There, that's what I am trying to say.
Hindu nationalism has an already an article. I don't see the point of reiterating it here again.
The article was NOT created as an extension of Hindi-Muslim conflict. That part is already mentioned here: Islam_in_India#Hindu-Muslim_conflict. If you think that is what needs to be done, please move it to Hindu-Muslim_conflict.
Anti-Buddhist can be removed, specially since his son himself corrected the mistakes. But on the otherhand, anti-christian, muslim, sikhism, hindu - they are fought over petty local policies and given the color of religion by recalling ancient atrocities. It would be akin to Spanish acquisition causing anti-Spanish violence now.

While you and me know what 'Religious Violence in India' typically refers to, a year from now it will refer to what the article's name suggest, with a new batch of trolls and POV pushers revert warring every edit. The article was created to quench the India-bashing thirst. At least I fail to see any other reason for its existence, because otherwise we wouldn't be discussing what the article really refers to etc.
Also, don't forget then the anti-Hindu violence, specially in southern India and eastern India - places where Hindus are in minority. And don't forget that the riots are never one sided. Right now the article looks like a list of religious atrocities committed in India, which is a ridiculous topic, but I believe it can be turned into a comprehensible and well cited article. That's why I think going according to "time" will help.
The problem with going X vs Y vs Z position is that it will never be NPOV, it will never be factual, and it will never be comprehensible.talk