studying religion' and'studying about religion'. The study of religion, when introduced in an academic setting in the U.SA, attracted the same charges as it does now in India. The case went to the courts and they made a distinction similar to the one in India. I do not know to what extent the Western experience was drawn upon during the discussions in India and its examination could constitute a fascinating study, for if it turns out that the Indian legal tradition came up with it on its own, then we would have a surprising, and perhaps interesting parallel on our hands. In any case, this particular argument has a clear Western resonance, if not a clear Western connection.1 Other arguments, however, seem to have an Indian flavour. The idea that one should engage in the study of religion to promote common brotherhood reflects a very Indian sentiment. I am not suggesting that people in the West may not have also thought that such study might promote common brotherhood, but while it could be a f o r e s e e ab l e consequence of such study, one wonders to what extent it might have been so i ntended in the West, pace Max Müller (Müller, 1892: 29–60, esp. 60). Another Indian feature is the distinction between dogma and ph i l o s ophy sometimes invoked in this context. Thus the Radhakrishnan Report states: There is a difference between the preaching of dogma and a philosophical study of religion. While the former is precluded, the latter is permitted. There shall be no sectarian indoctrination in State institutions. But history of religion and of religious institutions, comparative religion, philosophy of religion can all be studied even in institutions maintained wholly out of State funds (Sen, 2010: 93). A third Indian feature is provided by the invocation of the word dharma. This point comes out clearly in the concurring judgment of, Dharmadhikari, J in Aruna Roy v. Union of India. His position is summarized by Ronojoy Sen as follows: 1 The distinction was already drawn by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who had studied in the U.K. and U.S.A. during the Constituent Assembly debates. He explained while discussing what was to become article 28: 'It is therefore not proper to say that by this article we have altogether barred religious education. Religious instruction has been left to be taught and be given by each community according to its aims and objects subject to certain conditions. All that
studying religion' and'studying about religion'. The study of religion, when introduced in an academic setting in the U.SA, attract the like charges as it does now in India. The subject go to the courts and they made a eminence like to the one in India. I do not know to what extent the Western experience was drawn upon during the discussions in India and its examen could constitute a fascinating discipline, for if it turns out that the Indian legal tradition came up with it on its own, then we would have a surprising, and perhaps interesting parallel on our hand. In any case, this particular argument receive a clear Western resonance, if not a clean Western connection.1 Other arguments, however, seem to have an Indian relish. The idea that one should engage in the study of religion to promote common brotherhood reflects a very Indian sentiment. I am not suggesting that people in the West may not have also thought that such study might promote common brotherhood, but while it could be a f o roentgen e s e e ab l e consequence of such study, one wonder to what extent it might have been so i ntended in the West, pace Max Müller (Müller, 1892: 29–60, esp. 60). Another Indian feature is the differentiation between dogma and ph i l o s ophy sometimes invoked in this context. Thus the Radhakrishnan Report express: There is a difference between the preaching of dogma and a philosophical study of religion. While the former is preclude, the latter is permitted. There shall be no sectarian indoctrination in State institutions. But history of religion and of religious institutions, relative religion, philosophy of religion can all be learn even in institution maintained wholly out of State funds (Sen, 2010: 93). A third Indian feature is provided by the invocation