The SSH-Stories!: Equations Or Epics? 📚

UGC's New Math Rules: Are We Teaching Equations or Epics?

The government has new rules for teaching math in college, called the LOCF (draft stage though). A significant part of it involves incorporating the "Indian Knowledge System" (IKS). The officials say it's a good thing and mostly optional, so there's no need to worry. But as a teacher, I am worried. It appears to be a move that could weaken math education in India, rather than strengthen it.

Source: Gemini AI-generated image

A Step Backwards for Bright Students:

Think about how students learn math in school. In 10th grade, the CBSE board gives them a choice: Basic Math or Standard Math.

Basic Math is for students who won't study math later. Standard Math is the tougher, more challenging path for those who want to pursue math in college.

So, the students who enter a university to study mathematics are the ones who choose the harder path. They have already proven they are serious about the subject's rigor.

Now, after all that hard work, this new curriculum offers them IKS—a subject that seems to focus on ancient texts, stories about mythological figures, their commentaries, and riddles. This is a complete mismatch. We are taking students who are trained for a mental marathon and handing them a coloring book. This isn't about building Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS); it's a step down. It doesn't challenge them; it just adds a burden.

Why Solve Yesterday's Riddles for Tomorrow's Problems?

The main defense for IKS is that it will improve critical thinking. This raises a simple question: don't we have modern and more relatable problems for that?

Irony is— a 1500 BCE problem, will it be of any relevance to a 21st-century kid? Are we supposed to mean that we are citing Munshi Premchand from the 1920s in 2025 and admiring his vision towards the problem that still exists as pertinent to society as it was 10 decades earlier (here it is 1000x times rather)?

If we want students to think critically, why not give them real, contemporary challenges? Let them use math to model climate change, analyze economic data, or build secure digital systems. These are the problems of today and tomorrow. Why are we asking them to dig through ancient scriptures so intensively, when modern research and real-world issues offer far better training for their minds? It feels like we are choosing to teach history in a science class.

Here, I just offer a middle way, that instead of including IKS across electives and skill-based courses, why not just try it with only value education courses and research the outcomes through it, and then if learners find it useful and compelling, then include it in the curriculum as a fresh course? I hope this will provide enough time and space to the faculty and stakeholders to prepare the resources both human and machinery for the change.

The Concern of Access-Equity-Quality:

The plan also seems to ignore the reality of our education system. The former UGC Chairperson suggested that one teacher could handle the math and another could handle the IKS part. This might be possible in a few top Delhi colleges, but what about the rest of the country?

Who will teach this? Most colleges are already short on math teachers. Where will these IKS experts come from?
What about students in remote areas? They are lucky if they have one good teacher. This new system will only widen the gap between students in big cities and those in smaller towns.
What about self-learners? Many students study on their own due to personal or financial reasons. How can they possibly learn this material, which is supposed to be taught by a team of experts?

This curriculum seems designed for a privileged few, leaving the majority of students at a disadvantage.

A Fellowship of Ornamental Word-Worship:

The former Chairperson tries to settle the conflict as he makes a call: "Come to the table. Reason with conviction, cite well, and help the next generation..."

I hope the responsible authorities are aware and have a take on it. Be at the table.

One must reason that this framework feels less like a pedagogical evolution and more like a bureaucratic exercise in "ornamental word-worship"—a desperate attempt to map every subject to the keywords of the NEP 2020, neglecting the true nature of the discipline itself.

It can be clearly cited that there is a vivid disconnect between—

a curriculum leaning on ancient texts and the skills needed to compete on global stages like the International Mathematical Olympiad (refer & map the syllabus of our boards and of IMO at the school level.)

Is this a debate about "our way" versus "their way," or is it about the best way to teach a universal language?

Our Goal Should Be Clarity, Not Confusion:

By mixing mythology and history with pure mathematics, we risk confusing students. We might end up with graduates who are skilled at arguing about the past but are not equipped to solve the problems of the future.

There is certainly an irony in the air of Indian academia. While our filmmakers and authors often navigate an intensive scrutiny for their creative expressions, a document as foundational as a national curriculum framework for mathematics is rolled out with surprisingly little public debate (though a draft, but what and how further we can expect the changes to be made in it?).

The goal of a math degree should be to create problem-solvers, innovators, and thinkers (as Prof. Kumar stated in the interview).

Let's stick to teaching the clear, powerful, and universal language of mathematics. Our students deserve a modern education that prepares them for the world, not one that pushes them into the past.

And for the very calling: We are here to help the next generation by asking the hard questions. We are here to argue for a system that builds a nation of critical thinkers who can prove their points with rigor, not one that creates a mass of citizens who argue based on retrospective beliefs. We are at the table. The onus is now on the proponents of this LOCF to bring the proofs. We are waiting.