Changing the constitution

All the recent hue and cry from various people about our constitution, following a landmark verdict from the country's highest court, apparently indicates that they are ignoring a major factor concerning the issue while trying to guess the future outcome, and it is the NAME of our country. The name of our country itself clearly bears the suggestion on how to solve an issue pertaining to the Constitution which is the basis of governance. It is good news that a parliamentary committee of experts has been formed after the court verdict to sort out ways on how to proceed with its suggestion, and at the same time it is unfortunate as the opposition has refused to co-operate with it thinking that the committee itself is going to finalise the changes. It is bemusing why and what makes the opposition think like that. As far as my knowledge is concerned, the constitution of a state dictates the basic fundamental principles by which it is to be governed; and therefore, it is understood that no government can direct its 'Director' on how to direct (changes /amendments) simply because it is having a majority in parliament. People of the republic have selected and elected their representatives to form a parliament for planning, organising and running the day to day business affairs of the state, but not to manipulate or reshape the State's basic pillars.
Although I am not an expert in this field, yet it is my sheer belief that any amendment or changes to the constitution that may be considered necessary for the greater interest of people, must be approved by the OWNERS of the state and not by the owners' representatives.
At the conclusion of my letter, I would like to ask the readers to give their valuable opinions on this question.