Tradition In Education: Indian Knowledge System Under The Spotlight Of International Science Community

The famous magazine ‘Science’ in its issue dated 16 September 2024, published a critical feature article on the ‘Indian Knowledge’ curriculum that has been integrated into the curriculum in recent years. The article is supported by a grant from the Heising-Simons Foundation.

This article cannot be viewed in isolation, as a similar attempt to integrate a traditional knowledge system in New Zealand has already sparked intense discussion.

'Mana-orite' Controversy

In its 2 February issue, the magazine featured an article by biologists Amanda Black and Jason Tylianakis entitled 'Teaching Indigenous Knowledge Alongside Science.' The authors examined the potential benefits and challenges of incorporating indigenous knowledge within the framework of New Zealand's educational system.

This initiative stems from the 'mana orite' policy proposed by the Aotearoa–New Zealand government, an effort to honour the Treaty of Waitangi (1840). This treaty, the foundational document of modern New Zealand, acknowledges the rights and culture of the indigenous Māori population by dominating white settlers.

The 'mana orite' policy seeks to elevate Matauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) to a status equivalent to other forms of knowledge within the curriculum. Black and Tylianakis emphasise the critical distinction between presenting indigenous knowledge 'as science' versus 'alongside science,' a nuanced approach that recognises distinct epistemologies and contributions of both knowledge systems. According to them, this has a positive effect on the learning environment:

The authors contend that the erosion of indigenous knowledge traditions can be mitigated by integrating these traditions into the educational curriculum. They advocate for a pedagogical approach transcending the dichotomy of 'evidence-based' versus 'tradition-based' knowledge.

In an era of escalating global challenges, education incorporating indigenous knowledge can foster intercultural understanding, leading to a more holistic and interconnected worldview. This, in turn, can yield positive outcomes, including enhanced science education.

Furthermore, Black and Tylianakis do not hold the indigenous knowledge systems as infallible. Like modern science, they should be given the space for self-correction and evolution. They illustrate this concept by examining the extinction of the moa, a flightless bird endemic to New Zealand, and how Māori knowledge adapted to reflect this ecological change.

The 12 July issue featured a response to Black and Tylianakis' article, authored by twelve academics representing diverse disciplines and institutions. This collective critique contended that Black and Tylianakis failed to adequately address the resolution of potential conflicts between scientific and indigenous knowledge systems, particularly concerning empirical content and methodology within the classroom setting.

While Black and Tylianakis asserted that the curriculum development involved extensive consultation with Māori educators, the responding academics countered that prominent Māori scholars expressed reservations about juxtaposing traditional knowledge with science.

Further amplifying this critique, biologist Nicholas Matzke, in a separate letter within the same issue, criticised the inclusion of the Māori concept of "mauri" in the chemistry curriculum. The textbook defined "mauri" as the "vital essence, life force of everything," a definition Matzke characterised as vitalistic. He proposed an alternative pedagogical framework akin to the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould's concept of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA), suggesting a separation between the domains of science and indigenous knowledge. He wrote:

In their response, also published in the same issue, Black and Tylianakis comprehensively addressed the criticisms levelled against their initial article.

For instance, regarding the inclusion of the concept of 'mauri' in the chemistry curriculum, which was likened to 'energy in particle theory,' they clarified that this characterisation, later retracted, was deemed unacceptable by both the science education community and Māori scholars.

Matzke, in his letter, objected to using a Māori legend in a mathematics problem, arguing that it could lead to conflict among students regarding its epistemological status as 'knowledge' or 'myth.'

