Indian Knowledge Systems as an Antidote to Cultural Conditioning and Conceptual Impurity

    The ongoing cultural movement in India and beyond, known as the Indian Knowledge System (IKS), is gaining significant momentum. Scholars describe it as a movement toward the decolonization of the mind, arguing that although India has achieved physical and geographical independence from British rule, its intellectual traditions remain influenced by British imperialism. Similarly, cultural analyses often fail because they continue to examine Indian culture and knowledge systems from an implicit colonial perspective. Many private and public organizations have enthusiastically engaged in this cultural project, aiming to reclaim India's intellectual traditions on its own terms. However, the challenge is not merely about reclaiming indigenous knowledge but also about understanding its structure and significance without imposing external categories that distort its essence. One of the fundamental challenges this movement faces is that India has been subject to foreign rule for centuries—first by the Mughals, followed by the British. These foreign influences have not only governed India politically but have also contributed to structural and value-based transformations in Indian society. This process, known as cultural conditioning, poses a threat to what can be termed Swaraj in ideas—a concept referring to intellectual self-rule, where India defines its ideas, values, and approaches without external interference. Cultural conditioning operates in subtle ways, shaping perceptions of history, philosophy, and even the very framework through which Indian traditions are studied. A critical aspect of this problem is the way Indian philosophy and thought have been interpreted through Western categories, such as ontology (study of being), epistemology (study of knowledge), and axiology (study of values). While these categories provide useful analytical tools, they are often inadequate for understanding Indian traditions, as they impose an external framework that does not fully capture the indigenous nuances of Indian knowledge.

      A particularly striking example of this conceptual distortion occurs in the translation of the term ‘dharma’. If ‘dharma’ is translated as religion or morality, its comprehensive nature is lost. The concept of ‘religion’ in Western thought typically includes specific attributes such as a sacred text, a central divine figure, and places of worship. However, dharma in Indian tradition is far broader, encompassing ethical, social, and cosmic order, without being confined to these structural elements. Similarly, equating Dharma with morality limits its meaning, as morality refers primarily to ethical principles, whereas Dharma includes duties, cosmic law, and societal responsibilities. When such translations occur, they not only narrow the original meaning but also alter the philosophical foundations upon which these concepts rest. The issue is not just linguistic but deeply conceptual, affecting how Indian thought is presented both within India and globally. The solution is not novel—it is already embedded within Indian traditions. To introduce the Indian Knowledge System (IKS) effectively, one could draw upon Kautilya’s fourfold classification of knowledge, as outlined in the Arthashastra. The first category, trayi, refers to the knowledge of the three Vedas (Rigveda, Yajurveda, and Samaveda). It represents the traditional foundation of knowledge, including rituals, metaphysics, ethics, and theology. The related literature consists of the Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads, which form the bedrock of Indian intellectual and spiritual traditions. The Vedangas and later texts such as Mimamsa and Vedanta further elaborate on this knowledge, ensuring continuity and systematic interpretation.

      The second category, anvikshiki, signifies logic, inquiry, and philosophy. It is considered a tool for analyzing and understanding reality through critical reasoning. This category encompasses disciplines such as nyaya (logic and epistemology), samkhya (enumerative metaphysics), and yoga (practical philosophy). Texts such as Gautama’s Nyayasutra, Kapila’s Samkhyakarika, and Patanjali’s Yogasutra provide the foundational principles of this category. Anvikshiki is often described as the methodological core of Indian philosophy, allowing for independent reasoning beyond the religious framework of the Vedas. The third category, varta, includes knowledge related to agriculture, animal husbandry, and commerce. It represents the practical and economic aspects of life and serves as the foundation for socioeconomic stability. Classical texts such as Krishi Parashara (on agriculture), Arthashastra (on economics and statecraft), and Kamandaka Nitisara (on political economy) provide extensive discussions on these subjects. The knowledge of varta is essential for material well-being, as it ensures the sustenance of both individuals and the state.The fourth category, dandaniti, pertains to politics and public administration. It deals with governance, justice, law, and statecraft. Kautilya’s Arthashastra is the primary text in this domain, detailing principles of diplomacy, taxation, war strategy, and legal administration. Additionally, texts such as Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti provide insights into ancient Indian legal traditions, establishing the framework for justice and governance. This category underscores the practical application of knowledge to maintain order and stability in society.

