A
bird’s-eye view of possibilities and challenges.
In today’s knowledge-driven economies, access to quality education and the chances for development are two sides of the same coin”, said Borge Brinde (2015), President of the World Economic Forum[1]. He also said, “Today’s students need ‘twenty-first-century skills’, like critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, and digital literacy. Learners of all ages must become familiar with new technologies and cope with rapidly changing workplaces”.
Quoting an OECD report, he said that “providing a child with access to education and the skills needed to participate fully in society would boost gross domestic product (GDP) by an average 28% per year in lower-income countries … for the next 80 years”. It thus became a must for governments to design constructive ways to improve the quality of education and, importantly, make it accessible to everyone.
Amidst these hard realities, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was formulated keeping in view the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations Organization. It focused on the importance of developing cognitive abilities such as problem-solving and critical thinking among the students. It also stressed the importance of lifelong learning and offered the facility for multiple entry-exit to enable students to complete the degree at any stage of their life.
This policy, which has “the rich heritage of ancient and eternal Indian knowledge and thought” as its “guiding light”, replaced the 34-year-old National Policy on Education of 1986. It also desires that “these [our] rich legacies to world heritage must be nurtured and preserved for posterity and researched, enhanced and put to new uses through our education system”.
Thus, ever since the NEP 2020 was introduced Indian Knowledge System (IKS) has become the focal point of discussion among academia. Like any other civilization in the world, our civilization too had a rich history of cultivating knowledge: In Srimad Bhagavad Gītā, Lord Krishna says knowledge is the great purifier and liberator of the self (4. 33, 37, 38).
The Harappan civilization distinguished itself with technological development that was necessary for urbanization. It had brick-built houses, grid pattern of roads, drainage system, granaries, etc. The Vedic age that succeeded Harappan civilization gave birth to great literature: Vedas, Vedanga, Upanishads, Vedanta, Puranas, etc. All these texts were composed mnemonically and stored and maintained in the mind, and transmitted orally.
The notable advances in science in ancient India, however, happened in the post-Vedic period: Susruta and Charaka laid the foundations for medical sciences; Panini formalized Sanskrit grammar; Bhrigu and Parashara developed astrology; and Kautilya made significant contributions to the political organization of society.
Later zero and place value system of writing numbers were introduced in the 2nd-3rd century CE. Following these inventions, mathematics advanced by leaps and bounds. Aryabhata, Varahamihira, Brahmagupta, Sridhara, Bhaskara-II made seminal contributions to arithmetic, algebra, and trigonometry. Steelmaking was mastered later. Sadly, this progress in science, however, started declining after the 9th century and it almost became nil after the 11th century.
Now the question is: Can we teach calculus from Aryabhatta’s writings, algebra and trigonometry from Brahma-gupta’s works, and spherical geometry and positional astronomy from Bhaskaracharya’s texts? Can we integrate medical knowledge of Charaka and Susruta into modern medicine? Can Panini’s linguistics and Kautilya’s economics be woven into today’s academic curricula?
A probable answer to these questions is, of course, a qualified but definitive ‘Yes’. For instance, Brahmagupta’s Brāhmasphuta siddhānta contains lucid descriptions of algebraic concepts, including solutions to linear and quadratic equations, rules for arithmetic operations with zero and negative numbers; rules for working with fractions and series, etc.
However, teaching from these ancient texts poses many challenges. Brahmagupta wrote all this in classical Sanskrit verse, using terminology and symbolism that differ markedly from modern algebraic notations. Indeed, he described operations verbally rather than symbolically. They do not provide step-by-step proofs or worked examples as is standard in modern pedagogy, for these texts were written for learned audiences.
So, effective teaching of algebra or any branch of mathematics from Brahmagupta’s writings calls for careful translation, adaptation to modern notation, and thoughtful contextualization for today’s learners. The same holds true for the Śulbasūtras, which offer detailed geometric rules for constructing fire altars with precise right angles, directly applying the modern Pythagorean theorem. Likewise, texts by Aryabhata, Bhaskara, Varahamihira, etc., also call for a similarly nuanced approach.
Effective pedagogy, therefore, is a must. Faculty must design methods that bridge ancient expression with modern understanding. This calls for both the ingenuity of faculty and a deep appreciation of the original text’s context and intent.
