I'm afraid that is just incorrect, not politically incorrect. I am a Jat from a Muslim family and I do not have any foreign ancestry.
I mean that the ideology is of foreign origin, in a similar manner people say tomatoes and potatoes are not Indian, these were imported to India from Latin America. The later generations of farmers may very well have voluntarily planted tomatoes and it has become a staple diet, but tomatoes didn't destroy our temples and way of life, so they do not carry political baggage like religion does.
The very first generation came from outside. Some stayed, some converted others, some others willingly converted for political and monetary reasons.
Islam is of foreign origin, even though successive and contemporary Muslims may be of Indian origin. In many cases, the invaders created castes in India which were an interface between Muslim invaders and Hindu masses. Castes like Chamar, etc (leather tanning guys) were created artificially so that the profession becomes a stepping stone towards acceptance of foreign ideas and eventually an acceptance of religion.
Just like they say that Marijuana is a gateway drug towards harder drugs, same way, Muslims employed several 'gateways' for Hindus to walk towards full fledged conversion to Islam. It's not indigenous in any way and after years of co-habitation, it is not possible to associate any ethnic group with a foreign ancestry, but if you go by technicality then the only Muslim group in India which has foreign ancestry is Dawoodi Bohra community which traces back to Egypt. Some were converted by force, and some opportunists like Farooq Abdullah converted for lure of political power.
Foreign fruit breeds destroyed local market for indigenous produce in a manner that people don't even know the names of indigenous fruits today, just like foreign ideologies destroyed indigenous ideologies. We could have done without the latter 'enrichment'.
I had the same debate with someone on Quora who argued that the Muslims have contributed so much to the Indian way of life. He passionately argued that everything from the recipe for dum aloo to the art of making ice cream was inherited from the Persian empire. I'm grateful for that contribution, all I'm saying is that there are cheaper ways to import the recipe for ice cream than having our temples destroyed and our women raped. It's kind of an unreasonable price to pay for an ice cream recipe. The world enjoys ice cream today, but not many of them have gotten that recipe at the cost of having their civilization destroyed over a period of a millennium and as if that was not enough, gifted us with a parting gift of partition in 1947.
No one is refusing to eat tomatoes citing their foreign origin, they are a staple diet, but that is no excuse for a civilization to not be mindful of the historic attrition and the potential for future attrition a foreign ideology has. You may be just as Indian as any other Indian, but there's no denying that there exist two Indias within the India we live in. This is where the difference comes in. We didn't bring it in but it is imposed on us.
The government still doesn't allow us to construct a temple in the birth place of one of the most revered Lord Rama. Hindu temples are still under government administration, while Muslims get to claim their religious places to be sovereign 'wakf'. Our donations to temples are audited and taken by the government, while donations to Muslim places of worship go to the respective wakf boards to do as they please. We have to make our own financial arrangements to Mahakumbh and Amarnath, while Muslims are given government sponsored trips to Haj.
So, when I refer to 'foreign origins' it's not about ancestry. It's about an ideology which refuses to assimilate and become one with the local spiritual beliefs and not only retains its distinct nature, but also propagates it, and we have to change our way of life to adjust with it. It is foreign to us in that regard, because it chooses to remain foreign and shoves its foreignness in our face while claiming the benefits of a syncretic social life in India which it denies to Hindus in Pakistan or Bangladesh or any other Muslim nation. Our foreignness and therefore secondary status is promptly made known to us, despite being ethnically homogeneous. It is foreign, in that regard.
Social media is a bubble with lofty ideals, so it is politically incorrect to point out the foreignness of foreign ideologies. Outside of this bubble, the full extent of this foreignness stares us right in the face be it the genocide of Kashmir Pandits by fellow Muslim Kashmirs or the killings of Bengalis by fellow Muslim Bengalis. These groups weren't foreign to each other either. They were ethnically the same and had common ancestry, the only thing foreign was their religion.
