oa Reexamining Secularism

References

1.  Romila Thapar, “The verdict on Ayodhya: A historian’s perspective”, The Hindu,October 2, 2010.
   [Google Scholar]
2.  Pratap Bhanu Mehta, “The leap and the faith”, The Indian Express, October 1, 2010.
   [Google Scholar]
3.  See Duncan Derrett, “The Codification of Hindu Law” in Religion, Law and the State in India(Oxford University Press, 1968), 321–351, for an account of these reforms.
   [Google Scholar]
4.  See Sen, supra n. 26, 1.
5.  See Kapur, supra n. 21, 115. Kapur’s analysis is based not only on the Ayodhya litigation but also on the various judgments on Hindutva that involved charges of hate speech against politicians from Hindu political parties, and their defense that these were legitimate appeals to Hindutva. In the main judgment, Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and Ors. 1996 scc (1) 130, the Supreme Court held that Hindutva was a way of life leading to the interpretation that the statements pertaining to hate speech were secular. According to Kapur, such an interpretation, which did not distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva, failed to see how these political parties were appropriating secularism.
6.  See Kapur, supra n. 21, 121–122.
7.  Justice Agarwal, Vol. 7, p.1561.
8.  Justice Khan, p. 221.
9.  Justice Agarwal Volume 7, p.1718.
10.  Justice Agarwal Volume 7, p.1584.
11.  Justice Agarwal Volume 7, p.1572.
12.  Justice Agarwal Vol. 14, p.3442.
13.  Justice Agarwal, Vol. 14, p.3260.
14.  Justice Agarwal, Vol. 14, pp. 3288–3289.
15.  Justice Agarwal, Vol. 14, pp. 3336–3337.
16.  Justice Agarwal, Vol. 8, p.1767.
17.  Justice Agarwal, Vol. 14, p.3341.
18.  Justice Khan, pp. 237–238.
19.  Justice Khan, p. 282.
20.  Justice Khan, pp. 276–277.
21.  Justice Agarwal, Vol. 20, p.4997.
22.  Justice Agarwal, Vol. 19, p.4551.