Religious Education In A
Democratic State – An Indian
Perspective
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium
of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the
people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the
illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition
which needs illusions”.
…….....Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Marx’s intention in saying that religion is the opium of the people
was to assert that religion’s purpose is to create illusory fantasies for the
poor. It was his thesis that economic realities prevent them from finding
true happiness in this life, so religion tells them that this is fine because
they will find true happiness in the next life. Marx’s suggestion that
religion is the soothing balm for the pain of life may be right, but religion
has much greater purpose, which does not seem to have been explored
by him.
To explore fully the impact of religion on human life, one needs to
define the concept of religion. The rationalists and non-rationalists have
debated throughout history the conceptual content of religion.
The Oxford Dictionary of Religion defines religion as “the belief in
and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal
God or gods; a particular system of faith and worship; a pursuit or
interest followed with devotion”. i
1 Sociologists tend to define religion by focusing on its social
purpose and utility. The traditional manner of looking at religion was
radically changed by Durkheim, when he recognized that religion is in
reality sui generis, meaning thereby that religious representations or
symbols are not delusions, nor do they simply stand for some other
phenomena, such as natural forces or social morphology. Rather, in his
social Kantianism, he was of the view that religious representations are
constitutive of society. They exist within the minds of individuals so as to
inhibit egocentric impulses and to discipline the individual so that he can
deal objectively with external reality. These shared representations, with
their capacity to direct and control personal motivation, are what make
society possible, according to Durkheim. ii
In the last few years a new model of human action, known as the
cybernetic model, has developed that will allow us to utilize the insights
of Weber, Durkheim, and Freud without falling back into the old
controversies
about
idealism
and
materialism,
rationalism
and
irrationalism, and humanism and science. The essential elements of the
cybernetic model are the action system and the symbolic control.
iii
An action system is the 'symbolically controlled, systematically
organized behaviour of one or more biological organisms'. The energy 'of
such a system is supplied by the organism and is organized through
genetically controlled organic structures that are not directly open to
2 symbolic influence. Thus, the basic motivations of the action system - its
drives and needs - are partially determined by organic structure,
although subject, through learning processes, to a considerable degree
of symbolic control. iv
Religion has many facets like narratives, symbolisms, beliefs, rituals
and practices, which give content and meaning to the experiences of life.
Whether its main focus is on a deity or deities, or an ultimate truth, its external
indicia include prayer, meditation, rituals, music and art. It is often interwoven
with society and politics. Its specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral
claims, about reality, the cosmos and human nature may give rise a set
of
religious
laws and ethics and
a
particular
lifestyle.
Religion
also
encompasses cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as
personal faith and religious experience.
Religion may also be described as a communal system for the
coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being,
person, or object, considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the
highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition,
rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core
belief, and these may overlap with concepts in secular philosophy.
Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.
3 Religion emerges in action systems with respect to two main
problems. In order to function effectively, it is essential that a person or
group have a relatively condensed, and therefore highly general,
definition of its environment and itself. Such a definition of the system
and the world to which it is related is a conception of identity. Such a
conception is particularly necessary in situations of stress and
disturbance, because it can provide the most general set of instructions
for the system to maintain itself and repair any damage sustained. In
addition to the identity problem, there is also the problem of dealing with
inputs of motivation from within the system that are not under the
immediate control of conscious decision processes. Such motivation is
partly under the control of genetic rather than symbolic processes.
The religious category is not the same throughout history, nor is it
universal. Its conceptual content has varied with time and tract.
According to Daniel Dubuisson, "What the West and the history of
religions in its wake have objectified under the name 'religion' is
something quite unique, which could be appropriate only to itself and its
own history." v
A good understanding of the meaning of how the word "religion"
came into common usage can be found in St. Augustine's writing. For St.
Augustine, Christianity was adisciplina, a "rule" just like that of the
4 Roman Empire. Christianity was therefore a power structure opposing
and superseding human institutions, a literal Kingdom of Heaven vi .
Etymologically,
the
English
word
"religion",
derived
from
the Latin religio, was in use only to mean "reverence for God or the gods;
careful pondering of divine things, piety". The word is also said to be
derived from the Latin word religare, meaning ‘to bind’.
At this point, Western Europe and the rest of the world seem to
have diverged. The authority identified by Augustine, what we might
today call "religiousness", had a commanding influence at the local level.
