he counterattacked with intent, finding boundaries consistently and racing to a 25-ball fifty. His effort helped CSK reach 77 by the end of the powerplay, offering a glimmer of hope. However, the momentum did not last long. Sarfaraz was dismissed on the first ball after the powerplay, stumped off Krunal Pandya by Jitesh Sharma, ending a crucial stand just when CSK needed him to carry on. Earlier in the evening, RCB had set up the match with a commanding batting display. Kohli and Phil Salt gave them a steady start before Devdutt Padikkal took charge with a fluent half-century. The innings then exploded at the death, with skipper Rajat Patidar and Tim David unleashing a relentless assault, adding 99 runs in just 35 balls to propel RCB to 250 for 3. In response, CSK never fully recovered from the early blows delivered by Bhuvneshwar Kumar and Jacob Duffy. Contributions from Prashant Veer and Jamie Overton helped them cross 200, but the target remained well out of reach as they were bowled out for 207 in 19.4 overs, slumping to their third straight defeat. While RCB sealed a comprehensive 43-run win, it was Kohli’s gesture towards Sarfaraz that stood out, a moment of appreciation in the middle of a high-intensity contest.
Did India’s deadliest air disaster in decades begin with a mechanical failure, seconds before the fuel switches cutoff? A deep-dive into the central unresolved question of the Air India flight 171 Ahmedabad accident inquiry.MUMBAI: On the afternoon of June 12, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner lifted off runway 23 at the Ahmedabad airport, bound for London Gatwick with 242 people aboard. Thirty-two seconds later, the aircraft was falling. By 1:39:05 pm, one of the pilots had transmitted a desperate Mayday, Mayday, Mayday call before the aircraft struck the BJ Medical College hostel complex, 1.6 km from the departure end of the runway. Two hundred and forty-one people died. One passenger survived.In the months that followed, a narrative took hold in certain sections of the international and domestic media and in online aviation forums that the accident was caused by a deliberate act. That the Pilot-in-Command of Air India 171 had, for reasons unknown, reached across the centre pedestal and moved both fuel control switches from RUN to CUTOFF during the initial climb, starving both engines of fuel and causing the crash. The theory took-off, it was simple to grasp and seemed to connect the dots.There was one problem, the official investigation had not said that. But it did not say otherwise, either. The deadline for submission of final report is June 12. Three months before the deadline an Indian pilots’ organisation has formally raised a technical question that cuts to the very foundation of that suicide-narrative.The question is: Did the Ram Air Turbine deploy before the fuel control switches moved?
It is Boeing 787’s emergency power system, the absolute last resort that comes to the aid of pilots when every other electrical power generation on the aircraft has stopped. In aviation, everyone calls it the RAT. It’s a small wind turbine that deploys automatically after a complete power failure. It can be deployed manually as well. RAT lives in a small compartment in the under belly of the aircraft, folded away, and in the normal course of events it stays there for the entire life of the plane. When deployed, its small propeller swings out into the airstream. The propeller spins in the wind, drives a hydraulic pump and a generator which keeps just enough of the flight controls alive for the crew to have a fighting chance at landing the aircraft. It’s a bellwether of sorts signalling a catastrophic emergency, if it is visible it means something has gone very badly wrong with the aircraft.Going back to the core question asked by pilots’ body, if the RAT deployed first and the fuel switches moved after that, it would mean the aircraft had already lost electrical power before anyone touched anything, that the emergency had begun on its own, independent of any crew action, and that the fuel switch movements recorded seconds later were not the cause of the disaster but a consequence of the technical problem. The suicide theory won’t hold ground because it would mean the two pilots died trying to save 241 people from the doings of an errant aircraft. On that fateful day, Air India B787’s RAT deployed just as the aircraft lifted off, even before the aircraft could cross the airport boundary wall, said the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB)’s preliminary report. A larger proof of early RAT deployment also sits in the very same preliminary report that was used to drive the suicide narrative.
