Notes
- Ayesha Jalal, Democracy and Authority in South Asia: A Comparative and Historical Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
- On this point, see Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State: An Analysis of the Ideological Controversy in Pakistan, London: Almquist & Wiksell, 1985.
- V S Naipaul, Beyond Belief, New York: Little, Brown, 1998.
- For a good discussion, see Ashutosh Varshney, ‘Contested meanings: India's national identity, Hindu nationalism, and the politics of anxiety’, Daedalus, 122, 1993, pp 227–261.
- The identity of a ‘Hindu’ until recently conformed to this sort of popular interpretation. ‘“Hindu” originally meant anyone living around the Indus river. Today it's a lot like the Church of England. It is not really a faith, it's not really a Church. There is no Hindu organisation; you can believe this Hindu teacher or that one, worship at this Hindu temple or that one—if you want to go to a temple at all. It seems to be so relaxed that you can be a Hindu and an atheist. Or a Buddhist. Or a Sikh. There are even some Hindus who even go to Muslim shrines.’ Peter Biddlecombe, Around the World—on Expenses, London: Abacus, 1996, p 228.
- See especially the introduction in Ashis Nandy, Shikha Trivedi, Shail Mayaram & Achyut Yagnik, Creating a Nationality: Ramajanmabhumi Movement and the Fear of the Self, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993.
- For a detailed discussion, see Christophe Jafrelote, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, 1925 to the 1990s, London: C Hurst, 1996, Part IV: chs9, 10, 11.
- The idea of the Sikhs as part of the Hindu pantheon and thus equal partners in the Hindutva movement was first politically used by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. See, for instance, VD Savarkar, Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, Poona: SR Date, 1942, pp 101–387.