The TOI City Desk is an indefatigable team of journalists dedicated to bringing you the pulse of cities from across the nation, all day and all night. Our mission is to curate, report, and deliver city news that matters to readers of The Times of India. With a keen focus on urban life, governance, culture, and local issues, we provide a comprehensive view of the ever-evolving cityscapes. Our team works tirelessly to keep readers informed about the latest developments, ensuring that they are connected to the heartbeat of cities across India, right when it happens. The TOI City Desk is a trusted source for staying in touch with the local stories that shape your world.Read More

For a “Viksit Bharat” to endure, national success must be measured by the financial resilience of Indian families. (AI image)

By Sumit Madan The Union Budget 2026 arrives at a defining juncture of India’s ascent, where progress must be measured not merely by the velocity of our growth, but by the resilience of the nation’s foundation. Over the past few decades, India has undergone a historic transformation, scaling from a $1 trillion economy to a global powerhouse through massive, sustained investments in physical and digital infrastructure. Yet, as the nation targets the $5 trillion milestone and beyond, we must recognize that swift economic expansion without robust household financial security is inherently fragile. As India enters this next chapter of growth, life insurance must be positioned as a national priority and a strategic pillar that transforms prosperity into permanence and shields the aspirations of a billion-plus people from the headwinds of uncertainty.The Resilience Gap: Why Household Security Matters NowFor a “Viksit Bharat” to endure, national success must be measured by the financial resilience of Indian families. However, recent data signals a dual vulnerability where according to the Economic Survey 2024-25, India’s gross domestic savings as a percentage of GDP fell from 31.2% in 2021-22 to 30.2% in 2022-23 (First Revised Estimate). This decline in savings is mirrored by a stagnation in financial protection, leaving households exposed. This downward shift is more than just a statistic, and signals an impending vulnerability in the nation’s financial foundation. To address this, the Union Budget 2026 must serve as a critical demand-side engine to rebuild this foundation through a two-pronged fiscal strategy. First, to bolster overall household savings, a comprehensive overhaul of Sections 80C, 80CCC, and 80CCD is required, featuring higher, inflation-indexed limits.As it stands, India’s total sum assured as a percentage of GDP stands at just 24%, a stark contrast to Singapore (332%) or Malaysia (153%). Consequently, India’s protection gap remains the highest in the region at 83%, compared to just 55% in Singapore.Hence, to specifically bridge this protection gap, the government should introduce a dedicated tax deduction for pure term insurance premiums, independent of the current ₹1.5 lakh limit of Section 80C. By establishing an exclusive incentive similar to Section 80D’s treatment of health insurance, the Budget can elevate life protection from a discretionary expense to a fundamental pillar of financial planning, ensuring a secure household base for a developed India.India’s Impending Challenge: Ageing with DignityDespite rising disposable incomes, a significant share of Indian households, especially those dependent on a single breadwinner, remains one income shock or medical emergency away from financial distress. The need for reform is made more urgent by a looming demographic shift: India is set to age faster than it grows rich. By 2050, one in five Indians will be over the age of 60, yet retirement preparedness continues to lag behind aspiration. Addressing India’s impending demographic and financial challenges requires moving beyond fragmented, legacy frameworks. The Union Budget 2026 should create a dedicated tax bucket for annuities and pension products, recognizing retirement planning as a non-negotiable social necessity. Crucially, this reform must create parity with the National Pension System (NPS), ensuring that all pension-linked instruments benefit from a level playing field to encourage long-term disciplined saving.Central to this overhaul should be the inclusion of annuities under Section 10(10D) as tax-exempt instruments. Currently, Section 10(10D) explicitly excludes retirement payouts, treating annuity income as taxable at the individual’s slab rate, which creates a significant deterrent to retirement security. Granting tax-free status to these payouts will ensure protection remains meaningful in an evolving economy. By aligning the annuity tax treatment, India’s financial architecture can evolve into a credible social security platform, shifting life insurance from a discretionary purchase to an essential safety net. From Reform to Execution: Making Policy Work for HouseholdsTo deliver these targeted solutions at scale, the regulatory framework must undergo a commensurate evolution. The government’s recognition of life insurance as an essential service under the GST framework is a progressive measure that serves as a vital precursor to the sector’s overarching reform. This fiscal alignment effectively anchors the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha Bill 2025, which has already established the strategic direction for universal coverage. To translate this vision into impact, the upcoming Union Budget 2026 must now provide a concrete execution roadmap, formalizing the transition toward 100% FDI while ensuring robust governance remains paramount.Furthermore, there is significant anticipation for a clear roadmap regarding Composite Licensing. By enabling a “one-stop-shop” model integrating life and health insurance, the industry can lower distribution costs and simplify the consumer journey, fostering a more holistic protection ecosystem for all Indians.Today, it is time to recognize life insurance as a vital fiscal stabilizer, with the Union Budget 2026 representing an opportunity to institutionalize financial security as a national priority. Together, policymakers and the industry can ensure that by 2047, every Indian household stands protected.(Sumit Madan is Managing Director and CEO, Axis Max Life Insurance)

