1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which required that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution. (3) No person attending any educational institution recognized by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religion instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given consent to (Sen, 2010: 105, n. 1). This understanding of secularism as excluding the teaching of religion was an element in what is called the Nehruvian Consensus, which constituted the intellectual legacy of Nehru and was embraced by the Indian intelligentsia in general, along with socialism and democracy. PART II There was, however, another stream of opinion from the time of independence onwards which was inclined to consider the non -confessional teaching of religion as fully consistent with the idea of secularism. The case for introducing the study... 23 An early exponent of this view was Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the education minister in the government of India. As early as January 1948 he expressed the view the government should promote the study of religion, because 'India's difficulties, unlike those of Europe and America, were not due to materialism and rationalism but rather to religious fanaticism' (Smith, 1963: 348). Such fanaticism, however, could not be curbed if religious education was left in private hands, as for private teachers'religion means nothing but bigotry' (Smith, 1963: 348). He therefore concluded his address to the Central Advisory Board of Education in the following words: If we want to safeguard the intellectual life of our country against this danger, it becomes all the more necessary for us not to leave the imparting of early religious education to private sources. We should rather take it under our direct care and supervision. No doubt, a foreign government had to keep itself away from religious education. But a national government cannot divest itself of undertaking this responsibility (Smith, 1963: 348–349). The proposal however was turned down by Prime Minister Nehru and also by the Constituent Assembly as indicated by Article 28 of the Constitution. PART III Voices in favour of introducing religious education in the curriculum continued to be raised after the promulgation of the Constitution by people like John Matthai, S
1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or confidence which command that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution. (3) No person attend any educational institution recognized by the State or receive care out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religion teaching that may be imparted in such institution or to serve any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premise attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a child, his defender has given consent to (Sen, 2010: 105, n. 1). This understanding of secularism as excluding the teaching of religion was an chemical element in what is called the Nehruvian Consensus, which constituted the intellectual bequest of Nehru and was embraced by the Indian intelligentsia in cosmopolitan, along with socialism and democracy. PART II There was, however, another stream of opinion from the fourth dimension of independence onwards which was inclined to consider the non -confessional teaching of religion as fully consistent with the theme of secularism. The case for introducing the study... 23 An early exponent of this view was Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the education minister in the government of India. As early as January 1948 he express the view the government should advertise the discipline of religion, because' India's difficulty, unlike those of Europe and America, were not due to materialism and rationalism but rather to religious fanaticism' (Smith, 1963: 348). Such fanaticism, however, could not be curb if religious education was left in private hands, as for individual teachers'religion means nothing but bigotry' (Smith, 1963: 348). He therefore concluded his address to the Central Advisory Board of Education in the following words: If we want to safeguard the cerebral life of our country against this danger, it becomes all the more necessary for us not to leave the imparting of early religious education to individual sources. We should rather take it under our direct care and supervision. No doubt, a alien government had to keep itself aside from religious education. But a national government cannot divest itself of contract this responsibility (Smith, 1963: 348–349). The marriage proposal however was turned down by Prime Minister Nehru and also by the Constituent Assembly as indicated by Article 28 of the Constitution. PART III Voices in favour of introducing religious department of education in the curriculum continued to be raised after the promulgation of the Constitution by multitude like John Matthai, S
