Dr Prashant Barthwal
Without a good methodological source, research would not be possible. To learn more, we need to look into Bharat's augmentative intellectual tradition, the history of knowledge production in the area, and the current state of academics and discussions in Bharat. Bharat must now establish a methodological framework that clarifies the values of its civilisation within the global academic context, where research both reflects and informs civilisation. For an extended period, Indian scholars have endeavoured to validate their expertise through the application of Western syllogisms, Eurocentric paradigms, and various external epistemologies. The Western canon has significantly influenced how people discuss ideas today, but the Bharatiya academic legacy needs to be revitalised, redefined, and reborn based on Bharatiya ways of knowing. This argument assumes that every civilization learns in its own way. Academic methodology is shaped by centuries of cultural experience, ethical reflection, and linguistic subtleties. Western empiricism and rationalism originated from personal quests for truth and secular validation during the Enlightenment. Bharatiya methodology utilises jnana (knowledge), vijnana (systematic inquiry), and tattva(principled truth) to understand the universe and the self. Bringing in frameworks that don't take this unity into account hurts intellectual coherence and makes scholars feel like they don't belong to their own research traditions.
The desire for Bharatiya methodologies does not negate Western intellectual civilisation or nostalgia. British universities need to be strict, encourage students to think critically, and help them become more professional to advance science. Instead of just being a model, it should be a conversation partner that gets along with others. Bharat should promote contextual universality in peer-reviewed empiricism, utilising their unique epistemological framework. This view saw Bharatiya research as connected to other cultures and not hidden by Western ideas. Synthesis, a Bharatiya action, would utilise energy from various sources while maintaining autonomy in thought. This methodological revolution must change how higher education is taught, structured, and conducted, rather than just causing controversy. University students do not just think about theories; they use and borrow them. Changing anubhava to anusandhana and experience to exploration would give research new life through a new Bharatiya method. Prioritise moral observation, thoughtful analysis, and socially beneficial research over career advancement. Research can evolve into a yajña, promoting collective progress instead of functioning solely as a means to achieve tenure.
It is hard to study historiography with apt methodologies in Bharatiya universities. Western history still follows colonial epistemology, which values evidence over understanding and documentation over tradition. Moreover, British documentary history often reduced the Bharatiya past to trivial facts for civilization. In their efforts to correct imperial inaccuracies, postcolonial historians rarely transcend their methodological constraints. All of Bharatiya history ought to be grounded in logic and empirical evidence. It must also consider sruti, smriti, and parampara, which are oral collective memory banks that keep the truth alive after paper. Bharatiya researchers view time as a continuous cycle of stability and transformation. These feelings don't change how history is written; they make it easier for everyone to read. There needs to be a quick change in how social science is done. The strong Western way of knowing divides people and society, as well as facts and values, and objectivity and subjectivity.
Bharatiya transcends distinctions. In Nyaya and Vaisheshika, knowledge is exclusively obtained through intentional perception, inference, and testimony. Kautilya employed empirical observation and ethical pragmatism to examine politics in the Arthashastra. The Rasa theory of ancient Sanskrit poetry predates modern emotional studies by millennia. The recovery of indigenous frameworks through inquiry vocabulary enhances global scholarship. Pramana, or valid means of knowledge, is another crucial element in Bharatiya epistemology that could inform the methodological approach. Different schools recognised different numbers of Pramana's, but common ones include perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumana), and testimony (Shabda). Methodological pluralism can improve Bharatiya research by favouring new ideas over Western theories.
This re-rooting aids scientific and technological research. Not many people know that Bharatiya methodology promotes empiricism and experimentation. Ayurveda wrote down medicine, the Sutras predicted geometry, and the Panchanga carefully wrote down the cycles of the stars. They never separated ethics, science, technology, responsibility, reason and respect. Genetic modification, AI, and surveillance capitalism are all bad for morals. A complete set of values can help fight value-neutrality. Education policy should view methodology as a cultural expression rather than mere regulations. Colleges and universities need to invest in their research and ensure students feel they can conduct world-class research in their own communities. The Bharatiya philosophy, logic, and interpretation have sustained critical discourse for centuries. Researchers should know these things and be able to use Vedic, Buddhist, and modern analytical tools to create research models and related approaches. Funding organisations ought to assign equal significance to both perspectives and statistics. Researchers should learn to ask and inquire with the three golden words: what, why, and how. The Upanishadic spirit has always regarded this question highly.
Thus, while distinctive elements in Bharatiya intellectual traditions could inform a Bharatiya approach to methodology, the idea of a singular or essentialist methodology is problematic. Apt Methodology stems from rigorous and practical research practices using the most suitable language. We inadvertently acknowledge the semantic constraints of the Oriental language or any other language during research. The term knowledge doesn't include the moral, spiritual, and empirical parts of the Sanskrit word vidya. The word "Truth" doesn't fully explain "satya," as it encompasses both moral and existential aspects. People may need to speak and write in indigenous and other languages to revive the Bharatiya methodology. This multilingualism lets scholarship stay true to its roots while reaching the world. We change for more than just how we look or to fit in. Bharatiya doesn't make people do things; it shows them how to do them. Bharatiya civilization must strike a balance between reason and intuition, progress and restraint, due to environmental issues, social disintegration, and apprehension regarding technology. Getting schools back up and running can help the nation and us learn more from that study. Epistemology should be developed collaboratively rather than passively. For hundreds of years, universities and research institutions were the best places in the world to learn. Learn from the past to improve, not go back in time to bring that spirit to colleges and universities. Higher education can only restore the moral and intellectual integrity of scholarship by cultivating global thinkers who embody Bharatiya principles.
[Dr Barthwal teaches Political Science in Sri Aurobindo College, University of Delhi]
