By R. Yedunandanudu (a.k.a. Yadhu – X)
Knowledge is not static; it evolves through inquiry, experimentation, and discovery. From theological explanations of the universe to philosophical debates, human understanding continuously undergoes transformation. Science isn’t something static or a fixed set of facts; it’s a process and an approach to reality through continuous observation, question-making, and verification.
There has been much debate among the academics and citizens about the incorporation of traditional Indian knowledge into the present education system. As a matter of fact, NEP 2020 lays stress on integration. The UGC and Ministry of Education have also introduced initiatives in this regard, including research centers and faculty positions in the areas of IKS. These disciplines will range from Vedic mathematics and Ayurveda to philosophy and linguistics.
While the recognition of India’s intellectual tradition and thereby the promotion of interdisciplinarity is a great move, there are certain critical concerns with respect to the application part.
International experiences show that countries like Japan and China are able to harmoniously balance traditional knowledge into modern education while ensuring scientific validation. For example, there is a coexistence of traditional Chinese medicine with modern research institutions, but at the policy level, it is only evidence-backed practices that are encouraged and supported. In this way, traditional knowledge keeps evolving and does not stagnate.
Mathematician C.K. Raju critiques the Eurocentric bias in academic frameworks, pointing out how even fundamental concepts such as time are shaped by Western epistemic dominance. His views, though sometimes polemical, highlight the need to question whose knowledge gets institutionalized.
Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan emphasized the contributions of India to world knowledge in general, and logic, philosophy, and mathematics in particular. The invention of zero completely revolutionized the numerical system in the whole world. However, rather than falling prey to a blind romanticization of the past, his appeal was for a judicious balance in valuing India’s intellectual heritage, while interacting with modern progress.
While some of the traditional practices, such as yoga, have stood the test of time, other fields need rigorous scrutiny. The curriculum should be dynamic and devoid of any kind of ideological bias. As Carl Sagan famously said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
One of the strong arguments given by proponents of IKS is how it contributes to decolonising education. Yet, traditional knowledge systems in the Indian context have been historically pro-elite and Sanskrit-based, excluding so-called lower caste contributions. For example, communities like Kummari and Chakali, who made very important strides in metallurgy, agriculture, and handicrafts, remain absent from mainstream academia.
Scepticism and inquiry form the backbone of any science, on the other hand pseudoscience draws strength from anecdotes, appeals to authority, and an aversion to scrutiny. If Galileo and Newton changed the course of scientific thinking amidst controversies in the West, Indian scientists like Jagadish Chandra Bose and G.N. Ramachandran broke conventions and contributed to the world at large.
Inculcation of scientific temper is also enjoined upon by the Constitution of India under Article 51A(h), making rational inquiry not only a moral but a legal imperative. The strength of any knowledge system lies in its openness to critique, its ability to evolve, and its willingness to assimilate global wisdom. This means that higher education should lay greater emphasis on inculcating critical thinking and evidence-based learning so that only verifiable aspects of IKS are incorporated. We should go forward with the Rig Vedic principle “Let noble thoughts come to us from all directions.”