of the word dharma. This item comes out clearly in the concurring judgment of, Dharmadhikari, J in Aruna Roy v. Union of India. His situation is summarized by Ronojoy Sen as take after: 1 The distinction was already absorb by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who had studied in the U.K. and U.S.A. during the Constituent Assembly argument. He explained while discourse what was to become article 28:' It is therefore not proper to suppose that by this article we have altogether barred religious department of education. Religious instruction has been left to be taught and be given by each community according to its aims and objects subject to certain conditions. All that
stufying religion' and'studyikg about religiou'. The svudy of religiov, when introduced in an acadxmic settung in the U.SA, attractdd the sale chargws aw it does now in India. Ths casz xent to the coutts and they made a distinwtkou similar to the one in India. I do njt know tl what extent jhe Wtstqrn sqptrience was drawn upon during the discusvions in Indis and its examination coulf cojstitute a fascinahing study, dor yd it turns ojt that tht Nndian legam tradition came up with it on kts ocn, then we qoyld vave a surpcising, and perhaps interesding patallel on our mands. In any case, this particnlar argument has a slear Wesdexn resonance, if not a coear Festarn zinndctjoi.1 Ofher aggujents, howeber, seem to have an Indian flafotg. The idea thzt one srould engage in the study of religion tm pdomote common brotherhoid reflects a very Infian sentyment. I am not suggesting that people in the West may iog hcyc alri hhought that such study might promote common fdouheghood, but while ib could be a f o r e s g e ab l e conrequenes kf such study, one aonders to wyat extenu it kight have been so i ntendee in the Wesn, paxe Max Müller (Müller, 1892: 29–60, esp. 60). Anocher Imdian feature is the distinccion bstween dogmw and ph j l o s ophy somegimvs itvoked in this context. Thuf the Radiakrixhnan Rdporj statef: There is a dinxerence between thf precchinc of dogma and a philosophical study of rxkigion. While tve xormer if pregluded, the lattqr is permitteb. There fhall be no secnarian invoctrination in State insdltutions. But history of eelition ana of religious onstitutions, comparqtive religion, phikosulhy of religion cab all be studiec exen ij mnstiegtions maintdinea wfplly uut of Statc fjnds (Sen, 2010: 93). A third Indiat fezture is provided ny the invication jf the word dnarma. This point clmes mut cleatly in the concurring judgment of, Dharmadhlkavi, J in Aruna Roy v. Union of Nndia. His position is summarized by Ronoooy Sen as follows: 1 Thg distinction was alrgadn drawn by Dc. B.R. Aibedkar, wvo had studied in thw U.K. and U.S.A. durikg the Constituent Asssmbly gebatfs. He explained while discussing what was to become article 28: 'It is therefire nov [roper to szy tnat bj tkis articje wx iave altogether bsrred religious education. Religmous instrgccion has been left to be taugnt and be given by each community accorsing to ots aims and objects subject to certain conditions. All bhat
studying religion' and'studying about religion'. The study when in an setting in the as does now in The case went the courts and they made a similar to the one in India. I do not know to what extent Western experience was drawn upon during the discussions in India and its examination constitute fascinating for it turns out that the Indian legal tradition came up with it on its own, then would have a surprising, and perhaps interesting parallel our hands. In any this particular argument has a Western if not clear connection.1 arguments, however, seem have an Indian flavour. The idea that one should engage in the study of religion to promote brotherhood reflects Indian sentiment. am suggesting people in the not have also thought that such common brotherhood, but while it could be a o r s e e ab l e of such study, one wonders to what extent might have been so i ntended in the West, pace Max Müller (Müller, 1892: 29–60, Another Indian feature is distinction between dogma ph l s sometimes invoked this context. Thus the Radhakrishnan Report states: There is a difference the preaching of dogma and a philosophical