Embedded Files
A City at Crossroads:
Why Guwahati Must Fix Its Waste Crisis
Rishiraj Khound
Guwahati, often hailed as the "Gateway to Northeast India", is currently facing a silent but suffocating crisis. As the region's primary commercial hub and fastest-growing city, its rapid urbanization has outpaced its environmental safeguards. A recent landmark study by the International Forum for Environment, Sustainability and Technology (IFOREST) and the Assam Pollution Control Board has revealed a shocking reality: nearly 65 per cent of the 884 tons of municipal waste generated daily in the city remains unprocessed.
This systemic failure in waste treatment is not just an eyesore; it is the primary engine behind the city’s deteriorating air quality, which has frequently breached national safety standards since 2017. To put this in perspective, while Guwahati struggles with a 35 per cent processing rate, Indore, India's cleanest city for seven consecutive years, successfully processes nearly 100 per cent of its daily waste through total source segregation and advanced biomethanation.
The Toxic Trio: Burning, Dust and Methane
The crisis manifests in three distinct, hazardous ways that residents encounter every day:
The Invisible Killer (Methane): The city’s landfills are massive chemical reactors. Mismanaged waste is projected to emit 5,983 tonnes of methane in 2025 alone. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, 84 times more powerful than CO2 over a 20-year period, and is a major precursor to ground-level ozone. While Delhi generates significantly more waste, satellite data shows that even "engineered" landfills in cities like Mumbai can emit nearly 10 times their official estimates, suggesting the true impact of Guwahati’s open dumping may be even higher than projected.
Open Burning: With 333 tons of waste left unprocessed daily, open burning has become the most significant and visible source of pollution. Field surveys estimate that 61 tons are burned every single day, pumping around 122 tons of PM2.5 and 22 tons of black carbon into the atmosphere annually.
Rising Particulate Matter: The trend for PM10 and PM2.5, tiny particles that can enter the lungs and bloodstream, has been rising steadily between 2017 and 2022. High-density commercial areas like Paltan Bazar, Bhangagarh, Fancy Bazar and Ganeshguri have become hotspots due to a lethal mix of traffic congestion and commercial cooking using coal or charcoal.
A Call for Government Action: The Hotspot Strategy
The launch of Guwahati’s first Clean Air Action Plan marks a critical turning point. To reverse the damage, the government must move beyond broad promises and focus on these targeted interventions recommended by the report:
Upgrade Waste Infrastructure: As of now, Guwahati doesn't have the right machinery to handle all its waste, which is why 333 tons are left over and burned every day. To stop this, the city needs to copy Indore, which uses "industrial-scale" systems to manage everything it produces. This means building bigger facilities that use biomethanation, a process that takes wet waste (like food scraps) and turns it into clean gas and fertilizer instead of letting it rot and pollute the air. By scaling up these "waste-to-wealth" factories, the city can recycle more and finally put an end to the toxic smoke from open burning.
Clean Up Transportation: With 85 per cent of vehicles being privately owned and public transport options being limited, there is a desperate need for cleaner transit and stricter enforcement of PUC (Pollution Under Control) norms.
Shift to Clean Fuels: High pollution levels in markets are linked to commercial cooking clusters. The plan calls for a shift to clean fuels to replace the widely used coal and charcoal.
Control Dust and Silt: Construction activities, especially at flyover sites, contribute heavily to dust pollution and must be strictly regulated.
Manage Industrial Activity: Industries like brick kilns and cement plants in the Kamrup Metro area contribute approximately 1,940 tonnes of PM10 annually, requiring updated technology and stricter monitoring.
Citizen’s Role: Cultivating Civic Sense
While government infrastructure is the skeleton of a clean city, civic sense is its lifeblood. As Prof. Arup Kumar Misra, chairman of the Assam Pollution Control Board, noted: "If people do not cooperate, it is next to impossible to control pollution".
The residents of Guwahati must transition from passive observers to active participants:
Source Segregation: Technology fails when waste is mixed. Sorting wet, dry and hazardous waste at home is the most effective way to reduce landfill pressure.
Stop the Litter: Public spaces must no longer be viewed as "government property" to be littered, but as communal assets to be protected.
