“নানা ভাষা, নানা মত, নানা পরিধান, বিবিধের মাঝে দেখে · া মিলন মহান.”
(Many languages, many minds, many attires, behold the grand union amid diversity).
Written before independence, Bengali poet Atul Prasad Sen’s couplet highlights India’s diversity. It was later popularized post-independence by India’s first prime minister as “unity in diversity” and is still used as the civil service academy song, reflecting India’s commitment to plurality.Footnote 1
Amid this background, India’s 2020 launch of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) to revive traditional knowledge raises important questions about whether this truly reflects India’s historical diversity and complexity or is limited to civilizational, religious, or ideological perspectives. In an article published in this journal, Dey and Sen supported the latter, justifying that IKS is politically motivated by a single party to advance a high-caste Vedic-Hindu framework, marginalize India’s plural knowledge traditions, legitimize myths, and normalize pseudoscience.Footnote 2 They propose the Plural Knowledge Systems of India (PKSI) as a normative approach based on two principles: (i) recognizing India’s diverse knowledge traditions, and (ii) emphasizing empirically supported knowledge over mythological or unverified assertions.
To advance dialogue on IKS, we have examined historical, demographic, institutional, and research evidence to understand (i) the origin and governance of IKS, including whether it is a partisan initiative or an administrative framework; (ii) diversity within Indian civilization and the extent to which it is reflected within Indian knowledge traditions; (iii) traditional knowledge research before IKS; and (iv) implementation patterns of IKS and their focus in research support. Instead of defending IKS or dismissing concerns about ideological bias, we aimed to engage researchers with Indian traditional knowledge, urging them to see it not as isolated cultural heritage but as a system that can be critically analyzed, validated, and integrated with modern global science.
1. India’s Governance structure and origin of IKS
As the world’s most populous and largest democracy, India’s Constitution never allows the Union Government to advance party-specific mandates.Footnote 3 Instead, national policies are proposed by the Union Government and reviewed and approved through collective discussions among parties in the parliamentary cabinet to ensure a collective consensus.Footnote 4 Finally, these are operationalized by various ministries, regulatory agencies, and administrative bodies that work independently without political affiliations. Under this mechanism, propagated through the National Education Policy, IKS has evolved into a complex, layered system. The Ministry of Education primarily serves as an enabler within the ecosystem, establishing administrative structures, funding channels, and policy frameworks to implement IKS.Footnote 5
Therefore, while the policy environment aligned with a BJP-led Union government, the decision was not made by a single party alone. Instead, IKS was implemented through bureaucratic, regulatory, and educational bodies that mirror the governance models of other national scientific initiatives. More importantly, institutions hold autonomy to engage with IKS in ways that align with their academic priorities. For example, while several institutions have implemented it only to a limited extent, universities such as Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya have incorporated IKS into their formal undergraduate and postgraduate curricula.Footnote 6 Similarly, the Indian Institute of Technology at Kharagpur, Madras, Mandi, and Gandhinagar have newly opened centers of excellence, interdisciplinary research laboratories, and compulsory coursework in IKS.Footnote 7
2. Historical and demographic plurality of India
The ancient Indian Civilization (approximately 2500 BCE to 600 CE) encompasses the Indus Valley Civilization, the Vedic Period, and the Maurya and Gupta Empires.Footnote 8 It was the birthplace of major world religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, which coexisted and flourished for centuries. Moreover, India continued to absorb contributions from Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Parsi, Sikh, and other traditions. They played an important role in shaping India’s pluralistic linguistic, philosophical, scientific, artistic, and cultural landscape.Footnote 9
This tradition promoted a culture of openness. India has experienced multiple influential unifying movements against the caste system, which caused considerable social divisions. For example, the Bhakti movement and heterodox schools such as Buddhism have openly challenged the rigid caste hierarchy.Footnote 10 Rather than causing disorder, it has facilitated significant unity through shared intellectual pursuits using “शास्त्रार्थ” (Shastrartha, structured philosophical debate). In terms of knowledge, institutions such as Takshashila and Nalanda served as cosmopolitan centers where scholars from diverse regions, languages, and beliefs convened.Footnote 11
Although biological ancestry may not be equated with cultural identity, contemporary population-genomic studies offer an additional lens for acknowledging rich diversity. India’s GenomeIndia Project indicates that the present-day Indian population is not composed of biologically isolated or historically homogeneous groups that derive their ancestry from two major ancestral components: Ancestral North Indians (ANI), genetically related to West Eurasian, Central Asian, and Middle Eastern populations, and Ancestral South Indians (ASI), associated with ancient indigenous South Asian populations.Footnote 12
3. Evidence for pluralistic pursuit in Modern India
Modern India continues to institutionalize its civilizational ethos of plurality through constitutional, educational, and research frameworks. India’s principles of “सर्वधर्मसमभाव” (Sarva Dharma Sambhava) reflect this commitment, ensuring that restoration of India’s intellectual heritage is seen as a national goal rather than a partisan one.Footnote 13 For example, a CBSE elective course (for classes 11 and 12) titled “Knowledge Traditions and Practices of India” was prepared in 2012–2013 under the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA). It played some role in initiating the current interest in IKS.