There is a crucial photograph in the preliminary report. It appears on page 14 of the 15 paged report, the investigators seem to have included that picture almost as an afterthought. It is a CCTV frame, slightly grainy the way airport security footage always is, showing Air India VT-ANB just after it has lifted off runway 23. The aircraft looks normal, it is climbing. The landing gear is still down. Just behind the landing gear, on the underside of the fuselage, circled in the report with a small annotation is the RAT, already deployed, a device that should never be visible on a healthy aircraft, let alone in the first few seconds after lift-off. The RAT already extended, the report notes this and moves on.To know what happened first, the RAT deployment or the fuel switches moved to CUTOFF, it is essential to study in seconds the timeline after the B787 lift-off. The AAIB preliminary report establishes the following sequence taken from data recorded in a black box, the ‘Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder’ (EAFR) of the Boeing 787-8 involved:
Immediately thereafter, the report states, Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF, one after another, with a time gap of approximately one second.Then comes the most interpreted line in the report. “In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.” The report thereafter speaks about the above-mentioned CCTV footage. “RAT getting deployed during the initial climb immediately after lift-off. “
(report gives timings in UTC)
At first glance, the AAIB timeline appears straightforward: fuel switches moved at approximately 1:38:42 pm; RAT began supplying hydraulic power at 1:38:47 pm, four seconds later.Using the timeline, the chronology of events the AAIB report implied is: first, the engines starved (either because a pilot manually cut off the fuel to both engines or because the aircraft cut off the fuel without input from pilot, an uncommanded fuel switch cutoff, a technical glitch) and second, the RAT deployed as a consequence.But the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP), in two letters, dated March 12, addressed to the AAIB director general has identified what it describes a technical discrepancy at the heart of this sequence of events, a discrepancy that has significant implications for the entire causal chain.
The pilots’ body draws the AAIB’s attention to page 288 of the “Boeing 787 Electrical System Familiarisation” training manual published by Hamilton Sundstrand, now Collins Aerospace, a unit of RTX Corporation, the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the B787 RAT system. The document states plainly that the RAT deployment signal is generated 10 seconds after complete loss of electrical supply. Then on page 292 of the same document, it states each Bus Power Control Unit (BPCU) independently requests RAT deployment 15 seconds after either continuous loss of power.To reiterate, the document published by the RAT manufacturer has two trigger thresholds, 10 seconds and 15 seconds, depending on the specific logic pathway activated. After the trigger, the small door that keeps RAT encased in the aircraft belly opens, the small propeller juts out and extends into the air stream to spin and generate power, all of which would take another handful of seconds.That is where the discrepancy is located because the AAIB preliminary report records the elapsed time between the second fuel cutoff switch movement at 1:38:43 pm and RAT hydraulic power supply at 1:38:47 pm as four seconds.The core argument made by the pilots’ body is this: AAIB report states RAT deployed four seconds after power failed, but the equipment manufacturer puts a time of 10-15 seconds for RAT to deploy after power failure. According to the manufacturer’s own system documentation, the RAT on a Boeing 787 cannot begin supplying hydraulic power just four seconds after losing electrical supply.The technical implication is this: if the RAT system’s own design logic requires 10 to 15 seconds to trigger from electrical loss, and the preliminary report records only a 4-second gap between fuel cutoff and RAT hydraulic output, then the RAT may have been triggered by a condition that preceded the fuel cutoff events and not followed them.Something may have gone wrong with the aircraft’s electrical system before the fuel switches moved.
