It was easy even earlier, it is just that the religious right - you - had painted itself into a corner, and was enjoying the feeling of victimhood. This victimhood business is not isolated to minorities in our weird country, the majority community also embraced it.
Let us agree that the mainstream media are permanently mentally disabled, and capable of causing real harm.
On the other hand, I have no doubt in my mind that the Modi administration - not just Modi as an individual - is wholly communal. It is difficult to decide whose case to hold up for you to cringe away from, because each and every single minister, with the possible, partial exceptions of Sushma Swaraj and Jaitley, is a specimen by himself or herself.
You are entitled to say this, although my own wording would have been "....that rape case of the unfortunate Old Nun in Kolkata..."
You are also entitled to use any other example. I wish, personally speaking, very sentimentally speaking, that you had not used Tuktuk as one; she and Papeeha were friends from the Junior Statesman days, though we lost touch soon after.
It isn't clear at whom your finger is pointing, but if it is at me, sorry, wrong address. Since you are one of the older members, you must be aware of my hatred of the Congress and its decaying retardation of the country. If I speak up for secularism as we should have practised it, there is not the slightest desire to whitewash the sins of the Congress. It is better that it dies, and that Rahul Baba go back to the oblivion to which he rightly belongs.
What does that have to do with secularism? They are not the champions; as Bang Galore has pointed out somewhere, it was Rajiv Gandhi's terrible failure of judgement and his surrender to the unprincipled actions around the Babri Masjid that created much of today's situation. They just used the term cynically to signify their neutrality trending towards the vote bank principle.
I have no doubt that you will find sufficient mistakes in my post to be able to reject it.