Best of BS Opinion: Design must meet reality to survive

Designs look elegant on paper. A regulation promises sustainability. A technology promises intelligence. A law promises order. A business model promises convenience. A geopolitical strategy promises national resurgence. But reality is the test every design must pass. It asks whether rules fit technology, whether ambition has the backing of resources, whether law respects constitutional limits, whether markets accept a model, and whether history bends as neatly as strategy assumes.

 

Our first editorial today, “Rational regulation”, applies this test to India’s battery-waste rules. The objective is sound: Producers must be accountable for end-of-life batteries, recycling, refurbishment and the use of recovered material. But the design must keep pace with actual battery technology. Lithium iron phosphate batteries, increasingly used in affordable EVs, can retain 70-80 per cent of their capacity even after eight years and may still be fit for vehicle use or stationary storage. A collection rule based only on age, rather than battery health, risks raising costs, slowing EV adoption and weakening domestic battery production. The editorial argues for a flexible, science-based framework built on traceability, authorised recycling capacity, monitoring of informal recycling and periodic revision of standards.

 

 

The second editorial, “AI’s hidden footprint”, asks India to apply the same realism to AI. Though discussed mostly as software, productivity or innovation, AI is also physical infrastructure, demanding electricity, water, land and eventually e-waste management. Global data centres already consume more electricity than some countries, and AI workloads are set to expand sharply. For India, building AI infrastructure is important for technological sovereignty and strategic autonomy. But data-centre growth in states already facing pressure on water and power must be accompanied by environmental disclosures, energy planning, water-use accounting and local resource assessments. AI ambition cannot be detached from the ground it occupies.

 

In their column, “When regulators write criminal laws”, M S Sahoo and Sumit Agrawal write the Securities Markets Code Bill, 2025, seeks to modernise and decriminalise securities regulation, but a provision allowing Sebi to expand the definition of market abuse through regulation creates a constitutional problem. Since market abuse remains criminal, this could let a regulator effectively create new criminal offences. The authors argue that expertise cannot replace legislative authority. In a democracy, Parliament must decide what conduct can expose citizens to imprisonment.

 

Rama Bijapurkar’s column, “India embraces quick commerce”, shows how business models are tested by consumers. Quick commerce has worked because it improves on the familiar kirana model without demanding Indian consumers change their habits. It offers speed, convenience, assortment and digital efficiency, while preserving the comfort of immediate local availability. The model’s future will depend not on consumer enthusiasm, which is evident, but on supplier patience, scale economics and the ability to deliver value without endless cash burn.

 

“China’s long-playing geopolitical conception”, Gunjan Singh’s review of Frans-Paul van der Putten’s China Resurrected extends the argument to geopolitics. China’s rise, the book argues, is not a sudden outcome of Xi Jinping’s leadership alone. It reflects a long historical conception of national resurrection, shaped by the Opium Wars, nationalism, economic power and the desire to reduce foreign influence.

 

Across these pieces, the message is clear. Good design begins with ambition, but survives only when it meets reality.