How to reason with someone who disagrees with you, especially regarding Indic socio-cultural-political issues:

1. Assess/perceive the person you are interacting with. Understand that he/she/they is an individual before an ideologically monolithic member of a generalized group.

2. Thus, make it an imperative point to listen intently to what the other is saying, without imposing your thoughts and notions on him right at first. Initiate the effort to let the person convey their beliefs to you.

3. Always, and I can't stress this enough, always keep a mellow, composed, calm temperament. The biggest reason why Indic proponents fail to communicate properly is because they get flustered very quickly. Righteous indignation is frustrating, but keeping cool is vital.

Why?
Because aggression≈amateurism.
The more restless you are, the greater you distance yourself from meaningful dialogue, since the other responds with defensiveness and a combative attitude, tantamounting to disrespectful conflict, instead of cooperative solutioning.

4. Understand that mindlessly arguing/fighting with the other will not result in positive impacts, since it will:

-create more discord
-de-signify important points of interaction
-psychologically destabilize both
-catalyse cultural enmity
-reject rectification

5. I understand that it is not easy keeping calm and approachable when the other is deliberately misrepresenting/misinterpreting your statement or putting forth spurious theories/false equivalences/falsehoods/confirmation bias as facts.
But for the sake of Dharma, try to do so.

6. When the other talks, allow him to finish. Maintain a polite tone at all times. If he makes a fallacious statement, ask for examples. Ask how is what he said true and why. That will immediately put him in the spot to deliver solid, insightful truths, if any.

7. Upon being given examples/credible info, counter that mellowly with contradictory info. This will only materialize through constant awareness/familiarity with news/facts/verified info through meritorious sources. Stay well in touch with concurrent data. Alertness is important.

8. If there is a logical inconsistency, point it out immediately. Specify the hypocrisy the other is engaging in, if any. Point out flaws with relevant examples/facts.

So eg:

Statement: "Muslims in India are oppressed"

Counter: How? Could you please give examples? In which ways exactly? This data proves communal violence towards Hindus>Muslim etc etc

9. Understand the empirical perspective from which other is speaking. Imagine the convo from his POV, and organize your statements accordingly. Perceive the intellectual-cultural background as well as you can, and then state your POV.

If the person is one who himself has suffered/witnesses violence/discrimination, be gentler and offer condolences for his suffering, and praise for his resilience. This will break the ice and allow for more effective percolation of your thoughts within the other.

10. Appeal to the person's conscience. Very impactful. Explain with expressive manners (if possible) as to how Hindus have suffered colonialism for 1300 years and why this is a much-needed emancipation of the same. Project your struggles well.

If the person is dismissive abt them, call it out politely. Explain that this is equivalent to whitewashing of oppression, as it vindicates it. Give social, economic, political, constitutional, cultural examples of discrimination that Hindus still face.

11. Don't dismiss anything the other says. Instead ask for elaboration. Don't label/stamp the person by name-calling him "pseudo-liberal"/"sickular" etc. That will go against you and you will end up as the naïve majoritarian.

12. Don't make assumptions regarding their socio-cultural-political affiliations. Every person has varying degrees of ideological similarity/difference.

13. Explain that your objective is not to "win this debate" since thoughtless competition only results in antagonism. Your objective should be clarified as respectful, perceptive brotherhood through collaboration.

14. Having said this, assert that harmony, or "secularism" will not emanate through pretension of imagined unity. It comes through true fraternity WITHOUT the compromise of dignity. We don't want a transactional relationship, we want brotherhood.

And lastly, brotherhood cannot come without the guarantee of equality and justice.

As simple as that.