It is a common belief in Hindu nationalist circles that Hinduism and Hindu culture before the advent of Islam (through invasions and empires such has Mahmud of Ghazni and the Mughals, respectively) was far more progressive than it became or even is today, and only due to the influence of Islam did it gain regressive characteristics such as increased misogyny. The example typically given is the practice of "Sati", burning widows on their husband's funeral pyre, only existing because of Muslim soldiers' tendency to rape female captives.
Is there any truth to these claims?
The short answer is no.
First, I'd like to tackle the idea that Islam is somehow more anti-woman than Hinduism is. In 2004 the Indian government made a huge analysis of Hindu Muslim disparities. If you dig into the numbers, one thing you will find is that male and female Hindus have a much bigger education gap than Muslims. The child sex ratio for Muslims is a lot better than that of Hindus, and rates of honor killings among Muslims is a lot lower than among Hindus. While women's rights are a serious problem in Pakistan, Bangladesh has done far better than us in terms of female education, maternal mortality and many other measures of women's rights. While Islamic terrorists have killed many people, Hindu gangs have shown themselves just as capable of mass violence. I'm cherry picking numbers to make Muslims look good here, but the point is that it isn't clear modern Islam is any more less incompatible with women's rights than Hinduism.
As far as the question you asked is concerned, my answer would be a qualified no. The practice of Sati is well attested in the historical literature before the Muslim invasions, as early as the 5th and 6th centuries. Some forms of prejudice were brought from the middle east. For example, much north India started following purdah (seclusion of women) after the late middle ages. There probably was a move towards women's roles becoming more restricted during the late middle ages, and especially during British rule. But this had more to do with complex social transformations than the malign influence of Islam.
http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/sachar_comm.pdf
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-census-2011-sikhs-jains-have-the-worst-sex-ratio-2161061
https://books.google.com/books?id=PD-flQMc1ocC&pg=PA149#v=onepage&q&f=false
One thing to note -- the narrative you mention of Hinduism having some sort of "Golden Age" prior to the arrival of Islam is a narrative largely constructed by the British in order to justify their rule in India. They wanted to help Indians return to a more "civilized" time when issues like women's rights were "better" somehow.
Also, by framing issues in India as a product of Muslim influence, they could further deepen the Hindu-Muslim divide and increase their "divide and rule" policy.
See "A Concise History of Modern India" by Metcalf and Metcalf. Amazon link.
"Hindus too experienced this treatment at the hands of Islamic conquerors, e.g. when Mohammed bin Qasim conquered the lower Indus basin in 712 CE. Thus, in Multan, according to the Chach-Nama, "six thousand warriors were put to death, and all their relations and dependents were taken as slaves". This is why Rajput women committed mass suicide to save their honour in the face of the imminent entry of victorious Muslim armies, e.g. 8,000 women immolated themselves during Akbar's capture of Chittorgarh in 1568 (where this most enlightened ruler also killed 30,000 non-combatants).
(source: Negationism in India: Concealing the Records of Islam - By Koenraad Elst p 78 - 79)