Look, Contarian, I'm a student of history and my background is in the social sciences. The people of India have confused the coming of various civilisations that were 'Muslim' into the region as one phenomena. That is an utter logical fallacy. I shall offer a breif account. The first incursion of the Arabs, the official policy was NOT to encourage conversion for two reasons, firstly, the Persians, were giving headaches to the Arab Rulers by vehemently asserting that Islam is not synonymous with the Arab cultuer and thus the assertion of an Arab being superior or a better Muslim and thus having more say in the government and power is false. The first expansion under Hazrat Umer (RA), the Second Caliph, checked this by not allowing the Muslim forces to buy land in the territories that were captured. Also, it should be noted, that the Persians and the Byzantium empires of the time had fought each other for nearly 500 years and both had interests in checking any rise in the region. The Persians first went on the offensive against the Muslims, thinking of an easy victory, the Muslims turned them back and went on. Seeing this the Byzantium power made overtures to seize the weakened territories and thus another chapter opened up. Now, here, for the first time, the armies went on the declared notion of not harming any civilians, not disrespecting any religious santuaries and no one was to submit to any 'king' but an representative of the people, the Muslims, called the Calihp. Sounds familiar?
Now after the internal fractures of the Muslims, the dynastic rule started and this is mostly centred around the Crusades, the next game changers were the Mongols: they were lightning fast and devestated the entire region.
I would like to point out here that it has been seen according to research that many people in India do not differentiate the Mongol and Mughal regins and accordingly, on both sides, associate the Mughals as the symbol of power of the Muslims in the region. The Mughals also get blamed for the tactics of the Mongol raids, in the immediate aftermath of Genghis Khan, to the Mughals and thus the Muslims. Here are two examples:
http://www.psr.jku.at/psr2005/14_02Sen.pdf
Culture, Social Representations, and Peacemaking: A Symbolic Theory of History and Identity - Springer
Historically these eras and civilisations are very different, the Mughals were a Turkic-Perisan influenced peoples, that had inherited Mongol blood but not much of her culture. Moving forward, the Muslim reign on South Asia comes under first the raids from the land of what is now Afghanistan, that again has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the history and culture of the region, this practice was carried well into the 18th centuary. Here is what comes up, once the Muslims were populated here, it was often seen that the raiders were 'softer' on the Muslims, however, this has nothing to do with any planning or any sinisterisation of the whole plot. It was an occurance of History that was never carried with certanity and the myth of the Muslim being the 'outsider' to the region was created over at these instances this is especially true as the Marhata's and later the Ranjit Singh's kingdoms begin to decline. This happens because of something 'Anchorage' according to Social Representations theory
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie I believe this article explains this. Not sure if you can access it, sorry. Let me see another one if you want.
Now then, come again to the later times, the partition, cements this feeling in both societies and history is read without context to paint the light of giving weightage to either this side or that one. Conservative rightists over here tell us tales of the Sikh conquest and Sikhs desecrating our Mosques. People on your side tell you about Muslims raping and converting as they go. These are out of context, and misplaced because most people do not appreciate the feel and life of the era. (Cominng to the Sikhs, the Mughal-Sikh dynamics were again political, not religious, Ranjit Singh had Muslim generals, the Muhgals employed a Hindu Army.)
I hope this can shed some light.
Few centuries later you will claim Sindh has no Hindu history. 
