Genocide of the Hindus:
Will Durant (one of the most famous historians): "Mohammedans conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history."(The story of Civilization, vol1, New York, 1972).
"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within." (Story of Civilization, vol.1, Our Oriental Heritage, New York 1972, p.459) 
The number of people killed is estimated based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations. K.S. Lal estimated in his book The Growth of Muslim Population in India that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. The legacy of Islamic conquest of South Asia is a hotly debated issue even today.
Life of Hindu dhimmi [or zimmi] under Islamic rule:
Islamic rule in India as a "colonial experiment" was "extremely violent", and "the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm -- burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves."
Though all these small acts of terror added up to a death toll of genocidal proportions, no organized genocide of the Holocaust type took place. One constraint on Muslim zeal for Holy War was the endemic inter-Muslim warfare and intrigue (no history of a royal house was bloodier than that of the Delhi Sultanate 1206-1525), another the prevalence of the Hanifite school of Islamic law in India. This is the only one among the four law schools in Sunni Islam which allows Pagans to subsist as zimmis, dis-empowered third-class citizens paying a special tax for the favour of being tolerated; the other three schools of jurisprudence ruled that Pagans, as opposed to Christians and Jews, had to be given a choice between Islam and death.
Staggering numbers also died as collateral damage of the deliberate impoverishment by Sultans like Alauddin Khilji and Jahangir. As Braudel put it: "The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors' opulence."
Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like "punishing" the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.
Apart from actual killing, millions of Hindus disappeared by way of enslavement. After every conquest by a Muslim invader, slave markets in Bagdad and Samarkand were flooded with Hindus. Slaves were likely to die of hardship, e.g. the mountain range Hindu Koh, "Indian mountain", was renamed Hindu Kush, "Hindu-killer", when one cold night in the reign of Timur Lenk (1398-99), a hundred thousand Hindu slaves died there while on transport to Central Asia.
Democracy and Islam:
Snouck Hurgronj, C (a renowned author): "Islam has never favored democratic tendencies". (Selected works, G.H.Bousquet and J Schact, eds., Leciden, 1957, p277)
Curt Van den Hevvel: "Freedom of religion is a part of every civilized country. However, what do we do when one of these religions is antithetical to every thing that Democracy stands for? Islam does not recognize the right of other religions to exist. Murder of apostates is not only condoned, but also encouraged by the prophet (Honest Intellectual Enquiry, USA, 11.8,1977)
A modern discourse on Islam ~ almost a century ago:
Rizwan Salim: "Their minds filled with venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim chronicles and others of the time.
"…Islamic invaders from Arabia and Western Asia broke and burnt everything beautiful they came across the Hindustan. So morally degenerate were these Muslim sultans that rather than attract Hindu 'infidels' to Islam through force of personal example and exhortation, they just built a number of mosques at the sites of torn down temples. And foolishly pretended that they had triumphed over minds and culture of Hindus…"(The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 20 Dec 1997)
Mrs. Annie Besant (A former [India] Congress president): Writing about the aftermath of Khilafat movement, she said," The inner Muslim feeling of hatred against 'unbelievers' has spring up naked and unashamed…. We have seen, revived, as guide in practical politics, the old Muslim religion of the sword…. In thinking of an independent India, the menace of Mohammedan rule has to be considered. (The future of Indian Politics, p. 301-305)
Sarat Chandra Chatterji (Oct, 1926): "If we go by the lessons of history we have to accept that the goal of the Hindu-Muslim unity is a mirage. When Muslims first entered India, they looted the country, destroyed the temples, broke the idols, raped the women and heaped innumerable indignities on the people of this country. Today it appears that such noxious behavior has entered the bone marrow of Muslims. Unity can be achieved among equals…. I am of the view that Hindu-Muslim unity, which could not be achieved during the last thousand years, will not materialize during the ensuing thousand years". (Ibid p148).
Mahatma Gandhi (May 29, 1924): In a rare event of realization of the reality and temporarily coming out of his amnesia about barbaric behavior of Muslims towards Hindus, he wrote in Young India (dated May 29, 1924): " My own experience confirms that the Musalman as a rule is a bully…."
Writing about pre-partition days, he writes in another place: "No Muslim leader is known to have explicitly accepted the prospect of a purely democratic polity in a united India without any special privileges for the Muslims" (Gandhi and Godse, A review and A Critique, voice of India, New Delhi, 2001 p 33-34 p 57)
Ram Swarup (a very renowned scholar): "Religious harmony is a desirable thing. But it takes two to play the game. Unfortunately such a sentiment holds a low position in Islamic theology". (Quoted by K.S. Lal in Theory and Practice of Muslim state in India, Aditya Prakashan, Delhi, 1999, p322).