Accountability: Support local ward committees and use digital tools like the "Swachhata App" to report illegal burning or dumping.
Guwahati has a unique "bowl-like" topography that traps smoke and dust, making it harder for pollution to clear away. This physical constraint, combined with a rising trend in particulate matter, signifies that the city's air quality is reaching a level of permanent degradation.
Without immediate, large-scale investment in waste processing infrastructure and a drastic improvement in civic discipline regarding household waste, the city faces a future of chronic respiratory disease and irreversible environmental decline. The data indicates that current pollution levels are no longer a seasonal inconvenience but a persistent public health threat that demands an urgent, coordinated response from both the state and its citizens.
(Published on 30 December 2025)
(Rishiraj Khound is a writer from Assam, who combines his background in media and social work to explore various societal themes. After completing his Bachelor's in Journalism and Mass Communication at Amity University, Noida, he pursued a Master's in Social Work from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, strengthening his understanding of social issues. Through his writing, Rishiraj examines topics ranging from philosophical discourse to political analysis, with a particular interest in investigating conspiracy theories. His work reflects his curiosity about complex social phenomena and alternative perspectives on contemporary issues.)
The Business Empire Approach:
How Elon Musk and Donald Trump Are Reshaping American Governance
Rishiraj Khound
In early 2025, we are witnessing a major shift in how the U.S. government operates. President Donald Trump's second term has brought a business-style approach to running the country, with tech billionaire Elon Musk playing an unusually powerful role. This partnership demonstrates a new way of governing where business tactics and tech influence are fundamentally changing American democracy (Zuboff, 2019; Varoufakis, 2021).
Donald Trump built his reputation as a businessman before entering politics. Now back in the White House, he has quickly implemented his vision of running government like one of his companies. He has placed business executives in charge of important government departments, including Treasury, Commerce and Labour. These appointees often have extensive corporate experience but little background in public service (Citizens for Ethics, n.d.).
The President has created a "Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)", led by billionaire Elon Musk, which reviews government programmes and recommends cuts based mainly on cost rather than public benefit. Government agencies now are said to operate with quarterly performance reviews focused on cutting expenses, similar to how corporations report to shareholders (Corporate Watch, n.d.).
Trump has also reduced many regulations, especially those protecting the environment, consumers and workers, calling them "obstacles to business growth" (Citizens for Ethics, n.d.). During Trump’s first tenure as President, Jared Kushner, leading the Office of American Innovation, referred to American citizens as "customers", reflecting a business-oriented approach to government services.
During this second Trump administration, Elon Musk has become extraordinarily influential despite not holding any official position in the Trump Cabinet. It is being reported that he now maintains an office in the White House and regularly attends high-level meetings that would normally be restricted to elected officials and appointed advisors (Zuboff, 2019).
Elon Musk wields significant influence across various government functions. Through SpaceX's close collaboration with NASA, he helps shape national priorities for space exploration. His companies are key players in artificial intelligence and his perspectives contribute to discussions on AI regulations. In transportation, his advocacy for electric vehicles and hyperloop technology aligns with the interests of his businesses, influencing infrastructure policy. While he does not set these policies directly, his role as an industry leader ensures that his vision carries considerable weight in shaping the regulatory landscape.
Elon Musk exerts considerable influence on energy policy, particularly in promoting renewable technologies that align with his companies' products and services. Through ventures like SolarCity and Tesla, he has been instrumental in advancing solar energy adoption and electric vehicles, thereby shaping public perceptions and influencing global energy policies. In the realm of international relations, Musk's business interests often intersect with diplomatic engagements. For instance, he has sought to establish a foothold in Lesotho through his Starlink satellite internet service, meeting with the country's Prime Minister to discuss improving digital connectivity. Additionally, Musk has been strategically fostering relationships with world leaders, such as Argentina's Javier Milei and India's Narendra Modi, to advance both his political interests and business ventures, particularly Tesla and SpaceX.
This level of private sector influence across so many domains of public policy is unprecedented in modern American governance.
Crony Capitalism in Action
What we are witnessing is a textbook example of "crony capitalism" - a system where business success depends less on fair competition and more on close relationships with government officials. In the current Trump administration, this takes several forms (Corporate Watch, n.d.; Financial Times, 2025).