The intraday setup favors a sell-on-rise approach in the ₹1,37,800–₹1,38,000 range. (AI image)

Gold price prediction today: Gold price rally appears to be losing steam for now, says Jateen Trivedi, VP Research Analyst – Commodity and Currency, LKP Securities.Gold February futures on MCX are trading near ₹1,37,800 after a sharp pullback from higher levels. The recent recovery attempt appears corrective in nature, with price facing strong resistance near the previous breakdown zone. Technical indicators suggest that upside momentum is losing steam, making higher levels vulnerable to fresh selling pressure. The intraday setup favors a sell-on-rise approach in the ₹1,37,800–₹1,38,000 range.Technical setupPrices are trading below the short-term EMA cluster, with EMA 8 failing to sustain above EMA 21. This indicates weak short-term structure and suggests that rallies are likely to be sold into rather than extended.Gold has moved back toward the mid-Bollinger band after testing lower levels, but the upper band near ₹1,38,000 continues to act as a firm resistance. This positioning supports the view of capped upside in the near term.Pivot Points (Previous Day): • Resistance Zone: ₹1,37,800 – ₹1,38,000 • Support Levels: ₹1,36,800 followed by ₹1,36,400Failure to sustain above pivot resistance keeps the intraday bias tilted to the downside.RSI is around 60, indicating a short-term recovery but not strong enough to confirm trend reversal. This level often precedes consolidation or pullback when price approaches resistance.MACD has shown a brief positive crossover, but histogram bars are flattening, signaling waning bullish momentum. This increases the probability of a rollover from higher levels.The recovery has been accompanied by moderate volume, while open interest remains soft, hinting that the move lacks strong long buildup and is prone to reversal.Intraday Trading View: • Strategy: Sell on rise • Sell Zone: ₹1,37,800 – ₹1,38,000 • Stop-Loss: ₹1,39,100 • Downside Target: ₹1,36,400 • Bias: Bearish below ₹1,38,000; strength only above ₹1,39,100.Conclusion:Gold’s intraday technical structure remains vulnerable as prices trade below key moving averages and momentum indicators fail to confirm sustained strength. The resistance band near ₹1,38,000 is likely to attract selling pressure. Traders are advised to sell on rise around ₹1,37,800–₹1,38,000, keep a strict stop-loss at ₹1,39,100, and look for a move toward ₹1,36,400 during the session.(Disclaimer: Recommendations and views on the stock market, other asset classes or personal finance management tips given by experts are their own. These opinions do not represent the views of The Times of India)

Polymarket traders currently give Jesus Christ’s return before the end of 2026 a roughly three percent chance/ AI Illustration

Christians have long awaited the Second Coming, a belief grounded in the Gospels themselves. Jesus speaks of his return, but he also issues a caution that has echoed through centuries of theology: “No one knows the day or the hour.” According to scripture, even he did not claim knowledge of when it would happen. The unknowability is part of the belief. What is new is the attempt to translate that uncertainty into a tradable probability and that such odds exist at all is what has drawn attention.The unusual wager is now playing out on a prediction market better known for pricing elections, court rulings and geopolitical flashpoints, where traders are placing money on a far older and more elusive question: whether Jesus Christ will return to Earth before the end of 2026.

The current wager strongly favors no, with traders assigning only a small chance to Jesus Christ’s return.

The contract sits on Polymarket, a platform where users buy and sell “Yes” or “No” shares tied to future outcomes. In this case, a “Yes” share pays out $1 if the Second Coming occurs by 11:59 PM ET on 31 December 2026; otherwise, it settles at zero. At present, the market prices that outcome at roughly 3%, implying a potential return of more than 5,700% for anyone backing it successfully.

