1967 Bangalore Consultation, a milestone event in the aca-
demic study of religion in South Asia. Two of the presenta-
tions were by the North American scholars John Carman and
Wilfrid Cantwell Smith, who respectively considered the
study of religion at Indian universities and in a global con-
text. Presentations at the conference helped move discussion
among Indian academics to a more critical and analytical
level. The paper by T. M. P. Mahadevan, the director of the
Centre for Advanced Study at the University of Madras, out-
lined principles governing the teaching of religion at the uni-
versity level. One of them was the encouragement of “the
method of objective criticism.” He also recommended that
“the stress should be on the teaching of moral and spiritual
values, and not on dogmas and particular rituals” (Seminar
on the Study of Religion in Indian Universities, 1968,
p. 55). The effort to reconcile two opposite and contradicto-
ry approaches, the secular and the religio-theological, rever-
berated in presentations calling for the establishment of com-
parative religion as a university subject.
The prevailing view conceived of the study of religion
as a means of promoting moral and spiritual values. Much-
needed perspective was added by the inaugural address, pres-
ented by the vice chancellor of Bangalore University, V. K.
Gokak, who pointed out that if the objective of teaching reli-
gion was to promote spiritual values, then it could not be
done through either an eclectic philosophical approach deal-
ing with “elements of reality that each philosophic system ac-
cepts” or the scientific study of religion that “refines away
the essence of religion itself to vanishing point the awareness
of spirit and all that it implies” (Seminar on the Study of Re-
ligion in Indian Universities, 1968, pp. 28, 30). By recalling
that the scientific study of religion already operated in the
context of existing departments of history and sociology, the
inaugural address took the position that the study of religion
should serve “secularity or tolerance, not spirituality” (Semi-
nar on the Study of Religion in Indian Universities, 1968,
p. 32). The presentation by J. L. Mehta of the Centre of Ad-
vanced Study in Philosophy at Banaras Hindu University
proposed that one of the tasks of the study of religion in
India was to aid in understanding the “other... within the
complex fabric which is the heritage of the Hindu student
of religion” and that for such an understanding “detached
and disciplined academic energy and attention” are required
(Seminar on the Study of Religion in Indian Universities,
1968, pp. 39, 40).
What is important to note about the level of dialogue
that characterized the Bangalore Consultation is that it was
accomplished in concert with scholars from North America
and showed Indian scholars to be mindful of the Western
intellectual tradition. In particular Mehta’s presentation, re-
ferring to the task of coming “to closer grips with the truths
of other religious traditions” and of understanding one’s own
religious and cultural tradition, introduced a discussion of
hermeneutic as a methodology in the study of religion (Semi-
nar on the Study of Religion in Indian Universities 1968,
p. 39). In this respect, the reflections at the conference ap-
proximated the discussion occurring outside India on the di-
rection and scope of the academic study of religion.
Comparative religion. The Bangalore Consultation in-
volved more than theoretical discussions of the study of reli-
gion. It also marked a shift to the use of the term comparative
religion, which implied a preference for a study of the differ-
ent religions of India. That perspective introduced the ele-
ment of dialogue as a methodology suited to learning about
other religions’ traditions from the perspective of their own
adherents and representatives. The impetus for this concep-
tualization arose from the dialogue between Indian and
Western scholars who wanted to see a recognition of India’s
moral and religious values. Carman and Smith stressed the
importance of understanding the outward expression of a re-
ligious tradition and its inner meanings for its adherents, for
whom the traditions may have supreme significance. Meth-
odologically this approach is unlike that taken by either phi-
losophy or theology, both of which are concerned with ideas
rather than their adherents. A dialogue allows room to con-
sider the views of the reflective and articulate practitioner.
In this respect comparative religion became a method in the
study of religion as well as a discipline. Ultimately, however,
it did not gain any significant momentum among South
Asian institutions of learning.
Smith was among the advocates of this method, and in
1965 he recommended to the Kothari Commission that
chairs and degrees in comparative religion be established.
The University Grants Commission and the Education
Commission accepted his recommendation, which was im-
plemented at Punjabi University at Patiala and at Visva-
Bharati University at Santiniketan in its philosophy depart-
ment. A comparative religion department was already in
place at Osmania University as a result of a 1949 reorganiza-
tion, but due to lack of support from the university, it was
later divided into two independent departments: Islamics
and Indology.
Radhakrishnan, chair of the 1948–1949 University Ed-
ucation Report, characterized comparative religion in his
East and West in Religion as a means for different religions
to share their visions, insights, hopes, fears, and purposes. He
also believed comparative religion could serve as a prophylac-
tic against claims of exclusivity by any one religious tradition.
This functional view was later accommodated by Smith’s
conceptualization of comparative religion as both a discipline
and a subject. But the momentum for establishing compara-
tive religion as a university discipline ultimately rested on
asking and finding answers to the fundamental question of
what religion really is. Given that only a handful of South
Asian universities offer courses on religion at undergraduate
and postgraduate levels, it may well be that the question has
failed to become as important to scholars in South Asia as
it is to their Western counterparts.
Still the drive to have comparative religion instituted as
a discipline within a university setting persists in South Asia8790 STUDY OF RELIGION: THE ACADEMIC STUDY OF RELIGION IN SOUTH ASIA