|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
096472
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2010.
|
| Description |
xxv, 346p.
|
| Standard Number |
9780198060444, hbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 054981 | 321.80954/BHA 054981 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
051063
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1998.
|
| Description |
xii, 550p.
|
| Series |
Themes in politics series
|
| Standard Number |
0195650271
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 047896 | 322.10954/BHA 047896 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
048300
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2000.
|
| Description |
xii, 443p.
|
| Standard Number |
019565157
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 042605 | 321.80954/FRA 042605 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
022613
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jan 2002.
|
| Description |
1-32
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article challenges the argument that the conceptual and normative structure of secularism in India is itself terribly flawed. It shows that, first, ignoring the plurality within the western secular tradition, criticisms of secularism are directed against a particular, unattractive and perhaps least defensible variant of secularism for which religion must necessarily be privatized; and, second, that they wrongly identify this variant to be providing normative guidelines to the Indian state. Third, what developed in India is a distinctively Indian yet modern variant of secularism that, rather than erect a strict wall of separation, proposed a "principled distance" between religion and state. Further, by balancing the claims of individuals and religious communities, it never intended a bludgeoning privatization of religion. It also shows that a departure from a strict liberal-individualist model does not compromise the core principles of secularism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|