Why did the sub-continent not become Muslim or Christian majority despite 800 years foreign rule ?

[Gandhi G in da house]

So Muslims ruled North India for roughly 600 years beginning from late 1100s till some time in 1700s. Southern India too was under Muslim rule for roughly 400 years (correct if wrong).

While the British ruled India for roughly 200 years from 1757-1947.

Together it makes roughly 800 years.

My question is 1. If you look at other parts of the world where Muslims conquered, they became Muslim majority with ease. Eg:- Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, Central Asia and even parts of South-Eastern Europe. However, this did not happen in India despite roughly 600 years of rule. Why so ? The only other example I can think of is Spain which held on to Christianity despite 800 years of Islamic rule. Despite Muslim's higher birth rate they still make up about 30 % of the population of the sub-continent and majority remains Hindu.

2. The same question applies to British who ruled here for almost 200 years. Wherever else the European colonizers went, those places became Christian. Eg:- Southern Africa, South America, Mexico etc. But in the Indian sub-continent Christians make up just around 2% of the population and majority remains Hindus followed by Muslims.

What are the reasons for this ? Please have a mature discussion without trolling.

 

[Max]

bcoz Muslim rulers were tolerant so does Britishers..

 

[Cherokee]

bcoz Muslim rulers were tolerant..

So you mean they weren't tolerant in Middle east and North Africa ? Thing before coming up with one liners .

 

[Baybars Han]

So Muslims ruled North India for roughly 600 years beginning from late 1100s till some time in 1700s. Southern India too was under Muslim rule for roughly 400 years (correct if wrong).

While the British ruled India for roughly 200 years from 1757-1947.

Together it makes roughly 800 years.

My question is 1. If you look at other parts of the world where Muslims conquered, they became Muslim majority with ease. Eg:- Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, Central Asia and even parts of South-Eastern Europe. However, this did not happen in India despite roughly 600 years of rule. Why so ? The only other example I can think of is Spain which held on to Christianity despite 800 years of Islamic rule. Despite Muslim's higher birth rate they still make up about 30 % of the population of the sub-continent and majority remains Hindu.

2. The same question applies to British who ruled here for almost 200 years. Wherever else the European colonizers went, those places became Christian. Eg:- Southern Africa, South America, Mexico etc. But in the Indian sub-continent Christians make up just around 2% of the population and majority remains Hindus followed by Muslims.

What are the reasons for this ? Please have a mature discussion without trolling.

This question aint so basic like this. (Balkans) Why is Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Macedonia still Christian yet Ottomans most of those countries for over 400 years? Why is Albania, Bosnia etc majority Muslim compared to them? This depends on the policy of the people and countries that was there. From my example I can see that Ottomans policy was to probably allow locals to stay there religion and give incentives to people who converted.

Why is most of central africa christian where there was french and british? How do we explain this? Why did Southern Africa, South America, Mexico etc turn christian? These were continents that had no religion and newly found countries, there was so many missionaries by colonizing countries to make them christian.

So back to your question, why isnt India majority Muslim, because the rulers main aim wasn't to convert the hindu's, because if they wanted they could have.

 

[WAJsal]

Religious topics are banned.