1.Loot:

The British East India Company (1757-1858) and the British colonial government looted (1858-1947).  India & took the loot out of India.

Islam’s invaders Mohammed of Ghazni ( 971 AD-1030 ) and Mohammed Ghori (1149-1206); Ahmed Shah Abdali, Taimur, Nadir Shah, Chinghiz Khan looted India and  took the  loot out of India

2.Enslavement :

The British did not enslave the defeated Indian soldier and  their  women

Islam’s invaders often enslaved the  defeated, took some of them out  and sold them in Baghdad’s slave markets.

3. Conversions:

The British rulers did not  officially engage in converting Hindus to  Christianity but patronized and  in many ways facilitated  the Missionaries; work for gaining converts and  gave huge grants of sites for construction of  churches, and  schools/ colleges .

Islam’s invaders and early rulers were as much indulged in forced conversions as in loot n d aggrandizement and  enrichment of the immigrant  from central Asia, Persia , Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey… an native converts to Islam.  The properties of wakf comprise of the  properties  by Muslim victors/ rulers  confiscated defeated lands

4. Language:

The British made their language English as  the official language of the  government(s).

Muslim rulers made Persian as the  court/ official language.

5. Socialising:

The British did not  marry Indians as a norm.  They could take mistresses.  The lowliest among the  English soldiers took Indian wives from low classes. Their  progeny is  called. Anglo Indians, or Euro-Indians. These were preferentially employed in Railways, Telegraphs. & police

 Foreign ( ie immigrant) origin Muslims took Hindu women, forcibly converted them to Islam, practised  polygamy ( upto four wives at a time); raised large families, living off Hindu-paid taxes including zezia; Hindu converts ( mostly forced) to Islam were haughty,  looked upon themselves as a ruling  class, often committing aggression on Hindu subjects; claiming and enjoying the privileges of ruling class.

6. Religious Attitudes:

The British rulers did not  desecrate or destroy Hindus’ temples

The Muslim invaders conquering  rulers, in their  theological/ religious zeal had dutifully and boastingly desecrated and destroyed temples, constructed mosques in profusion on confiscated lands and sites; imposed restrictions on celebration of Hindu festivals and processions, prohibited repairs to and construction of temples( especially Aurangzeb); destroyed the universities and burnt the  libraries at Nalanda,  Vikramasila, Odantapur….

7.  Intellectual and  psychological damage:

The British rule colonized the minds of many Indians by introducing the Macaulay designed India-denigrating Anglo-phone education denationalized millions of English-media “educated” Indians .

Muslim rule led to native converts to Islam repudiating their Hindu civilization and  culture, reverence to  mother-land and accession to  foreign brother-hood ( as  asserted during  khilafat movement (1920-22); communal rights; repudiation of  common  nationhood; ready recourse to violence; feeling of ( lost) ruling  race and invention of insatiable grievances (Gandhiji characterized  Muslims as bullies and Hindus as cowards).

8. Lasting Effects:

The British Rule ended for good permanently.  India marched into modern forms of  government. Democracy, Rule of Law Universities, R&D Institutions, global role.

Partition of India , emergence of a congenital, permanent enemy State of Pakistan as neighbour; a Muslim population- exporting (infiltrating)  neighbour in the East, permanently divisive , separatist, proliferating  grievance-inventing “minority”; unabating communal riots, jihadi sleeper cells in the  service of foreign handlers; unabating Pakistaniat, Tablighi…; incitement to weak the Union by  talk of  Federalism an unsolicited fraternity with SCs, STs ( never cared for during Muslim rule); CPM in Kerala patronizing / partnering with the  Muslim parties and Muslim vote banks  about the Pakistaniat of Muslims, Dr B R Ambedkar observed:

“I do not  think the  demand  for Pakistan is  the  result of mere  political distemper, which will pass away with the  efflux of time.  As I read the  situation, it seems to me that it is a characteristic in the  biological sense of the  term which  the  Muslim body politic has developed in the   same  manner as an  organism develops a characteristic. Whether it will survive or not, in the  process of natural  selection, must  depend upon the  forces that may become  operative in the  struggle for  existence  between Hindus and Musalmans.