          A complementary framework for understanding the Indian Knowledge Systems is the purusharthas, which represent the four fundamental goals of human life. The first, dharma, relates to moral and ethical duties. It is extensively discussed in texts such as Dharmashastras (e.g., Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti) and epics like the Mahabharata and Ramayana. Dharma provides the guiding principles for righteous living and social order. The second, Artha, refers to material prosperity and economic success. The Arthashastra and Nitisara serve as primary texts that elaborate on statecraft, wealth management, and governance. The third, kama, signifies desire, pleasure, and fulfillment. It is discussed in texts such as Kamasutra and various Sanskrit poetics (e.g., Kalidasa’s works), emphasizing the importance of aesthetic and emotional fulfillment in life. The fourth, moksha, denotes spiritual liberation and ultimate transcendence. Foundational texts include the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and various darshanas (philosophical systems such as Vedanta, Samkhya, and Buddhism), which discuss the path to liberation. By promoting these indigenous frameworks, India can revive its intellectual heritage without filtering it through foreign categories. This does not mean rejecting global philosophical traditions but rather ensuring that India’s own philosophical categories are preserved and understood on their own terms. The increasing discourse on diversity, pluralism, and cosmopolitanism has further complicated this challenge. While these ideas promote inclusivity, they sometimes contribute to the dilution of India’s intellectual traditions by assimilating them into broader frameworks that may not align with their original context. The real question is how to balance engagement with the global intellectual community while maintaining the originality and distinctiveness of Indian knowledge traditions. The task at hand is not merely an academic exercise but a deeply cultural and political one. India must reaffirm its intellectual sovereignty while also contributing meaningfully to global thought, ensuring that its knowledge systems are not just preserved but also evolve and thrive in the modern world.

     We shall conclude with the very contradiction one can see our composition. The paradox arises when, despite attempts to articulate Indian knowledge through its intrinsic categories, we inevitably rely on Western epistemological terms to make them intelligible in contemporary discourse. This is not merely an issue of translation but a methodological imposition that alters the essence of what we seek to restore. For instance, when explaining Kautilya’s classification of knowledge, mapping anvikshiki to logic, varta to economics, and dandaniti to political science risks reducing these categories to Western disciplinary structures, distorting their original scope. Similarly, the purushartha framework—dharma, artha, kama, and moksha—functions as a holistic vision of life, yet attempts to explain it through ethical, economic, psychological, and metaphysical paradigms dilute its indigenous meaning. This entrapment is further reinforced by the institutional structures of knowledge production, where academia, shaped by European intellectual history, demands that Indian categories fit within pre-existing disciplinary divisions. Thus, the struggle is not just about content but about the very structure of thought that has been conditioned to conform to external classifications.

      Thus,  the deeper challenge lies in recognizing that even as we attempt to break free from intellectual colonization, we remain caught in the mayajala of cultural conditioning. Unlike external oppression, which can be resisted, internalized conditioning operates subtly, making it difficult to escape even with full awareness. This is why Indian intellectual traditions have historically emphasized self-awareness and epistemic self-sufficiency. The risk is not just that we borrow from Western categories but that we unconsciously accept their authority, even when critiquing them. A possible way forward is not outright rejection but redefining these categories from within an Indian epistemic framework, allowing concepts like dharma and anvikshiki to define themselves rather than being framed through Western equivalents. This shift requires moving beyond comparative models (where Indian thought is placed in dialogue with Western thought) to contextual models (where Indian thought is studied within its own tradition). However, given the interconnected nature of modern knowledge, complete intellectual insularity is neither feasible nor desirable. Instead, the goal should be to establish an intellectual ecosystem where Indian categories function autonomously, without requiring external validation. The true test of decolonization is not just critiquing imposed categories but thinking entirely outside them, ensuring that Indian philosophy is not merely reactive but self-sustaining. Until this is achieved, we remain entangled in the very structures we seek to dismantle, perpetuating the very epistemic dependency we aim to overcome.

• 23 min read
• 3
• 0