To my understanding, it's a bit more than that. There was naturally some oppression in regards to the Islamic conquests of majority-Hindu regions at the time- but I imagine most of the bitterness and hatred stems from more than that, from the colonial policies of divide-and-conquer which the British used to govern the raj (and anywhere else they tainted with their presence).

For an example, you can simply look at the colonial policy of "martial races" (yes, that was the name it was given). It was basically systemic discrimination based along caste, ethnic, and religious lines, with preferential treatment for Sikhs and certain groups/regions of Muslims were commonplace, as was the (typical colonial) policy of using troops from, say, the Punjab or Gurkhas from Nepal to enforce rule on the Hindu masses.

Then there was the issue of partition- where the west essentially backed the carving up of India into two states, one somewhat flanked by the other (back when Pakistan also included Bangladesh) on both sides, with Pakistan serving as the west's foothold on the subcontinent, one that was used on several occasions to threaten India itself militarily at that. I'd call this also yet more "post-colonial" divide-and-conquer policy by the US/UK.

FWIW I'm not Indian or South Asian, nor am I Muslim or Hindu, and I think Hindutva is clearly fascism- but I'm aware of the history, and it has a lot of similarities with colonial divide-and-conquer from where my own extended family is from (British Malaya/modern Singapore/Malaysia) and with colonial policy in countless other places. The colonial policy in French Algeria (where indigenous Jews/Christians served as the most favored compradors- and even if I'm not wrong were accepted as citizens since Algeria was seen as part of the metropole/core territory, whereas Muslim Algerians were denied this in their own land unless they renounced their religion) comes to mind as really similar for instance. You can understand how a lot of enmity would develop from this sort of setup, even if the resulting discrimination/oppression is clearly wrong.

There are more Muslim leaders who ruled peacefully over religious and ethnic minorities than almost any other religion.

Dunno if I'd agree with this or not that said, but there's certainly infinitely more than there ever were of tolerant Christian rulers, particularly when it comes to Catholics and Protestants. Indigenous rulers, or rulers of continental/traditional empires also naturally tend to want stability within their realms, and the jizya historically definitely was even a reason why non-Muslim communities were not just left alone- but sometimes discouraged from conversion due to their extra taxes. But IMO the issue doesn't stem from Muslim rulers (mostly)- it stems from west Europeans coming along and intentionally over centuries fanning the flames of inter-ethnic and religious tensions to their benefit, just as they did across the rest of Asia, Africa, and the Americas.

I mean there where muslims princely states which ruled in what became India over hindu majorities up until the British Raj was dismantled which is withing living memory. if u go by when the last independent sultan fell to the eic its still not so long ago either way its not like a few hundred years more or less makes it ok or no longer matter.