Let me begin by clarifying what this piece is not about and what it is about. It is not about whether the Preamble to the Constitution should be amended or not, whether it should have been amended in 1976 or not, whether India is a secular country or not, whether it has always been secular or not, whether BR Ambedkar and Jawharlal Nehru had any “understanding of secularism” or not.

What it is about is what is the usual, normal, proper, most appropriate, or best way to initiate the process of amending the Constitution. What prompted the writing is obviously the advertisement given by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on Republic Day, January 26, 2015, putting the original version of the Preamble to the Constitution, which did not have the words “socialist” and “secular” in it, as the background “water mark” to a quote by the Prime Minister.

In the discussions on social media on January 27, Cassandras expressed apprehensions that this was an insidious attempt to delete the words “socialist” and “secular” from the Preamble. First reactions from the government included explanations such as the original version of the Preamble was used because it was available as an artistic rendition by Nandalal Bose, and Republic Day is supposed to commemorate the original Constitution coming into force. The highest functionary who responded was the Minister of State in the Ministry of I&B, an Olympic medal winner in shooting and a newcomer to politics.

When the controversy refused to die down, the heavyweights stepped in, in the persona of Ravi Shankar Prasad, Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology, who earlier also held the portfolio of law and justice. He is a heavyweight because he was also a minister in the Vajpayee Cabinet from 1998 to 2004, holding the portfolios of coal, law and justice, and I&B at different points in time. He has also been the Chief National Spokesperson and the General Secretary of the BJP, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha.

Prasad is reported to have said, “What is the objection in placing some views in a historical perspective. The Preamble, which was used in the advertisement was the original Preamble and the Constituent Assembly which had prepared it had leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, B R Ambedkar and others. These two words were not there then.” He is reported to have gone on to say, “Did Nehru have no understanding of secularism. These words were added during the Emergency. Now what is the harm if there is a debate on it? We have put before the nation the original Preamble.”

What attracts attention here is the sentence: “We have put before the nation the original Preamble.”

It raises some questions. What was (or is) the need for putting the original Preamble before the nation? Is there any evidence that the nation has forgotten, or is about to forget, the “original Preamble”? And why do it now? Could it not have waited till the guest of honour for the Republic Day celebrations had left or till the Beating of the Retreat was over or…?

There have been other explanations too. A “constitutional expert” is reported to have said: “The word ‘socialist’ was added to send a message politically that she stood for the poor. The word ‘secular’ was obviously meant for the minorities in the context of the birth control programmes of the emergency period. It was not as if the Constitution was not secular or socialist before the words were added. India has been secular before the 42nd Amendment and continues to be secular after it…It was merely playing politics.” He is reported to have gone on to say that “the present controversy over the government advertisement was ‘innocuous’… [as] The advertisement only shows the Preamble originally signed by the Constituent Assembly members with the calligraphy of the famous artist, Nandalal Bose”.

What do all of such explanations add up to? Whether the controversy over the advertisement is innocuous or not, the advertisement itself does not appear to have been innocuous. It is clear from Prasad’s statement that at least one of the purposes of using the original version of the Preamble was to initiate a debate on whether the two words “socialist” and “secular” should be retained in the Preamble or not.

Initiating a debate on an issue that the government of the day thinks worthwhile is a very laudable objective. A serious issue such as whether the Preamble to the Constitution should be amended or not certainly deserves a wide, national debate and the government must be commended for initiating that.

The question however, as said in the first paragraph, is about the process of initiating the debate, how the debate is initiated. Obviously there are many options. The government or even the party that leads the government could issue a discussion paper or make a statement laying out their position and inviting comments. The chosen method, in this case, seems to be not innocuous but insidious. One assumes that those who chose this particular method must have thought it to be a very smart way, to use a more colloquial expression, to float a balloon, but it can also justifiably be considered to be sly.

Finally, it is useful to remember what the famous American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist, critic of American life and culture, and scholar of American English, HL Mencken, wrote in 1926: “Beware of all politicians at all times, but beware of them most sharply when they talk of reforming and improving the constitution.”

Yes, the 42^nd Amendment to the Constitution, and a few others, were done during the darkest period of Indian democracy so far, and we should have been beware of them then. Several other amendments done during that period were undone by the Janata government formed as a result of the Lok Sabha elections in 1977 but this one was not. Whether it should be undone or not, is not the issue here and must be debated separately, but the process of initiating this debate gives us even more reason to heed Mencken’s advice.

(Views expressed are personal)