This is what “Equal Respect for all Religions” means.

Sometime back, Jivha had asked which among the two competing versions of secularism we should choose.

In practice, respecting all religions equally means pandering to the most lunatic demand of the most extreme fringe of all religions. Who would have known that comparing a woman’s beauty to the “light of God” would be offensive? Such depictions are common among Hindus (and, though I don’t know about the precise technical error here, I think even Muslim poets have committed this offense in their shers) But someone will find it offensive and hence that someone’s views should be respected. Who would have thought that painting Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the nude would be offensive? I wouldn’t. Kalidasa has taken far greater liberties with Parvati with his words than Hussain has taken with Saraswati with his brushstrokes, if I remember correctly. But someone will get offended that a Muslim has dared to take liberties with their Gods, and that someone’s views should be respected.

What we have in place is not a “Nehruvian” version of secularism. I don’t know whether in fact Nehru supported the “Irreligious State” version of secularism. If he did, he certainly did not put it into practice. What he did put in place was a complicated structure which was supposed to ensure that the state would give offense to none, and stop anyone giving offense to any religion. In practice, this meant that the Muslim leaders, with a vote-bank behind them, could indulge in rabble rousing by taking offense at the minutest things. Now the BJP thinks that correcting this error involves, not implementing real secularism, but ensuring that Hindus get to take their share of the offense too.

Some stuff from Sandeep on this [1, 2]