The FIP’s second letter to the AAIB sent on the same date raises a separate but related line of inquiry rooted in visual evidence.Four sequential photographic frames extracted from CCTV footage obtained from Ahmedabad airport show a small dark object appearing and progressively increasing in size on the aircraft’s underbelly, at the location corresponding to the RAT door, states the FIP letter. This sequence begins while the aircraft is still rolling on the runway, before the fuel control switches could have moved, since the black box data confirms those switches transitioned only after the aircraft was airborne and had reached 180 knots.“The sequence from Frame 1 to Frame 4 appears consistent with RAT door opening and/or RAT deployment while the aircraft is rolling on the runway,” the letter states, highlighting those last few words in a bold font.The FIP letter requested that the AAIB formally correlate this visual sequence with the EAFR-black box timeline. It also suggested that a flight simulator reconstruction be conducted with time-synchronised overlay of the photographic sequence, under two scenarios: an electrical failure leading to automatic RAT deployment, and manual selection of fuel control switches to CUTOFF by the flight crew.“The purpose of the above exercise is to ascertain whether the root cause relates to a technical failure or to deliberate pilot action,” said the FIP letter. It then requests that the Final AAIB report be released only after this simulator evaluation is completed and formally recorded. The deadline for final report release is June 12, 2026.
The AAIB preliminary report is a factual document, all preliminary reports under UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13 conventions are required to carry technical facts and data from black boxes. Under the ICAO provisions, a report should not apportion blame.But the AAIB preliminary report’s structure and language is not neutral. Several details have fed the media narrative of deliberate pilot action.The AAIB report notes that the co-pilot was ‘Pilot Flying’ and the Pilot-in-command was ‘Pilot Monitoring’ for the said flight. The report records the cockpit voice recorder exchange in which one pilot denies cutting off fuel. It paraphrases the conversation. It also offers no analysis of what that exchange means or whether there was any other conversation after that question and answer sequence. It records the transition of fuel switches to CUTOFF “immediately” after the aircraft reached maximum recorded airspeed, without discussing what action, by the man or machine, may have caused those switches to move. One can always argue that these details will be revealed in the final report, the preliminary report comes a month after the accident and so it is too early to put out conclusive arguments.The AAIB report separately notes a detail. A US Federation Aviation Administration’s Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin issued in December 2018 regarding the potential disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature on Boeing aircraft, based on reports from 737 operators that switches had been installed with the locking feature disengaged. The AAIB notes that this bulletin was advisory and not mandatory, that Air India had not carried out the suggested inspections on VT-ANB. It also notes that there has been no defect reported pertaining to the fuel control switch since 2023 on VT-ANB. The throttle control module was replaced on VT-ANB in 2019 and in 2023.The report does not pursue this thread further, but its presence in the preliminary findings is notable. The locking feature exists precisely to prevent inadvertent movement of fuel control switches. If that feature was compromised on VT-ANB, it could have been worn, disengaged, or otherwise degraded, then switches that should have required deliberate and purposeful action to move could theoretically have moved without deliberate action.
The discrepancy between the RAT OEM documentation and the AAIB’s recorded timeline can be put into three broad interpretations, said senior pilots.The first is that the timeline is accurate, and the 4-second gap reflects not automatic RAT deployment triggered by electrical loss, but manual RAT deployment, commanded by a crew member almost simultaneously with the fuel cutoff. Manual deployment bypasses the automatic trigger logic entirely. Under this reading, a crew member, perhaps recognising a sudden emergency, may have manually deployed the RAT even as the fuel switches were being moved, whether deliberately or as part of a panicked emergency response.The second is that there is a recording or synchronisation issue in the EAFR data. The FIP letter raises this possibility, asking the AAIB to clarify what specific EAFR parameter was used to determine the time when “RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power,” and whether the Bureau has technically validated the parameter definitions, sampling resolution, and time-base synchronisation underlying the recorded 4-second interval. If the EAFR parameter captures the onset of electrical distress rather than the physical output of the RAT turbine, the apparent 4-second interval may represent an earlier trigger event, one that preceded the fuel switch movements.The third is the one the FIP is most explicitly gesturing toward without fully stating, that the electrical failure occurred before the fuel switches moved. That VT-ANB suffered a catastrophic loss of electrical power, from an as-yet unidentified cause, sometime during the initial climb before 1:38:42 pm; that this triggered the RAT deployment sequence. The recorded fuel switch movements were not the initiating event, it happened later, perhaps an inadvertent mechanical displacement caused by the power loss and its effects on cockpit systems, or a crew response to a total electrical failure whose cause they could not immediately identify. This reading would be consistent with the cockpit voice recording of one pilot denying that he moved the switches. It would also be consistent with the FIP’s reading of the CCTV frames showing RAT door movement while the aircraft was still on the runway.