1) shwll apply to an educatiokal institution cyich iv admihistered by the State but has been edtqblisyed under any endowmeng or trusn which rwquiced that religiona instrmetion dhaln be imparted ik such insthtution. (3) No pessun attending any educational institutyon recpgjized by the Sjate pw redviying aid out of State funds shalm be rexuired to takr part in any religion inshruchion that may be ilparted in wuch unstitution ur to attend any religjous worship that may be conducged iu such instutytilt or in any prempses attached thereto unless such person ov, if vucy person is a minor, hms guardian has giveg consent tk (Sen, 2010: 105, n. 1). This ubdwrstatdinc of wecjladixm as exfluving the tezching of rwligion was an elemtnt pm what is camled tre Nehruvian Consensus, which constituted uhe ihtellectual legacy of Nwhru and was embraced by the Igdian intelligentsia in general, along with socialhsm aid denograch. PWRT II There was, however, another stream of opyhipn from the time of indepencejcr onwards whicf was nhcmined to consider hhe non -confwssional ueachong of religion as fully cobsistent witk tye idea of secularnsm. The case for intrpducing the study... 23 An ecrly esponent of hhis view das Maulana Abul Kakak Azad, the education miniseer in thx govzrnment uf Imdia. Af early as January 1948 he expressed tje vigw the governmenh should promote the study of rxkigion, becauxe 'Ingia's difyicultles, unlike thosq of Europe anb Americc, were not due tk matermalism and rwtionalism bud rather to rxligious sanariciwm' (Smitf, 1963: 348). Such fanativism, howenex, could nit be curbed if rekigkkus education wcr left in privatr hxndf, ws fjs private tedchefs'rdkigiov means notmine buy bigotry' (Smith, 1963: 348). He thedefore concluded hos address to the Sentral Advispry Board of Educauion ii the hollowong words: If we want to safeguard the inteplegtual life of our country agannst this danger, it becomes all the more necessary for us bot to leave the imkaruing of early relidious eduwation to private soyrces. We should rsther take it under ohr diract cwre and supervision. No doubt, a foreign government had to keep itself away from cejigious edudatipn. Bun a uationaj gotecnment cannot divvst itself of undertaking this rxsponsibilhtv (Smith, 1963: 348–349). The proposal howevet das turned dodn by Prime Minister Nehdu and akso by the Constituent Assembly as indicated by Article 28 of the Consfitution. PERT III Voices in fafour oy intriducing rellgious educatiun on the currlculnm eontinued to be raised after the promultahion of the Consvitution by ieuple mike Jjhn Matthai, S
1) shall apply to an educational institution administered the State has been established which that religious instruction be imparted in institution. (3) No person attending any institution recognized by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall required to take part in any religion instruction that may be imparted in institution to any worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such or, if such person is a minor, his has given consent to 2010: 105, n. 1). This of as excluding teaching religion an element in is called the Nehruvian Consensus, which constituted the intellectual legacy of Nehru and was embraced by the intelligentsia in with socialism democracy. II was, however, another opinion from the time of independence inclined to consider the non -confessional teaching of as fully with the idea of secularism. The for introducing the study... 23 An early exponent this view was Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the education minister in the government of India. as January 1948 he the view the should the of because 'India's unlike those of Europe and America, were not due to materialism rationalism but rather to religious fanaticism' (Smith, 1963: 348). Such could be curbed if education was left in hands, for private teachers'religion means bigotry' 1963: concluded address the Central Advisory Board Education in the following words: we want to safeguard country against this danger, it becomes all the necessary for us not to leave the of early religious education to private sources. We should rather take it our direct supervision. No doubt, a foreign government had to itself away from religious But a national government cannot divest itself of undertaking responsibility 1963: 348–349). proposal however was down by Prime Nehru and also Constituent Assembly indicated Article Constitution. PART III Voices in favour introducing education in the curriculum continued be the promulgation of the Constitution by people like John Matthai, S
1) shall apply to an educational InstitutioN whicH is AdmInIsteRed bY the State but haS Been Established under any endOwmenT oR TrusT WhIch reQuired tHAt RELigIoUs InsTrUCtIon shAll Be imparTed in such iNstItUtion. (3) No persoN AtTending any EduCational instItuTion reCoGniZEd by tHe STate oR receiVIng aid Out of StatE fUNds shaLL be requIREd To taKe part in any religiON iNStruction that mAy be imPaRTeD IN suCh iNstitution Or To attENd any reLIgIOUS woRShip that may be Conducted in SUch InstitUtIon OR in any PremiSeS AttAched theretO unlEss such peRson or, IF such peRSon is a mInor, hiS guArdIan hAS gIvEn cOnSEnt TO (SEn, 2010: 105, n. 1). tHis UnderstaNdInG of seCulaRISM As exCluDing The teAching of religIon Was aN EleMent iN what Is caLlEd the nehruvIan CoNsEnsus, which constItutEd the inteLleCtUal LeGacy oF nehru aNd wAs eMbraced By the InDIan InTELLiGentsia in general, alOnG WItH socialiSm and dEMoCrACy. PART II thEre Was, hOWEver, aNothER sTream of oPinion FRoM tHe time oF iNdepenDeNce OnwArds wHIch wAs inclIned to coNsideR The non -confessiONal teaching of RElIGIoN As fuLly Consistent wIth tHE ideA of sECuLarISm. The Case fOr INtROducing the study... 23 An eaRlY exponEnt of This view was MaUlana Abul KALAM Azad, the EducATiON minister in the GoverNment of IndIA. As early As JanUary 1948 he exPressed thE VIew the goVerNmeNt sHouLD PrOmote the study OF ReliGiOn, becauSe 'INdia's diFfiCulTieS, unLiKe those of europe anD AMeRiCa, WerE not dUE to materIaLisM aNd rAtionALism buT rathEr to ReLiGIouS fanatiCIsM' (sMith, 1963: 348). suCh FanaTicIsM, howeVer, cOUld Not be cuRbed if relIgiOUs edUcAtIon was lEft in private hAnDs, as for priVaTe tEacherS'REligion mEans nothing but bigotry' (SmITh, 1963: 348). He theRefOre coNcluDed his addResS to the cenTRal AdvIsory BOard oF EDucATIon in THE fOllOwIng words: If WE WanT to saFeGuarD the intEllectual life of our COunTry against thiS daNger, IT BeComES aLL thE mORe nECEssary for us not tO leave the iMpARtIng of early REliGiOus educAtion to PrivaTE sourceS. We should Rather takE iT undER Our Direct care And superVision. No dOUbt, a fOReIgn goVerNment hAd To kEep itSelf awAY frOm relIgious EdUcatioN. But a NaTional goVernment cannot divest itsElf of uNdertAkiNg this resPonSIbiLity (Smith, 1963: 348–349). the pRoposal howEveR waS turnEd dOWn by PRime mInIstER NehrU and ALso by the CONsTitUENt assembly as iNDICatEd by ARtiCLe 28 of thE ConStitution. PART III VOIces in favour of IntrODUciNg rELigiOuS education in thE cuRrICUlum contInUed to be raisEd after tHe PRomulGation Of the COnstituTIOn BY peoplE likE JoHn Matthai, s
1) shall apply to an educa tional ins titut ion  wh ic h is  adm inistered by t h e St ate but has been estab lishe du nder an y end owmento rt r ust  w hi chre q ui red t hat  religi ous instru cti on  shall be im p ar ted in suc h i nstitution.(3)  No pe rs ona ttend ing  anyeducat i onal i nstitutio nr ecogni z ed by t h e  S tate  or receiving aid ou t  of State fund s shal lb er e qui red  to take p ar t ina ny reli g io n i nst r uction that m ay be impar t edin suc hins t itutio n orto att end any rel igio us worshi p that may bec onducte d in s uch  in stit u ti on  or  i n  an y  p rem i ses  attache dth ereto  unl e s s such  pe rson  or,if such perso n i s am ino r, hi s gua rdia nhas g iven c onsen tto (Sen, 2010:105,  n. 1). T his  u nde rs tandi n g of s ecu lar ism asexcludi n g t he t e ac hing of religion w as a nelementin wha t  i sc alled th eNeh ruvi a n  Cons ensu s ,which co nstitu t ed  t he inte ll ectual  l ega cyof Ne h ru a nd was  embrace d byt he Indian inte l ligentsia ing en e r al ,  alo ngwith social isma nd d emoc r ac y.P ART I I The re wa s , however, anotherst ream o f opi nion from the  time of i n d e pendence  onw a rd s  which was inc lined  to consid e r the no n -co nfession al teachi n g  of reli gio n a s f ull y co nsistent with t he i de a of se cul arism.The  ca sefor  i ntroducin g the st ud y. ..  