This system persisted in the Byzantine Empire following the East-West
Schism, but Western Europe regulated unpredictable expressions of
charisma through the Roman Catholic Church. With the Church losing its
dominance
during
the Protestant Reformation, Christianity
became
closely tied to political structures and religion was recast as the basis of
national sovereignty, and religious identity gradually became a less
universal sense of spirituality and more divisive, locally defined, and tied
to nationality. It was at this point that "religion" was dissociated with
universal beliefs and moved closer to dogma in both meaning and
practice.
The English word “religion” does not fully convey the Indian
concept of religion. The word “dharma” used in Indian literature has a
5 very wide meaning. One meaning of the word is, “moral values or ethics”
on which life is naturally regulated. Dharma or righteousness is
elemental and fundamental in all nations, periods and times. Truth, love
and compassion are human virtues. This is what Hindus call sanatana
dharma meaning religion or dharrma that is immutable, constant, living
and permanent. Religion, in a wide sense, therefore, connotes those
fundamental principles that sustain life without which life would not
survive. In this concept of religion or dharma, different faiths, sects and
schools of thoughts are merely different ways of knowing the truth, which
is one. The various religious schools are understood as paths (pantha)
or traditions (sampradaya). In the Western world, particularly in Britain,
religious education has been understood as nearly identical with
religious instruction.
The deeper social basis for religion is better reflected in the more
comprehensive word dharma used for religion in India, which has greater
social content. Dharma is a compendious word with several shades of
meaning. It means moral authority, order, law, duty, justice, etc. In fact,
Indians believe that dharma is the fulcrum on which society revolves and
that it is the bond of cohesion by which societal constituents are held
together. The Indian scriptures elevate dharma to the highest pinnacle
6 and declare that it is higher than the polity or ruler, both of whom are
bound by it and must obey it.
According to the Maha Narayana Upanishad, dharma is one of the
fundamental values of life; it helps in preventing and alleviating the
effects of transgressions; its practitioners attract people; it is difficult to
practise, but is one of the highest values of life vii . The Rigveda calls by
the name rta. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad describes dharma as the
King of kings, which enables even the weak to challenge the mighty viii .
That which holds together the subjects and society is called dharma by
the knowing ones, says the Mahabharata ix .
The moral force of dharma is taught as the backbone of religious
authority in Indian scriptures. It is the highest moral authority to which
even the State (or the ruler) is subject.
It can be said to be the
equivalent of modern concept of Rule of Law, postulating that howsoever
high you be, you are subject to the Rule of Law. That is the desideratum,
the summum bonum of democracratic citizenship.
Although, religion is not the only source of essential values, it
certainly is a major source of value generation. What is required today is
not as much religious education as education about religions, their
basics, and the values inherent therein and also a comparative study of
the philosophy of all religions. These need to be inculcated at
7 appropriate stages in education from the formative years. Students need
to be made aware that the essence of every religion is same, even if the
practices differ. They should also be taught to perceive what is common
in all religions instead of their differences, and to respect differing
opinions.
Religion can effectively be used as an instrument of social
cohesion and harmony, by emphasising the features common to different
religions. The UNESCO Department for Intercultural Dialogue and
Pluralism for a Culture of Peace pleads for ‘spiritual convergence’ and
proposes to promote dialogue among the different religious and spiritual
traditions in a world where intra- and interreligious conflicts have become
the order of the day. It observes:
“[T]hat it is from early childhood that children should be introduced to the
discovery of “otherness”, and to the values of tolerance, respect, and confidence in the
“other” that will bring about a change of behaviour and attitudes towards others. The
introduction of specific teaching of intercultural and interreligious dialogue, through the
adequate pedagogical tools, is conceived as a means to foster reciprocal knowledge of
shared values contained in the message issued by religious and spiritual traditions, which
can be considered as a common spiritual and cultural heritage”.
However, a caveat is required here. Education about religions
needs handling with extreme care. All steps must be taken in advance to
ensure that no personal prejudices or narrow-minded perceptions are
allowed to distort the real purpose of this venture; no rituals, dogmas and
superstitions are propagated in the name of education about religions.
8 All religions have to be treated with equal respect and there should be no
room for discrimination.
We are heading for a materialistic society that tends to disregard
the entire value-based social system. It is indisputable that in a
democratic society, moral values are of utmost importance. In a society
where there are no moral values, there would neither be a just social
order, nor respect for human rights. Bereft of moral values, secular
society or democracy cannot survive for long. Values are virtues in an
individual and if these values deteriorate, breakdown of the family,
society and the nation as a whole would be inevitable. In today’s society,
with continuous degeneration of social and moral values due to greed
and corruption, it is imperative to construct a solid moral foundation from
the base level of students so that as adults they can fight against all
kinds of fanaticism, ill will, violence, dishonesty, corruption and
exploitation. History is an excellent teacher and teaches us that moral
decadence led to the annihilation of several cultures and societies.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, as
George Santayana said x .