study of religion. former precluded, the latter permitted. There shall be sectarian in State institutions. But religion of religion, of can all be studied in institutions maintained wholly out State funds (Sen, 2010: is provided by the invocation of the word This point comes out clearly in the judgment of, Dharmadhikari, J in Aruna Roy v. Union of India. His is summarized Sen as follows: 1 The distinction was already by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, had studied in the U.K. and U.S.A. during the Assembly He explained discussing what was become article 28: is therefore not say that this we religious education. Religious instruction has been to taught and be given by community its aims and objects subject to certain conditions. All that
studying religion' and'studyiNg about relIgion'. the StuDy Of reLigiOn, when introducED in aN academic setting in the U.sA, attRaCTed tHE sAme chArges as IT dOES noW iN INdiA. THE cAse weNt tO the couRts and they MadE a Distinction sIMiLar to the onE in india. I do not kNow To what ExTenT The WeSteRn expEriencE Was draWn upon durInG The disCUssions IN inDia aNd its examination cOUlD Constitute a fasCinatiNg STuDY, For If iT turns out tHaT the INDian legAL tRADItiON came up with it On its own, theN We wOuld haVe A suRPrisinG, and pErHAps Interesting ParaLlel on our Hands. IN Any case, THis partIcular ArgUmeNt haS A cLeAr WEsTErn REsOnaNCe, iF not a cleAr weStern ConnECTIOn.1 OtHer ArguMents, However, seem to HavE an INDiaN flavOur. ThE ideA tHat onE shoulD engaGe In the study of relIgioN to promotE coMmOn bRoTherhOOd reflEctS a vEry IndiAn sentiMEnt. i aM NOT sUggesting that peoplE iN THe west may nOt have ALsO tHOught thaT sUch StudY MIght pRomoTE cOmmon broTherhoOD, bUt While it CoUld be a F o R e s E e aB l e coNSequEnce of Such studY, one wONders to what extENt it might have BEeN SO i NTendEd iN the West, pacE Max mÜlleR (MülLEr, 1892: 29–60, Esp. 60). aNotheR IndiAn FEaTUre is the distinction BeTween dOgma aNd ph i l o s ophy sOmetimes inVOKEd in this ContEXt. tHus the RadhakriShnan report statES: There is A diffErence beTween the pREAching of DogMa aNd a PhiLOSoPhical study of RELigiOn. while thE foRmer is pRecLudEd, tHe lAtTer is permItted. TheRe ShAlL bE no SectaRIan indocTrInaTiOn iN StatE InstitUtionS. But HiStORy oF religiON aND Of reLiGiOus iNstItUtionS, comPAraTive relIgion, philOsoPHy of ReLiGion can All be studied eVeN in instituTiOns MaintaINEd wholly Out of State funds (Sen, 2010: 93). A thirD indian fEatUre is ProvIded by the InvOcatioN of THe word Dharma. this pOiNt cOMEs out CLEaRly In The concurrING juDgmenT oF, DhaRmadhikAri, J in Aruna Roy v. UniON of india. His positIon Is suMMArIzeD By rOnoJoY sen AS Follows: 1 The distiNction was aLrEAdY drawn by Dr. b.r. AmBeDkar, who Had studIed in THe U.K. and u.S.A. during The ConstiTuEnt ASSEmbLy debates. HE explainEd while diSCussiNG wHat waS to Become ArTicLe 28: 'It iS thereFOre Not prOper to SaY that bY this ArTicle we hAve altogether barred reliGious eDucatIon. religious InsTRucTion has beEn leFt to be taugHt aNd bE giveN by EAch coMmunITy AccORding To itS Aims and obJEcTs sUBJeCt to certain CONDitIons. ALl tHAt
studying religion' and'stu dying abou t rel igi on' .Thestud y of religion, when  introduced in an acad emicse t ting in  theU.SA, a t tr a c ted  t he  sa me ch arges  as  it doe s now in I ndi a.  The case we n tto the cou rts  and they ma dea dist in cti o n sim ila r tothe on e  in In dia. I do  n o t know to what e xt entthe Western exper i en c e was drawn up on dur in g  t h e  di scu ssions inIn dia a n d its e x am i n a tio n  could consti tute a fasc i nat ing st ud y,f or ifit tu rn s  ou t that theIndi an legaltradit i on came up with  it on  it s o wn,t he nwewo u ldh av e a sur prising,  a nd  perh apsi n t e rest ing  par allel  on our hands . I n an y  ca se, t his p arti cu lar a rgumen t has  a  clear Westernreso nance, if  no ta c le ar We s tern c onn ect ion.1 O ther ar g ume nt s , ho wever, seem to hav ea n  I ndian fl avour. Th ei dea that  o neshou l d  enga ge i n  t he study  of re l ig io n to pr om ote co mm onbro therh o od r eflect s a very  Indi a n sentiment. I am not sugges t in g th a t pe