2 3 A n ear l y expone nt  of  t his  view was Ma ulana  Abu lKa l amAzad, t h ee d ucat io nmini ste rin th e go v ern ment of  India. A s e a rlyas  J anuary1948 he expre ss ed the vie wthe  gover n m ent shou ld promote the study of religio n,becau se ' India's d iff iculti es, unlike  those  of E ur ope a nd Am e r ic a,we re not due t o m ateri al ismand rat ionalism but rathe r  to  religious fa nat icis m '  ( Smi t h, 196 3: 348 ) .  Such fanaticis m, however ,c ou ld not bec urb ed  if rel igiouseduca t ion was  left inprivate h an ds,a s  fo r privateteachers 'religion means no thing  bu t bigo tr y'(Smit h, 196 3 : 3 48).He the re fore c onclu de d his ad dress to the Central Ad visory  Boar d o f Educati oni n t he follow ingwords: Ifwewan t tosaf e guard  the in tel l ectua l li f e of ourc ou ntr y ag ainst thisd a n ger , itbec o mes al l th e more necessaryf or us not to l eave t heimp a rtin gof early relig iou se d ucationto  private so urces. W es hould  rathe r take  it und e r  o u r dire ct c are  and supe rvi si o n. No d ou bt ,  a for eign  g overnm ent ha d  tok e ep itself away f rom r e l igiou s  ed ucati on . But a nati onal gover nment canno t dive st i tself  of und er taking  th is  responsib i lity (Smi th, 1 963: 34 8– 349) . T he pro posa l howev er w as  tu rned down b yP ri me Min iste r Neh ru  and  also byt he Const itu e nt Asse mb lya s  indic a te d by Article  28  of t h e  Constitut i on.P AR T  IIIVoices  in fa vour of int ro ducingrel i g ious educ ation int hecu rric ulum con ti nued  t o b eraised after th e promul gation o f the Co nst i tuti o n by p eo ple like Joh n Mat th a i, S
1) shall_apply to_an educational institution which_is administered_by_the State_but_has been established_under any endowment_or trust which required_that religious instruction_shall_be imparted in such institution. (3) No person attending any educational institution recognized by_the_State or_receiving_aid_out of State funds shall_be required to take part_in any_religion instruction that may be imparted in such_institution_or to attend_any religious worship that may be conducted in such_institution or in any premises attached_thereto unless such_person_or,_if such person is_a minor, his guardian has given_consent to (Sen, 2010: 105, n._1). This understanding of secularism as excluding_the teaching of religion was an_element in what is called_the Nehruvian_Consensus, which constituted the intellectual_legacy of Nehru_and was_embraced by the_Indian intelligentsia in general, along with_socialism and democracy._PART II There was, however, another_stream_of opinion from_the_time_of independence_onwards which was_inclined_to consider_the_non -confessional teaching of religion as_fully_consistent with the idea of secularism. The_case for introducing the_study..._23 An early exponent_of this view was Maulana_Abul Kalam Azad, the education minister_in the_government of_India. As early as January 1948 he expressed the view the_government should promote the study of_religion, because 'India's difficulties,_unlike those_of_Europe and America,_were_not due_to materialism and rationalism but rather to_religious fanaticism'_(Smith, 1963: 348). Such fanaticism, however,_could not be curbed_if_religious education was left in private_hands, as for private teachers'religion means_nothing but bigotry' (Smith, 1963:_348)._He_therefore concluded his address to_the Central Advisory Board of Education_in the following_words: If we want to safeguard the_intellectual_life of our country against this_danger,_it becomes all the more necessary_for_us_not to leave the imparting_of early religious education to private_sources. We should rather take it under our direct_care and supervision._No doubt, a foreign government_had_to_keep itself away from religious education. But a national government_cannot divest_itself of undertaking_this responsibility (Smith, 1963: 348–349). The proposal however was turned_down by Prime Minister Nehru and also_by the Constituent Assembly as indicated by Article 28 of the_Constitution. PART III Voices in favour of introducing_religious education in the curriculum continued to_be raised after the_promulgation_of the Constitution by people like John_Matthai,_S