The FIP, in its March 2026 letters, has posed specific, technically documented questions to the AAIB that take on the sequencing issue. These questions deserve to be answered, clearly and on the record, in the final report.
Beyond these specific questions, the FIP has called for a flight simulator reconstruction using the actual photographic frame sequence overlaid on DFDR data, under both the electrical failure and deliberate-crew-action scenarios. Simulator reconstructions are standard tools of modern accident investigation. This is a case where the two scenarios produce fundamentally different moral and legal outcomes for the reputations of the dead crew and for the families of 241 victims.
If the investigation concludes that deliberate pilot action caused the crash without exhaustively ruling out a technical failure scenario the two dead pilots, who cannot speak for themselves, will carry a legacy of mass murder for the rest of recorded history. The airline, Boeing, the OEM, regulators, and the safety system as a whole will be insulated from scrutiny they may deserve. If there indeed is an undetected systemic failure in the B787’s electrical architecture or fuel control system, it will go unaddressed. That would mean the investigation failed in entirety because under ICAO norms aircraft investigations are carried out only and only to learn lessons, to prevent a repeat. The Federation of Indian Pilots has placed specific, technically documented, formally submitted evidence before the investigation authority. With that the question of whether the RAT deployed before or after the fuel control switches moved is now the most crucial one in this investigation. The final report of the Air India 171 Ahmedabad accident will be one of the most consequential aviation safety documents in the history of Indian civil aviation. Before it is published, the four-second question deserves a complete, transparent, and technically rigorous answer.
NEW DELHI: Moody’s Ratings has slashed India’s economic growth estimates for the current fiscal to 6% from 6.8% earlier, saying the ongoing conflict in West Asia will moderate growth momentum and raise inflation risks.In its credit opinion report on India, Moody’s said prolonged disruptions, particularly LPG shipments due to the conflict, would lead to near-term household shortages, higher fuel and transport costs, and spillovers to food inflation through India’s reliance on imported fertilisers.The region accounts for around 55% of crude oil imports and over 90% of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) supplies to India. “While inflation remains contained for now, geopolitical risks have tilted the inflation outlook to the upside,” Moody’s said while projecting inflation to average 4.8% in FY27, up from 2.4% in FY26.With inflation risks reemerging and growth remaining robust, policy rates are likely to be held steady or raised gradually in fiscal, Moody’s said.
A high-octane Sunday double-header in the Indian Premier League delivered contrasting yet equally gripping contests, as Lucknow Super Giants edged past Sunrisers Hyderabad in a last-over thriller, while Royal Challengers Bengaluru produced a batting masterclass to outclass Chennai Super Kings.
In Hyderabad, Mohammed Shami and Rishabh Pant starred in Lucknow Super Giants’ tense five-wicket win over Sunrisers Hyderabad.Shami’s sensational opening spell (2-9) ripped through the top order, reducing SRH to 26/4 inside the powerplay. He dismissed Abhishek Sharma for a duck and Travis Head for seven off successive deliveries, setting the tone early.Despite the collapse, SRH fought back through a brilliant 116-run stand between Heinrich Klaasen (62) and Nitish Kumar Reddy (56), lifting the total to 156/9. However, once the duo departed, the innings lost momentum, with Prince Yadav and Avesh Khan providing crucial support to Shami.LSG’s chase began briskly but faltered in the middle overs. Aiden Markram contributed 45, but quick wickets, including Nicholas Pooran’s run-out, left the game hanging in balance.Needing nine off the final over, Pant held his nerve, smashing three boundaries off Jaydev Unadkat to seal victory with one ball to spare, finishing unbeaten on 68 and guiding LSG to their first win of the season.
