Above the fold: Top stories of the day
1. Chief MInister Nitish Kumar to ban liquor in Bihar from April 1.
2. In fresh developments in the Sheena Bora case, the Central Bureau of Investigation alleges that Peter and Indrani Mukerjea siphoned off Rs 900 crores when INX News Pvt Ltd was sold.
3. Turkey will not apologise for bringing down a Russian warplane on the Syrian border. Moscow plans economic sanctions against Ankara.

The Big Story: Secular sickular
On the first day of the winter session, and the first Constitution Day, government and Opposition debated secularism. Home Minister Rajnath Singh said the "political misuse" of the word should stop immediately. The Bharatiya Janata Party fired that old salvo: the word "secular" was not in the original Constitution, it was introduced in 1976 along with the term "socialist". In other words, it was a term inserted by a Congress government. Secular ideals had always been enshrined in our Constitution, the argument suggests, but 1976 is when secular turned sickular, a political idea put to cynical use.

This is not the first time the BJP has tried to question the authenticity of the word secular. Earlier this year, Republic Day advertisements carried an image of the old Preamble from 1950, without the words "secular" and "socialist". Back then, the government had claimed that since the ad commemorated the historical occasion of Republic Day, it was only fitting that an image from 1950 should be used. But it was a thin excuse. By removing the word, the BJP seeks to define its own version of secularism. In Parliament yesterday, Singh said the literal translation of the word is "sect neutral" and not "religion neutral" or "dharm nirpeksh". "India's religion is already dharm nirpeksh," he said.

Which religion did he mean, exactly? Or was he referring to all faiths, somehow homogenised by a mystical Indianness? Some would argue that it is the BJP's insistence on a monolithic Indian culture that lies at the heart of the intolerance seen in recent months.

The Big Scroll: Scroll.in on the day's big story
Pushparaj Deshpande, an analyst with the Congress Party, contrasts the idea of a secular Constitution with the concept of a Hindu Rashtra.
Ten facts about how the law of the land came into being, by Vinita Singh Phougat.

Politicking and policying
1. In spite of facing defamation charges, Rahul Gandhi refuses to apologise for saying the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was responsible for the death of Gandhi.
2. At the Bengal border, enclave dwellers who chose Indian citizenship after the territorial exchange of the Indo-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement cross over.
3. Aam Aadmi Party MLA Akhilesh Tripathi has been arrested in a 2013 rioting case.

Punditry
1. Who is a patriot, asks Pratap Bhanu Mehta in the Indian Express.
2. In the Hindu, Nistula Hebbar on uncertainties in the BJP high command.
3. Also in the Express, Anish Ahluwalia on the Divine Bovine controversy and the loneliness of the artist in contemporary India.

Don't miss...
TM Krishna on why people returning their awards have as many questions to answer as the government:
"Those who have given back their awards also have something to think about. The returning of awards is, indeed, a powerful political act. But what does it say about the politics of receiving them? Unlike the Padma coronations, the Sahitya Akademi, Sangeet Natak Akademi or National Film awards may be one step removed from the actual ministries. But they too are manipulated spaces. And here I am not only talking about political leanings – that is just one aspect.

The much deeper issue is the way these akademis and ministries use awards to gain a hold over academic, scientific and artistic communities. Without doubt, many members of these collectives have, and continue to, pamper people in control of these bodies. Everyone knows this, including those who have received the recognitions without indulging in vulgar lobbying. When these clean recipients accept their awards, are they not unwittingly being party to practices that undermine the value of their work. And beyond themselves, have they not reduced the value of academic, scientific or artistic integrity and independence? Have awards not been given to the same intolerant people that the returnees today oppose on principled grounds? Getting an award is a moment of great pride, but we fail to recognise that this pride blinds us to the larger malaise afflicting these recognitions. Intolerance begins right there."