A sequel to last year’s wager

This is not the first time Polymarket users have traded on the question. In 2025, a nearly identical contract asked whether Jesus Christ would return by the end of that year. Over the course of the market’s life, bettors committed close to $3.3 million, with the overwhelming majority backing “No”. During the spring of 2025, the implied probability briefly climbed to around 4%, before drifting lower as the year wore on. By December, support for a “Yes” outcome had fallen below 1%. When the calendar turned on 1 January 2026, the market was formally resolved against it. The contract’s terms offered little room for interpretation. “The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources,” Polymarket stated. Once the year elapsed without incident, the outcome was recorded accordingly. For traders who entered the “No” side during the brief period of heightened interest in April, the wager delivered an estimated annualised return of about 5.5%, before fees, a figure that quietly outperformed US Treasury bills over the same period, often treated as the baseline for low-risk returns.

Faith, probability and an old idea revisited

Applying odds to religious belief is not a modern provocation. In the 17th century, Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician and philosopher, proposed what later became known as Pascal’s Wager. His argument was pragmatic rather than theological: if God exists, belief offers infinite reward; if God does not, belief costs only finite earthly pleasures. Framed that way, belief represented the rational gamble. Pascal was not offering proof of God’s existence, nor suggesting belief could be priced or traded. He was describing belief as a life-defining bet made under uncertainty. The Polymarket contract does something narrower. It does not ask participants to believe or disbelieve. It asks them to assign a probability to a specific outcome within a defined time frame and to risk money on that assessment.

Why people still trade it

Polymarket hosts no shortage of unconventional contracts, including bets on alien disclosure, symbolic geopolitical events and unlikely catastrophes. What sets the Jesus wager apart is not its improbability but its subject. A belief held by billions, framed by scripture as unknowable, has been reduced to a price that ticks up and down in real time.Prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi promote themselves as tools for aggregating information, with supporters arguing that financial stakes sharpen judgment. The Jesus contract, however, has drawn criticism even from those otherwise sympathetic to the model. “People buy lottery tickets despite astronomical odds,” John Holden, an associate professor of business law and ethics at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business, told Bloomberg, noting that participation does not necessarily reflect belief in the outcome. Others are less charitable. Melinda Roth, an associate professor at Washington and Lee School of Law, described the wager as “distracting,” arguing that it “diminishes the value of actual prediction markets that provide insights and useful information.” Online, reactions have ranged from dismissal to discomfort, with users calling it absurd or questioning whether anything should be tradable.Among traders, however, the appeal is largely mechanical rather than theological. The contract offers a clearly defined resolution date, an overwhelmingly favoured outcome, and relatively low price volatility on the “No” side. That combination makes it attractive to participants seeking a place to park capital, hedge positions, or exploit small pricing inefficiencies rather than express belief.In that sense, the wager functions less as a statement of faith than as a financial instrument. The improbability is not a deterrent but an asset: the more unlikely the event, the more predictable the trade appears, and the more the market rewards those willing to bet against it.

Where the market now stands

Despite reports circulating on social media of heavy liquidity, including claims that millions of dollars have been committed across both sides of the trade, the market itself remains overwhelmingly one-sided, with roughly 97% of positions still sitting on “No”.The rules governing the contract have not changed, the deadline is clearly defined, and the outcome will be determined in the same way as last year’s wager, through the simple passage of time rather than any declaration, revelation or recognised authority.For now, traders continue to monitor small movements in the odds, watching prices shift by fractions of a percentage point as the contract counts down toward its expiry.(Disclaimer: Recommendations and views on the stock market, other asset classes or personal finance management tips given by experts are their own. These opinions do not represent the views of The Times of India)

Danish PM Mette Frederiksen (AP file photo)

Denmark has warned that its troops are under standing orders to “shoot first and ask questions later” if Greenland comes under attack, as anxiety grows in Europe over the United States under President Donald Trump openly weighing military action to seize the Arctic territory.The country’s defence ministry said a Cold War-era rule obliges soldiers to respond immediately to any foreign invasion without waiting for political clearance or formal orders. Speaking to Danish newspaper Berlingske, the ministry said the directive requires forces to “immediately take up the fight” if attacked and remains fully in force.

The rule, introduced in 1952, states that in the event of an invasion, troops must act “without waiting for or seeking orders, even if the commanders in question are not aware of the declaration of war or state of war”. Danish officials said the provision applies regardless of who the invading force may be.

Europe scrambles to push back

The warning comes as European leaders struggle to frame a response to repeated statements by Trump, who has refused to rule out the use of force to annex Greenland. The White House has said Trump is still considering all options, heightening unease among Denmark’s allies.European governments have rallied behind Copenhagen, with calls for a coordinated response to any US move against Greenland. French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said he would discuss the issue with his German and Polish counterparts, emphasising the need for collective action.“We want to take action, but we want to do so together with our European partners,” Barrot told France Inter radio.He added that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had “discarded” the idea that Greenland could face an intervention similar to the recent US assault on Venezuela aimed at ousting President Nicolas Maduro. Despite those assurances, Denmark’s reaffirmation of its shoot-first doctrine underscores how seriously it is preparing for the possibility of escalation.