A very recent example is the revival of Nalanda University in Rajgir, Bihar. The judicial and diplomatic framework for revival was first established under the UPA and was later embraced, heavily financed, and implemented by the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), with active support from 17 partner countries.Footnote 14 Today, the university actively restores a global intellectual ecosystem by embodying the pluralistic spirit of the past.Footnote 15
4. Traditional knowledge research in India before IKS
Much before IKS, various government agencies, autonomous councils, universities, and scientific bodies were advancing traditional knowledge. One of the most influential examples was the establishment of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) in 2001 through collaboration between the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and the then Department of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy (ISM&H).Footnote 16 TKDL was designed to digitize, translate, classify, and internationally protect traditional formulations and practices. Importantly, the TKDL transformed traditional knowledge from local practice into global intellectual property governance, enabling international patent offices to reject or withdraw several biopiracy-related claims involving turmeric, neem, and other indigenous formulations. Consequently, the TKDL emerged as one of the earliest large-scale examples of digital protection and scientific codification of indigenous knowledge and is now internationally recognized as a model for traditional knowledge governance.Footnote 17
In 2014, under the BJP-led NDA, India established the Ministry of AYUSH to develop, educationally upgrade, and propagate traditional Indian medicine and healthcare systems. While the ministry was new, it was actually an upgrade of the ISM&H, constituted under the Congress-led Union Government.Footnote 18 Under AYUSH, India has dedicated research systems for traditional medicine through publicly funded councils.Footnote 19 They continue scientific evaluation of Ayurveda, Unani, and other traditional medical systems through pharmacological, formulation, and clinical investigation.Footnote 20
In addition, funding and institutional support were allocated to areas such as ethnobotany, tribal knowledge systems, traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity conservation, indigenous agriculture, seed systems, water management practices, heritage metallurgy, architecture, manuscript preservation, and regional knowledge traditions. These initiatives were supported by science- and technology-oriented ministries and agencies, which frequently operate independently without a unified coordinating framework (Table 1).
Major Indian funding and institutional mechanisms supporting traditional knowledge research that predate IKS and are currently active
Table 1. Long description
The table consists of four columns: Agency/Ministry/Funding body, Support for, Major traditional knowledge domains, and Key outputs.
* C S I R: Supports direct research funding, institutes, and I P protection in medicinal knowledge, ethnobotany, and biodiversity. Key output is the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (T K D L).
* Ministry of A Y U S H: Provides dedicated ministry funding for Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa, and Homeopathy.
* C C R A S: Provides grants for Ayurveda, pharmacology, and medicinal plants, resulting in drug standardization.
* C C R U M: A research council for Unani medicine focusing on pharmacology and manuscripts.
* C C R S: A research council for Siddha focusing on formulations and validation.
* C C R Y N: Provides health research funding for Yoga and preventive health.
* D B T: Offers competitive grants for ethnobiology, microbiome, and bioresources.
* D S T: Provides research grants for indigenous technologies and ecology, including S A T Y A M.
* Science and Engineering Research Board: Provides competitive science funding for indigenous technologies and materials.
* National Innovation Foundation—India (D S T): Supports grassroots technologies and indigenous practices through an innovation database.
* I C A R: Provides agricultural grants for indigenous farming, seeds, and livestock.
* Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change: Funds ecology, tribal knowledge, and conservation.
* Anthropological Survey of India: Documents tribal knowledge systems via ethnographic records.
* Botanical Survey of India: Supports research in ethnomedicine and flora.
* U G C: Supports curriculum and centers for philosophy, manuscripts, and languages.
* Ministry of Culture: Funds the National Mission for Manuscripts for preservation and digitization.
* State Science Councils: Provide state grants for local traditional systems.
5. Traditional knowledge research under IKS and its alignment with national and global science priorities
Our domain-wise analysis of 102 funded projects showed that the largest share of projects was in health-related sciences (19.61%), followed by agriculture and sustainability (14.71%), and materials science, metallurgy, and heritage engineering (13.73%) (Figure 1A). Collectively, it forms 48.05 percent of the funded portfolio. Similarly, when grouped by a broader funding purpose, we noted the scientific validation of traditional knowledge systems was the largest category (27.45%), followed by heritage engineering and material reconstruction (15.69%), and sustainability-linked indigenous systems (13.73%) (Figure 1B). Together, these findings indicate that contemporary IKS funding primarily supports scientific validation and translational application of traditional knowledge.
Analysis of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS)-supported research projects. (A) Domain-wise distribution of funded IKS projects categorized according to primary research areas. (B) Distribution of projects based on broader funding purposes.
