Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has renewed attention to Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) by advocating a more culturally grounded, multidisciplinary and research-oriented education system. Its promise, however, cannot be assessed simply by counting courses or celebrating selected historical achievements. This article critically examines the policy architecture for Indian Knowledge Systems in higher education, with particular attention to the relationship between curricular inclusion, epistemic plurality, academic rigour and social justice. Using a qualitative documentary and interpretive approach, it analyses NEP 2020, the University Grants Commission’s 2023 guidelines on incorporating Indian knowledge in higher education curricula, faculty-orientation guidance and relevant scholarship. The analysis identifies significant opportunities: recovering neglected intellectual histories, strengthening Indian-language scholarship, connecting disciplinary learning with local contexts, and building research around knowledge traditions in areas such as mathematics, ecology, medicine, architecture, agriculture and the arts. At the same time, it highlights risks of tokenism, romanticisation, selective canon formation, weak evidentiary standards, inadequate faculty preparation and the marginalisation of communities whose knowledge is often transmitted orally. The article argues that meaningful integration requires neither uncritical revivalism nor wholesale rejection. It calls for a plural, evidence-sensitive and socially accountable approach in which inherited knowledge is studied historically, tested where empirical claims are made, debated across disciplines and developed in partnership with its knowledge holders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gautam et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: