The many Indias in our knowledge stream

Knowledge cannot be defined within confines of a unified system, bypassing regional traditions and languages

The National Education Programme 2020 passionately envisions a future where we are all global citizens, embracing a profound commitment to knowledge deeply rooted in ‘Indian ethos, values, and culture.’ However, this vision deliberately disregards the vibrant plurality and diversity of India. The Indian Knowledge System (IKS) is simplistically labelled as the Sanskrit Knowledge System, disregarding the rich and diverse historical narratives that medieval India has to offer.

In response to these terms of reference, the UGC has taken decisive action by issuing comprehensive guidelines aimed at incorporating Indian knowledge into the fabric of higher education. The guidelines assert with urgency that “we must expeditiously implement the policy prescriptions,” making it clear that all institutions are mandated to engage in research on IKS. This research is not merely an option; it is imperative that IKS becomes a foundational element woven into the curricula of our schools, colleges, and institutions of higher learning.

The model curriculum’s first unit, “Introduction to IKS,” sets the ball of agenda rolling; it is in ‘thrall’ of the mythical Bharatvarsha (not simply Bharat), a kingdom of Bharat, one of the fabled ancestors of Ram.

Promoting India’s rich intellectual heritage is commendable, but it raises critical concerns that must be addressed. The curriculum’s broad definitions of “Indian”, “knowledge”, and “system” risk oversimplifying India’s intellectual diversity. Equating “Indian” with ancient Sanskrit and Vedic traditions overlooks other languages and regional contributions. For example, the curriculum highlights “Vedic references to metals and metal working” and “The Vedic Corpus,” representing only one strand of Indian thought. The Sanskrit focus, with scholars like Charaka, Susruta, Aryabhata, and Panini, marginalises other intellectual traditions.

Furthermore, although the curriculum acknowledges regional adaptations of epic narratives like Ramayana and Mahabharata, it fails to give equal recognition to independently developed regional systems of thought. This lack of balance raises serious questions, especially considering the controversial removal of A K Ramanujan’s essay, Three Hundred Ramayanas, from the Delhi University curriculum.

The guidelines’ exclusive approach towards the Hindu-Sanskrit knowledge system hardly reflects the nation’s multifaceted legacy.

The model curriculum’s narrow definition of “knowledge” heavily favours Brahminical texts, which risks side-lining vital folk traditions, oral histories, and rich non-textual wisdom. While the curriculum rightly highlights disciplines such as mathematics, astronomy, metallurgy, and classical literature, it inadequately recognises the significance of indigenous environmental knowledge, craftsmanship, and social organisation practices. Additionally, an overemphasis on elite scholarly traditions – like the six Vedangs – and philosophical/metaphysical concepts (Para Vidya and Apara Vidya) leads us to overlook the diverse and essential aspects of our knowledge systems.

Presenting Indian knowledge as a unified system marks an oversimplification of its intricate and dynamic nature. The curriculum predominantly prioritises mainstream traditions, potentially reinforcing entrenched power dynamics. Although there are minimal efforts to create an impression of inclusivity – like the mention of notable female scholars such as Maitreyi and Gargi or the inclusion of “other Indian languages” – these gestures often lack depth. The primary focus remains on male thinkers and texts, especially those in Sanskrit, while allowing the rich intellectual legacies in languages like Tamil, Pali, and Persian to fade into the background.

Moreover, the curriculum’s structure raises significant pedagogical concerns. Its emphasis on reverence and preservation, rather than fostering critical engagement, is glaringly apparent. For example, when it presents the idea of “the king as the protector of Dharma,” it denies the possibility of critical analysis. A truly invigorating academic framework should spur analysis, debate, and even critique
of historical knowledge systems.
Unfortunately, many sections simply offer a list of texts or concepts without encouraging deeper inquiry.

The ‘model’ curriculum significantly underestimates the value of comparing Indian knowledge systems with those from around the world, which could unravel profound insights and stimulate critical thinking. By neglecting to explore these systems within their historical contexts, we miss a vital opportunity for deeper engagement and understanding. Moreover, there is a noticeable lack of dialogue about how ancient ideas can be scrutinised and relevantly applied to modern knowledge and contemporary challenges.

Curricula short on context

The curricula clearly demonstrate an emphasis on the doctrines of punyabhumi (holy land) and pitribhumi (Fatherland), yet they glaringly overlook significant contributions from Buddhism, Lokayat, and Sikhism. Even Jainism is given only a cursory mention, highlighting the narrow scope of the curriculum. Furthermore, the transformative Bhakti and Sufi movements, which played a crucial role in redefining the identity of India, are regrettably absent, most likely due to their ties to the medieval period.

At the end, the curricula offer a comprehensive reference list featuring ten books. This list includes three books by Dharampal and four by the duo of J K Bajaj and M D Srinivas, who are trustees of the Centre for Policy Studies, along with Govindacharya, Balbir Punj, and others. Notably, titles such as Bharatnama by Sunil Khilnani, Turning the Pot, Tilling the Land by Kancha Ilaiah, and Redeeming the Republic by Ramachandra Guha are conspicuously absent. Their omission suggests a deliberate choice that overlooks vital perspectives essential for a rational understanding of our society.

While an understanding of historical knowledge systems is undeniably valuable, the curriculum does not sufficiently address how these ideas can adapt to and inform present-day issues. This failure risks confining this knowledge to a static state, rather than recognising it as a vibrant and evolving body of thought.

To truly empower students, we thus need a curriculum that encourages rigorous analysis, meaningful comparisons, and a strong historical context, enabling them to connect past ideas with the complexities of the modern world. Such an approach will not only deepen their understanding but also equip them to tackle contemporary challenges with creativity and insight. The curriculum strives to cultivate the ideal ‘Indian’ citizen – one with a ‘mind free from fear and head held high.’ Yet, it seems to have drifted off course, becoming ensnared in the political agenda of Hindutva and indoctrination.

(Navneet teaches at the Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Sushant teaches at the Vellore Institute of Technology)