Editorial 1: The educational landscape, its disconcerting shift

Context

Institutions that were once praised for encouraging independent thinking are now dealing with bureaucratic controls, outside rules, and ideological restrictions.

Introduction

Education has always been seen as the foundation of societal progress — a space where critical thinking, free inquiry, and the quest for knowledge could thrive. At its best, higher education promoted intellectual independence, encouraged dissent, and sparked advancement in various fields and societies. The limits of human understanding were constantly expanded through open discussions and academic exploration.

• In recent decades, universities have shifted from promoting independent thought to being constrained by bureaucratic controls, external mandates, and ideological restrictions.
• H.A. Giroux argues that universities now prioritize conformity, managerial efficiency, and market alignmentover academic freedom and intellectual integrity.
• Indoctrination, intimidation, and intolerance have taken center stage in education.

Centralization of Academic Curricula

• Loss of University Autonomy: In the past, universities had the freedom to design syllabi based on student needs, faculty expertise, and the evolving nature of intellectual inquiry. Today, that independence is diminishing.
• Government Influence: Agencies like the UGC and policies such as the NEP now dictate the structure and content of academic programs, often driven by economic agendas or partisan interests, rather than academic merit or pedagogical philosophy.
• Instrument of Control: Originally designed to coordinate academic standards, the UGC now interferes in faculty appointments, administration, and curriculum development, often disregarding academic judgment.
• Erosion of Autonomy: The UGC has replaced self-governance with bureaucratic control, limiting faculty selection, research direction, and protection of dissent, ultimately stripping universities of their independence.
• Monolithic Intellectual Ecosystem: Standardized syllabi across institutions stifle intellectual diversity, creating a uniform, regimented discourse.
• Suppressed Creativity: The focus on conformity discourages critical thinking, alternative perspectives, and innovation, undermining the very essence of academic inquiry.

Pressures on the academic climate

Key aspects	Details
Role of Campuses in Social Change	Historically, campuses have been pivotal in movements like anti-colonial, civil rights, and pro-democracy uprisings.
Control Over Education	Policymakers and administrators manage curricula to ensure universities remain compliant, preventing challenges to the status quo.
Suppression of Critical Perspectives	Suppressing critical viewpoints prevents higher education from nurturing citizens who question authority or consider alternatives.
Example of State Interference	A student discussing Noam Chomsky’s ideas on democracy or nationalism risks reprimand, illustrating excessive government intervention.
Impact of Reactionary Politics	Resurgence of reactionary politics leads to more interference in academia, marginalising those critiquing injustice, exploitation, and nationalism.
Consequences for Scholars	Scholars critical of dominant ideologies are marginalised, defunded, or expelled, and fields like social sciences and humanities face funding cuts.
Effect on Academic Life	Teachers self-censor due to fear of professional reprisals, while students avoid contentious issues to prevent penalties or career setbacks.
Resulting Intellectual Climate	A climate of fear stifles intellectual inquiry, where conformity replaces critical thought, leading to the decline of public intellectuals.
Corporatisation of Higher Education	Universities are now treated as businesses, focusing on profit and brand enhancement, instead of their role in social advancement and knowledge.
Impact on Disciplines	Disciplines like technology, business, and engineering receive more support due to financial returns, while fields emphasizing critical thought, like philosophy, are sidelined.
Marketisation of Education	Education is viewed through a market-driven lens, reducing knowledge to a commodity rather than a pursuit of intellectual value.
Pressure on Faculty	Faculty are evaluated through performative metrics like publication counts and student ratings, diminishing academic freedom and depth.
Influence of Global Rankings	Global rankings prioritize adherence to western norms and standardised metrics, neglecting indigenous and context-specific intellectual traditions, fostering conformity.

Academic governance as a concern

• Corporate Influence: University leadership is increasingly composed of administrators from corporate backgrounds, bringing a managerial mindset that prioritizes efficiency, quantifiable outputs, and brand visibility over scholarly rigor and pedagogical depth.
• Impact on Collegial Culture: Appointing Vice Chancellors from non-academic fields undermines the collegial culture, separating decision-making from the realities of teaching and research.
• Lack of Intellectual Engagement: The trend of appointing academics who are disconnected from literature and social issues raises fears of ideological bias influencing leadership choices.
• Need for Rigorous Selection: Universities should prioritize appointments rooted in the intellectual ethos of the liberal arts and sciences, ensuring objective and thorough selection procedures.

Conclusion

The crisis in education is fundamentally a crisis of imagination. The university must be protected as a place of intellectual freedom, where merit is not compromised. Failing to do this threatens not just education, but the very concept of democracy. By restoring the true purpose of the university, we revive the transformative power of knowledge, instead of turning it into just a transaction.

