*Pic depicts mass hindu genocide done by Taimur*

He is portrayed as a blood thirsty monster which he wasn't. The fact that historians tend to glorify genocidal barbarics like Taimur, Aurangazeb, Iltutmish and Jalaluddin who were definitely more blood thirsty and monstrous signifies the tampering of history according to convenience.

Also Genghis Khan was definitely less of a monster than stalin and mao. That's for sure.

So, are they historians or religious conservatives take your pick?

"No they didn't and Mughals were nothing infront of mighty Mongolian army.."

So,

The point is the great mongal invader never showed any interest in conquering "sone ki chidiya". But why that's the question why wouldn't anyone not want to invade such a prosperous and wealthy nation.

Genghis Khan belonged to Tengrist a religion derived from Buddhism.

Tengrist are tolerant, calm and composed people of Mongolia, its roots of origin comes from ancient India.

India at that time was ruled by islamic Mamluk Dynasty. Which did nothing more than oppressing the non-Muslims or so called kafirs.

So the theory goes,

"He just didn't wanted to make the people of india suffer more due to war, cus they were already suffering enough under mugal sultanate."

The war would have bought more Havoc among people.

He refused to invade india and spill blood on the pious land that gave birth to Hinduism and Buddhism.

No doubt there are significant similarities in Mongolian and Indian culture to this day.

That's one theory the alternative theories for him not invading are as follows:

1. ‌The kind of person he was; He only sought revenge against the people who have done wrong to him and Mongolian people i.e Chinese and Afghans.
2. ‌ By the time he reached the banks of indus, Chinese formed a rebellion against Mongolian so to suppress the rebellion he had to return back to China.

#insights_of_ real_history

That's all

Thanking you