close logo

Indian Knowledge Systems – A Vision


In the past decade, ‘Indian Knowledge Systems’ is re-emerging into the mainstream of national discourse. This resurgence is part of the larger renaissance in Bharat. The ancient civilization is gradually claiming its natural flow towards the future. This renaissance is unfolding in many ways. Mainstreaming of ‘Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS)’ is one such flow.

This article is focused on

  • characterising the paradigm of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) essential to imagine a future
  • taking stock of the nature of IKS decline
  • characterising this reappearance of IKS onto the national mainstream
  • establishing the relevance of IKS in the immediate and the long run
  • understanding challenges to IKS posed by Contemporary Knowledge Systems (CKS) shaped by Modernity (Liberal Atheism), Industrial Revolution and Colonialism
  • crafting a vision/charter for IKS that factors in this flow in time and the challenges

Towards the end, the article briefly characterises and summarises what IKS is. It also presents a summarised history of the last 800 years from the IKS stand-point – for beginners to understand why we are where we are, with respect to IKS.

The paradigm of IKS

This section calls out the paradigm of IKS and some of its foundational elements in a short summary. This clarity and understanding is necessary for us to build a sustainable future for IKS. A full-pledged paper is necessary for us to understand challenges posed as a consequence of the paradigm itself.

The term “Indian Knowledge Systems,” or IKS, is relatively new, but its roots trace back to ancient times. Essentially, IKS embodies Bharateeya Janna Parampara or Bharateeya Jnana Vahini. It encompasses a wealth of knowledge that originated in Bharat and has influenced every aspect of its existence over thousands of years. At its core, IKS provides individuals with a purpose of life grounded in timeless truths. Moreover, it organises intellectual, material and civilisational pursuits that align with this purpose of life.

This organisation led to the development of numerous disciplines, each known as a Shaastra. What distinguished these disciplines was their harmonious integration of Vedic, classical, and folk knowledge, addressing various human concerns while prioritising the advancement of knowledge. Moreover, the civilization’s distinctive approach to nurturing each discipline through commentaries, annotations, and discussions ensured a thorough understanding deeply rooted in its culture and traditions. Consequently, disciplines like Tarka Shaastra and Nyaaya Shaastra emerged as vast realms encompassing multiple texts across different dimensions. Despite this vast diversity within IKS, certain commonalities were evident across these Shaastras.

  • All knowledge within IKS was aimed at achieving a singular ‘purpose of life,’ known as ‘Purushartha.’
  • IKS Shaastras developed specific methods of knowledge representation aligned with the essence of life’s fundamental truths and the pursuit of Purushartha. The use of ‘Sutra’ as a paradigm for knowledge representation was one such common method.
  • IKS knowledge flourished in three dimensions: Textual, Performative, and Embodiment. Notably, the Textual dimension expanded through practice, performance, and embodiment. Therefore, the knowledge generated by IKS inherently leaned towards performance and embodiment. In many ways, our entire culture can be seen as a compilation of performative traditions collectively striving towards Purushartha.
  • The transmission and preservation of IKS knowledge occurred through an active Guru Parampara, which bore the responsibility of safeguarding, preserving, and promoting our Jnana Parampara. It’s hard to overstate the significance of this Parampara, as it remained the central feature of our civilization for millennia.

To sum up, IKS Shaastras flourished in both the material and spiritual domains while remaining true to the foundational purpose of life and primordial truth. In the subsequent sections, the article calls out specific challenges with respect to each of these elements. However, contemporary IKS will have to encompass additional dimensions due to two significant developments of the last 300 years.

  • The significant knowledge advancements made by the West following the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, along with the widespread influence of Colonialism, have had a profound impact on the world. We can refer to this paradigm as Contemporary Knowledge Systems (CKS) that dominates all spheres of life.
  • Simultaneously, there has been an ideological assault on IKS, spearheaded by Liberal Atheism. This worldview, which shaped Modernity and the Industrial Revolution, actively seeks to undermine and marginalise IKS. Through various manifestations, Liberal Atheism aims to discredit and even eradicate IKS. Over the decades, it has succeeded in establishing an elite in Bharat and elsewhere that disregards IKS entirely, relegating it to the sidelines.

The future of IKS depends on what it has within which has the ability to deal with the dominance of CKS and assault of Liberal Atheism.