Black and Tylianakis' response to this point holds particular significance, not only within the context of the 'mana orite' debate in New Zealand but also for educators in India. They argue that engaging with such narratives, while acknowledging their cultural and historical context, can foster critical thinking and a deeper understanding of diverse knowledge systems. This approach encourages students to examine the interplay between narrative, culture, and knowledge construction, ultimately promoting a more inclusive and nuanced educational experience:

The 'Problem' of Indian Knowledge Systems Education

Contextualised within the aforementioned discourse, one should get into the article on the Indian Knowledge System (IKS) published by Science. India is trying to distance its science education systems from centuries-long British colonialism. ‘But at what cost?’ — the author puts a rhetorical question — with an implied caution of the potential trade-offs and unforeseen ramifications that may accompany the pursuit of reclaiming and reasserting indigenous knowledge within the scientific domain.

The analysis commences with the archaeological rediscovery of a twelfth-century zinc extraction site at Zawar, where the Bhil tribal community employed a sophisticated smelting process utilising a closed furnace. This significant finding, indicative of advanced metallurgical knowledge in pre-colonial India, has been integrated into the undergraduate science curriculum at St. Xavier's College, Mumbai. This inclusion aligns with the contemporary Indian government's New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which emphasises the decolonisation of education by incorporating indigenous knowledge systems. Notably, this curricular shift is endorsed by Hrishikesh Samant, head of the geology department at 'the 155-year-old Jesuit institution,' underscoring a broader institutional commitment to recognising and valuing indigenous scientific contributions.

The author then deftly navigates the controversies surrounding the IKS curriculum. Concerns arise that the syllabus may not fully encapsulate the rich diversity of India's multifaceted society, potentially promoting a Hindu nationalist agenda aligned with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The discourse inevitably invokes the oft-cited example of 'Vedic aeroplanes,' a pseudo-historical claim and frequent target of justified criticism.

However, the author maintains a balanced perspective, demonstrating that those actively engaged in curriculum development do not exhibit such pseudo-scientific tendencies alleged by IKS detractors. Instead, their focus lies in highlighting the unrecognised contributions of Indian science, such as the pivotal role of the Kerala School of Mathematics in the development of calculus and the potential applications of Ayurvedic herbal remedies within a modern context. This nuanced approach underscores a commitment to showcasing the historical richness and diversity of Indian scientific thought while avoiding ideological biases.

Critics of IKS in the article hark back to Prime Minister Modi's casual remark about Ganesa and genetic engineering, made during the inauguration of a private medical complex in 2014, as if it reflects a broader educational policy. The article further contends that a text issued by the national textbook agency, following the renowned lunar south pole moon landing, discusses Vedic airplanes. While every ideological faction has its fringe elements making such extravagant claims, attributing these to the national textbook society (possibly referring to NCERT) is indeed a far-fetched assertion. In the absence of evidence making such a claim is unwarranted, and unethical.

The article then shifts its focus to critics who highlight the introduction of astrology courses at the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), attempting to link this development with the IKS initiative.

However, this connection is misleading. The current writer acknowledges the prevalence of astrology in Indian society, with adherents across the political spectrum, it's crucial to recognise that astrology is not a component of the IKS curriculum. Although this writer personally views astrology primarily as a form of psychological counselling, with limited or no scientific basis, its widespread acceptance in India cannot be ignored.

Astrology courses have been integrated into university curricula under various political regimes, transcending ideological divides. For instance, in Kerala, governed alternately by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M) and the Indian National Congress (INC), the state university offers graduate programs in astrology. In Tamil Nadu, where I reside, some even consider astrology a materialist science originating from the Siddha tradition, later appropriated by Brahminical Hinduism. That too is quite a bizarre pseudo-historical claim.

Consequently, ascribing the presence of astrology courses exclusively to the BJP or linking it to the IKS initiative, constitutes an oversimplification that verges on misrepresentation. A perfunctory online inquiry would readily reveal the pervasive availability of such courses across India, offered by institutions representing a diverse spectrum of ideological affiliations. This underscores the imperative for a more nuanced comprehension of the intricate interplay between astrology, education, and the political landscape in India.

To the author's credit, the article diligently presents a countervailing perspective. Jagadesh Kumar, chair of the University Grants Commission (UGC), emphasises the implementation of safeguards to ensure that students are presented with rational information grounded in reliable sources. This assertion underscores a commitment to academic rigour and dispels concerns regarding the potential dissemination of unsubstantiated claims within the IKS framework.