At the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium, Tim David unleashed a breathtaking assault, smashing eight sixes in a 25-ball unbeaten 70 to power Royal Challengers Bengaluru to a commanding 43-run win over Chennai Super Kings.After being put into bat, RCB piled up a daunting 250/3 — the highest total of the season — with key contributions from Virat Kohli (28), Phil Salt (46), Devdutt Padikkal (50) and skipper Rajat Patidar (48 not out).David’s late onslaught, including a brutal 30-run 19th over against Jamie Overton, helped RCB plunder 97 runs in the final five overs.In reply, Chennai Super Kings faltered early, losing captain Ruturaj Gaikwad cheaply. While Sarfaraz Khan (50), Prashant Veer (43) and Overton (37) showed resistance, the target proved too steep as they were bowled out for 207 in 19.4 overs.RCB’s bowlers, led by Bhuvneshwar Kumar’s three wickets, sealed a comprehensive win that keeps them atop the standings with two victories from two matches.After two action-packed double-header weekends, the tournament shifts gears with a single fixture on Monday, where Kolkata Knight Riders host Punjab Kings at Eden Gardens, aiming to avoid a third successive loss.
Oil prices began the week on a strong note, maintaining above the $100 per barrel mark on Monday, as the ongoing Middle East conflict continues to disrupt energy supply routes and unsettle global markets.In early trade, US benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) climbed 1.86% to $113.62 per barrel. North Sea Brent crude also edged higher, rising 1.16% to $110.30 per barrel at the market open.The gains come as tensions involving Iran and the United States continue to escalate. US President Donald Trump issued a Tuesday deadline for Iran to halt the war and restore movement through the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial passage for global oil shipments. In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, he warned of potential strikes on Iranian infrastructure if the demands were not met.“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!!” Trump wrote. He later told Fox News there was a “good chance” Iran would agree to a deal on Monday.Meanwhile, markets had already reacted sharply before the weekend. On Thursday, ahead of the Good Friday holiday, both major crude benchmarks recorded steep gains in volatile trading. WTI ended the session up by more than 11%, while Brent rose nearly 8%, marking their largest absolute price increases since 2020, after Trump signalled that attacks on Iran would continue.Separately, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has announced a production adjustment of 206,000 barrels per day, which will come into effect in May 2026. The decision followed a virtual meeting held on April 5 by eight OPEC+ members, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria and Oman, to review market conditions and assess the outlook.The Strait of Hormuz has remained under Iran’s chokehold since the conflict erupted on February 28, severely disrupting a key route for oil and petroleum exports from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Now in its sixth week since initial strikes by the US and Israel on Iran, the war has widened across the region and unsettled the global economy. With Iran effectively blocking the Strait, through which about 20% of the world’s oil and gas typically passes, supplies have been hit hard, driving petroleum prices higher and forcing refiners to turn to alternative sources, particularly physical cargoes from the United States and the UK North Sea.
NEW DELHI: If you were to poll the global chess community on the likely victor of the FIDE Candidates 2026, the response would be near-unanimous: Javokhir Sindarov. The Uzbek sensation’s ruthless efficiency, evidenced by a staggering 6/7 score, suggests the crown is already being measured for his head. Yet, while the Open section feels like a foregone conclusion, the Women’s category has descended into a chaotic arena where experience and titles seem to count for little.In a field of eight elite female Grandmasters, the tournament has become a “comedy or tragedy of errors”, depending on which side of the board you sit.
For the Indian contingent, Round 7 at the Cap St Georges Hotel & Resort in Cyprus provided a massive boost to the points table on Sunday. While Vaishali Rameshbabu seized a victory handed to her on a platter, Divya Deshmukh’s inability to convert a certain win into a full point remains a stinging indictment of the Indian camp’s current finishing touch.Vaishali’s ‘Comedy of Errors’Vaishali Rameshbabu, playing with white pieces this time, secured her second consecutive victory, taking down former Women’s World Champion Tan Zhongyi of China. While the scoresheet reflects a win, the path to the point was anything but clinical.Vaishali’s opening choices continue to raise eyebrows, as she, following the Pirc Defense, once again found herself navigating a self-inflicted storm before being rescued by an unbelievable lapse from her opponent. “Vaishali started with a very passive system with white pieces against Tan Zhongyi’s Pirc Defense, and by move nine, the Chinese was already in an advantageous position,” Veteran Grandmaster Pravin Thipsay told TimesofIndia.com in his post-game analysis. “Eventually, things turned out to be bad. By move 16, it was much worse. And by move 23, Vaishali was in completely losing position till 26th move.”Vaishali started very aggressively, leading an erratic series of trades, which favoured her opponent more. Nevertheless, the turning point was not an Indian masterstroke, but a Chinese meltdown.“On the 27th move, Tan Zhongyi made an unbelievable knight move (27…Ne4) which led to reasonable drawing chances for Vaishali, though she continued to be torn down defending a difficult ending. And then there came a crucial blunder, 37.Ra1 by Tan Zhongyi losing a full piece (the bishop on f6) and thereby giving the game to the Indian on the platter. Overall, I think a comedy or tragedy of errors, whatever you call it, but too many mistakes for a Candidates event,” Thipsay remarked.Divya’s 135-move heartbreakIf Vaishali was lucky, Divya Deshmukh was the architect of her own frustration. Facing Kateryna Lagno, Divya held a commanding position for the better part of the day.Early in the endgame, Thipsay had predicted a straightforward victory for the Indian. “Divya was always in a commanding position,” Thipsay noted during the match. “She’s a pawn up and, with correct technique, this position can end in a win. Divya is a pawn up in a rook, bishop and knight ending with the same-coloured bishops. So, it shouldn’t be too difficult to win. But yes, you need some technique. The game will go on for a long time, but a win by Divya is almost certain.”The game indeed went on for a long time. However, “almost certain” proved to be a curse. In a gruelling 135-move marathon, Lagno displayed unbelievably tenacious defense, capitalising on Divya’s lack of clinical precision.Despite the material advantage, Divya was unable to break the Russian’s fortress, letting a crucial point slip through her fingers in the dying moments of the tournament’s first half.Praggnanandhaa stagnates in Open sectionIn the Open section, India’s sole representative R Praggnanandhaa appears to have lost its bite. Facing the World No. 3 Fabiano Caruana, the 20-year-old Chennai-born Grandmaster was unable to create any meaningful imbalance. Thipsay’s summary was succinct: “The game between Praggnanandhaa and Fabiano Caruana ended in a draw. Nothing much happened.”The only drama in the Open category came from Anish Giri, who managed to put a dent in Sindarov’s winning streak. Giri, defending a precarious position, sacrificed an exchange to reach a theoretically drawn ending.As the players head into the rest day on April 6, the Indian challenge stands at a crossroads.While Vaishali (3.5/7) and Divya (3/7) are now within striking distance of the leader Anna Muzychuk, their reliance on opponent blunders and failure to convert winning endgames suggests a fragile resurgence.For India to emerge as a genuine challenger in the final seven rounds, the “comedy of errors” must end, and the clinical efficiency of a champion must emerge.FIDE Candidates Round 7 Results – April 5, 2026Open Section
Women’s Section
FIDE Candidates Round 8 Pairings – April 7, 2026Open Section
Women’s Section
MUMBAI: Around 15 lakh cancer cases are detected in India every year, adding a patient load equal to the population of a city such as Nashik. Yet several states are excluding hundreds of experienced, fellowship-trained oncologists in the private sector from treating (PMJAY) patients.Their exclusion is not due to inadequate training or lack of experience, but because they do not hold National Medical Commission (NMC)-recognised super-specialty degrees such as DM (Doctorate of Medicine), MCh (Magister Chirurgiae) or DrNB (Doctorate of National Board).Doctors affected by the move told TOI that this ignores the reality that, until a few decades ago, fellowships were the only route into oncology; formal courses did not exist. Even now, it’s considered prestigious for postgrad doctors to bag two- or three-year fellowships at cancer hospitals for hands-on training in head and neck surgery, gynae-oncology, haemato-oncology or paediatric oncology surgery.
