ha ha ha .......
Pray tell me if Hindus didn't kill Hindus in Indian history. What was Mahabharata about.
When Muslims were ruling India, there were times when Muslims allied with other Muslims attacked Hindu led states, there were times when Muslims allied with Hindus attacked Muslim states and there also were times when Muslims allied with Hindus attacked Hindu rulers of a state.
They both, allied together or against each other killed thousands and thousands in this manner.
You look at history as being Hindus only. And link it with thousands of year old Hindu Kingdoms which were Buddhist as well at certain times and Muslim as well at certain times. Buddhist reign was OK, Muslim reign was bad. Why look at history from such a narrow angle instead of looking at history as history. We find it difficult as well.
Is there a civilizational motive in all this. May be yes. Can we change it. May be yes and may be no. Can we make an effort. Yes we can.
While I wholly understand the context in which you speak of Hindus as you do, as do the others who have commented so far, I can see the struggle within you to understand that history is NOT taught in India on parochial lines.
Nowhere, in any text book or historical account, is a Muslim monarch, dynasty or period held out for negative mention because it was Muslim. This has been internalized to the extent that there is now a tendency to move away from the traditional categorization of Hindu, Muslim and British periods of history, in favour of ancient, early mediaeval, late mediaeval and modern periods, thus leaving out the religious epithet altogether.
There are exceptions to this, and we need to be aware of these. Aurangzeb is given very ambiguous - not negative, but ambiguous - treatment because of his rigid ways. The resistance of Prithviraj Chauhan against Muhammad of Ghor is pitched in hopelessly unequal terms against the Ghurid, due to the significant infouence of a bardic account which has influenced text book writers unduly. The battle of any ruler of Delhi, be he Alauddin Khalji or Akbar the Timurid, with Chitor suffers from the romantic haze that shrouds Chitor and its tragic history.
And that's about it, believe it or not.
The best proof of our statements is the pitched battles we have fought in this very forum between secular
Indians and Hindu-affiliated Indians. Reading those accounts - I write this as I recover from the grievous injuries received in one such only days ago - will put the whole thing in perspective, as what they demand very fiercely is the kind of communalisation that you apparently believe has already taken place.
That leaves the contentious issue of how we look on invaders. Perhaps that is best left to another post, if we are able to discuss it without inflamed passions intervening.
PS: I forgot the accounts of Mahmud of Ghazni's predatory raids, and his obsession with the temple at Somnath.
It is a mistake for indians to judge people of the middle ages with today's standards, the classic approach for any conquering army anywhere in the ancient world, was to loot and pillage.
Look at Julius Caesar - he often behaved brutally with conquered people - but is revered today as a military genius - same with Babur, Ghauri, Timur and co. And as if indian rulers were more humane, don't make me laugh.
If you were to omit flippancy on such issues, your views would receive the attention and respect that they deserve.
I give up....
I just give up....
I give up forever...
Yes our text are based on religion, yes we are the evil ones... yes hindoo's are evil (I am not even a hindu for sugar sake)...
No point... I give up...!
Take it easy. This is not the end of the world.
) Do you have any proof, that the Sanskrit was the language of these so called "Aryans" 40,000 years ago, or your whole statment of Sanskrit being forced upon is a figment of Hinduphobic perversion or maybe part of your masochistic ritual 