Then the article comes with a very specific accusation made by the critics of IKS:

The article then transitions to a presentation of allegations that appear more rhetorical than substantive. It cites Dhruv Raina, a philosopher of science embedded within the Marxist-dominated social science academic circles, aligning with another influential figure, Irfan Habib.

However, as archaeologist KK Muhammed, a self-proclaimed secular Nehruvian, has previously asserted, Habib's leadership within these institutions was marked by autocratic tendencies and driven by personal ideological interests. Within this context, Raina critiques India's decolonisation and IKS project, characterising its trajectory as a devolution from a 'struggle for cognitive justice' to what an unnamed scholar labels as 'chauvinistic gerrymandering'. This loaded terminology casts a shadow of doubt on the initiative's motivations and integrity.

Again, the article contrasts such rhetorical criticisms with reality and the caution with which IKS courses are taken. It describes how Radha Kumar, a professor of ancient history, conducts an IKS course for her students:

Contrary to claims of excluding Mughal-period contributions, the IKS curriculum at St. Xavier’s, a reputed Jesuit institution in Mumbai, includes 'Mughal irrigation systems, which adopted mechanical devices centuries ago, as part of traditional water management.' Furthermore, the article highlights that, while St. Xavier’s can design such a curriculum, other institutions must also develop IKS syllabi under rigorous academic criteria.

Maharashtra Government is ruled by a Shiv Sena-BJP coalition both of which are called Hindutva parties. The article ends positively with positive feedback from a student.

The IKS and Nation-Building

Now, what does all this indicate about the Indian Knowledge Systems course and its future? It unwittingly shows the importance of IKS which goes beyond the controversies.

A compelling contrast emerges when juxtaposing the discourse surrounding indigenous knowledge in New Zealand with the analysis of the Indian Knowledge System. The former unfolded as a scholarly exchange characterised by a thesis (the initial article advocating for indigenous knowledge integration), an antithesis (critical responses highlighting potential challenges), and a synthesis (the authors' rejoinder addressing those concerns). This discourse remained largely focused on pedagogical and epistemological considerations, with minimal political entanglement.

Conversely, the IKS analysis appears more deeply intertwined with political undercurrents. While ostensibly examining the complexities of integrating indigenous knowledge into the curriculum, the narrative becomes interwoven with critiques of specific individuals and ideological factions, potentially overshadowing the core educational and philosophical dimensions of the IKS initiative. This divergence highlights the varying socio-political contexts within which indigenous knowledge systems are negotiated and incorporated into educational frameworks.

In the case of IKS, the discussion menacingly focuses on political ideologies and accusations of promotion of ‘Brahminism’ to ‘Hinducentrism’ to ‘chauvinistic gerrymandering.’

Why this is so?

Post-independence, India's intellectual landscape was profoundly influenced by Soviet thought, resulting in a confluence of colonial Orientalist and Marxist interpretations of Indian history. This created a false dichotomy: an 'Aryan-Brahminical-Sanskritic' elite culture versus an 'indigenous-subaltern-local' culture, with the former portrayed as parasitic and oppressive.

The post-independence Indian government, with its pro-Soviet leanings, inadvertently fostered an academic environment dominated by a Marxist interpretation of Indian history. The power of Indian Commissars of socialist culture can be gauged by the fact that a prominent exhibition on the methodology of science, sponsored and financed by the government, had no panels for Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn. However, it had panels for Karl Marx and Lenin — imitating the propaganda posters of the USSR.

The repercussions of this ideological slant extended beyond academia, permeating the socio-cultural fabric of India. Hindu culture, inherently pluralistic and encompassing a diversity of worldviews, was unfairly characterised as oppressive and as being dominated by priestly authority. This distorted portrayal attributed societal ills to Hinduism, fostering an environment conducive to anti-Hindu sentiments.