‘$10,000 to $100,000 per person’

The Trump administration is considering a plan to offer direct cash payments to Greenlanders in an effort to persuade them to break away from Denmark and move closer to the United States, according to multiple sources cited by news agency Reuters.US officials have talked internally about offering lump sum payments of between $10,000 and $100,000 per person to residents of Greenland. The island nation is currently a semi-autonomous Danish territory with a population of about 57,000 and has an abundance of useful natural resources. The idea remains at a preliminary stage and details are still unclear. Aides have discussed figures that could amount to nearly $6 billion in total, sources said.Another option being discussed is a Compact of Free Association, an agreement the US already has with some Pacific island nations. Under such deals, the US provides financial aid and defence protection in return for military access. Greenland would likely have to become independent from Denmark first, and payments could be used to encourage public support for that step or for a future agreement.Polls show most Greenlanders favour independence from Denmark, but surveys also indicate they do not want to become part of the United States.

US President Donald Trump has announced plans for the federal government to purchase $200 billion worth of mortgage bonds, saying the move will help bring down mortgage rates as concerns over housing affordability continue to weigh down Americans.In a post on social media on Thursday, Trump said the funds would come from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage giants that have been under government conservatorship since the 2008 financial crisis. According to the US president, companies currently hold $200 billion in cash that will be used for the bond purchases.“This will drive Mortgage Rates DOWN, monthly payments DOWN, and make the cost of owning a home more affordable,” Trump wrote.The announcement comes as Trump and the White House seek to tackle affordability issues ahead of the November midterm elections. Home prices have continously outpaced income growth, largely due to a long-running shortage of new housing supply. That imbalance has made it harder for renters to step onto the property ladder and for existing homeowners to move up to larger homes, a problem that stretches back to Trump’s first term and the recovery from the housing market collapse that triggered the global financial crisis.White House officials did not immediately provide details on when or how the bond purchases would take place.The Federal Reserve has previously stepped in to buy mortgage-backed securities during periods of economic stress in an effort to push borrowing costs lower. Those interventions helped drive mortgage rates to historic lows, enabling many homeowners to refinance at rates of 3% or less. However, those same low rates have also discouraged homeowners from selling, limiting the number of homes available on the market.

What it make housing cheaper for Americans?

Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at real estate brokerage Redfin, questioned how effective the proposed move would be in addressing broader housing market constraints.“At a high level I feel this is putting a Band-Aid on a deeper issue and it probably wouldn’t lower rates enough to really undo the mortgage rate lock-in effect,” Fairweather told AP.She estimated that government purchases of mortgage debt could reduce rates on a 30-year fixed mortgage by around 0.25 to 0.5 percentage points. However, she cautioned that such a reduction would not tackle structural problems such as the chronic shortage of homes for sale, which continues to push prices higher and limit affordability.Mortgage rates are currently averaging about 6.2%, according to Freddie Mac. Thirty-year rates have not fallen below 6% since September 2022. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were placed into conservatorship in 2008 as the US economy slid into the Great Recession.“Lowering mortgage rates by maybe a quarter point or half a point maybe will encourage more demand on the margins, but I don’t think it’s going to solve the restrictions that exist in the housing market,” Fairweather added.The plan also carries risk, as it would draw down cash reserves that are intended to act as a buffer in the event of an economic downturn similar to the Great Recession. Using those reserves could leave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more exposed if the housing market were to weaken, effectively relying on the assumption that such a scenario is unlikely.Separately, the Federal Reserve continues to hold a substantial amount of mortgage-backed securities on its balance sheet, roughly $2 trillion, down from $2.7 trillion in June 2022. The Fed began reducing its holdings as the US economy recovered from the pandemic.

America and mortgage woes

Mortgage rates surged as inflation accelerated after the pandemic, with the consumer price index reaching a four-decade high in 2022. While average mortgage rates have eased from nearly 7% at the start of Trump’s second term last year, the decline has done little to alleviate public anxiety over rising costs of housing, food and energy.Lower interest rates can reduce monthly mortgage payments and temporarily improve affordability, though home prices typically adjust over time. As of mid-2024, outstanding mortgage debt in the US stood at around $21.1 trillion, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve.During the pandemic, many homeowners refinanced their loans at rates of 3% or lower, further contributing to the reluctance to sell.Trump has said broader housing reforms are on the way. Last month, he announced plans to unveil new measures, and on Wednesday he said he wants to prevent institutional investors from purchasing homes.