Here, it is pertinent to appreciate the argument put forward by some of the teachers. They say that man’s scientific understanding of nature and society has advanced so significantly since the Vedic era that revisiting these ancient texts for instructional purposes may offer limited pedagogical value. While this is a valid concern, it need not negate the cultural and historical significance of these works. Exposing students to their intellectual heritage can deepen their sense of identity and foster a richer cultural appreciation.
That said, a key question remains: Would such integration place an undue burden on today’s students? Pandits argue that, if taught effectively and with the right pedagogical approach, these ancient Sanskrit texts could actually enhance critical thinking among students—moving beyond rote memorization toward deeper intellectual engagement. Still, much depends on the capability and preparation of the teaching community.
It is in order here to take note that most of these texts are in Sanskrit—a language that very few of today’s academicians understand well enough to use them as source material for effective teaching. Secondly, most of these texts are in the form of Sutras (aphorisms). While Sutras are renowned for their richness, depth, and brevity, their interpretation is likely to pose a significant challenge for today’s teachers who may lack an understanding of the historical and cultural context under which they were composed.
Furthermore, once these texts are translated, it becomes essential for educational technologists and subject faculty to collaboarte in developing appropriate pedagogical approaches to facilitate effective teaching and learning. In this context, it becomes necessary to recall the observation made by Thankamma Thankachan et al. (2010) in their paper, “Managing Shortage of Teaching Faculty for Technical Education in India”. They assert that teaching faculty are the “pivot around which the whole teaching and learning process revolves in an educational institution”, and that “shortage of quality faculty is currently acknowledged as the most critical problem”.
In contrast, integrating Vedic philosophy, ethics, values, Sanskrit Kāvya literature, Panini’s grammar, etc., into liberal arts education presents fewer obstacles, for much of this material is already available in English and various other Indian languages. There is also a better understanding of these classics among the learned. Panini’s grammar with its formal rules and meta-rules has played a significant foundational role in the development of formal language theory, which is integral to computer languages, compilers, and natural language processing. Indeed, scholars like Noam Chomsky have acknowledged Panini’s influence on formal language theory. Inclusion of Sanskrit literature enriches contemporary liberal arts curricula.
Here, it is pertinent to take note of an interesting controversy sparked by the Union Health Ministry’s announcement to launch an “Ayurveda-allopathy integrated MBBS course” at JIPMER, Puducherry, with the aim of “broaden [ing] perspectives in holistic medicine”. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) raised strong objections, arguing that Ayurveda and allopathy are fundamentally different systems with “conflicting diagnostic and treatment approaches”. They contend that these differences make forced integration problematic, even though NEP 2020 encourages interdisciplinarity in education. So, the IMA argues for the parallel development of both systems, with mutual respect for their internal coherence and integrity.
One of the central concerns raised by the medical fraternity is the lack of standardization and scientific validation in Ayurvedic medicines and practices. Integrating Ayurveda with modern medicine, without rigorous clinical research and regulation, could pose risks in terms of efficacy and safety. Theoretical complexity, limited access to experienced practitioners of Ayurveda, and language barriers, especially with Sanskrit texts of Ayurveda, make its learning more challenging. Additionally, such integration might lead to cognitive dissonance among students and practitioners who are expected to reconcile fundamentally different approaches to diagnosis, treatment, and patient care. Looking at all these incompatibilities, there seems to be some merit in the IMA’s request to reconsider the government’s proposed plan for an integrated medical course, which they have termed a “regressive step”.
Interestingly, a historical parallel can be drawn here from the 19th century. During the time of Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar—educator and social reformer—mathematics in Indian schools was taught using Bhaskaracharya’s Līlāvatī and Bijaganita. Recognizing that this approach was limiting students’ exposure to modern mathematical concepts and methodologies, rendering them weak in the subject, Vidyasagar introduced contemporary textbooks[2] to align the teaching of mathematics with the needs of a modernizing society.
In light of these considerations, a more balanced conclusion could be: IKS have immense historical and cultural significance and can be highly enriching when introduced as part of a history or philosophy of science curriculum. Rather than serving as primary source material for technical or clinical education, they may be better positioned to help students appreciate the evaluation of scientific thought in India and its global contributions. Such an approach would preserve their educational value while avoiding the pitfalls of premature integration into modern scientific teaching.
To sum up, let us bear in mind that Newton was responsible for much of classical mechanics, and yet, we are not using his Principia Mathematica to teach mechanics to
students.
