Had Hindus defeated Muslims significantly in the precolonial era, then of course you would have smashed our mosques and created temples! Why wouldn't you?
You did it to the Buddhists so why would you not do so to Muslims if you could have.
For brainwashed like you, ALL wars & conquests are between religions. Not your fault, since you have been told so in a direct divine message.
But since you are educated, there is definitely a possibility that your mind can choose to take a sneak-peek outside your mental paradigm.
If religion & destruction of "other religions" was the purpose of all conquests & wars, Brits would have erased both your ancestral as well as current religion from Indian subcontinent. The goras did try to spread Xtianity (which they do even today) but they are not alleged to be as lethal as some "religions" which have destroyed "other religions" from their inception/prophetic days.
Whatever must have happened between Hindus & Buddhists (including your imagined all-out destruction of Buddhism by Hinduism), if it was even 1% of your wild imagination, I would not have a Buddha portrait right in my drawing room (which is almost the norm in a vast number of Hindus of India). The "war" between Dharmics/Indic religions is in your mind.
To summarise (with the hope that your mind will allow your mind to have a "sneak peek" into outside world:
1) Not all wars & conquests have the purpose of destruction of "other religions".
2) whatever you may have been taught or would like to imagine, war between Dharmic/Indic religions is not a possibility (just to let you know, Buddha is considered an Avatar of Vishnu by Hindus, so a war between Hinduism & Buddhism is like a war within Hinduism).
The problem is that during the era prior to Ww2 and universal human rights, Hindus simply did not control Muslims in the subcontinent to the degree you have been led to believe by "Maratha textbooks". Marathas certainly pushed back against Muslims, however they pushed them into enclaves and localised fiefdoms (Hyderabad etc) who weren't overrun but rather paid tribute to keep these areas loosely independent. Secondly, the British were around. It was not in their interests to let you heathens overrun Mughal remnants, hence they propped up these fiefdoms to a degree. Indeed, marathas needed the help of the British mostly to win anything of note against Muslims - Mysore being the most notable example.
Why am I giving this lecture? So you understand that all those years ago, Hindu kingdoms simply did not have the opportunity to raze mosques as they did to stupas otherwise they would have done so.
Maratha Kingdom did retaliate & pushed the mughals (whatever be the scale of it), not just because they were "muslims", but because they were "foreign invaders" (Today, if your neighbour tries to enter your house, you too will retaliate and may be conquer his house irrespective of whether he is muslim or kafir, right?)
And of-course, if the invasion has a religious flavour to it, the retaliation will also have a religious flavour too. Brit conquest of Indian subcontinent is never seen as a "Xtian conquest" but as you admit yourself above, the "mughal conquest" was a "muslim conquest". Therefore, the retaliation by India/Indians (irrespective of whether it is by maratha or rajputs) will be an Indian retaliation as well as a Hindu/Dharmic retaliation. Simple to understand?
Nope. I'm seeking clarification on whether you mean the Islamic Republic of Pakistan born in 1947, or are you ranting about the people of coterminous Pakistan throughout history?
Pakistan has not destroyed 95% of Hindu temples. This isn't even funNy. Quote your sources.
As for the land of Pakistan and the people therein, if they have converted to Islam over time, sorry to break your snowflaky heart, but many temples will be inevitably rendered useless. Do pagan temples still exist in Poland?? Mosques from the Arab era in Spain (with the exception of some architectural masterpieces preserved for posterity) ??
I am referring to the LAND which is called pakistan today. Whether it is a separate country today or was part of India sometime back, it is certain that the only religions structures it has was "temples" few centuries back. The LAND now has only mosques.
The BOLD part is exactly what I said in my earlier post .The conversion of population and temples will be in direct proportion. You cannot have 95% temples standing as they were when the population has reduced to 0%.
If you are proud to convert from your ancestral to your current form, be equally proud that 95% temples also converted. Dont tie yourself in knots.
A land where 95% are mard-e-momins/mominas and minorities are living freely, thats something a person with common sense would not believe these days, like it or not. It is not the fault of 95% when the belief itself declares that the minorities are "pagans" and they are committing "shirk" and they are going to "burn in hell". That belief of 95% is enough to make the 5% secondary, then marginal then extinct. It is natural & need not be debated.
(The thing which should perhaps be debated & pondered upon is: How can someone get so brainshwashed that his own ancestors were part of 5% and today he not only defends the 95% but also uses words like "pagans" for his own ancestors so casually & easily. It is not hate. It is a different mental paradigm.)
