In a landmark moment for Indian innovation, 17-year-old Japteg Singh Bamrah, a Class 12 student at Dalhousie Public School, has won the prestigious HonorsGradU 2025 Scholarship, earning global recognition for his sustainable energy innovation—the Solar Mech Engine.

Bamrah is one of just five winners worldwide of the “Build a Better Future” Award, organized by U.S.-based nonprofit Honors Graduation. The scholarship program celebrates student-led projects that aim to solve real-world challenges with innovation and impact. Japteg’s Solar Mech Engine was recognized as the top technology entry among thousands of global submissions.

“This is a proud moment not just for me, but for India and young innovators everywhere,” said Japteg in a press statement.

Under the mentorship of Dr. Nasir Ul Rasheed, Senior Scientist at CSIR-Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine (IIIM), Jammu, Japteg developed his project through the CSIR Jigyasa Hackathon initiative—an effort to nurture grassroots science and innovation in school students. The Solar Mech Engine, which also clinched top honours at the Jigyasa Hackathon 2024, operates as a standalone solar thermal system based on Concentrated Heat and Power (CHP) technology.

The innovation harnesses the principles of air expansion and contraction due to temperature changes to convert solar heat into mechanical energy. It features a low-resistance generator that uses electromagnetic induction for direct mechanical-to-electrical energy conversion. What makes it particularly unique is its reversible heat pump capability, allowing it to both generate and store energy with high efficiency.

Japteg showcased his invention at the National Startup Festival held at CSIR-IIIM Jammu in February 2025, where he presented the Solar Mech Engine to Dr. Jitendra Singh, Union Minister of Science and Technology and Vice President of CSIR. Dr. Singh lauded the project as a shining example of India’s Start-Up India, Stand-Up India mission, stating, “It’s innovations like these that embody the spirit of self-reliance and technological progress envisioned by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.”

“This achievement breaks new ground. Japteg is the first and only student from India to top this global competition since its inception in 2012,” said Dr. Rasheed in a press statement. “It highlights the untapped potential of young minds when given the right support and opportunities.”

As part of his award, Japteg receives a $10,000 scholarship toward his undergraduate studies in the United States and an additional $5,000 to further develop and scale his invention. With offers from more than ten leading universities across the U.S., Australia, and Canada—and additional scholarships totaling $16,000 per year—Japteg is now preparing for the next phase of his academic journey.

The Solar Mech Engine is more than a student project—it represents a scalable clean-energy solution that aligns with global sustainability goals. CSIR-IIIM’s backing underscores the importance of institutional support in converting youthful ideas into transformative technologies.

With a total grant package of $31,000, Japteg Singh Bamrah is poised to take his innovation to the next level while pursuing his education at a top international university. His journey from a school laboratory in Himachal Pradesh to the global stage is a testament to the power of curiosity, mentorship, and vision in building a better, greener future.

In Kerala, India’s most literate state, a paradox unfolds: despite high social indicators, the state grapples with a burgeoning stray dog population, estimated at 289,986 in 2019. With dog bite incidents soaring to 316,000 in 2024—a 133% rise from 135,000 in 2017—the crisis exposes a gap between education and effective policy. Amid this, the Daya Animal Welfare Organisation, founded by Ambili Purackal and Ramesh Pulickan in Muvattupuzha, a town in the southern state of Kerala, stands as a beacon of compassion, tackling the issue with rescue, rehabilitation, and advocacy.

The stray dog crisis in Kerala

Kerala’s stray dog population, last pegged at 289,986 in the 2019 Livestock Census, continues to grow due to unregulated breeding, poor waste management, and pet abandonment. In 2024, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala’s capital city, alone reported 50,870 dog bite cases, followed by Kollam district with 37,618. The state recorded 26 rabies deaths, a threefold increase from eight in 2017. These figures underscore a public health challenge, with 96% of Kerala residents opposing stray dogs’ presence, according to a 2025 survey.

The Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme, mandated by national law since 2001, aims to sterilize and vaccinate strays, returning them as less aggressive “community dogs.” However, its implementation falters. Despite a $5.7 million budget in 2024–25 for ABC, rabies vaccination, and the Rabies-Free Kerala project, activists like Ambili note that ineffective monitoring and inadequate training hamper progress. Only a few areas, like Kozhikode Corporation, show consistent effort. If executed properly, Ambili believes the stray dog issue could be resolved humanely within two to three years.

Pet abandonment exacerbates the problem. Many bred dogs, unaccustomed to street life, turn aggressive when abandoned. Enforcing pet licensing and microchipping could help, but the current system remains ineffective.

Daya’s compassionate response

Founded in 2001 by Ambili Purackal and Ramesh Pulickan, Daya emerged from a shared empathy for animals. Ambili recalls, in a conversation with EdPublica, rescuing injured pets since childhood, while Ramesh, a skilled animal handler, leads rescue operations. Based in Muvattupuzha, Daya shelters 102 dogs across its centers, with 70 at its Valmeekam headquarters—80% rescued from streets. Unlike standard ABC protocols, Daya provides lifelong care for dogs unable to survive independently, supported by donors.

Daya’s work extends beyond rescue. Their rescue-relief-rehabilitation model includes medical care, shelter, and rehoming or release. They promote adoption, support indigenous breeds, and advocate for responsible pet ownership. Legal advocacy is central, with Daya challenging animal cruelty and pushing for stronger welfare laws. A notable case involved Ambili funding treatment for an injured baby elephant near Idamalayar Dam in Ernakulam by selling personal property when the forest department failed to act.

“We’ve shown what’s possible. Now, Kerala needs a constructive policy to match its reputation.”

