Ghaznavi and Mughals were invited at the behest of lower caste people. They invited them to get the required protection that was not available during the rule of hindu rajas.
To stop the exploitation of Lower castes Ghaznavi came and after annexing most of the India he only took away Indias' wealth. As he did not find any interest in ruling Indians.
Moghuls were different they fixed jizya tax and were providing security to all. It is a history of Babur who prayed to God to protect his child humayun and transform his life to humayun. And God answer his prayer and that is a history of God fearing muslim rulers.
Akbar has mostly hindus in his darbar of nauratans.
Aurangzeb was an angry young man he killed his brothers because he didnt like their lavish life style. He jailed his father because he was busy building monuments. He killed muslim saints like Sufi Sarmad and many others just because he did not like him. He attack Golkonda in Deccan and arrested Abul Hasan Tanesha just because he gave red carpet welcome to Shivaji.
But Aurangzeb was not brutal against common man he did justice to all sections. There were Hindu nawabs, patils and many other hindu administrators under his rule. There are still many hindu persons alive who had jagirs(given by Aurangzeb) from their descendants.
How can britishers or europeans or RSS call moghuls or muslims as extremists.