Veterans Trained Via Fellowships Ineligible, Impacts Critical Care In Several States
Many of those now rendered ineligible have gone on to become department heads, medical directors, teachers and senior surgeons, each treating cancer patients over decades. Surat-based Dr Hemish Kania, who compiled data showing more than 300 such doctors affected across states, said some of those now barred have even taught oncology to DM or DrNB students.The shift in eligibility criteria is striking not only because of India’s high cancer burden, but also because of its shortage of cancer specialists.Mumbai: Hundreds of cancer specialists have been rendered ineligible for providing treatment under the Ayushman Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) for lack of superspecialty degrees recognised by the National Medical Commission (NMC). India has roughly one medical oncologist per one million and only about 4,000 oncosurgeons. Excluding 300 trained specialists from PMJAY-linked care could reduce access to treatment, especially in smaller cities where private insurance penetration is low, and substantially for many poor patients who avail of govt medical insurance. ‘Meaningless fellowships?’ Dr Ravi (name changed), a 42-year-old general surgeon from Uttar Pradesh, completed a three-year head and neck cancer fellowship at Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel. In 2021, he returned to his Tier-II hometown expecting to fill a gap in cancer care: the city had only six onco-surgeons, four of them fellowship-trained. He, however, finds himself barred from operating on PMJAY cancer patients. “If four of six private-sector cancer surgeons are excluded, PMJAY patients are forced into longer queues,” he said. Whether one spends three years in Tata Memorial in Mumbai, AIIMS Delhi, Gujarat Cancer Research Institute in Ahmedabad, RCC Thiruvananthapuram or B Borooah Cancer Institute in Guwahati, the affiliation seems to have no weight now, he added. In Patna, Dr Arun, 40, (name changed) said he is “safe” because he works in a govt hospital. “In govt hospitals, at least one member in the team is likely to have recognition under PMJAY. But it may be different if I step into the private sector,” he said. His batchmates in private hospitals in Patna and Kochi are no longer operating on PMJAY patients. Some doctors said their names have been removed from the HEM 2.0 portal used by the National Health Authority (NHA) to manage PMJAY, the world’s largest public insurance scheme (see graphic). Doctors said hospitals are ending contracts because these specialists can no longer generate PMJAY claims. Dr Kania said, “PMJAY may just be the beginning. Slowly, other govt schemes, such as CGHS, could have similar eligibility criteria.“ The genesis of the problem Multiple issues have led to the current problem, especially the interpretation of NHA & NMC rules by state health authorities. The genesis of the problem can be traced to before 2018 when efforts by the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) to increase the number of oncology teachers. Dr K S Sharma, former academic dean of Tata Memorial Centre, recalled that between 2002 and 2010 there were very few DM and MCh seats in medical and surgical oncology. In 2011, after he joined the erstwhile MCI’s board of governors, he framed a plan to fix the shortage of teachers by expanding fellowship programmes at reputed cancer hospitals. “These fellowships were not recognised by MCI, but had sanctity,” he said. MCI introduced a rule that MS or MD post-graduate doctors with two years’ experience in a dedicated cancer hospital as senior residents/ fellows could be regarded as teachers until India had enough degree-holding oncologists. Many trained fellows thus took up teaching posts in public cancer institutes, and over time some moved to smaller cities to build independent practices. But in 2020, MCI was replaced by NMC, which issued guidelines requiring oncologists to hold recognised degrees. Fellowships were not mentioned. Rajasthan Medical Council on Sept 5, 2023, directed that any claim of specialty/expertise must be backed by a qualification in that branch recognised by the MCI or NMC. This became the basis for the Rajasthan state health authority to debar fellowship-trained oncologists from operating on PMJAY patients. A Gujarat state health authority official told TOI that NMC-recognised courses