Characterising the decline of IKS

As we seek to build a future for IKS, it is necessary to understand the nature of its decline over the years and the resulting challenges.

A lineage that had evolved over centuries faced its first disruption after the 1200s due to the Turkish invasions in the North. This invasion was primarily military and political, posing no direct challenge to the cultural or intellectual aspects of IKS. However, the practice and propagation of IKS slowed down. Its evolution completely halted in certain domains and regions.

Subsequently, British colonialism, starting in the 1800s, further marginalised IKS – a deliberate, active and calculated pursuit. In many regions and domains, IKS was altogether uprooted. Gradually, our traditional education system, which was highly decentralised and community-managed, was dismantled and replaced with a system aimed at producing individuals with a British mindset. At the same time, during this period, the West was rapidly advancing its Knowledge Systems based on entirely different foundational principles. In particular, it assumed enormous power through the progress in physical sciences.

This multidimensional development caused the following

  • loss of native knowledge material, practitioners and their embodiment
  • loss of communities that once practised and contributed to material IKS knowledge
  • loss of the opportunity to evolve while incorporating valuable knowledge from the West
  • destruction of a unique ecosystem – built by IKS for IKS
  • weakening and marginalisation of the Guru-Parampara, which played a crucial role in shaping generations and transmitting knowledge.
  • departure from the holistic approach to knowledge cherished in Bharateeya Parampara
  • weakening of the very perspective of life – the Purushartha perspective
    • Moksha – the pursuit and the sacred practices, was reduced to mere idea and unreal
    • Dharma was erroneously equated with Religion, and confined to the private spheres of our homes.

As a result, our society started aligning itself with the knowledge system and life goals of another civilization. Liberal Atheism began to fill the void left by Purushartha in both societal/civilizational and individual realms. CKS became the default paradigm in all aspects of life. Our nation lost its self-assurance, and individuals lost their vitality.

It is essential to keep the above factors in mind for an IKS renaissance.

Characterising the reappearance of IKS

A societal unease was in the making, nevertheless. Despite the strong influence of Contemporary Knowledge Systems (CKS), an entire civilization cannot be completely swept away – however strong the wave is. The segment of society still rooted in Purushartha and hence Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) has increasingly demanded a shift in the knowledge and education landscape. Additionally, a portion of the Indian educated elite, previously focused solely on CKS, began to recognize the validity of our civilizational experiences and wisdom. Thus, began the reappearance of IKS – to reintroduce IKS into the national discourse and shape a future on our own terms.

This reappearance of IKS, of course, is just a small step of a very long journey. IKS is not mainstream yet. It has merely earned a seat to be heard. It still has a long way to go. Given the enormous progress Contemporary Knowledge Systems (CKS) has made, it will take a few years for IKS to reshape itself, present adequately and demonstrate utility. If it does not deliver, the negative history will repeat. But that seems unlikely. This time we have a huge number of champions in the country with absolute clarity on what sustainable value IKS brings to the table even in the formidable presence of CKS. Further, our champions understand CKS i.e., western knowledge systems, modern institutions, their paradigm and their pitfalls. They also understand the Liberal Atheist i.e., Left Liberal Secular ecosystem, their antagonism and instrumenting abilities – we are better geared up to protect what we propose.

In this midst, it’s crucial to assess and recognize the progress made in mainstreaming Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS). Despite the journey ahead, significant milestones have been achieved.

  • Firstly, IKS is now an officially recognized term, formalised by the Government of India in various policy documents, including the National Education Framework and National Education Policy. This formal recognition lends it credibility and influence, particularly in governmental and educational institutions.
  • Moreover, dedicated IKS Departments/Divisions/CoEs/Programs are gaining traction in prestigious institutions like IITs and several other universities and colleges. This inclusion signifies a growing acceptance and prioritisation of IKS within academia.
  • Additionally, IKS is increasingly integrated into governmental and institutional initiatives, shaping policy-making, programs, workshops, and various educational endeavours. The outcomes of these engagements reflect the rising importance of IKS among decision-makers and educators.
  • Furthermore, non-governmental organisations are playing a crucial role in raising awareness about IKS through conferences, symposiums, publications, courses, and discussions. Institutions like INDICA are leading the charge in this regard, often outpacing government action. Their efforts, documented and available in consumable forms online, contribute significantly to increasing awareness and appreciation of IKS in society.
  • Finally, a considerable number of scholars, intellectuals, and cultural figures are actively championing the cause of IKS, bringing visibility and credibility to the movement. New generations of IKS scholars, well-versed in both IKS and Contemporary Knowledge Systems (CKS), are emerging, offering fresh perspectives and narratives accessible to contemporary audiences. This ground-level innovation is driving effective progress in mainstreaming IKS.