9 The basic purpose of any religion is to control the beast within the
human by disciplining the animal instincts and developing compassion,
consideration and care for others in society. Religion is thus the
foundation for value-based survival of human beings in a civilized society.
The authority and sanction in a civilized society depends upon its moral
values. The philosophy of coexistence - of human with human, and
human with nature - taught by the saints all over the world is but the
benign by-product of religion. If this be the curriculum of religious
education, it cannot be objected to as it is neither opposed to democratic
principles, nor violates any constitutional or legal rights, nor offends
moral values. No one can dispute that truth (satya), righteous conduct
(dharma), peace (shanti), love (prema) and non-violence (ahimsa) are
the core universal values accepted by all religions.
Religion today is a most misunderstood and, hence, much
maligned concept. There appears to be misguided thinking that
knowledge of different religions would bring disharmony in society.
Knowledge, like sunlight, is the best disinfectant. Ignorance of religious
tenets of others breeds xenophobia and hatred, while true knowledge of
different religious tenets helps social integration and communal harmony.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights evidence the anxiety of humankind
10 to ensure that religion does not become an obstacle in achieving
democratic aspirations. Art. 18 of the ICCPR specifically declares:
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right
shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom,
either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion
or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a
religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are
prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the
fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of
parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of
their children in conformity with their own convictions.
Art. 24 of ICCPR provides that In those States in which ethnic,
religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such
minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other
members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and
practise their own religion, or to use their own language.
Concisely put, the essential requisites of a Democratic State in this
regard, imply the following:
1.
The State guarantees freedom of conscience in matters of
religion to all citizens.
There is no discrimination between individuals on grounds of
religion. This would imply that there is equality before the law
and positions of authority are open to all.
The State is not concerned with and, therefore, does not
interfere in matters of religion.
2.
3.
Democratic citizenship must, therefore, imply corresponding
obligations upon the citizens to so modulate their conduct as to enable
the State to fulfil its duties as a democratic polity.
11 The three constitutional models of careful interplay of religion and
democratic ideals are to be found in America, Israel and India. The
American model treats religion as a purely private affair and abolishes it
from the public space. The Israeli model is based on the concept of a
Jewish State but considers religion to be compatible with democratic
ideals and attempts reconciliation of the two. The Indian model, while
shunning religion from public space of the State, guarantees freedoms to
practise, propagate, and teach different religions and establish
institutions for these objectives. Models of secular constitutional
development need to be framed in accordance with the regime specific
ends; they should, as Arsistotelian political science teaches, ”distinguish
the laws which are absolutely best from those which are appropriate to
each constitution” xi .
That brings us to the idea of secularism, which is a fundamental
tenet of democracy. Secularism is a basic feature of the Indian
Constitution, but its content is purely indigenous and different from
European notions. Secularism has meant different things to different
people in different lands at different times. For historical reasons, it
meant irreligiousness and separation of the State from religion, in
Europe. In a multi-religious country like India, where the cultural heritage
is steeped in religion, this concept of secularism would have been
unacceptable. The genius of the Indian people had therefore to find an
12 indigenous version acceptable to the local populace. The concept of
secularism was adapted to mean equal respect to all religions, with the
State showing no preference to any. “[t]here is no provision regarding an
official state religion; there can be no religious instruction in state
schools; and there can be no taxes to support any particular religion” xii .
Religion is the mainstay of Indian life. From cradle to grave the
Indian is governed by intricate religious rules. Religious instruction,
therefore, occupies a central role in an Indian’s life. The possible conflict
between propagation of religious ideas and the liberal ideals of
Democratic State have been avoided in India by adroit adaptation of the
secular ideal to the conditions in India.
The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to practise any religion
and the right to establish institutions devoted to propagation of religion
and religious instruction. Although, the State is precluded from
sponsoring any religious activity including religious education, the right to
do so is a guaranteed fundamental right of the individuals. Thus, we
have institutions dedicated to teaching and propogation of Hinduism,
Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism flourishing
here.