Government contracts increasingly go to companies with personal connections to administration officials. For example, SpaceX has received billions in contracts with limited competition, while companies connected to former Trump businesses are securing favourable deals for everything from construction to technology services (Citizens for Ethics, n.d.; Government Technology, 2025).
Companies friendly to the administration receive special regulatory treatment. When these companies face potential violations, enforcement is often delayed or penalties reduced. Tax policies under the Trump administration have been strategically structured to favour industries closely linked to the president's inner circle, particularly real estate, energy and technology. The real estate sector has benefited significantly from continued tax advantages, such as the preservation of 1031 like-kind exchanges, the carried interest loophole and bonus depreciation, all of which provide substantial tax breaks to property developers and investors, including those with direct ties to Trump-affiliated businesses. The energy industry, particularly fossil fuel companies, has seen deregulation efforts paired with tax incentives, such as the repeal of the methane fee from the Inflation Reduction Act, allowing oil and gas firms to operate with fewer environmental restrictions and lower costs. Meanwhile, the technology sector has reaped rewards through reduced regulatory oversight and favourable government contracts, with figures like Elon Musk securing lucrative deals for SpaceX, Starlink and Tesla Energy, aligning government spending with private industry priorities. These policies exemplify a governance model where economic advantages are disproportionately allocated to industries with close political connections, reinforcing concerns over crony capitalism and regulatory capture. The "revolving door" between government and business spins faster than ever. Executives from Musk's companies now hold positions in the agencies that regulate their former employers.
Former Trump Organization executives have been placed in key positions overseeing industries where Trump has maintained significant business interests, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and regulatory favouritism. During his administration, Trump appointed at least 13 billionaires to top government roles, including individuals from the real estate and finance sectors, industries in which he had extensive personal and business stakes. Notably, in December 2024, Trump nominated Steve Feinberg, co-founder of Cerberus Capital Management, as Deputy Secretary of Defence, despite his firm's substantial investments in defence-related companies - prompting concerns about potential conflicts of interest. These appointments exemplify the administration’s pattern of aligning business and governance, blurring the lines between private financial interests and public service.
Perhaps most troubling is the information advantage given to connected businesses. These companies receive early notification about upcoming policy changes, allowing them to position themselves advantageously in the market. They get privileged access to government data and decision-making processes that their competitors cannot access. This creates an uneven playing field where political connections matter more than product quality or business efficiency.
Technofeudalism: A New Power System
The relationship between Trump and Musk represents something beyond traditional crony capitalism. Some observers call it "technofeudalism" - a system where powerful tech leaders gain political influence that rivals or exceeds traditional government authority.
In feudal systems of old, lords-controlled land and resources. In technofeudalism, the new "lords" control technology platforms, data and essential infrastructure. Elon Musk, for instance, controls access to space through SpaceX, a growing share of energy production through Tesla Energy and is developing brain-computer interfaces through Neuralink - all with government support and minimal oversight.
This concentration of power means that tech billionaires like Musk can shape policy in ways that benefit their companies while facing limited accountability to voters. Their companies increasingly provide services that were once government responsibilities.
SpaceX has secured substantial contracts for national security space missions, indicating a significant role in this domain:
In October 2024, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX task orders worth $733.6 million to launch spacecraft for the Space Development Agency (SDA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). These launches are scheduled for late 2025 and 2026.
The U.S. Space Force's Space Systems Command announced the first two task orders under a revamped five-year program, both awarded to SpaceX. This highlights SpaceX's prominent position in national security launches.
Tesla's energy products are being integrated into utility infrastructures, aiming to stabilize grids and support renewable energy integration:
Tesla's Megapack is a utility-scale battery designed to provide reliable energy storage, stabilize the grid and prevent outages, thereby supporting a cleaner and more resilient energy infrastructure.
Tesla has partnered with Intersect Power to supply 15.3 GWh of Megapacks for solar and storage projects, marking one of the largest energy storage deployments globally.
