The Centre for Human Sciences at Rishihood University received a grant from the Indian Council of Philosophical Research (ICPR) to organize a two-day Round Table Conference on the Philosophy of Indian Pedagogy. This event, held on 16–17 November 2024, was a collaborative effort between the Centre and the Indian Knowledge Systems Program at IIT Delhi.
The event brought together esteemed scholars and professionals, including:
Attended by more than 50 participants, including students, professors, IT professionals, authors, researchers, and policymakers, the event offered rich discussions blending philosophical insights with practical applications.
The program opened with a welcome note and introductory remarks from Prof. Sampadananda Mishra. Prof. Sampadananda Mishra emphasized that while there is increasing dialogue about integrating Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) into the mainstream, much of the content generated is random and subsequently fits into the existing education framework. This approach, he pointed out, falls short of creating the desired impact because we are not connected to the understanding of “Swa,” of Bharat. Drawing on Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy of a consciousness-based national education system, he explained that “nothing can be taught” since all knowledge already resides within the individual. Teachers, therefore, act as facilitators, helping students to discover this knowledge, and it is essential to develop the faculties of Grahan (reception), Dharana (retention), and Smarana (recall) for meaningful learning.
The first session of the roundtable conference was chaired by Prof. Shrinivasa Varakhedi. Prof. Shobhit Mathur, Vice-Chancellor of Rishihood University, delivered an inspiring presentation on the university’s Foundation Course, designed for all first-year undergraduate students. This course comprises six foundational subjects, totaling 24 credits and 360 contact hours, with the primary aim of cultivating skilled problem solvers. At the core of his approach are the principles of ‘Swa-dharma’ (individual duty) and ‘Loka-dharma’ (social responsibility), which together foster a balanced and purposeful life. He highlighted how experiential and reflective learning resonates strongly with the students.
Prof. Nomesh Bolia shared profound insights on the Philosophy of Indian Pedagogy, emphasizing the importance of simplifying and enriching the learning experience for students. He illustrated this with a personal example of teachers inviting students to their homes for Diwali celebrations, which helps cultivate deeper, more meaningful relationships between educators and students. Prof. Bolia argued that the Indian Knowledge System (IKS) should not be viewed merely as the study of ancient scriptures or a static body of knowledge, but must be embedded in practical, lived experiences. He pointed out the lack of investment in reimagining technology, questioning how we can develop technologies that enhance, rather than distance, our relationships with people and ourselves. Furthermore, he explained the audience the four focus areas of the IKS Program at IIT Delhi – technology, governance and policy, pedagogy and well-being. And this conference was aligned with the focus area on pedagogy. He discussed the need for a robust health and well-being framework, drawing on Ayurveda and Naturopathy, and raised the question of how to institutionalize Ayurveda effectively. According to Prof. Bolia, it is essential to create a pedagogy that aligns with established criteria for success. His recommended strategy for achieving this involves three steps: Play the game, Win the game, and then Change the game.
The next speaker, Prof. Sachidananda Mishra ji, shifted the focus to understanding why changes in pedagogy are necessary. He emphasized that merely opposing ideas from the West is not the solution; instead, we should adopt an integrated approach. The “one size fits all” model, he argued, is outdated, as people have different skills and talents. Efforts should be made to identify these talents early and nurture them. Prof. Mishra questioned the purpose of education, stating that if its sole aim is to earn money, then we might as well teach unethical practices like stealing or scamming. However, the true goal of education should be to cultivate responsibility and a sense of service towards others. He critiqued rote learning, highlighting its current relevance in the context of artificial intelligence, which itself depends heavily on memory. While the Gurukul system relied on rote learning, he clarified that the issue is not with memorization per se, but with memorizing without understanding. According to Prof. Misra, the real problem today is not rote learning itself, but the fact that we are not memorizing the right things.
