Sooraj Maurya

The issue of educational revivalism has served as a reaction to demands of globalization and the escalating presence of standardized cultural commodities in India. The article begins by placing revivalism in the historical context of Indian education, showing that there was an underlying foundation in the Gurukula system of education and Vedic-Upanishadic principles, all of which were indigenous to Indian education. The article will determine how the Indian knowledge systems and philosophies may come to be seriously considered in the design of the curriculum, and how a balance between conservative and progressive education policies may be achieved. The article employs a normative or philosophical approach and uses historical writings and current policies to determine the extent of the revivalism ideology application and applicability in India today. It is demonstrated how revivalism has developed into a cultural defence against charges of dogmatic, speculative, and exclusionary moral-religious education, by contending to challenge this criticism based on a combination of traditional and modern learning. The article goes on to discuss the relevance of the revivalism to Indian and international education systems and suggests specific policy recommendations to incorporate indigenous knowledge in a way that is compatible with international academic discourses. The article also points toward the need for empirical studies on the outcomes of revivalist-inspired curricula, as well as comparative analyses across different cultural and educational contexts.

In the digital era, parenting has evolved as technology increasingly shapes the parent–child relationship. This article applies Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics, focusing on duty, moral imperatives, and the categorical imperative, to the ethical challenges which parents encounter when managing their children’s digital lives. It reflects the moral obligations that parents hold concerning digital monitoring, safeguarding data privacy, and the broader ethical implications of online parenting practices. By anchoring these contemporary challenges within the framework of Kantian ethics, the article provides a structured approach for parents to navigate their responsibilities in the digital landscape. The article makes an effort to offer practical guidelines for ethical digital parenting, ensuring that parents can protect their children while respecting their autonomy and privacy, ultimately fostering a morally sound digital environment for their growth.

This book explores justice as both a philosophical concept and a measurable social indicator for evaluating quality of life. It offers an original framework that integrates ethical theory with empirical applications in public policy, especially in sectors such as health, education, and the environment. Rooted in the rich traditions of moral and political philosophy, the book redefines justice as a central dimension of human well-being—one that can be both conceptually coherent and practically assessed. Through a critical engagement with classical thinkers, contemporary theories, and applied case studies, the book presents a justice-centered alternative to existing models based on utility, capabilities, or economic welfare. Each chapter bridges abstract principles with real-world implications, offering insights into how justice can be integrated into policy design, performance evaluation, and development agendas. The author challenges the prevailing fragmentation between normative theory and social indicators, proposing a unifying approach that enriches both. This book is essential reading for scholars in philosophy, sociology, development studies, and public policy, as well as for practitioners interested in embedding ethical considerations into social measurement and decision-making. By foregrounding justice as both an end and a means, this book opens new pathways toward a more equitable and reflective approach to quality of life.

Affirmative action is a public policy purposed to compensate the victims of injustice at the cost of priviledged groups; hence to some it appears as opposing the notion of equality and being against human dignity. Thinkers like Leslie Pickering Francis and John Rawls, on the other hand, argue that affirmative action policies should be implemented for the sake of the oppressed and under-represented groups. Louis P. Pojman in his article “The Case Against Affirmative Action” sets forth nine arguments against strong affirmative action. This paper sets out to challenge Pojman’s arguments one by one, and prove the author’s thesis in support of strong affirmative action.