However, it’s important to recognize that the mainstreaming of IKS is only partial. The destination remains unclear, and the journey ahead requires greater clarity. It’s akin to embarking on a journey where roads need to be built, trees need to be planted, and people need to be guided through unfamiliar terrain. There are numerous challenges, both in terms of understanding and resolution, across various dimensions such as ontology, epistemology, intellect, and institutions, which remain insufficiently addressed.

  • IKS is yet to fully integrate into mainstream education. While it’s now being considered, it’s still on the periphery, available as elective or curiosity subjects. It’s more about exploration than transformation, application, or evolution.
  • In modern education and institutions, IKS isn’t yet shaping or producing significant outcomes. It hasn’t become the foundational knowledge system in any institution, operating more as isolated entities, visible but not fully integrated.
  • One big challenge is how IKS aligns with Contemporary Knowledge Systems (CKS), which currently dominate. This is a complex issue, crucial for IKS’s success. While CKS excels in the material realm and will remain mainstream in the foreseeable future, IKS’s synthesis with it remains unclear.
  • Furthermore, IKS lacks a unified narrative by its proponents. It means different things to different people and lacks a consistent, universally accepted articulation. Its contemporary expression is still evolving, with work in progress to define its relevance for human beings and civilizations today.
  • Ironically, despite an intuitive sense of its importance, IKS has yet to capture the imagination of society at large. This underscores the challenges ahead despite its evident need perceived by the very same society in unstated ways.

Contemporary Knowledge Systems continue to shape material life and civilization design. In addition, CKS continues to be a roadblock for the core pursuit of IKS – Chaturvidha Purushartha. It continues to restrict spiritual life – the transcendence and the pursuit of Moksha. It continues to problematise Dharma and make it inaccessible intellectually and emotionally. IKS has merely got an opportunity to come out of the woods and wave its hands in front of speeding cars on a road paved by the western civilization over the ruins of Indian Knowledge Systems.

The saving grace is there is a substantial movement in favour of IKS. We are making steady progress on all these fronts. We should see light at the end of the tunnel sooner than later. This note is a part of that movement.

Establishing the relevance of IKS

As we continue to progress, it’s important to address some basic questions. These questions can help create a clear and understandable narrative for the broader society, which will further propel the IKS movement forward.

  1. Why should we study IKS? Why should we bring it back to the civilizational mainstream?
  2. Given our civilization’s historical setbacks, is reviving IKS necessary, considering that many deem it to have lost relevance? Our ‘comprehensive civilizational, material, political defeat’ post 18th century, as many call it, transpired while being anchored on IKS. Does that not mean IKS has a comprehensive defeat of IKS into irrelevance?
  3. Is anything in IKS still relevant in the 21st Century when we have moved away from it in the last 300 years towards CKS? Has not CKS delivered material value way ahead of anything that IKS ever has?
  4. How can a Knowledge System that evolved in the pre-industrial era be relevant in the post Industrial era? How can a knowledge system from the past remain useful in our modern era?
  5. Leaving all that aside – What are the life goals according to IKS, and how do they relate to universal truths? What is the Ultimate Truth in IKS from which its goals are derived? Does that carry any relevance in the 21st century?
  6. If these goals are still relevant, what obstacles stand in our way, and how can we overcome them?

Regarding these questions, there is a degree of shared understanding among IKS Scholars, although it may not have been presented in modern terms for wider understanding. Various spiritual and knowledge traditions in India have extensively addressed these questions. Initially, these responses may seem disparate, lacking common foundational principles. However, there is an underlying unity in terms of ontology and epistemology. When these perspectives are integrated, they converge on common foundational principles. This convergence is gradually being expressed in modern language and will likely become more evident in the future.

Questions 1 and 5 are pivotal and require immediate attention. A simplified summary response to these questions is as follows:

(A)  We must study IKS because it provides a well-established wisdom and framework for the well-being of all beings through Purushartha (Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha). Here’s why:

(a) It provides the best framework for individuals to pursue their goals in harmony with others.