are the basis for enlisting an oncologist under PMJAY. Incidentally, NHA guidelines don’t have the NMC-recognition clause. A Vadodara-bas-ed doctor, who completed a head and neck fellowship from Tata Memorial Hospital 20 years ago, said, “NHA guidelines to this day say that ENT and general surgeons with fellowships can operate on PMJAY patients. Why are state health authorities being different?” The road ahead When contacted, NHA CEO Dr Sunil Kumar Barnwal said NHA empanels hospitals, not doctors, and that doctor qualifications are decided by NMC. Efforts to contact NMC chairman Dr Abhijat Sheth failed, but doctors who met him said he had asked them to approach NHA. State authorities, meanwhile, have asked doctors to obtain written clarification from NHA and NMC in this regard. As no such clarification has been issued, the deadlock continues. Doctors also point to inconsistencies. “One point many fellows have raised is that post-graduate dentists are allowed to operate on oral cancer patie-nts while general surgeons wi-th advanced oncology fellowships are not,” said Dr Kania. Dr Sharma said he has taken up the issue with NHA, “but it wants NMC to give a certificate to these past fellows.” (It’s learnt that NMC is considering recognising fellowships). He said the matter rests with state health authorities. He added that if state authorities do not respond, affected doctors may have to move the high court. Meanwhile, medical associations, including the Indian Medical Association, have taken up the issue with NMC and NHA. Doctors argue that the rule cannot be applied retrospectively. The Indian Association of Surgical Oncology wants eligibility to be extended to trained oncologists from premier institutions with fellowships, or at least two years of training in such centres. IASO’s Dr Rudra Acharya said, “Given the rising incidence of cancer and the long waiting list in government cancer institutions, the eligibility clause needs to be revised.“
Iran on Saturday rejected US President Donald Trump’s ’48-hour ultimatum’, in which he threatened to destroy the nation’s essential infrastructure if a deal is not reached within the stipulated time.Tehran’s central military command issued a strong response, with General Ali Abdollahi Aliabadi of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters characterising the American president’s remarks as ‘a helpless, nervous, unbalanced and stupid action.’
Echoing the tone of Trump’s own message, he stated that “the simple meaning of this message is that the gates of hell will open for you,” according to AFP.
Trump on Saturday in his Truth Social post warned Tehran of severe military consequences if Iran fails to act on reopening the Strait of Hormuz or reaching an agreement.The US President had earlier imposed deadlines on Iran amid rising tensions in West Asia, particularly over the strategic Strait of Hormuz.In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: “Remember when I gave Iran ten days to MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT. Time is running out–48 hours before all hell will rain down on them. Glory be to GOD! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”The latest ultimatum comes despite recent indications of diplomatic engagement between the two sides.On March 26, Trump announced a temporary pause on potential strikes targeting Iran’s energy infrastructure. He had said the decision was taken following what he described as a request from Tehran, while maintaining that talks were progressing positively.In that statement, Trump said: “As per Iranian Government request, please let this statement serve to represent that I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time. Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media and others, they are going very well.”Also Read | ‘Hell will rain down’: Trump’s fresh 48-hour ultimatum to Iran to make a deal or open HormuzPrior to this, he had also directed the US Department of War to delay possible strikes initially for five days, citing ongoing negotiations.The Strait of Hormuz remains central to the standoff, as it is one of the world’s most critical oil shipping routes.
Poll
What is your overall opinion on Trump approach to Iran?
Trump’s repeated warnings have focused on reopening the strategic passage, with earlier ultimatums also linking failure to comply with potential strikes on Iran’s energy facilities.
