Context: The author was pointing out to the fact as to how, inspite of being a part of the basic structure doctrine, the commitment to secularism has not led to any Court decision invalidating an amendment. If such were to occur the Court would doubtless contend that its action was a justifiable defence of constitutional identity.
'The word 'amendment' postulates that the old constitution survives without the loss of its identity despite the change and continues even though it has been subjected to alteration.' In the case of secularism, however, the identity in question would be very specific to the Indian experience, and for that reason predicatably contestable given the competing versions of the concept that have struggled for ascendancy in the course of the nation's history.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.