hi dear brethren

i have a few jumbled thoughts regarding mehmud ghaznavi..am jotting them down so that those who know may shed some light on them and clarify it

a)it is clearly a historical fact that mehmud ghaznavi never intended to conquer india as his first ambition was to set a govt in central asian states including afghanistan till the margin of oxus river.
my confusion:
1) why did he then turned towards india? was it that the jai pal had been an agressor during subuktgin`s reign that incited mehmud?or he found india an easy target then the central asian states? more over i need to know what was the political demography of the area near ghazni and other central asia?i havent read bout the geography of that area but i have a deep insinuation that the territory along the oxus river was being ruled by muslims? if am correct by the sasanid persian kings,why on earth did mehmud had to fight against muslims?

2)second confusion:
if mehmud didnt fight indians for religious motives why did the caliphe presented him with honrary titles? and if he did had a religious motif behind his battles thn we do not see any scheme of consolidation and above all we donot find a hint of an invitation towards islamic faith sent by mehmud before waging war on the hindus? why

3rd confusion:

given the notion that many of us say that religious war was over and that was a time of expanding territories,on what grounds can we call him a muslim hero specially when he was ravaging territories that had no longlasting effect on islam`s image and its propagation? how can we justify his invasions on an islamic ground?