Fran Gautier (a well known writer): "This is a profession of faith of a Muslim: 'I certify that there is no God than Allah, of whom Mohammed is the only prophet', which means in effect: After and before Mohammed, there is nobody else…'Thus the whole religion of Islam is based on negation: nobody but us, no other religion but ours'. And if you disagree, you shall die. This puts a serious limitation to tolerance and from this strong belief sprang all the horrors of the Muslim invasion of India."
Dr. B.R Ambedkar: "To talk about Hindu-Muslim unity from a thousand platforms or to give it blazoning headlines is to perpetrate an illusion whose cloudily structure dissolves itself at the exchange of brickbats and desecration of tombs and temples….
Nothing I could say can so well show the futility of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hindu-Muslim unity up to now was at least in sight although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of sight and also out of mind" (Pakistan, P186)
Loyalty ~ are Muslims loyal to the state where they live? It is almost like we are listening to ourselves!! But this is the 1920s:
Rabindranath Tagore: As reported in an interview to "The Times of India, April 18th, 1924". The poet said that he had very frankly asked many Mohammedans whether, in the event of any Mohammedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbor to defend their common land. He could not be satisfied with the reply he got from them. He said that he could definitely state that even men like Mr. Mohammed Ali had declared that under no circumstances was it permissible for any Mohammedan, whatever his country might be, to stand against any other Mohammedan. (Quoted by A. Ghosh in "Making of the Muslim psyche" in Devendra Swarup, Politics of conversion, New Delhi, 1988, p148).
Lala Lajpat Rai: "I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim History and Muslim Law and I am inclined to think that Hindu-Muslim unity is neither possible not practicable… I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity and desirability of Hindi-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis. The leaders cannot override them". (Ibid, p147).
And for the good news Islam's end ~ did the Prophet see the end of his Kaaba creation:
K.S.Lal (Renowned Historian): "The Islamic principles of denigrating non-Muslims, of aggression and violence against them, principles that perpetually incite to riot and rapine, have boomeranged. However brave face the fundamentalists may try to put up, the victims of Islam today are by and large Muslims themselves. The prophet must have known that violence begets violence and repeatedly exhorted Muslims not to kill one another after his death. He also had premonition that violence of Islam against non-Muslims will be met with a backlash. There is a hadis in Sahih Muslim which says that once the Rasul (Prophet) opined that Islam which began in poverty in Medina would one day return to Medina in poverty, "just as a snake crawls back and coils itself into a small hole, so will Islam be hunted out from everywhere and return to be confined to Mecca and Medina " (op cit. p 296-297).
Mirage of Hindu-Muslim unity - 2003
Was There an Islamic "Genocide" of Hindus?
Dr. Koenraad Elst - Video - 1 of 6
Indian Muslims Appreciate Obama Remarks on 'Jihad'
President Obama's remarks on the real meaning of "jihad" and the exploitation of Islam by extremists has gone over well with Muslim activists and opinion-makers in India, where the president is traveling on a three-day jaunt to the world's largest democracy.
In a town hall with students at St. Xavier College in Mumbai, India, on Sunday, Obama responded to a question about his views of jihad by saying that the term has a lot of meanings within Islam, but the overwhelming majority of the more than 1 billion Muslims in the world see their religion as one that reaffirms "peace and justice and fairness and tolerance."
"I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified," Obama said, adding that Islam is one of the world's great religions and people of all faiths need to treat one another with respect and mutual dignity.
The reaction won favorable responses from leading Muslims in India, where Islam is the second largest religious with more than 160 million Muslims.
"Jihad can in no way assume the form of violence against the innocent and those who are perpetrating such violent acts have done great disservice to Islam," Kamal Farooqi, a prominent member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which protects the use of Islamic Shariah law for Muslims in India, was quoted saying by the Times of India.
"To that extent President Obama is correct," Farooqi said.
Maulana Masood Madani, head of the Organization of Indian Scholars known as Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, which also promotes Muslim issues in India, also agreed that Obama gets it.
"It's true that jihad has been wrongly interpreted by some people; however, I don't know by what yardsticks the US brands someone a jihadi or non-jihadi," said Madani, who is a parliamentarian.
"He is right -- jihad originally meant struggle against injustice, it does not mean killing the innocent," said Parliamentarian Rashid Alvi, who told the Times of India that Al Qaeda or Lashkar-e-Taiba do not represent Islamic interests.
Fox News Quotes