This is rather an important matter and my preference is for the original proposition. i.e.., as framed by the Committee. I am in entire agreement with the mover of amendment No.59, ShrimatiRenuka Ray, whose aim is to have secular education not influenced by any kind of religious or spiritual worship or education which must be the aim. The amendment by the other lady member is somewhat controversial. What would be the fundamental education that should be given to the child would be a matter of opinion and it might lead to controversy. So, Sir, the amendment No.34 cannot be taken into account at all. It will do more harm than good. For, this elementary philosophy of comparative religion is very difficult to define. While as I have said I generally support the amendment of ShrimatiRenuka Ray where it aims that in no State Schools there should be any religious instruction, it does not contemplate prevention of religious education being given by other recognized and aided schools. So the objective may not be the same by the amendment of Mrs.Renuka Ray. Allowing the proposition, rather the original motion, as framed by the Committee, is very sound. It may be that there are some institutions where religious education is given and some State aid may be given and if there is no compulsion that no pupil can be compelled to receive such education, there is no harm in it. It might stand. So, I think, Sir, that the clause 16 as amended and placed before us by the Committee is better and I support that.