In 2018, during Kerala’s devastating floods, Daya’s commitment shone. With Valmeekam submerged, Ambili and Ramesh stayed on their second-floor terrace with 23 dogs, refusing to abandon them. Today, Daya’s oldest resident, 17-year-old Sreekutti, thrives—a testament to their care. “People often view animal welfare as the concern of a few dog lovers. But rescuing a street dog, vaccinating it, and sterilizing it is a service to society. It’s about public health and urban harmony.”

Systemic challenges and advocacy

Kerala’s ABC programme faces structural hurdles. Local bodies are mandated to allocate budgets based on stray dog data, but most treat it as a formality. The 2023 ABC Rules, requiring veterinarians with 2,000 surgeries and advanced facilities, have slowed progress by limiting eligible centers. Only 37 ABC centers and 78 trained dog catchers serve the state, insufficient for mass sterilization or vaccination drives.

Ambili and Ramesh advocate systemic change: better training for municipal staff, public awareness campaigns, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) investments in animal welfare. They stress that sterilizing and vaccinating strays is a public health service, not just an act of compassion. “Rescuing a street dog benefits society,” Ambili says. “It’s about urban harmony.”

A model for change

Daya’s model—combining compassion, community involvement, and advocacy—inspires across Kerala. Their daily operations, from feeding 102 dogs to responding to hundreds of rescue calls, demonstrate what’s possible. Yet, they emphasize that systemic change requires government, civil society, and public coordination.

Kerala’s stray dog crisis reflects broader challenges in translating literacy into action. With 316,000 dog bites and 26 rabies deaths in 2024, the state must align its progressive image with effective policies. Daya’s work offers a roadmap, but as Ambili notes, “We’ve shown what’s possible. Now, Kerala needs a constructive policy to match its reputation.”

In a world reeling from climate change effects, nuclear energy has offered a cleaner and viable alternative to fossil fuels. However, concerns regarding safety and radioactive waste management persists in developed and developing nations alike. Public protestations against authorities’ poor implementation and communication have been grounds for power plants or processing sites from operating in the first place.  

In the 1970s, West Germany was witness to such public protestations against nuclear power. On one occasion, when Germany had announced plans to produce a quarter of electric power with nuclear energy, the public at Wyhl launched a protest having a nuclear reactor operate in their vicinity, claiming potential ecological threat. Ecological institutes had lent support to this view. But authorities failed to engage, considering the argument to have lacked merit. However, a blowback ensued, bolstered by lobbyists applying pressure. Authorities buckled under pressure, in what was just the first of many such public protests nuclear power plants.

In Germany, for long it had just been the “green” political parties, which had been uncompromisingly anti-nuclear. But following the meltdown at Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011, even fence-sitters have joined the bandwagon. The Germans plan to phase out nuclear power plants completely by this decade. Notwithstanding that, they are still able to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2045. However, commentators still wonder whether Germany has squandered an opportunity out of irrational political compulsions; now instead pursuing still expensive means of renewable energy. Their next-door neighbour, France meanwhile, has built more power plants in the intervening decades.

France did witness large-scale protests, such as against the Superphenix spent fuel disposal plant, that led to its shutdown in 2000. But protests in France, mirroring those in Germany are rare. Protests are relatively less effective under a government content with centralized, institutionalized policy making. Despite the lack of public engagement in this case, it helped there was de-facto consensus among political parties, in support of nuclear power.

If public concerns existed, these were mostly addressed through existing environment safety laws. As such, nuclear power plants did not cause a stir amongst voters immediately. But this began to change when the green parties in France came to the foyer in the 1990s. In their 2015 article, scholars Sylvain Brouard and Isabelle Guinadeau said: “The pro-nuclear consensus was broken only after the Green Party became a potential coalition partner for the PS (Socialist Party); the PS manifesto has become less and less pro-nuclear since then in order to preserve the pre-electoral coalition with the Greens.” 

The resultant policy faced little public accountability as a result. Forecasts on electricity demands were vastly overestimated, with there being far more nuclear power plants built than necessary. Also, these plants are particularly vulnerable during winters, thereby relying on heavy electric power imports during the season. Since hitting peaks in the 1970s and 80s, when nuclear energy accounted for some 80% of energy and electricity demand in the country, that figure has dipped sharply, and will so until about 50% soon, considering a renewed push to alternative renewable resources.

It helped that neither France, nor Germany had dealt with a radioactive mishap, unlike the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in erstwhile Soviet Union, or the Three Mile Island disaster in the United States; instances where people were exposed to harmful radioactive exposure. And so, it should be little wonder the public are consulted to address problems that concern their own safety. Often, governments adopt a top-down approach in explaining their position to the public about their policy. But there must be space for dialogue. Science policies are only effective when they are framed democratically; when policy makers fail to consult beforehand with their beneficiaries – the public.

Including members of the public with “lay” expertise often invites criticism for their lack of subject-matter expertise. While this holds true, especially in advocacy for public participation in scientific advisory committees for example, a critical angle – or unique perspective – can prove beneficiary. In a 2012 article examining public engagement practices notes, scholars Alan Irwin, Torben Elgaard Jensen, and Kevin E. Jones, notes: “Criticism, rather than voicing negative prospects and possibilities that must be overcome before meaningful action can occur, has potential value (and relevance) as a meaningful action in its own right.”

For a fact, scientists relying upon scientific evidence themselves, are often beleaguered with the uncertainties and risks involved in handling affairs. There is space for lay persons to take part in risk assessments, that can help identify potential hazards to them, and risk compensation pathways that can compensate them in the event of a disaster. All of this makes policy making more holistic, and in spirit with celebrating participatory democracy in decision-making.