Please stop using throwaway accounts in ways that break the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. It will eventually get your main account banned as well.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your comment. Certainly history has been filled with violent conquest, but the question was about contemporary religious tensions in South Asia, most of which are traceable to British colonialism and the breakup of India and Pakistan. But yes, religious tensions have existed between peoples for millennia. I am actually working on a startup to help alleviate this problem, so it's something I'm intimately familiar with.

Your narrative is also rather misleading; Islam has been in India since just after Muhammad and many early Muslims were traders, not conquering armies. "Islamic colonization" is a meaningless phrase here, as most of the "conquest" was done by Central Asian tribes with non-religious motives. It's pretty easy to draw a line from the Mongols to the Mughals (after all, Mughal is a Persian-Arabic derivation of Mongol) and the Mongols certainly weren't on a religious crusade.

Otherwise, it is an immensely complex story and situation and one-line summary rebuttals aren't exactly helpful. I'm not an expert on Indian history, but to paint it as a straightforward narrative is unquestionably false.

Wrong, India survived because Hindus fought very hard. Entire Arabia, Iraq, and Persia fell within 30 years. Yet Islam couldn't reach even central India until 13th century not because invaders were tolerant. It was because they met resistance. Read [1] and watch [2]

[1]https://archive.org/details/HeroicHinduResistanceToMuslimInv...

[2] https://youtu.be/9HfPzUr-IKw