Secularism, as a concept of Western origin and vintage, has
perhaps no Indian equivalent. In none of the Indian languages, whether
13 Sanskrit or any other language in the Indian sub-continent, do we come
across a term that exactly corresponds to the Western concept of
secularism. The term “Dharma-Nirapekshata” (‘severance from dharma’),
loosely used in some Indian government circles, is conceptually incorrect
and connotatively misleading. “Dharma” as understood in the Indian
context is a compendious word not restricted to “religion” as understood
in the west. Dharma encompasses within its fold notions of right, justice,
morality, ethics, good order and conscience and more. One cannot think
of a State being bereft of these fundamental humanitarian values.
To the Indians dharma was ingrained and internalized in their
psyche. From cradle to grave, dharma enmeshes their lives. It is
idealised as the foremost of the four objectives of life. If we identify the
spirit of the concept of Western secularism as an attempt at liberalism,
as an attempt at not imposing one’s religious thinking on others, with or
without the use of force, the concept is familiar as we see its glimpses
throughout Indian history. Despite the dominant discourse of “Sanatana
Dharma”, the ideas opposed to the dominant discourse were neither
aborted, nor violently suppressed. On the contrary, there was active
debate and attempt to rationally refute and critically confute rival ideas
and concepts. Debate, discourse and dialectics were the tools to achieve
this end. Thus, we find that Indian thinkers equally accommodated the
14 non-conformists and anti-establishmentarians. Charvaka, Buddhism and
Jainism, flourished as recognized schools of philosophy (darshanas).
History of Indian philosophical thought bears testimony to the fact that,
despite apparent contradictions, it had always pursued the path of
synthesis. Jnana-Karma, Sakara-Nirankara and many more conflicting
ideas flourished under the wide umbrella of Indian thought. This spirit of
accommodation and synthesis richly contributed to the development of
the Indian version of secularism. To the Indian, secularism strictly does
not mean total divorce from dharma, but a synthesis.
The political developments in the country leading to its partition left
their indelible imprints on the framers of the Indian Constitution. Gandhi
and Nehru, who strode the Indian political scene like colossuses, gave
direction and moment to Indian social and political thinking. Conforming
to his high spiritual stature, Gandhi reckoned secularism as “SarvaDharma-Samabhava” or equal regard for all religions. Jawaharlal Nehru,
a self-proclaimed agnostic, too enthusiastically adopted this conceptual
vector, which was totally different in dimensions from its European
cousin. As a keen student of European history, Nehru was very aware of
the adverse consequences of association between State and Religion. In
his conceptualization, a secular State, “does not obviously mean a State
where religion is discouraged. It means freedom of religion and
15 conscience, including freedom for those who have no religion, subject
only to their not interfering with each other with the basic conception of
our state” This was but an attempt to reconcile the noumenal with the
phenomenal; the ideal with the practical; a synthesis of antitheses.
Acceptance of ‘secularism’ as a political ideal was a formal concession
of practical necessity in a multi-religious society. Given the immediate
fear psyche gripping both the majority and minority communities at that
time it was essential to articulate a syncretic hypothesis, which could
reassure both. The testing times gave birth to the Indian version of
secularism, purely as an Indian response to the situation.
It has,
therefore, been described as the mode of reconciliation of identity groups
in the process of democratic transformation based on reason xiii .
In post independence India, Jawaharlal Nehru’s idea of secularism
as “keeping the State politics and education separate from religion” and
making religion a private matter for individual, became dominant. Its
natural corollary was ‘equal respect for all faiths, and equal opportunities
for those who profess any faith’. In a multi-religious and multi-caste
society, secularism is a dire necessity for society’s survival. If a plurality
of groups is to function as a minimal inter-related society functioning on
the basis of minimal trust, the political system has to generate a frame of
reasonable parity between the groups. In a society where “religion” is an
16 every-day mode, not a sociological dramatisation, secularism cannot
mean a structural separation between the religious and the secular, but
an arrangement in which all group identities, contingently “religious”,
enjoy a fair deal. This is Gandhian secularism. The wisdom of Gandhi
can be seen when it is realized that this is what Indian secularism has
turned out to be in practice - not an abolition of the religious category in
politics, but a religious parity within the political framework.
Vinoba Bhave, another great contemporary Indian thinker,
explained secularism, or “Sarva Dharma Samabhava” thus xiv :
“I am of the view that there are four essential ingredients of
Sarv Dharm Sambhav, the feeling of equality for all religions. One of
them is faith in one’s own religion, the second is respect for all
religions, the third is the reformation of one’s religion and the fourth
one, which naturally follows from these three, is opposition to
irreligiousness. When all these ingredients are found together, there is
Sarv Dharm Sambhav.”
