This blog explores how a discipline built on logic and universality is being lovingly rebranded with cultural embroidery. Is it a renaissance of roots or a ritualistic regression? Let’s decode the draft—one Sanskritized theorem at a time.
From Calculus to Cosmic Cycles
“Mathematics is the language in which God has written the Universe.”
But wait, did Galileo forget to mention that—the God, in those times, had known only the language of languages, i.e., —'Sanskrit' and hence to understand the Universe, and try to comprehend the Brahmanical scripts first. Or you are not culturally rooted and value your traditional ‘ganita-darshan’.
Thinking, why am I being so critical? It's not me alone; rather, it's the LOCF draft by UGC. Welcome to the brave new curriculum, where mathematics must now bow politely to heritage before daring to speak. The UGC’s LOCF draft doesn’t just teach you how to calculate—it teaches you how to feel the calculation, preferably through the lens of the Indian Knowledge System (IKS), value-based education, and interdisciplinary reverence. Forget abstraction and proof; we now seek moksha through matrices.
The Chairman of the LOCF Committee in Mathematics advocates it as a fact that—
“This curriculum reflects a forward-thinking approach, offering students a robust foundation in mathematical concepts and skills, while emphasizing value-based education, interdisciplinary relevance, and integration with the Indian Knowledge System (IKS). It aims to not only preserve the academic rigor of mathematics but also to present it in an accessible and engaging manner for learners from diverse academic backgrounds.”
However, as a mathematics teacher, I’ve always believed my job was to equip students with the power of logic, reasoning, and the universal language of numbers. So, you can imagine my excitement, or rather apprehension, upon reviewing the UGC's draft Learning Outcomes-based Curriculum Framework (LOCF) for Mathematics. It seems we are about to embark on a grand civilizational journey, not just into the heart of mathematics, but into the very heart of... well, something else entirely.
The new framework, in its noble quest to align with the NEP 2020 and root education in "Indian heritage," seems to have misplaced the very foundations of a modern mathematics degree. As I see it, we're being asked to trade in some of the most critical tools of modern science and technology for a curriculum that feels more like a qualitative inquiry into ancient philosophy.
The Great 'Core' Compromise:
Where in the LOCF structure can one find core mathematics?
Discipline Specific Courses (DSC)—4 credits (divided into Major and Minor)
Then, where to earn the remaining credits from?
Discipline Specific Electives (DSEs)—4 credits
General Elective Courses (GECs)—4 credits
Skill Enhancement Courses (SECs)—2 credits
Value Added Courses (VACs)—2 credits
The first thing that struck me is how core mathematical competencies have been graciously sidelined. The draft suggests that students might study "real analysis" in their fourth year, making it almost impossible to build upon it for advanced studies. Crucial topics like:— linear algebra and abstract algebra are missing the emphasis they deserve. In fact, linear algebra, the bedrock of machine learning and data science, is bizarrely relegated to being just a part of a machine learning course.
However, Bhaskaracharya (ironically labelled in roman as Bhaskara-II), bijganit and arithmetic is what we are seeking rescue in. The Shulba Sutra, is what we are set to reconstruct the foundations of mathematics with.
It’s a bold strategy. Let’s prepare students for the 21st century by compromising the very mathematics that drives it. While we aim for Viksit Bharat by 2047, our curriculum seems to be taking a quantum leap backward.
In Pursuit of Indigenous Knowledge... by Copying the West?
In a truly masterful stroke of irony, the defensive argument provided by the former UGC Chairperson, published in the Indian Express, (26th Sept. 2025), cites some international examples as the pursuit of what he calls the "indigenous" curriculum.
We are told to look at how New Zealand has integrated Māori knowledge or how the University of Alaska works with Yupik elders. It’s a fascinating approach: to decolonise our curriculum, we must first follow the pedagogical models of the West. One must appreciate the global vision required to promote a local knowledge system!
This brings me to concepts like Kala Ganana, a concept more relevant for astronomy is the ancient Indian system of time calculation, a philosophical and religious framework deeply rooted in Hindu cosmology that describes a cyclical universe of creation and destruction over immense timescales known as Kalpas and Yugas. While it involves astronomical observations, Kala Ganana is not a scientifically proven theory in the modern sense. It is a spiritual interpretation of the cosmos, with its knowledge derived from sacred texts like the Puranas and Vedas. But this leads to the questions to be researched that—
- How exactly do we teach this with academic rigor?
- How will our graduates "prove" their understanding to a global scientific community?
While the historical development of mathematical ideas is a welcome addition to any curriculum, the LOCF’s approach is shallow and problematic. Instead of a well-designed course placing Indian contributions in a global context, we are offered a long list of courses with content that is mostly at a high-school level and cannot be meaningfully integrated with contemporary mathematics. Perhaps an exam on such "Bharatiya" mathematics would likely involve recalling information, as the calculations themselves are at a school level. This is where the framework becomes truly bizarre, offering absurd choices between a rigorous mathematical subject like calculus or integral transforms and a historical course where a good grade is far easier to obtain.