The analysis included all research projects publicly funded by the IKS Division and listed on the official IKS website (https://iksindia.org/search_site_research/index.php) at the time of data extraction (n = 102; 68 completed and 34 ongoing). Each project was independently reviewed and classified using two complementary frameworks. First, projects were assigned to a primary disciplinary domain according to their principal research focus. Second, projects were grouped according to their broader funding purpose, derived from thematic classification that goes beyond disciplinary domains. Classification was based on the stated objectives and intended outputs of each project. All values are shown in percentages, and the graphs were prepared using Microsoft Excel.
Figure 1. Long description
Panel A is a horizontal bar chart titled Domain-wise distribution. The X-axis represents percentages from 0 to 25. The Y-axis lists 12 research domains. From top to bottom, the data points are:
* Economics, Entrepreneurship and Management: 1 percent
* Mathematics, Astronomy and Logic: 2 percent
* Veterinary and Livestock Health: 3 percent
* Arts, Music and Cultural Heritage: 3 percent
* Education and Indigenous Pedagogy: 4 percent
* Philosophy, Governance, Ethics and Policy: 6 percent
* Language, Sanskrit and Knowledge Preservation: 8 percent
* A I, Computational Tools and Digital Technologies: 9 percent
* Psychology, Cognition, Consciousness and Wellbeing: 10 percent
* Architecture, Built Environment and Settlement Planning: 10 percent
* Materials Science, Metallurgy and Heritage Engineering: 14 percent
* Agriculture, Ecology and Sustainability: 15 percent
* Health, Ayurveda and Biomedical Sciences: 20 percent
Panel B is a horizontal bar chart titled Distribution based on broader funding purposes. The X-axis represents percentages from 0 to 30. The Y-axis lists 12 purposes. From top to bottom, the data points are:
* Entrepreneurship and management systems: 1 percent
* Mathematics, astronomy and indigenous logic: 1 percent
* Arts, music and cultural heritage revival: 1 percent
* Education, pedagogy and curriculum innovation: 2 percent
* Governance, economics, ethics and policy studies: 4 percent
* Architecture, settlement planning and built environment: 5 percent
* A I, computational tools and digital translation of I K S: 8 percent
* Cognition, psychology, consciousness and wellbeing: 10 percent
* Preservation, digitization and interpretation: 12 percent
* Sustainability, ecology and indigenous resource management: 14 percent
* Heritage engineering, materials science and reverse engineering ancient technologies: 16 percent
* Scientific validation of traditional knowledge: 28 percent
Such a translational orientation seems perfectly aligned with India’s contemporary science priorities and emerging global research agendas, especially in areas of One Health, preventive healthcare, digital technologies, climate resilience, alternative medicine, regenerative agriculture, sustainable engineering, ethical AI, and systems-based approaches to well-being.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that public funds were used to support pseudoscience. This contrasts with the argument presented by Dey and Sen.Footnote 21 For instance, the study investigating the environmental effects of yajna or ritual was not an approved project under IKS, nor was it supported by India’s fragmented public funding ecosystem. In fact, this study was commissioned and supported by an NGO, with a few scientific institutions responsible only for environmental data collection using validated equipment.Footnote 22 Likewise, we could not find any evidence that any studies are being conducted to test whether cows can cure tuberculosis. In contrast, we noted that this has been a statement by a public figure, and neither the Union Government nor the IKS is involved.Footnote 23
6. Plurality, integration, and the future of IKS
By providing cumulative historical, demographic, institutional, governance, and research-based evidence, we noted that IKS is better understood as a coordinating administrative layer over a long-standing, religiously and regionally heterogeneous research ecosystem, rather than as an ideological project of a single confessional tradition. Although IKS did not originate traditional knowledge research in India, it has enhanced the visibility of previously fragmented traditional knowledge initiatives across disciplines, aligning with national priorities and addressing global scientific challenges. Collectively, these observations provide limited support toward Dey and Sen article that interpreted the IKS ecosystem as rooted in the high-caste Hindu beliefs of the BJP, shaped by distortions and erasures, and gradually turning propaganda into truth.Footnote 24
We agree that public representatives, regardless of their power, bear responsibility for communicating facts that dispel misinformation and myths. However, this has been ignored in several instances, with hyperbolic statements being circulated, leading to a misinterpretation of IKS that must be corrected through greater contextualization and further study. First, an in-depth examination of all thematic areas, disciplinary trajectories, and individual project outcomes to determine research impact, quality, translational success, or societal outcomes. Second, the roles of contemporary political divisions, ideological positioning, and popular perceptions need to be studied through independent sociopolitical investigations. The future question is therefore not whether plurality exists within IKS, but whether contemporary institutions can translate the plurality into evidence, innovation, and societal benefit.
Author contributions
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation: A.P.; Visualization: A.P., S.R.R.; Writing - original draft: A.P., S.C.; Writing-review and editing: A.P., S.C., S.R.R.
Conflicts of interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Declaration of generative AI in the writing process
During the preparation of this work, we used Grammarly AI in order to improve language and readability. After using this tool, we reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.
Open access
