The example we would do well to keep in front of us is that of the Dalai Lama. He was giving a discourse on a Tibetan text about meditation. He read … - Arun Shourie

On the other hand, when sticking to the text is what will advance the judgment, they become strict constructionists. Some of the most conspicuous instances of this can be found in judgments relating to Article 30, the article that deals with the ‘right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions’. The country had been partitioned on the cry that Muslims will never be secure in a united India. The framers were naturally keen to reassure the minorities that they would be free to preserve their religion, language and culture. Accordingly, Article 29 was enacted guaranteeing them and assuring them of this freedom. In case they wanted to set up institutions for safeguarding their language, culture, religion, Article 30 was enacted assuring them that ‘All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.’ The context made the purpose clear: minorities would have the freedom to set up such institutions as they thought would best preserve their culture, religion, language. But, given what has been the climate of discourse since the framing of the Constitution, the judges became literalists. Minorities would have the right to set up and manage ‘educational institutions of their choice’ irrespective of the purpose for which the institution was set up. Thus, engineering colleges and dental colleges set up by a family of, say, Muslims would have freedoms from state regulation and oversight that engineering and dental colleges set up by run-of-the-mill Indians would not.

The condescension, the picture which is drawn of Hindus and other non-believers, their being clubbed with animals and vermin—any text doing this in the case of Muslims would call forth howls of denunciation. From the secularists as much as from Muslims.

A moment's reflection will show that India's case is not at par with the ones we have been considering. For those instances are of the most recent times - those nations were "imagined", those traditions were "invented" just a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. By contrast India has been seen as one and its people have had a common way of life for thousands of years. It is not just that its history is that old.... It is a continuous history. (9)