In this new system, personal data has become extremely valuable, similar to how land was the primary resource in feudal times. Tech companies collect vast amounts of information about citizens, which they use to develop products and services. The government increasingly relies on these private platforms to gather information about citizens. Algorithms developed by private companies now determine who qualifies for certain public services, with little transparency about how these decisions are made.
Private Solutions for Public Problems
Under the Trump-Musk partnership, the administration is moving toward a model where private companies play a larger role in addressing national challenges. Policies are being shaped to potentially shift more responsibility for human spaceflight to SpaceX, rather than expanding NASA’s role. In healthcare, there is growing advocacy for private healthcare platforms over strengthening public insurance programs. Infrastructure plans increasingly favour corporate-led development with guaranteed profit mechanisms, which could reduce reliance on traditional public works projects. While these changes are still unfolding, the administration’s approach signals a significant shift toward privatization in key sectors. This approach reflects a belief that private companies inherently work better than government. While private solutions can sometimes be more efficient, they also prioritise profit over public good. Services may improve for those who can afford them whilst declining for everyone else. Democratic oversight becomes difficult when essential functions move from public agencies to private boardrooms.
What This Means for Regular Americans
This shift toward business-style governance affects every day Americans in numerous ways. Supporters claim the approach brings more efficient government operations with less bureaucracy and paperwork. They point to faster implementation of certain infrastructure projects and access to cutting-edge services previously unavailable through government channels.
However, critics raise serious concerns. Democratic accountability mechanisms are weakened when decisions move from elected officials to corporate boardrooms. Public interests often take a back seat to corporate profit motives. The gap grows wider between tech-connected elites and everyone else. Government operations become less transparent when shielded by claims of "proprietary information" and business confidentiality.
Workers may lose protections when profit becomes the primary goal of government policy. Consumers face fewer safeguards against dangerous products or unfair practices. Conflicts of interest become common in regulatory decisions when regulators come from the very industries they oversee. People without technological access risk being left behind entirely as services move to digital platform.
As this new model of governance takes shape, Americans face important questions about the proper balance between business efficiency and democratic values. The fusion of presidential authority with tech billionaire influence represents a significant experiment in how the US government functions.
The Trump-Musk partnership has effectively created a business empire approach to governance where political connections and corporate interests shape policy more than voter preferences or public needs. Whether described as crony capitalism or technofeudalism, this system fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and their government.
Whether this approach creates real benefits for most Americans or mainly helps well-connected insiders remains to be seen. What's becoming increasingly clear is that the traditional boundaries between government authority, corporate power, and personal influence have fundamentally blurred, creating a new political reality that will reshape American democracy for years to come.
References
Citizens for Ethics. (n.d.). Tracking ethics issues in government and corporate influence. Retrieved from https://www.citizensforethics.org
Corporate Watch. (n.d.). Research on corporate power and its effects on society and governance. Retrieved from https://www.corporatewatch.org
Damalion. (2025, January 21). The real estate landscape in Trump's second term. Retrieved from https://www.damalion.com/2025/01/21/the-real-estate-landscape-in-trumps-second-term/
Financial Times. (2025). Analysis of corporate-government relations in Trump's administration. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/4a09e73d-069f-42c1-bc4c-1d8537c0f00c
Government Technology. (2025). New national security launch awards go to SpaceX. Retrieved from https://www.govtech.com/products/new-national-security-launch-awards-go-to-spacex
Intersect Power. (2025). Tesla provides Intersect Power with 15.3 GWh of Megapacks for solar storage projects. Retrieved from https://www.intersectpower.com/tesla-provides-intersect-power-with-15-3-gwh-of-megapacks-for-solar-storage-projects/
Varoufakis, Y. (2021). Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism. Bodley Head.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. Public Affairs.
(Published on 20 March 2025)
(Rishiraj Khound is a writer from Assam, who combines his background in media and social work to explore various societal themes. After completing his Bachelor's in Journalism and Mass Communication at Amity University, Noida, he pursued a Master's in Social Work from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, strengthening his understanding of social issues. Through his writing, Rishiraj examines topics ranging from philosophical discourse to political analysis, with a particular interest in investigating conspiracy theories. His work reflects his curiosity about complex social phenomena and alternative perspectives on contemporary issues.)