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, the eminent philosopher Statesman and
President of India, once declared: “the religious impartiality of the Indian
State is not to be confused with secularism or atheism. Secularism as
here defined is in accordance with the ancient religious tradition of India.
It tries to build up a fellowship of believers, not by subordinating
individual qualities to the group mind but by bringing them into harmony
with each other. This fellowship is based on the principle of diversity in
unity which alone has the quality of creativeness.” xv
17 To Indian thinking, secularism is not merely the broad pattern of
management of equation between politics and religion. It represents
much more than being a matter of institutional framework. It represents
a true sense of synthesis of religion and compassion with a spirit of
tolerance, universalism and freedom. It represents the majesty of the
Rule of Law or dharma as the indispensable yardstick for a secular State
or a secular society. It is at once an ideal aspiration, a goal as well as an
end; a product as well as a process.
Just as the term secularism in Europe derived its connotative
content from the socio-cultural ethos and the historical developments
there, in India too, for similar reasons, the term has acquired a distinctive
indigenous flavour which defies definition. Cabining it within the bounds
of a Constitutional definition would have robbed it of its dynamic content.
Sometimes it is better that terms are left in a state of imprecision, leaving
their connotation elastic and to be supplied by experiences with spatial
and temporal constructs.
What is needed today is value education and all educationists
agree on that. What are the values and their source, however, may
become debatable. Religion is one powerful and rich source of desirable
values in life. Hence, value education must necessarily look to religion
and religious education for inspiration.
18 Religious education must lay emphasis on equity and social justice
to promote the country’s unique socio-cultural identity and contribute to
national cohesion, promoting tolerance, scientific temper and the
concerns enshrined in the National Constitution.
The religious educational curriculum must be designed to enable
the learner to acquire knowledge to develop concepts and inculcate
values
commensurate
with
the
social,
cultural,
economic
and
environmental realities at the national and international levels. It must
aim at enhancing social values like friendliness, cooperativeness,
compassion, self-discipline, courage, love for social justice, etc. Truth,
righteous conduct, peace, love and non-violence are the core universal
values that must be taught as the foundation for building a value-based
education programme, of which religious education must become an
integral component. These universal values are intended to enrich the
overall
human
personality
—
intellectual,
physical,
emotional,
psychological and spiritual — and correlated with the five major
objectives of education, namely, knowledge, skill, balance, vision and
identity
Secularism is the basic feature of many Constitutions. Imparting of
“religious instruction” in educational institutions maintained out of State
funds becomes taboo in such cases. Whether such prohibition applies to
19 education about religions, dissociated from tenets, rituals, observances,
ceremonies and modes of worship of a particular sect or denomination,
is a matter for careful consideration.
A distinction, a vital one, can been made between imparting
“religious instruction” that is teaching of rituals, observances, customs
and traditions and observances or modes of worship in religions and
teaching of philosophies of religions with more emphasis on study of
essential moral and spiritual thoughts contained in various religions. The
dividing line, though thin, is yet distinct and discernible.
Even in a Democratic polity wedded to secular philosophy by its
Constitution, “religious education” can be distinguished from “religious
instruction”. The former would connote approaching the many religions
of the world with an attitude of understanding and trying to convey that
attitude to children. The distinction between “religious instruction” and
“religious education” has to be maintained while introducing a curriculum
of religious education and implementing it. That requires constant vigil
and monitoring on the part of those imparting religious education from
the primary stage to the higher levels to avoid the potential danger of
religious education degenerating into religious instruction of a preferred
faith to the detriment of the core values.
20 The minds, hearts and hands of children are to be engaged in
forming their own character to ‘know good’, ‘love good’ and ‘do good’.
The ultimate aim of religious education must be building national
character and turning the young students into good citizens of the world.
Human history is replete with savants and thinkers professing different
religious faiths who have taught eternal values. Those eternal values are
to be inculcated in the young minds by value based education drawing
sustenance from religion.
Formerly, the primary emphasis in education was on building the
character of a student. Today, the emphasis is on imparting and
acquiring skills and not values. Information is mistaken for wisdom and
knowledge. Proficiency acquired in skills may become obsolete by lapse
of time, but values instilled remain forever. Instead of education
becoming an information transmission process, it must aim for the
holistic development of the student, evolving him into a perfect human
being and a useful member of society. Religious education has a critical
role to play in this stupendous task of transformation of minds.
Swami Vivekananda, a great religious leader and thinker of the
20th century, aptly said:
‘Education is not the amount of information that is put in your
brain and runs riot there, undigested, all your life. We must have
21 life-building, man-making, character-making, assimilation of ideas.