Russia’s foreign ministry has accused the United States of “unlawful actions” after US forces seized the Russian-flagged oil tanker Marinera in international waters. Moscow said the seizure violates international maritime law and risks further escalating already strained Russia–US relations.In an official statement issued on Thursday, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov called on Washington to respect established principles of international maritime law and immediately halt actions against the Marinera and other civilian vessels operating on the high seas. This comes after US forces seized the tanker on January 7.The statement read, “Alongside the US administration’s disregard for the accepted norms of international maritime navigation, Washington’s readiness to provoke acute international crises, including in Russian-American relations, which are already severely strained, is both regrettable and alarming.”According to the ministry, the incident involving the Marinera could lead to a further escalation of military and political tensions in the Euro-Atlantic region and lower the threshold for the use of force against civilian shipping.“The Marinera incident can only lead to a further escalation of military-political tensions in the Euro-Atlantic region and a dangerous lowering of the threshold for using force against civilian shipping. Encouraged by Washington’s irresponsible example, other actors may feel emboldened to take similar actions.”The ministry also accused the United Kingdom of involvement, claiming British authorities had openly acknowledged their role in the US military operation in North Atlantic waters.Russia maintained that the Marinera, formerly known as Bella 1, had been temporarily authorised to sail under the Russian flag on December 24, in accordance with both Russian and international law. The vessel, it said, was peacefully transiting international waters in the North Atlantic en route to a Russian port.The ministry stressed that US authorities had been repeatedly informed of the tanker’s legal status and civilian nature. “There could have been no doubt regarding this fact, nor any basis for alleging that the tanker was sailing ‘without a flag’ or ‘under a false flag’,” the statement said.Citing international maritime law, Russia argued that only the flag state has jurisdiction over its vessels on the high seas. “International maritime law explicitly grants the flag state exclusive jurisdiction over its vessels on the high seas. Stopping and inspecting a vessel in international waters is permitted only under narrowly defined circumstances, such as suspected piracy or slave trading – neither of which apply to the Marinera. In all other cases, such actions require the consent of the flag state, which in this instance is Russia,” the statement further read.The ministry added that Russia had refused to grant consent and had formally protested to US authorities in recent weeks over the continued pursuit of the vessel by a US Coast Guard ship.Under these circumstances, the ministry said, “the boarding and de facto seizure of a civilian vessel on the high seas by US military personnel, along with the detention of its crew, can only be viewed as a gross violation of fundamental principles and norms of international maritime law and the freedom of navigation.”Russia also raised concerns about the safety of the crew, which includes citizens of several countries, and warned of environmental risks due to the seizure being carried out in severe weather conditions.Rejecting US references to domestic sanctions laws, the Russian foreign ministry said unilateral sanctions imposed by Washington and its allies have no legal foundation under international law and cannot justify the seizure of vessels on the high seas.“Suggestions from certain US officials that the seizure of the Marinera is part of a broader strategy to establish Washington’s unlimited control over Venezuela’s natural resources are profoundly cynical. We categorically reject such neo-colonial ambitions,” the statement added.In a post on social media platform X, the ministry wrote: “We call on Washington to immediately cease its unlawful actions against the Marinera and other vessels engaged in lawful activities on the high seas. We reiterate our demand that the US ensure appropriate treatment of the Russian citizens on board.”

The Transport ministry also condemns seizure

Russia’s transport ministry on Wednesday said that the US had no legal right to use force against a vessel lawfully registered under another country’s jurisdiction.In a statement posted on Telegram, the ministry said the Marinera was boarded by US naval forces in international waters, after which contact with the ship was lost.“In accordance with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, freedom of navigation applies in high seas waters, and no state has the right to use force against vessels duly registered in the jurisdictions of other states,” the statement read.

How did the US seize the tanker?

The seizure followed a weeks-long pursuit by the US Coast Guard. The tanker, originally called Bella 1, had been sanctioned by the US in 2024 for operating as part of a so-called “shadow fleet” transporting illicit oil linked to Iran and Venezuela.Last month, US authorities attempted to seize the vessel while it was operating under the Guyana flag and heading toward Venezuela. The crew refused boarding and abruptly changed course into the Atlantic. The ship was later renamed Marinera and re-registered under the Russian flag.According to US officials, military assets were repositioned to the UK ahead of the operation. The tanker was eventually seized around 190 miles south of Iceland in the North Atlantic Ocean.US European Command said the operation was carried out under a federal court warrant for violations of US sanctions, with support from multiple US agencies. UK defence officials confirmed they assisted the US following a request for help.