(b) It offers effective civilization design frameworks for individuals to pursue happiness, health, and for humanity to achieve harmony.

(c) It lays down philosophical foundations for valued civilizational features such as diversity, sustainability, and autonomy, without conflicting with unity.

(d) It ensures sustainable human liberty and individual freedom without encroaching upon the rights of others.

(e) It offers the best aesthetics philosophy and the most diverse human experience framework.

(f) It prevents any crisis of meaning or existential crisis.

(B)  In IKS, Parabrahman stands as the ultimate Truth. It forms the foundation of Purushartha pursuit, which serves as the individual’s connection to Parabrahman. Pursuing Moksha leads to the merging of the Self with Parabrahman.

This ultimate Truth holds significance for both individuals and civilizations. The pursuit of Moksha guides individuals towards a sustainable, joyful, and naturally limited pursuit of Artha and Kama. It establishes the concept of Dharma, enabling individuals to realise a balanced Artha-Kama pursuit. Moreover, it provides a framework for society to organise life and build a civilization that fosters the pursuit of Purushartha to the fullest extent.

While CKS excels in material productivity, it lacks built-in restraints. CKS inherently fosters conflicts, a dimension not thoroughly understood but experienced regularly. Effectively characterising and explaining this aspect requires the lens of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS).

With this understanding, answering questions 2, 3, and 4 becomes simpler. Our setback wasn’t a loss of our knowledge system itself. Its core principles remain valid and significant. It was primarily a contextual defeat in military and political terms. While this defeat brings certain challenges, it doesn’t mean we should discard our entire knowledge system. Instead, we should strive to create a harmonious coexistence of both Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) and Contemporary Knowledge Systems (CKS), on our terms, as we rebuild our civilization.

IKS in the world of CKS

We have three choices to imagine the co-existence of IKS and CKS. None of this is easy. They are hard choices and making course corrections later is not easy either. The approach we take must not only be thought through, it requires reimagination of the very scale of crafting a new knowledge system.

  1. Integrate IKS into CKS: Embrace CKS as the primary civilizational framework and incorporate IKS into it. This approach charts a new course for CKS, enriched by Bharateeya values.
  1. Integrate CKS into IKS: Alternatively, prioritise IKS as the primary civilizational framework and integrate CKS into it. This aligns with the natural course of Bharatiya Civilization, bolstered materially by CKS. IKS serves as the guiding framework, regulating the utilisation of Modern Science and Technology.
  1. Keep IKS and CKS as mutually engaging parallel streams: Maintain both IKS and CKS as separate but equally vibrant streams. Foster engagement between them and adjust the course of action based on ongoing deliberations and insights.

Option A is both impractical and incompatible. CKS, rooted in Liberal Atheism, inherently conflicts with IKS and holds a predatory stance toward it. While it may seem like we’re leaning towards Option C, our ultimate aim should be Option B. Traditional IKS should serve as the primary knowledge framework, supplemented by two additional dimensions.

  • Integrating CKS into IKS seamlessly to create a unified body of knowledge.
  • Managing the predatory nature of CKS while incorporating it within the framework of IKS.

The fact that the Industrial Revolution took place in Europe, not in India, has significantly burdened the mindset of modern Indians. However, this sense of inferiority is unnecessary. It seems to have deepened in us as a consequence of post-independence education. It is remarkable how Bharata Ratna CV Raman and Sir JC Bose did not succumb to this feeling of inferiority in the pre-independence era. They embraced Modern Science while staying rooted in their Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS), finding no conflict between the two. Therefore, we should move forward confidently, drawing inspiration from the numerous possibilities available to us. Apart from the ones already presented, here are some more possibilities

  • IKS provides a superior framework for humanities to tackle the pressing issues of Diversity, Sustainability, and Harmony, which have only become more pronounced in our modern Industrial era. In contrast, CKS has failed to effectively address these challenges despite promising otherwise for decades.
  • Key disciplines of IKS, such as Nyaya, Yoga, Sankhya, and Vedanta, remain relevant not only for today but for all times.
  • There is potential for subjects such as Vaisheshika to once again influence modern material ideologies.
  • The Ashtadhyayi continues to captivate the modern fields of computation and linguistics, showcasing the enduring relevance of ancient Indian knowledge.
  • Furthermore, there may be countless other ideas within IKS that could revolutionise various fields within CKS, much like how the organisation of the Sanskrit alphabet influenced Mendeleev in creating the Periodic Table.
  • Agni Purana offers a totally different Taxonomic perspective which may enhance modern classifications in several disciplines. It may offer us a Dictionary of IKS Concepts that builds an engagement with corresponding CKS disciplines for IKS.

