The renewed push for Indian knowledge systems has divided academics into two camps, with critics calling it regressive and rationalists questioning attempts to treat poetic expressions in Vedic literature as truth. In this context, “An Introduction to Indian Jurisprudence” by former Sree Sankara Sanskrit University vice chancellor K S Radhakrishnan assumes significance. Excerpts from an interview:

Why a book on Indian Jurisprudence?

Recent developments in India’s academic landscape have brought renewed attention to Indian knowledge systems. Universities and colleges across the country are organizing seminars and discussions on the subject. However, there remains considerable confusion about how Indian knowledge traditions differ from Eurocentric systems rooted in Greek philosophy. My objective is not to undermine the Eurocentric tradition but to bring to the fore the cardinal differences between these two knowledge systems.

Eurocentric systems bifurcate the individual from context and argue that knowledge exists prior to experience (a priori) or that knowledge emerges from experience (a posteriori). These arguments form the basis of rationalism and empiricism, the dominant epistemological tools of Western thought. While rationalism privileges prior knowledge, empiricism argues that knowledge arises after experience. Indian knowledge systems, however, offer a different take. They do not see knowledge as either a priori or a posteriori; rather, they view experience itself as knowledge, and it is indivisible.

You have devoted a major portion of the book to explaining what is not Indian knowledge. Why?

Metaphors are used by poets as tools of communication and should be understood as such. The poetic description of Ravana as a being with 10 heads and 20 hands must be read in the same way that we understand Lady Macbeth’s statement that “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.” Metaphors are not truths but literary tools.

Ramayana must first be understood as a work of art. The philosophical insights in it can then be interpreted and applied to contemporary contexts. When the ideas behind metaphors are grasped, they provide a rational exposition of lived experience. Without such understanding, both the experience and its lesson are lost.

Your books appear to take a different position on Advaita philosophy as consolidated by Adi Sankara. Could you explain?

The inductive and deductive methods commonly used in Eurocentric traditions separate knowledge from experience. Epistemological inquiries using these tools may therefore lead to illogical enterprises, due to the inbuilt inconsistencies of induction and deduction. It becomes necessary, then, to explore alternative methods by returning to the fundamentals of every tradition. In this context, the epistemological approach of Advaita philosophy, consolidated by Sankara, assumes significance. Advaita does not subscribe to either deductive or inductive reasoning, both of which are grounded in dualistic assumptions. Instead, it proposes that experience itself constitutes knowledge.

You say that the Vedas form the bedrock of Indian Knowledge Systems. Could you elaborate?

The Vedas consist of recorded testimonies of the experiences of the Rishis. These were compiled and systematized by Krishna Dwaipayana, also known as Veda Vyasa—literally, the editor of the Vedas. The statements compiled in the Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas, including their components such as the Samhitas, Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Upanishads, are not binding unless they resonate with individual experience. This makes Vedas the bedrock of Indian knowledge systems.

If Indian knowledge systems were so profound, how did this chain of knowledge snap?

Ninety percent of persons who hold or have held higher positions in judiciary are Brahmins, having sound knowledge in Vedic literature, yet the concept of Indian jurisprudence has seldom been articulated within formal legal discourse. One possible explanation lies in the tendency to seek validation of indigenous experience through Eurocentric frameworks. Presenting experiential knowledge in unfamiliar conceptual formats often leads to distortion. The modern Indian intellectual tradition frequently prioritized external validation, resulting in comparisons such as describing Kalidasa as the ‘Indian Shakespeare,’ despite their uniqueness and distinct aesthetic traditions.

END OF ARTICLE