It is an autonomous organisation, established in New Delhi in 1954 by Government of India to promote and propagate understanding of Indian art, in and outside the country.

The art-historian Partha Mitter,[2] has argued that Modern Art in India developed through a series of interactions and frictions between "colonial hegemony and national self-image".

This was an important moment in India's history of Modern Art as it revelled in the affinity with folk, which seemed to underline an imaginative and technical range that had a richer visual vocabulary that of Western Academism.

[3] Artists like Nandalal Bose, Jamini Roy, and Abanindranath Tagore came to be seen as ‘authentic’ because their subject matter incorporated many folk idioms that they inculcated overtime through their involvement in the Gandhian phase of the nationalist movement after 1920.

The selective focus of the official cultural discourse became a major factor in defining Modern Art in India.

In 1950, the President commissioned Nandalal Bose to complete a set of paintings for the original hand written manuscript of the Indian constitution.

The Lalit Kala Akademi sold his paintings as a special portfolio (1982–83) in all their centenary publications as a landmark in modern art.

In April 2015, the Government of India took over management control of Lalit Kala Akademi citing complaints regarding alleged administrative and financial irregularities in its functioning.

Nehru envisioned the LKA as being democratic in its reach, membership and functioning, whereas Azad's idea of it was based on the line of the French Academy which had a rather exclusivist criteria.

In 1978, the rules of participation of the Triennial stated that the art forms constantly referred to as ‘folk’, ‘tribal’, and ‘tradition’ would not be allowed as they are not in the ambit of the "contemporary".

[3] The orientations of the officials at the helm of the organisation and their professional credentials have constantly affected the nature of design, legislation, and implementation of LKA's programmes.

The conflict in the constitutional objectives led to much confusion about its policy perspective especially in determining its nature as either an exclusive, elite organisation or as a one that was democratic in approach and functioning.

[3] Both Nehru and Azad agreed in granting the members of the LKA total autonomy regarding internal functioning and programme legislation.

They were seen as events that widened the scope of the Triennale and formed the basis of a national cultural festival that could embrace the arts.

The LKA provided for the Garhi Studios as an institutional facility for the organisation of seminars, artist workshops, lecture demonstrations, and exhibitions.

Souvenirs were made by these studios for foreign dignitaries and its grounds were used to host meetings, camps, on-the-spot workshops, and displays.

Nancy Adajania writes how the Triennale echos the rhetoric surrounding internationalism as not necessarily a monopoly of the industrially advanced societies of West Europe and North America.

In the 1970s, Vivan Sundaram's protest against the Triennale was emanating from the emphasis on the international that overlooked and marginalised Indian's own complex history.

The acclaimed art-crtitc Geeta Kapur emerged as one of the most vehement critics of the Triennale as she recognised their narrow economism as an extension of the international art exhibitions with vested commercial interests of commercial art dealers operating at the behest of both public and private, individual and national agents.

It became more important than the constitutional objectives of development, encouragement, and promotion of existing forms of contemporary Indian Art.