Really? Then how did Hinduism develop over the entire subcontinent? Isn't that the Indian culture? The British did the opposite of uniting. They just ruled over the entire country.
I am in my mid-twenties and had the pleasure of growing up quite carefree. I still remember how most of my evenings were spent playing with friends until my mother dragged me home for dinner. Although I had other activities like learning music and drama, I would attend those classes only twice a week and had a lot of leisure time. I think things changed by the time I was in high school. I remember once calling a friend for a game and I heard his mother say something like, "don't spend time with those losers. You will not amount to anything...". I have seen parents reject their children's friends because they think of them as underachievers who may bring down their children too. I feel people sometimes take life too seriously.
AMU is a public central university. My argument is specifically about places of worship. Educational institutions are an entirely different discussion.
Haj subsidy is not history. It is targetted to be removed by 2022. I was harping on it because the other commenter cherry picked it and it is good to have discussions on matters that are usually brushed under the carpet. I am glad that you at least partially agree with me on unfair govt policies.
Ideally the state shouldn't spend a rupee on any religious subject. But the Indian law allows the government to take the revenue from Hindu institutions while minority institutions are exempt. If we are to accept your point, the government shouldn't take the profits from the Temples either. You just don't seem to see this at all.
Why are you cherry picking only mansarovar to further your propaganda? There are thousands of Hindu sites inside India that provide employment opportunities and revenue to the state. And yes Hajj doesn't do that. If stating that is propaganda then so be it.
I can say the same thing and just dismiss all your points. You are creating false equivalence between Hajj and amarnath. The Indian government controls all Hindu temples and derives revenue. So what is the problem in subsidizing these when the profit from these sites is used up within the country? On the other hand, Hajj spending goes out of the country and is a dead investment. And mind you, only Hindu institutions come under government purview by law. None of the minority institutions are touched.
That's a strawman argument. Even if what you say is true, are you proposing no communities other than minorities should get any perks? Also, do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Most of what you are saying seem to be just your opinions.
FYI, Indian Muslims have their own personal law while the rest of the population follows uniform civil code. They get Hajj subsidies and other perks that no other community gets. As for taking refugees, a country can deny entry based on any number of reasons. In 2018, the number of refugees taken in by the US has gone down. That doesn't mean US is less secular. I agree Indian constitution is not the most secular but it definitely is not anti-minority.
There is a reason for proliferation of hate on Twitter and that is the skewed form of secularism that the Indian state has followed all these years. Those who have lived in India know that most of the time the state is lenient towards minorities even when they commit crimes. Even history has been whitewashed to portray invaders as benign rulers so as to not offend minorities. In some ways the Indian Natinal Congress turned the country's polity into minoritarianism because they realized they could continue winning elections with just their votes (this statement is a bit of a simplification). The majority which has silently been observing this got a voice with the advent of social media. For someone who doesn't have this context, Indians will of course look hateful and communal.