The morning session concluded with closing remarks from the Chairperson, Prof. Shrinivasa Varakhedi. He acknowledged the various perspectives on the philosophy of Indian pedagogy shared by the eminent speakers, emphasizing the need to introduce children to Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) as early as possible. He highlighted the significance of the 16 Sanskaras in shaping a child’s development, and emphasised on smriti, pratipatti, vyutpatti, and vimarsha aspects of ancient Indian education. Prof. Varakhedi also underscored the importance of storytelling, noting that even mathematicians are human beings with emotions, and everyone appreciates a good story. He criticized the current education system for promoting individualism, where a student may excel in exams but struggle in later life, as success in real-world situations depends on teamwork. Whether in marriage, the corporate world, or society at large, Prof. Varakhedi argued that our education system must better address the need for collaborative skills.
Post-lunch, the session continued with an insightful talk by Prof. B.K. Kuthiala, who traced the origins of knowledge to the Vedas, the earliest source of human understanding. He explained how the Rishis reached a heightened level of consciousness (Chaitna) through which nature revealed its mysteries in the form of mantras and sutras. Prof. Kuthiala highlighted a paradox: while 117 American universities actively study Indian texts, similar efforts are rare in India. He stressed the need for Indian pedagogy to shape the nation’s future and called for collaboration to align fragmented efforts, adapting successful models to create a unified educational framework.
Prof. Girish Nath Jha shared his views on education in a multilingual society, reflecting on the historical role of Sanskrit as the medium of instruction. He explained that every language has two forms – Laukiki (common) and Vaidiki (sacred) one is Sanskrit and the other form is called Prakrit. With 1369 languages spoken today, Prof. Jha argued that it is impractical to teach in all of them, as this was never done in ancient India. He proposed using Sanskrit and Hindi as mediums for instruction. He also highlighted the need to adopt the Vedanga-based Anvikshiki model, which integrates ethics, values, and critical inquiry, as opposed to the current compartmentalized subject-based approach.
The next session was presented by Dr. Swaroop Rawal, who raised a critical point regarding the National Education Policy (NEP). She questioned why IKS is mentioned for secondary school education but referred to as “Knowledge of India” at the primary school level, suggesting that IKS could also be introduced at the primary stage. Dr. Rawal shared her personal experience working with a primary school in Gujarat, where the teaching pedagogy focused on practical IKS. She explained how practices like Surya Namaskar and reciting the Aditya Hridaya Stotra were incorporated into the curriculum. Additionally, she emphasized the importance of cultivating ‘Saundrya Chetna’ (aesthetic sense) among children and shared her approach to nurturing it.
Prof. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma expressed concern that technology often harms rather than helps, and he criticized the overregulation in education, particularly for informal learning. He emphasized the need for less governmental control to allow flexibility and innovation. Sharma also highlighted the importance of recognizing diverse talents within educational systems, questioning the rigid structure of fixed lectures, exams, and technological mandates. He argued for a more interdisciplinary approach, as no subject exists independently. Ultimately, he affirmed that the true aim of all fields, from drama to philosophy, should be the pursuit of “Satya” (Truth), grounding education in deeper values.
Shri Muneet Dhiman from Vidhyakshetra presented a model of Indian education rooted in the Panchakosha and Vrittis, emphasizing Iccha Shakti (creative/inspirational pursuits), Gyaan Shakti (knowledge), and Kriya Shakti (action-oriented skills like agriculture and handloom). He highlighted that business, not agriculture, was historically India’s primary occupation, with handloom connecting diverse communities and sustaining the economy. Vidhyashetra works on a Parent Engagement Model where nine acharyas (teachers) also act as student mentors. The students study one subject in a month and they immerse themselves into it, they do not have any textbook, they have learning material and they make their own textbooks. Dhiman identified mobile phones as today’s main challenge.
Prof. Shailendra Mehta began with an intriguing inquiry: How were Indian kings, like Chandragupta Maurya, taught? He explained that Kautilya, the teacher of Chandragupta, imparted knowledge in four key branches: *Anviksiki* (logical thinking), *Trayi* (the three Vedas), *Vartta* (economics/agriculture), and *Dandaniti* (political science/government), thus fostering a well-rounded personality. Prof. Shailendra highlighted the importance of studying the entire *Panchatantra*, not just selected parts, and emphasized the need for accurate translations. He also stressed the value of learning *Avratipratipatti*—the ability to adopt a witness stance—and suggested incorporating meditation techniques like Vipassana and Transcendental Meditation into pedagogy. Furthermore, he advocated for the inclusion of texts such as Kautilya’s *Artha Shastra*, the *Dhammapada*, and the *Tirukkural* in school curricula.