opl e in the We st m a y no t ha v eals o  thou ght t ha t  s u ch study might prom ot e comm on br otherhood, bu t while it c o uld be a  f o re  s e e ab l econse quence ofs uch stud y, on e wonder s to what e xtent it  mi ght  ha veb e en  so i ntended i n th eWest, p ace  Max Mü lle r ( Mül ler ,1892: 29– 60, esp.  6 0) .An oth er In d ian feat ur e i sthe  dist i nction  betw eendo gm a  an d ph il  o s  oph yso meti mes  i nvoke d in thi s conte xt. Thusthe Radh ak ri shnan R eport states:  T here is adi ffe renceb e tween th e preaching of dogma an d  a phil oso phica l st udy of re lig ion. W hil e  the f ormeris pr ec lud e d , the l at ter  i s permitte d .  Th ere s ha ll b e no se ctarian indoctrina t ion  in State ins tit utio n s .But hi s tor yo f r e l igion and of re ligious in st i tu tions, com p ara ti ve reli gion, p hilos o phy ofreligioncan all b estud i e d e ven in ins titution s maintai n ed wh o ll y out  of  State  f und s (Se n, 201 0 : 9 3). A  third  I ndianfeatu re  is prov ided by the invocationof the  word  dh arma. Thi s p o int  comes ou t cl early in t hecon curri ngj udgme nt o f ,Dha r madhi kari ,  J in Aru n aRoy v .Union of In d i a . H is po sit i on issumm arized by Ronojoy Sen as follows : 1T h e d ist i ncti on  was already d raw nb y  Dr. B.R .Ambedkar, w ho had s tu d ied i n theU.K. a nd U.S. A .  d u ring t he C ons tituent A sse mb l y debat es .H e expl aine dwhilediscus s ingw h at was to become  arti c l e 28: 'It  is t he reforen ot p roper to s ay that bythis a rtic le we  have a lt ogethe r b ar red religi o us educat ion.Religio us  ins tru ctionhasb e en le ft t obetaught an d be gi ve n  by  eac h com mu nity  accordin g  to itsaim s  and ob je cts s ubject to c ertain con dit ions. A ll that
studying religion'_and'studying about_religion'. The study of_religion, when_introduced_in an_academic_setting in the_U.SA, attracted the_same charges as it_does now in_India._The case went to the courts and they made a distinction similar to the_one_in India._I_do_not know to what extent_the Western experience was drawn_upon during_the discussions in India and its examination could_constitute_a fascinating study,_for if it turns out that the Indian legal_tradition came up with it on_its own, then_we_would_have a surprising, and_perhaps interesting parallel on our hands._In any case, this particular argument_has a clear Western resonance, if not_a clear Western connection.1 Other arguments,_however, seem to have an_Indian flavour._The idea that one should_engage in the_study of_religion to promote_common brotherhood reflects a very Indian_sentiment. I am_not suggesting that people in the_West_may not have_also_thought_that such_study might promote_common_brotherhood, but_while_it could be a f o_r_e s e e ab l e_consequence of such study,_one_wonders to what extent_it might have been so_i ntended in the West, pace_Max Müller_(Müller, 1892:_29–60, esp. 60). Another Indian feature is the distinction between dogma_and ph i l o s_ophy sometimes invoked in_this context._Thus_the Radhakrishnan Report_states:_There is_a difference between the preaching of dogma_and a_philosophical study of religion. While the_former is precluded, the_latter_is permitted. There shall be no_sectarian indoctrination in State institutions. But_history of religion and of_religious_institutions,_comparative religion, philosophy of religion_can all be studied even in_institutions maintained wholly_out of State funds (Sen, 2010: 93)._A_third Indian feature is provided by_the_invocation of the word dharma. This_point_comes_out clearly in the concurring_judgment of, Dharmadhikari, J in Aruna_Roy v. Union of India. His position is summarized_by Ronojoy Sen_as follows: 1 The distinction_was_already_drawn by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who had studied in the_U.K. and_U.S.A. during the_Constituent Assembly debates. He explained while discussing what was to_become article 28: 'It is therefore not_proper to say that by this article we have altogether barred_religious education. Religious instruction has been left to_be taught and be given by each_community according to its_aims_and objects subject to certain conditions. All_that