My article is about minority appeasement and the ant-Hindu agenda in the guise of secularism. Your comment is a very poor argument because firstly, its an opinion article based on facts, patterns and incidents. Secondly, you have meaninglessly connected totally unrelated dots trying to prove a point.
I would only care to reply to one of them, for I understand where its useful to speak and where not. Nowhere have I said that being anti-Hindu is wrong. But being anti-Hindu is the guise of secularism can only be called a political tactic which I've called out. If you are anti-Hindu as a minority, you still have the freedom to live. But being an anti-Muslim, you can cause riots, and be murdered, which again receives little to no action or condemnation from the general public. This has again been called out by me. If you want credible links for the Bangalore riots, or the Kamlesh Tiwari murder, I would advise you to read the newspaper more often.
This is an opinion article about how the anti-Hindu and anti-BJP narrative is propagated in the name of being 'woke', and progressionist. More so, this often happens under the guise of Secularism. This simple topic is what my article was about, in context of which, your comment stands completely irrelevant. I rest my case.