Prof. Priya Vaidya shared her perspective on how Indian pedagogy transcends the tangible aspects of life. She highlighted the philosophy that every soul is potentially divine, and the primary focus of education should be to help individuals experience this inherent divinity. She emphasized the importance of understanding the dialogue one has with the Self, Family, Society, Country, and the World. Reflecting on the future direction of education, Prof. Vaidya proposed the “Three I” approach – Integration, Innovation, and Initiation – as a guiding framework to move forward in reshaping education.
Prof. M.S. Chaitra, in his talk on the “Social Scientific Description of India,” highlighted that India has never systematically described itself or others, unlike Europeans, who began doing so as early as the 18th century. As India adopted social sciences, it inherited European definitions and concepts, which reflect European perspectives and cannot be universally validated or refuted. Prof. Chaitra explained that any social scientific inquiry involves a description, the described, and the describer, with descriptions often reflecting the describer’s worldview. However in India’s case the Description reflects the Describer. He illustrated this with the metaphor of mistaking a rope for a snake, emphasizing how perception shapes understanding.
As the two-day roundtable conference came to a close, Prof. Gopinath demonstrated how Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) can be integrated into the teaching of Computer Science. Using practical examples, he showed how mathematics is linked to various fields such as music (Taala), art (Symmetry), and pattern recognition (Fibonacci). He referred to examples from the shastras to explain these connections, stressing the importance of discussing them, as both Western scholars and Indian experts have largely overlooked these links. Prof. Gopinath introduced concepts like rule-based systems (Panini), Turanga-pada-bandha (Knight-paths), and Unicode/Generating Ghanapatha. He noted that students are often surprised and curious when they discover the Indian roots behind many computational solutions.
The closing remarks by Prof. Sampadananda Mishra, enriched with captivating examples from Ancient India, left us inspired and eager for more. He introduced a framework of learning, centered around the question, “How much does one learn from whom?” using the example of Satyakama and Haridrumata Gautama. He also discussed the framework where knowledge is gained in four parts: One quarter is acquired from the Guru, where the teacher imparts foundational knowledge and guidance. One quarter comes through ‘Swamedha’ (self-reflection and discretion), where self-inquiry and personal experiences deepen understanding. One quarter is gained through *Sa-brahmachari* (peer learning), where interactions with peers offer shared insights and diverse perspectives. The final quarter is well taken care of by kaala (the course of time), encompassing inner realizations, intuition, and insights that arise from within. Prof. Mishra emphasized that the teacher’s role is to inspire and facilitate these stages of learning.
Prof. Bolia highlighted the unique strength of Indian traditions: they offer not only vast knowledge but also practical avenues for application, extending beyond conventional pedagogy. This system, supported by traditional vyavastha (arrangements), enables learners to deeply imbibe and practice knowledge in real-life contexts. However, implementing such an approach in modern education requires a structured model for research, contextual packaging, and effective delivery.
Challenges in teaching even highly capable students, like those in IITs, underscore the need for ground-level agents, ideally sourced from higher education, to effectively communicate and engage. Prof. Bolia advocated a “top-down intervention for bottom-up change” in schools, aiming to bridge valuable traditional concepts with the current educational framework. Emphasizing the importance of actionable pathways, he concluded with a vote of thanks, urging efforts to harmonize thought and practice in modern education.
The two-day roundtable conference was a deeply enriching and intellectually stimulating experience, offering a wealth of insights from diverse perspectives on Indian pedagogy and knowledge systems. The discussions sparked meaningful dialogues, encouraging deeper conversations on integrating Indian Knowledge Systems into modern education. The program provided a platform to explore innovative ideas, bridging ancient wisdom with contemporary practices, and leaving participants inspired to further explore these transformative concepts in their own educational frameworks.
The options for design course specialisations are:
Definitely yes, Design and computer science both complement each other. You can take up B. Design course at Rishihood University and add computer science as a minor subject specialization.
UI UX design stands for User Interface and User Experience Design. UI refers to the look and feel of a digital product like a web page or app, while UX is the ease and convenience it offers to a user for a smooth experience.
