India was and will always be secular—not because the word "secular" was inserted into the Preamble of the Constitution by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during the 42nd Amendment in 1976, at a time when the opposition was in jail, which was an unfair act. India is secular because of the inherent nature of the majority Hindu population, who believe and uphold the principle of *Sarva Dharma Sambhava* (equal respect for all religions).

Have you ever seen a neighboring country remain secular when Hindus became a minority? Why are these so-called Islamic countries not secular? Because they do not embrace the idea of *Sarva Dharma Sambhava* like Hindus do. This is precisely why the insertion of "secular" into the Constitution was unnecessary and forced during the Emergency.**

How can a country truly be "Dharma Nirpeksh" (neutral to righteousness)? Righteousness—*Dharma*—should always be at the core of governance. Secularism, in the Indian context, has no relevance when the majority of the population naturally believes in respecting all faiths. The government should be *faith nirpeksha* (neutral to religious practices), not *dharma nirpeksha*

**The very essence of India's secularism comes not from any constitutional amendment, but from its deep-rooted cultural and spiritual values, where every faith has space to coexist, and every individual has the freedom to follow their own path. Indian governance should focus on justice, righteousness, and equality, not on enforcing Western ideals of secularism which disconnect governance from the spiritual and moral essence of its people.

In a bold and assertive statement, Home Minister Amit Shah emphatically declared, "PoK is ours, 24 seats reserved," resonating with unwavering determination. Shah's resounding proclamation reverberated within the walls of the Lok Sabha, leaving no room for ambiguity. The reference to PoK, or Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, underscored India's steadfast position on territorial integrity.

The Home Minister's statement not only encapsulated a geopolitical stance but also carried significant implications for the ongoing discourse on the Kashmir issue. By firmly asserting that PoK belongs to India, Shah conveyed a clear message about the government's commitment to reclaiming what is perceived as rightfully Indian territory.

The mention of "24 seats reserved" added a nuanced layer to Shah's declaration. It hinted at a preparedness and strategic approach, suggesting that India has already factored in the future integration of PoK into its political landscape. The reservation of seats, symbolically or otherwise, emphasized a proactive stance, signaling that the government is poised to address the political representation and rights of the region once it is brought under Indian governance.

Amit Shah's powerful statement in the Lok Sabha not only echoed the sentiments of a nation but also set the tone for discussions on the Kashmir matter. It illuminated the government's unwavering commitment to addressing territorial concerns and further underscored the complexity and sensitivity of the geopolitical landscape in the region.