India, July 5 -- The Indian Constitution is not merely a legal manuscript; it is a living testament to the dreams, desires, and destiny of a billion-plus people. Often referred to as the Constitution's identity card, the Preamble is a poetic prelude that introduces this sombre symphony of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. As arguments rage and dust is thrown around the alleged immutability or sanctity of this pillared text, especially the terms 'socialist' and 'secular', it may be constitutional dharma to revisit facts, law, and ethos to demonstrate how disingenuous and legally indefensible it is to claim that the Preamble is cast in stone, immune from amendments. After the 42nd Amendment in 1976 added the terms socialist and secular, none of the several challenges to those additions in the decades that followed was successful in establishing that the Preamble fell outside the scope of the amending power of Article 368. The principles of socialism and secularism were firmly anchored in the original constitutional vision from the very beginning, even though they were technically codified by declaration in the 42nd Amendment. The Directive Principles generally and Articles 38 and 39 in particular, which require the state to lessen inequality and guarantee a just and equitable allocation of resources, are the conduits through which the socialist urge is expressed. Similarly, Articles 25 to 28 affirm a strong, secular ethos at the core of our republic by securing the promise of fair treatment for all faiths. These words may have appeared during the period of constitutional excesses of the Emergency, but they serve to clarify rather than to obfuscate the constitutional founding fathers' plan. These words serve as a reminder of the Republic's moral duties rather than causing harm to anyone. Good things can come out of bad times. Uprooting them now would be waging a pointless, contrived war, one that is being fought against India's basic concepts. In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court eloquently asserted: "Secularism is the bedrock of our constitutional philosophy... It is a facet of democracy and a basic feature of the Constitution." I wonder how the eminences grises from diverse quarters, political, legal, and constitutional post-holders alike, intend to delete something already held 30 years ago to be part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution by nine SC judges? Does not the basic structure doctrine hold that a constitutional amendment that violates the basic structure is unconstitutional? Look at the irony. Something added which has been held later to be part of the basic structure, is sought to be deleted by law pundits and political leaders, presumed to understand fundamental principles, without telling us how someone can erase a part of the basic structure. It is self-serving to suggest that secularism, in the Indian context, is anti-religion. It is, in fact, equi-religion, a celebration of the idea that all faiths have a place under the Indian sky. It is a holistic and all-encompassing idea, subsuming firstly the concept that the State cannot have a religion; secondly that the State maintains both equal distance from and equal support for all religions; and thirdly, that the State has equal respect for all religions. In that sense, we do not have the antiseptic, negative, western notion of strict separation between church and State. Sarva dharma sama bhaav can certainly coexist within the capacious confines of Indian secularism. We uphold the right to practise and propagate faith and all its attendant, related aspects by use of the widest constitutional language imaginable starting from Article 25. That is Indian secularism, a woven fabric of compassion, coexistence, and constitutional morality. There are those who scoff: "Isn't secularism already obvious in our democratic structure?" Perhaps. But in a world of rising intolerance and cloaked majoritarianism, the obvious becomes vital to declare, defend, and enshrine. The presence of the term secular in the Preamble is not rhetorical; it is a declaration of intent, a constitutional North Star that warns future governments: You may win votes, but you must not erode core values. Another supreme irony is that a dispensation that has done maximum damage to India's secular fabric over the last decade is letting loose its agents to propagate the deletion of this guardian angel! Indeed, if the word secularism did not exist today in the Preamble, the experiences of the last decade would necessitate its immediate and emphatic insertion. The perpetrators of its de facto desecration want its de jure deletion! When constitutional post-holders join the chorus, it is not merely a constitutional lapse but a deliberate espousal of political party ideology. The BJP has long harboured discomfort with the word secular, viewing it most unfairly as a synonym for minority appeasement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Secularism is not a western import, but a Vedantic impulse. It is Ashoka's Dhamma, Akbar's Sulh-i-Kul, Kabir's couplets and Guru Nanak's teachings all rolled into one. It is Swami Vivekananda, at the Parliament of Religions, proclaiming proudly: "We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true." One of my favourite definitions of secularism comes from Rajeev Bhargava's formulation. Adapting the Lincolnian phrase, he said that while "for the people" and "by the people" were understandable as core values of any democracy, Lincoln's use of the phrase "of the people" was intended to signify co-ownership of the Republic by each and every stakeholder, including the last man in the last row. Without this sense of co-ownership, no democracy can survive. The other word in the Preamble, Fraternity, is the best cross-fertilising partner of secularism. To try and erase this essence from our Constitution is not just revisionism; it is historical vandalism. This renewed debate around the Preamble is not academic. It is a mirror held to our times, when divisive politics, selective outrage, and communalism are on the rise. In such an era, the constitutional declaration of secularism is not a mere word. It is a wall, shielding the marginalised, the minorities, and, indeed, the soul of India itself. The old adage goes: "When the winds of change blow, some build walls, others build windmills." Our Constitution built a windmill: a secular, socialist, democratic Republic, so that future generations could harness the winds of progress and peace. Today, we are being asked to dismantle that windmill. The Preamble is not a mere prologue; it is a promise. A promise made to every citizen, every community, and every generation. It is our tryst with destiny. To erase or dilute that promise, even by suggestion, is to betray the soul of the Republic....