If education is identical with information, libraries are the greatest
sages of the world and encyclopaedias are rishis.’
Truth (satya), righteous conduct (dharma), peace (shanti), love
(prem) and non-violence (ahimsa) are the basic universal values which
can be identified as the bedrock on which the edifice of value-based
education programme can be built up.
The seeds of value need to be planted early in the impressionable
minds of students. If dedicated teachers in school succeed in implanting
the fundamental life values into the minds of young children, the task of
building national character on such firm foundation becomes easy.
Religion can play a tandem role in this task.
Besides personal values, there are certain social values which
ought to be imbued into the young mind. These are the values which
concern the whole community, like concern for the aged and the
handicapped, for the deprived sections of the society, etc. All religions
ultimately teach these social values too.
Another aspect of Religious education that merits serious
consideration is that the students must be made aware of and
acquainted with the basics of all religions, the values inherent therein
and also a comparative study of the philosophy of all religions. Even if
22 there are differences of opinion in certain areas, they must learn to
coexist and carry no hatred against any religion.
One cannot forget that all values of life are derived from the
ultimate reality — the supreme power or supra-consciousness —
towards which man orients himself. If faith in that reality is lost, then
values lose their meaning. To believe that each of us carries the divine
spark is the most important eternal value to be inculcated into every
human mind. The ultimate goal of education is rediscovery of the self
and realisation of the hidden treasure within. Teaching that is the
avowed purpose of all religions.
As the etymology of the words ‘religion’ and ‘dharma’ suggest,
control of the beast inherent in humans is the purpose for which religions
have come into existence. Religion is the foundation for value-based
survival of human beings in a civilized society. The force and sanction
behind civilized society depends upon moral values. The philosophy and
methodology of coexistence is another facet of religions. Coexistence,
not only with humans, but also with all animates and inanimate beings on
earth, and the environment including air and water, has been thought
over and discussed by saints and thinkers of the world and their thoughts
are reflected in religions. Religious education imparted of such ideas is
23 neither inconsistent with constitutional rights, nor detracts from the
obligations and duties of democratic citizens.
In Aruna Roy xvi
the Indian Supreme Court upheld the National
Curriculum Framework for School Education published by the National
Council for Educational Research and Training including religious
education within it. The judgment is a locus classicus, which delves
deep into the real purpose of education and concludes on these very
grounds that emphasis on religious education in schools is neither
undemocratic, nor opposed to the Indian Constitutional tenets.
A democracy is a political institution wedded to the rule of law,
whose real sanction is moral authority. Any law without the backing of
moral authority loses the stature to command obedience. Societal evils
like fanaticism, ill will, violence, dishonesty, corruption, exploitation and
drug abuse can neither be fully cured, nor completely controlled by mere
legal rules. The underpinning of moral authority required for the legal
rules can only be educed and evolved by religious education. Selfdiscipline, courage, love for social justice, truth, righteous conduct,
peace, non-violence and similar core universal values can hardly be
enforced by any legal system.
The purpose of education is to ensure that knowledge shines forth
like the bright sun dispelling the darkness in the individual minds,
24 disinfecting them of all pettiness, prejudice, blind faith and dogma, and
ennobling them by imbuing them with the core values for enrichment of
human life. That is a consummation to be devoutly wished for, and
religious education is its sine qua non.
*****************
i
Oxford Dictionary of Religion; International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences; Macmillan; vol 13; pp.406‐413 iii
ibid iv
Ibid ii
v Daniel Dubuisson. The Western Construction of Religion. 1998. William Sayers (trans.)
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. p. 90. vi Max Müller. Introduction to the science of religion. p. 28 vii
Taittireeya Upanishat 4‐79 Brihadaranyaka Upanishat, 1‐4‐14 ix
Mahabharata, Chapt. 16, Karna Parva, verse 58 viii
x
Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284
xi
Aristotle 1962, 1288b 10 quoted in The Wheel of Law, Jacobssohn Gary Jeffrey, Princeton University Press, 2003 xii
India as a secular State; Smith Donald E; xiii
Secularism: Hegemonic and Democratic by M.Mohanty, Secularism and Indian Polity edited by B.
Chakrabarty p. 8
xiv
Vinoba, p. 80 para 342, edited by Vishwanath Tandon Saw Seva Sangh Prakashan,Varanasi, 1981 Recovery of Faith, Allen and Unwin 1956. p. 202 xvi
Aruna Roy vs Union of India , (2002) 7 SCC 3176 xv
25