Bioterrorism: The Invisible War
Bioterrorism: The Invisible War
Rishiraj Khound
The evolution of biological weapons represents one of the most concerning developments in terms of modern security threats, particularly as technology becomes more sophisticated and accessible. From ancient times when armies used primitive biological warfare like poisoned arrows and contaminated water supplies, we've entered an era where genetic engineering and advanced laboratory techniques have made it possible to modify and weaponize pathogens with unprecedented precision. The CDC's (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) classification system reflects this growing complexity, categorizing biological agents into three levels based on their transmission ease, mortality rates and potential for public disruption, with Category A agents like anthrax, smallpox and plague posing the most severe threats.
The COVID-19 pandemic has served as an unintentional demonstration of how a biological agent can devastate global systems. While not a weapon, its impact has revealed critical vulnerabilities in our international response capabilities and highlighted how quickly a pathogen can spread through our interconnected world. The pandemic caused unprecedented economic disruption, strained healthcare systems worldwide and created social instability that lasted for years. This real-world scenario has inadvertently provided insights into how biological weapons could be deployed for maximum impact, showing how even a pathogen with relatively low mortality rates can cause massive societal disruption.
The advancement of genetic engineering technologies, particularly tools like CRISPR, has introduced new dimensions to bioterrorism threats. These technologies, while revolutionary for medical research and treatment, could potentially be misused to create modified pathogens with enhanced virulence, increased transmission rates or resistance to existing treatments. The accessibility of these tools to smaller laboratories and potentially non-state actors has raised significant security concerns. Additionally, the rise of synthetic biology has made it possible to create artificial organisms or modify existing ones with specific traits, potentially enabling the development of pathogens that could evade current detection and treatment methods.
The role of media in the context of bioterrorism has become increasingly complex with technological advancement. Social media and instant global communications can spread information—and misinformation—at unprecedented speeds. This was evident during both the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, where media coverage simultaneously served as a crucial public information tool and a potential amplifier of panic. The psychological impact of bioterrorism, enhanced by media coverage, can often exceed its direct physical effects, creating widespread fear and social disruption even in areas far from any actual biological release.
The intersection of artificial intelligence with biological research presents another frontier of concern. Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems can potentially be used to identify new pathogenic strains or modify existing ones for maximum impact. Machine learning algorithms could be employed to predict the most effective methods of pathogen dispersal or to identify vulnerabilities in public health systems. While these technologies have legitimate research applications, their potential dual-use nature makes them particularly concerning from a security standpoint.
In response to these evolving threats, international efforts to prevent bioterrorism have had to adapt. The Biological Weapons Convention, while important, struggles to keep pace with technological advancement. Modern biodefense strategies now must consider not only traditional biological agents but also engineered pathogens, synthetic biology products, and the potential for AI-enhanced biological weapons. The development of robust detection systems, rapid response protocols, and international cooperation frameworks has become crucial in addressing these emerging threats. However, the same technological advancements that create new threats also offer new tools for detection and prevention, such as advanced biosurveillance systems, rapid diagnostic technologies and improved communication networks for coordinating responses to biological incidents.
India takes bioterrorism threats seriously and has laws to prevent and respond to them. The main law is the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems Act of 2005, which makes it illegal to make or have biological weapons. The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) leads India's response plan for biological attacks, working with hospitals and emergency teams. India also works with other countries to prevent bioterrorism and has special labs to detect dangerous germs. The country regularly trains doctors, police and emergency workers on how to handle biological threats. India also keeps close watch at its borders and airports to prevent dangerous materials from entering the country and has teams ready to respond quickly if there's ever a bioterrorism incident.
(Published on 27 December 2024)
(Rishiraj Khound is a writer from Assam, who combines his background in media and social work to explore various societal themes. After completing his Bachelor's in Journalism and Mass Communication at Amity University, Noida, he pursued a Master's in Social Work from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, strengthening his understanding of social issues. Through his writing, Rishiraj examines topics ranging from philosophical discourse to political analysis, with a particular interest in investigating conspiracy theories. His work reflects his curiosity about complex social phenomena and alternative perspectives on contemporary issues.)
Page updated
Report abuse