The Dravidian movement, influenced by colonial notions of racial stereotypes, exemplified this trend with its disparaging slogan contrasting "bhakti" (devotion) with scientific achievement: ‘Bhakti could invent only holy ash pocket while Scientists invented space rockets.’ This engendered a political ideology that championed cultural illiteracy and a rejection of indigenous traditions. Popular media, including films and novels, further reinforced these narratives.

This climate also proved fertile ground for proselytising efforts, often fuelled by a narrative that attributed all significant inventions and discoveries to the Judaeo-Christian West, while denigrating Hindu contributions. The resulting backlash from Hindu activists occasionally manifested in violent conflicts and counter-narratives that sometimes veered into exaggerated claims of past glory and pseudo-history. This, in turn, provided further fodder for the caricature of Hindus, perpetuating a cycle of misunderstanding and antagonism.

Within this complex socio-cultural and academic milieu, the Indian Knowledge System (IKS) emerges as a potential corrective. It offers a framework for uniting Indians under a shared knowledge-based umbrella, acknowledging the diverse contributions of various communities and emphasising epistemological pluralism. Moreover, it provides a rigorous methodology for critically examining historical narratives, effectively filtering out pseudo-historical claims and exaggerations.

The IKS initiative aspires to transcend the artificial binary between 'Sanskritic' and 'local' cultures, recognising their dynamic interplay and mutual enrichment.

The so-called 'Sanskritic' culture, rather than being an isolated elite domain, is revealed as a vibrant matrix woven from countless local threads. This interconnectedness is enshrined within numerous Puranic traditions, which often depict the divine favouring the humility of local bards and artisans over the intellectual pride of learned scholars. This recurring motif serves as a powerful reminder of the inherent inclusivity and interconnectedness at the heart of Indian culture.

The IKS framework seeks to reclaim this understanding, challenging the colonial historiographical lens that artificially fragmented Indian culture into discrete and hierarchical entities. By emphasising the fluidity and mutual influence between diverse knowledge systems, IKS paves the way for a more nuanced and holistic appreciation of India's intellectual heritage.

The article in Science also shows the need for caution. IKS does not have the luxury of even mistakenly allowing pseudo-histories or pseudo-sciences in the curriculum. The disturbing trend of Indian right-wing inching towards 'Intelligent Design,' the propensity to embrace exaggerated claims in history, a tendency to justify the caste system as indigenous knowledge etc. can cause immense damage to a novel and noble endeavour like the IKS.

IKS also has the ability to democratise traditional knowledge which is often encapsulated into hereditary occupational communities called Jatis. On 12 October 2024, IKS announced a scheme called Vidvan.

The communication reads:

One can only Imagine the transformative potential unleashed by effectively linking the IKS Vidvan initiative with Prime Minister Modi's visionary Viswakarma scheme. This synergy can create a powerful conduit, channelling the invaluable knowledge of traditional artisans into the halls of academia.

Picture a vibrant exchange where the wisdom of carpenters, sculptors, potters, and countless other artisans enriches students’ learning while academics gain a deeper appreciation for the embodied knowledge embedded within these time-honoured crafts.

The Viswakarma scheme, with its comprehensive database of skilled artisans, provides the perfect platform for facilitating this exchange. A revolutionary educational paradigm can emerge by forging a partnership between the Ministry of Education's IKS initiative and the Viswakarma scheme, facilitated through the Vidvan program.

This model, grounded in indigenous worldviews, epistemological pluralism, and the diverse skills of artisan communities, holds the potential to not only revitalise India's educational landscape but also inspire developing nations across the globe. It offers a beacon of hope for preserving and celebrating indigenous knowledge systems, even within the Western world, where such traditions are increasingly endangered.

This is the promise of IKS: a bold vision for an education that honours the past, embraces the present and empowers the future. It is a testament to the enduring wisdom of India, a gift to the world, and a legacy for generations to come.