Starting with the last point, you have said that I have not commented anything about India, just read my article and the most of what I have written about is on India itself and have backed up substantial evidence and logical arguments.

You have clearly mentioned that being Anti-BJP/Anti Hindu narrative is propagated in the name of progressive nature. BJP is a political party, so criticizing its policies should be welcome, if you're saying that a party need not be criticized then you are saying that India is under a dictatorship and contradicts your article. Criticizing a political party is neither a threat to anyone's religion nor to the identity of the nation. You have equated BJP to Hinduism and Hinduism to National identity which essentially is not secularism and you have again contradicted your article.

You have openly criticising flaws in religion to be unethical. Freedom to criticise religion is the basic requirement of Secularism and there is nothing wrong in being Anti-Hindu, Anti-Christian, Anti-Muslim, etc. It is not a threat to any one's belief or nor to anyone's religion. You have discouraged mocking of religions which is against freedom of speech and we can call it as intolerance.

No point/fact has been substantiated with any credible link or sources. You haven't still defined the type of secularism which will be/should be followed, anything on legality, laws, etc. Also, on how India still doesn't have a definition for secularism. Your article clearly only propagates ideas of BJP and your support for the party's views on 'Hindu identity'.