Calling Islam in India "Islamic colonialism" is not accurate. Colonial rule generally involves a foreign power governing a territory for the benefit of an external homeland, maintaining separation from the local population, and transferring wealth.

The Delhi Sultanates and Mughal Empire were based in India. Their rulers spent and reinvested revenue there, adopted Indian customs, intermarried with local elites, and depended heavily on Hindu generals, officials, bankers, and allies. Indigenous banking networks were integral to the Mughal state, which is very different from an overseas colonial administration stealing wealth for a distant metropole.

Criticizing bad rulers is fine. Rebellions were brutally crushed and heavy taxes imposed. But that is just like every pre-modern empire. Hindu and Muslim rulers alike conquered territory, exploited peasants, and fought rivals.

British rule was completely different. India was subordinated and resources were stolen and redirected toward Britain. India went from being one of the wealthiest nations under the Mughals to a carved out husk after the British were done.

And no, hindu and muslim conquests were NOT alike. Krishnadevaraya defeated kalinga. Instead of destroying konark sun temple, he came back and built a similar stone chariot in hampi.

The same hampi was plundered and burnt down a century later by islamic foreign invaders.

The marathas defeated mughal empire, but you dont see delhi, fatehpur sikri etc in ruins.

Hindu conquests were like regime or government change for ordinary people. At best some changes in taxation. Islamic conquest meant their cities burnt down, institutions destroyed and life destroyed.

These are not my hallucinations, the turkic invaders proudly wrote about this themselves.

they deffo colonise the soundscape with call for prayer blaring 5 times a day everyday and i cant turn my ears off!

You wrote all that to make a nearly worthless semantic argument about how an act of invasion, genocide, and theocratic authoritarianism is different from what you’re calling colonialism? Okay.

Indians and Hindus were obviously subordinated under Islamic rulers who arrived from elsewhere. A simple five second search would show you they imposed different taxes if you were not a Muslim. What are you even arguing about here?