Many prominent figures in the field of IKS are already addressing these challenges and exploring other such possibilities.

Understanding Challenges to IKS

While we’ve begun our journey into IKS, we’re still far from achieving significant outcomes. The article has already briefly mentioned some of the challenges we face. Here is a re-iteration and elaboration of some of these challenges that are specific to IKS. It is crucial to overcome for the renaissance we aspire to achieve.

  • The collapse of Guru Parampara and Communities, a distinctive way of life that facilitated the pursuit and embodiment of Purushartha, has been a significant loss. Colonialism disrupted our functional communities, leading to a disintegration of both our material and spiritual aspects of life. In simpler terms, the structured way of life that was crucial for creating, practising, and preserving IKS through real-life embodiment has vanished. How do we recreate that ecosystem that fosters IKS? Should creating that ecosystem itself be one of the objectives of IKS?
  • Modernity, which is a tangible expression of Liberal Atheism, continues to hold significant influence in various institutions, pulling younger generations away from their cultural heritage. It has complicated many aspects of our past and present, leaving us feeling inferior and emotionally paralyzed. As a result, we struggle to tap into our ancient wisdom. This has been achieved through the establishment of an intellectual and cultural framework rooted in Liberal Atheism, which creates narratives that distance us from our own culture and knowledge. This framework, often seen in Modern Humanities, dominates many institutions today. Overcoming this cultural divide created by Liberal Atheism, Modernity and Modern Humanities remains a challenge for IKS, as our efforts largely operate outside this influential framework.
  • The influence of the Modern Industrial Dynamic, shaped by Modern Science and Technology, is profound. Stemming from the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment, it primarily focuses on material pursuits, neglecting considerations of Dharma and Moksha. This dominance of materialism has made it increasingly challenging to prioritise the pursuit of Purushartha. How can we elevate a knowledge system to prominence when the cornerstone of modern society, the Industry, operates within a cultural framework that conflicts with it?
  • As mentioned earlier, Modernity has made Moksha a suspect and Dharma distorted into religion. With Artha-Kama being the only pursuit, it has reduced the society to being a collection of lonely individuals, hindering the development of Shraddhaa in the pursuit of Purushartha. Instead, it compels us to focus solely on material and pleasure-driven pursuits. The Modern Industrial Dynamic creates instruments for Modernity to perpetuate these pursuits, creating a self-reinforcing loop between Modernity and the Industrial system. How do we reconfigure this universe to access knowledge that operates in the paradigm of Dharma and pursues Moksha?
  • At its core, understanding Parabrahman necessitates access to our ancient texts, which modern education has hindered both physically and psychologically. Furthermore, it entails a cultural environment that fosters practices and performances cultivating a sense of Shraddhaa towards Parabrahman, Moksha, and Dharma—concepts that modern education vehemently opposes.
  • Knowledge in IKS was spread across the text, practise/experience and embodiment. It was not necessary for all knowledge to be textualized. The text knew to honour the other two dimensions and vice-versa. How does such a paradigm sit alongside another where the text is supreme? How can a knowledge paradigm that is anchored on ‘Sutra’ engage with one that primed ‘model making’?
  • Given these challenges, we currently lack the ability to construct a material civilization that simultaneously promotes the pursuit of Moksha guided by Dharma without causing cultural conflict. At the same time, we are also unable to engage with and reshape Contemporary Knowledge Systems through our philosophical frameworks.

Hence, the challenge facing our knowledge system lies in the practical realities where an opposing and predatory knowledge system is flourishing both in abstract and real terms. Our lives are still not fully our own yet. Moreover, expansionist and exclusivist ideologies or religions exploit the space created by this dynamic. Therefore, any vision for Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) must take into account these factors and actively work to address them.

Indian Knowledge Systems – a Vision and a Charter

In light of these challenges, here is one formulation of an Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) Vision and Charter. This needs a reflection at two levels: a conceptual and epistemological level that is universal, and in practical terms within every context and domain of all Indian communities, which have been rooted in IKS for millennia.

