Abstract Many postcolonial societies are experiencing a deep crisis in the understanding and evaluation of truth. Public debate is increasingly driven by rigid ideologies, selective storytelling, and a weakening of indigenous traditions of knowledge (Durant, 1930; Sai Deepak, 2021). This paper proposes the Ideology vs Basket of Perspectives (IBP) Framework as an alternative way of thinking about truth. Instead of relying on a single dominant lens, the IBP model argues that truth emerges from the disciplined coexistence of multiple perspectives (Aurobindo, 1997; Malhotra, 2011). Through a comparative reading of Rammohan Roy, Vivekananda, Gandhi, and Nehru, the paper shows how colonial modernity gradually narrowed India’s intellectual horizons. This process, described here as Macaulay Syndrome, refers to the internalization of colonial categories as unquestioned standards of judgment (Kopf, 1969; Sen, 2012). The IBP framework is then applied to historiography and contemporary policy to demonstrate how plural evaluation can resist ideological capture without abandoning empirical rigor. The argument is simple: civilizations weaken not only through political loss but through intellectual contraction. Societies decline when one lens monopolizes truth. They endure when plurality is consciously regulated rather than suppressed.