Editorial 2: India’s rising e-waste, the need to recast its management 

Context

Focusing on the floor price will transform e-waste recycling in India, improving management, infrastructure, and sustainability.

Introduction

India’s path to becoming Viksit Bharat is driven by a fast digital transformation, with growing use of electronic devices. From smartphones and laptops to industrial and medical equipment, technology is central to economic growth, connectivity, and innovation. However, this increased reliance on electronics leads to e-waste, which needs careful management for sustainable development. As one of the top e-waste producers globally (along with China, the US, Japan, and Germany), India faces a big challenge in handling e-waste. The amount of e-waste in India grew by 151.03% in six years, rising from 7,08,445 metric tonnes in 2017-18 to 17,78,400 metric tonnes in 2023-24, with an annual increase of 1,69,283 metric tonnes.

• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) requires producers, importers, and brand owners to handle waste from their products’ end-of-life.
• It makes them accountable for environmental impacts throughout the product lifecycle.
• EPR encourages sustainable design, factoring environmental costs into pricing.
• It aids in efficient waste management, reducing pressure on municipalities.

Impact of improper e-waste management

Impact Area	Consequences
Environmental Degradation	India loses $10 billion annually due to:  – Water pollution from cyanide and sulphuric acid.  – Air pollution from lead fumes, open coal burning, and plastic incineration.  – Soil pollution.
Social Loss	Improper recycling causes $20 billion in social losses each year, as informal recyclers (mainly womenand children) are exposed to harmful processing. Their average lifespan is less than 27 years due to toxic exposure.
Loss of Critical Metals	India loses over ₹80,000 crore annually due to inefficient methods of metal extraction in informal recycling.
Tax Revenue Loss	Over $20 billion in annual tax revenue is lost due to cash-based, unrecorded transactions in informal recycling.

 

Importance of stable pricing

• Introduction of EPR Floor Price: The E-waste (Management) Rules, 2022 introduced a floor price for EPR certificates, which is a game-changer for India’s e-waste management system.
• Purpose: This ensures fair returns for registered recyclers, curbing the dominance of informal and hazardous recycling that makes up 95% of the sector.

Economic and Environmental Impact of Floor Price

Area	Impact
Market Stability	The floor price prevents instability seen in sectors like plastic waste, providing predictable pricing and stability to the e-waste market.
Incentive for Formal Recycling	Encourages formal recyclers to adopt safe, advanced technologies, unlocking valuable materials like gold and copper.
Investment in Infrastructure	Drives investment in recycling infrastructure, supporting a circular economy by turning e-waste into a resource.
Environmental Impact	Reduces the burden on landfills, decreases toxins (like lead and mercury) leaking into soil and waterways, and prevents toxic exposure.
Global Best Practices	Aligns with global EPR standards, where fees paid by manufacturers are often higher than India’s fixed floor prices.

• Social and Environmental Gains: A fair floor price ensures material recovery over disposal, promoting sustainable practices while reducing negative environmental impacts like toxic chemicals.
• Addressing Market Imbalances: Corrects the imbalance caused by the informal sector’s lower costs, making formal recycling viable and reducing waste leakage.
• Encouraging Compliance: Helps producers meet EPR targets through certified recyclers, who, when adequately compensated, can scale operations and deliver measurable, responsible outcomes.

Counter-Argument: Criticism of Floor Price

Criticism	Rebuttal
Increased Costs for Producers	The modest cost increase from the floor price is outweighed by the long-term benefits of sustainable practices and environmental protection.
Raising Consumer Prices	Producers can offset costs by adopting durable, recyclable designs, as encouraged by the EPRframework.
Under-Pricing Risk	Low pricing in sectors like plastic has led to issues such as sham recyclers and loss of trust, emphasizing the importance of fair pricing.

• Innovation & Technological Growth: A floor price can stimulate innovation in the recycling sector, encouraging efficiency and technological breakthroughs.
• Economic & Ecological Necessity: The cost of inaction—environmental destruction, health crises, and lost resources—far outweighs the minor impact of the floor price, making it a necessary move for sustainability.

Conclusion: Need for a recycling vision

The EPR floor price is crucial not just for profits, but for protecting rivers, soil, and communities from pollution and toxicity. It can help formalize India’s e-waste sector, boost infrastructure, and promote resource efficiency. As India strives for sustainability leadership, this price is key to transforming e-waste into an opportunity and setting a global standard. A 73% rise in e-waste calls for action—an adequate floor price ensures both economic growth and environmental care for a sustainable future.