The mainstream of IKS must:

  • Root itself in the Chaturvidha Purushartha and empower individuals to pursue these goals within their own context.
  • Reestablish and facilitate access to the knowledge of Parabrahman for all sections of society.
  • Actively Construct an Explanatory Plane grounded in Purushartha, which:
    • Authentically explains our civilization to ourselves.
    • Cultivates a deeper understanding of other civilizations from our perspective.
  • Undertake the Restoration and Reconstruction of our State and Society in a paradigm that enables individuals to pursue Purushartha. IKS must front-end the identifying, conceptualising, and striving for this reconstruction and revitalization.
  • Harmonize Contemporary Knowledge Systems (CKS), including Science and Technology, through the lens of Purushartha towards Parabrahman. This entails integrating CKS with IKS by employing distinct viewpoints, tools, and instruments, with the ultimate aim being the broader umbrella of IKS, where CKS finds its appropriate place.
  • Reimagine Guru-Parampara and the Embodiment of Knowledge within this harmonised universe of CKS/IKS. This involves creating, preserving, and transmitting knowledge on our terms, anchored in a knowledge paradigm essential for IKS.

Each of these must serve specific functions.

  • The Explanatory Plane must contribute to preserving and protecting ourselves by actively countering worldviews shaped by Liberal Atheism. Essentially, it should reconstruct Social Sciences and Humanities from our perspective. This includes delving into:
    • The metaphysics, design, and operational mechanics of Indian communities.
    • Critiquing Liberalism from the Bharateeya worldview, contrasting the bharateeya value of universal exclusivity with liberalism’s university equality
  • The Explanatory Plane should also facilitate our meaningful promotion without resorting to proselytising or propaganda. Essentially, it should cultivate a ‘Bharateeya Lens’ through which we can explain the rest of the world and other civilizations effectively, both for ourselves and for others.
    • Frameworks such as Purushartha, Srishti-Sthiti-Laya, Panchakosha, Ashtanga Yoga, Rta, Rna, etc., can serve as effective explanatory tools for understanding civilizations on our own terms, in addition to benefiting individuals on their life journeys.
  • The harmonisation between IKS and CKS should facilitate the reconstruction of what is broken and the creation of a new future (NAVA – SRISHTI).
    • Reimagining communities: Dharma necessitates the organisation of life within communities. Given our advanced individuality and industrial dynamics, we must envision a different future for our communities through the harmonisation of IKS and CKS and initiate this reconstruction.
    • Reimagining the State: The State, with its policy frameworks and engine, will remain the primary driving force in the CKS paradigm. IKS must begin to integrate itself into this realm to align these frameworks with pursuits of Purushartha.
    • Technology with Dharma: Disciplines like IKS Maths and other sciences, which were halted centuries ago, should now engage with their CKS counterparts to chart a new path for modern science, engineering, and technology. IKS must strive to reconfigure modern technology whose production, object experience and outcomes are intrinsically Dharmic.
    • Harmonious Experiences: Experience design disciplines within CKS should draw influence from IKS subjects like Natyashastra to offer more harmonious material experiences.
  • The harmonisation of IKS and CKS must help us reconfigure the current world to create a more harmonious, healthy, and happy universe where diversity, liberty, and autonomy are achieved within the limits of eternal sustainability. This necessitates three crucial reconfigurations at minimum:
    • Developing an industrial culture and human resources development program that aligns with IKS principles.
    • Designing institutions based on the IKS worldview.
    • Establishing a governance framework and state structure that are compliant with IKS principles.

The success of IKS depends on its ability to steer humanity toward a different path in both the material and spiritual realms. Therefore, reconstruction and reconfiguration, or NAVA SRISHTI, are crucial. However, achieving this in isolation is not feasible. We must not only preserve and protect IKS but also promote it globally, making Dharma promotion crucial. Thus, we have a new framework: Preserve, Protect, Promote, Reconstruct, and Reconfigure. This outlines the opportunity space for Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS).

We have a significant opportunity to develop frameworks and building blocks derived from IKS that form a knowledge framework that is on par with CKS. CKS may be materially ahead. But IKS does have the potential to be a superior knowledge framework enveloping CKS and guiding it in new directions. It’s essential that we seize this opportunity sooner rather than later. Our current situation presents both challenges and opportunities, marking it as a pivotal moment for us. In essence, we are experiencing the worst of times alongside the best of times.

Feature Image Credit:

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.