Even the contact hours are not justified. A prerequisite to number theory needs students to understand the contribution of Ramanujan for 60 hours, i.e., 15 hours of each unit; however, a course on data structure is only designed for 12 hours of contact.
Must say it's good news and a cakewalk for rote learners now— Memorize the sutras—clear the exams—LOs achieved! 🎊🎉
Add to this the proposed courses on "Mathematics in Meditation" or "Mathematics in Drama and the Arts" or this whole connotation “Mathematics in ‘X’ ”—and one must seriously ask:
Where will we find qualified teachers and vetted academic material for such subjects?
The Language Labyrinth and the 'Chosen' Few
My concern deepens when I consider the practical implications for the students. The draft’s reliance on ancient texts like the Tantrasangraha or the Narada Purana etc. presents a formidable barrier.
Must a student now possess a working knowledge of Sanskrit and the ability to interpret complex, often metaphorical, religious texts before they can even begin to study trigonometry or algebra?
~ 'in the making of Sanatan System of Education'.
Mathematics, at its heart, is an equalizer. Its language is universal, its logic accessible to anyone with the aptitude and passion for it. By tying it to specific scriptural traditions, we risk making it exclusive. This approach could alienate students from diverse linguistic and religious backgrounds who are drawn to the objectivity of numbers, not the subjectivity of ancient exegesis. It raises uncomfortable questions about inclusivity in a secular nation.
Will the classroom of the future require the Mathematician and a Sanskrit Pundit to co-teach a single class?
This is not a pathway to an enlightened future; it’s a recipe for confusion and chaos.
The Ramanujan Paradox? and the Illusion of Self-Sufficiency⁉️
Finally, this entire exercise in curriculum redesign leads to a glaring contradiction, which I call the Ramanujan Paradox. The framework implicitly suggests that our ancient knowledge systems are a self-sufficient, all-encompassing fount of mathematical wisdom. If this were true, one must ask: why did Srinivasa Ramanujan, arguably the greatest mathematical genius of modern India, need to send his work to G.H. Hardy at Cambridge? Why do contemporary Fields Medalists of Indian origin, like Manjul Bhargava, work at global centers of excellence like Princeton?
The answer is simple: mathematics is not a civilizational artifact to be kept in a museum. It is a living, breathing, global endeavor. It thrives on collaboration, peer review, and the relentless pursuit of proof that transcends cultural boundaries. To suggest that our students can be prepared for the future by turning inward is a grave disservice. Great minds like Madhava of the Kerala school, who derived infinite series for trigonometric functions centuries before their European rediscovery, did not work in a vacuum. Their contributions are part of a global human story, and they should be taught as such, but at the same time, the contributions of James Gregory and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz cannot be ignored or overlooked as the contemporaries of Madhava from the 17th century.
Conclusion: The Forward-Looking Future
No meaningful curriculum reform can be implemented without the ownership and support of the teaching community, a principle the UGC seems to have disregarded. The proposed LOCF for Mathematics is not a forward-looking document.
I highly appreciate, and hold a sense of pride towards Indian mathematicians contributions but as John Dewey states,
"If we teach today's students as we taught yesterday's, we rob them of tomorrow."
Hence, I find LOCF draft has sacrificed rigor for mathematization wrt. 21st century just by peeking into the past. Less clarity for complexity, and universality for a narrow, unworkable definition of heritage.
We need to engage in a genuine, nationwide consultation with mathematicians and educators to formulate a curriculum that builds on our strengths. We must create a framework that prepares our students to solve the challenges of tomorrow, equipping them with strong foundations in theory, problem-solving, and adaptability—a curriculum that inspires them to be the next Ramanujan, ready to engage with the world, not retreat from it.
References:
5756506_Public-Notice-LOCF.pdf https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/5756506_Public-Notice-LOCF.pdf
UGC-LOCF Draft_Mathematics: BA or BSc (Gen)_30.06.2025 https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/9994527_Mathematics.pdf
https://ayushdhara.in/index.php/ayushdhara/article/view/1856
https://www.scribd.com/document/549588803/KAALA-GANANA-Reckoning-of-TIME-Hindu-Perspective
Ramasubramanian, K., & Sriram, M. S. (2011). Tantrasaṅgraha of Nīlakaṇṭha Somayājī. Springer & Hindustan Book Agency. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-036-6
https://vedpuran.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/nard-puran.pdf
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are entirely personal and are not intended to offend or undermine any individual or group, either intentionally or unintentionally. The narrative draws upon themes discussed in the Indian Express column titled “The Best of Both Sides” (September 26, 2025, page 11), and reflects a critical engagement with its ideas in the context of contemporary curriculum discourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment