India's battery recycling sector offers lifeline to global EV players as China tightens mineral exports
battery recycling ecosystem
players including Vedanta and Lohum this week, in what is being seen as a push to diversify away from China-dominated supply chains.
The visit comes on the heels of China tightening export controls on essential rare earth elements — including neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium and terbium — that are critical to high-performance permanent magnets used in EVs, smartphones, and defence applications. The restrictions have triggered alarm among global automakers, who now face the twin challenges of production delays and rising input costs.
India and Japan are learned to have initiated discussions to chart a response, with supply chain resilience high on the agenda. These talks have culminated in the Battery and Critical Minerals Ecosystem Conference being held today at the Embassy of Japan in Delhi, where government officials, OEMs, financiers, and recycling firms from Japan, India, Australia and the US are participating. The Conference will host sessions focused on challenges in refining, recycling, and securing anchor off-takers, all key gaps in India's critical minerals and battery ecosystem.
While India is scaling up lithium exploration and refining capabilities, experts say recycling offers a more immediate and scalable solution. Refining and processing capacity remains heavily concentrated in a few countries, posing significant technical and geopolitical risks to global EV and clean tech growth.
The conference will also feature closed-door business-to-business (B2B) meetings between Indian recyclers, global OEMs, and financial institutions such as the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), Tata Capital's Decarbonisation Fund, and the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The idea is to ensure financial backing and anchor customers for new entrants in India's recycling and refining space. Discussions will cover bankability, joint R&D, and long-term offtake agreements — all seen as prerequisites for breaking the dominance of traditional players in the battery and minerals sector.
China's tightening grip has forced a rethink in the way global supply chains are structured, with recycling now viewed as a strategic lever — not just an environmental necessity. For India, it opens a window to position itself as a reliable, democratic alternative for critical mineral recovery.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
BJP slams Rahul comments on Jaishankar's meeting with Xi
Accusing him of 'bringing shame to the nation', the BJP on Wednesday targeted Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi for his comments on External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. BJP national general secretary Tarun Chugh said Jaishankar held the meeting with Xi to express the nation's 'concern over Pakistan-sponsored Pahalgam terrorist attack'. 'We all know how Rahul Gandhi used to hold secret meetings with the China officials for breakfast or whatever in Delhi without disclosing the agenda to the people of the nation,' said Chugh. In a post on X, Gandhi had criticised Jaishankar, saying, 'I guess the Chinese foreign minister will come and apprise Modi about recent developments in China-India ties. The EAM is now running a full blown circus aimed at destroying India's foreign policy.'
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Let citizenship to daughter of OCI cardholders be one-off, don't open floodgates: Govt to HC
After a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court directed the Centre to grant Indian citizenship to a 'stateless' 17-year-old girl born in India to a couple of Indian-origin holding US citizenship, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has challenged the HC's 'views' on 'illegal immigrant' and 'person of Indian-origin'. The MHA, represented by government pleader Abhigyan Siddhant, urged the division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on Monday to clarify that the single-judge's judgment of May 15, 2024 should be considered as an individual case and not a precedent, meaning it may not be used for relief in other cases. The MHA apprehends that the single judge's observation on the two aspects 'may open floodgates for many other illegal migrants in seeking Indian citizenship' and 'would have a cascading effect and would dilute the spirit of the Citizenship Act, 1955.' The 2024 ruling was in the case of Rachita Francis Xavier, born in 2006 in Nidamanuru, Andhra Pradesh, to parents who were earlier Indian citizens and obtained US citizenship in 2001 and 2005. In 2019, when Rachita applied for a passport to study abroad, her request was denied on the ground that she cannot be recognised as a citizen of India, effectively leaving her with no recognition of citizenship, either in India or the US. She then challenged the action before the Delhi HC. Relying on the citizenship laws and provisions, the MHA had told the HC that she could not be considered as a 'person of Indian origin' and that she would in fact be considered an 'illegal migrant' under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Citizenship Act because she did not have any valid travel document, or a visa under which she could stay in India. Her parents were residing in India and holding Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card at the time of her birth and Rachita had lived all her life in India by then. In its verdict on May 15, 2024, the single-judge bench, noting Rachita's 'unique' position, said she would not qualify as an 'illegal migrant', and would qualify as a 'person of Indian origin'. It directed that she be granted Indian citizenship. It observed that Rachita 'has effectively been rendered stateless, thereby facing significant limitations on her fundamental rights as also universal human rights in the absence of citizenship and political belonging.' Rachita was granted citizenship on July 31, 2024. The MHA, in an appeal moved against the single judge's order, while not challenging the direction for the grant of citizenship, has challenged the judge's declaration that Rachita is not an 'illegal migrant' and is to be considered as a 'person of Indian origin'. It has said the declaration is in contravention to the laws. The MHA has submitted that the May 2024 order errs in observing that the definition of 'illegal migrant' will not apply to Rachita solely on the fact that she was born in India and has never gone out of India. Opposing this deduction by the single judge, the MHA has countered that Section 2 (1) (b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, clearly defines 'illegal migrant' which would include a child born in India and devoid of any valid travel documents. It has pressed for 'harmonious' reading of the Citizenship Act with the Foreigners Act, 1946 which cover provisions for all types of foreigners including children born in India to foreigners. The MHA has highlighted that the law already provides for visa services to children born to foreigners in India within 90 days of their birth. The MHA has stressed that the single judge also erred in declaring Rachita as a 'person of Indian origin' solely on the basis of the fact that her mother was born in independent India. Relying on section 5 of the Act, the MHA has submitted that a person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin if the person, or either of the parents, was born in undivided India or in such other territory which became part of India after August 15, 1947 (such as Sikkim), with 'undivided India' meaning India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935. 'Any person born in India thereafter (after August 15, 1947) would, subject to fulfilment of statutory/constitutional requirements, be a citizen of India by birth and descendants of such person are not covered under definition of Indian Origin. Any other interpretation would lead to a situation where even a person born in Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc., after independence, i.e., after 15.08.1947, would be person of Indian Origin, which could not have been the intention of the law makers; and if such interpretation is accepted, it would lead to disastrous consequences,' the MHA has submitted. The HC has now kept the matter for further consideration on October 15.
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
NCERT social science textbook: New Class 8 book chapter on colonial era skips Tipu Sultan, Anglo-Mysore wars
The new NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook skips the mention of Tipu Sultan, Haidar Ali or the Anglo-Mysore wars of 1700s in its chapter on India's colonial era, which has been described as time when 'one of the richest lands of the world had become one of the poorest'. Part 1 of the textbook — 'Exploring Society: Indian and Beyond' — was released this week for use in the ongoing academic session. A second part is expected this year. The chapter on the colonial era covers the period from the late 1400s and the arrival of Vasco da Gama up to the late 1800s, including the 'Great Indian Rebellion of 1857'. It traces the shift of the British from being traders to rulers, refers to the Battle of Plassey — a decisive victory for the East India Company against Nawab of Bengal in 1757 — and the 'drain of India's wealth' during this period. A section on the early resistance movements that challenged British colonialism in the run-up to the 1857 rebellion refers to the 'Sannyasi-Fakir rebellion' of the 1700s, the Kol Uprising, and the Santhal rebellion and 'peasant uprisings' of the 1800s. In a separate chapter on the Marathas, it refers to the Anglo-Maratha wars between 1775 and 1818 and states that 'the British took India from the Marathas more than from the Mughals or any other power'. In the old Class 8 Social Science textbook, a section on the expansion of the East India Company's rule from 1757 to 1857 also pointed to the resistance to them from the rulers of Mysore — referring to Mysore under Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan, 'the Tiger of Mysore', and the four Anglo-Mysore Wars in the 1700s. It also described the wars the Marathas fought against the East India Company. When asked if Tipu Sultan and the Anglo-Mysore wars may find a mention in part 2 of the new Social Science book, Michel Danino, who chaired NCERT's group that developed the book based on the National Education Policy 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework, said chapters for part 2 'are not ready yet'. 'But a temporary answer is: probably not,' he said. 'It's unfortunately not possible to cover all events of the colonial period; if we try to, we fall back into the old mode of cramming textbooks with dates, wars etc. In the Middle Stage (Classes 6-8), we only do a quick overview of Indian history; in the Secondary Stage (Classes 9 to 12), there will be opportunities to go over some periods — especially the crucial one of colonial domination — in greater depth,' he added. 'Drain of wealth' Referring to the 'age of colonialism' and the expansion of the European powers from the 15th century onwards in different parts of the world, the book notes that while the colonisers claimed they had a 'civilizing mission', the reality was different and included 'destruction of traditional ways of life, and the imposition of foreign cultural values.' According to the new book, until the 16th century, when European powers began sailing to the Indian subcontinent, India contributed 'at least one-fourth of the world GDP during this whole period, making it one of the two largest economies globally alongside China (whose contribution was of the same order).' A later section in the chapter points out that 'India's share of the world GDP kept declining throughout the colonial rule, reaching hardly 5 per cent at the time of Independence. In less than two centuries, one of the richest lands of the world had become one of the poorest.' Similarly, a section on the 'drain of India's wealth' says the colonisers extracted 'many billions of pounds from India', and 'a more recent estimate (by Utsa Patnaik) for the period 1765 to 1938 comes to 45 trillion US dollars (in today's value)'. 'Had this wealth remained invested in India, it would have been a very different country when it attained independence,' it says. The new book also says the construction of India's railways 'was not a gift from the colonial rulers to India.' 'Most of it was paid for by Indian tax revenue, which means that Indian funded infrastructure primarily served British strategic and commercial interests. The same can be said of the telegraph network,' it says. The colonial powers 'stole thousands of statues, paintings, jewels, manuscripts and other cultural artefacts from India and sent them to European museums or private collections,' the book says, adding that such 'massive theft' took place over much of the colonized world. The old Class 8 book did not have the sections on the railways, the 'theft' of artefacts, and world GDP. Said Danino: 'We included the real facts on the financing of the Indian railway and telegraph (and several wars, including putting down the 1857 Rebellion) because otherwise we give a wrong impression that these were great gifts by the colonial powers. They were no gifts and contributed to make poor Indians (especially the peasant class) even poorer through revenue extraction.' He maintained that his remarks reflect his personal opinion.
