Source: TW
Denialism
If historians were to admit that the majority was systematically oppressed based on their faith, the simplistic narrative that posits that the British were the sole reason for enmity between Hindus and Muslims would become a much more complicated.
Double standards
We live in an era where “cultural erasure” of indigenous peoples is considered a major crime in Western academia, yet when it comes to the “pagan” history of India that same erasure is defended as “secular statecraft.”
Aurangzeb whitewashing
Ironically, if he had only oppressed Bohras, Shias, Pashtuns, etc., Awrangzeb would’ve been regarded as a bigot.
The fact that he was much more oppressive towards Hindus (and, to a lesser extent, Sikhs and Jains), as recorded in both foreign and native accounts, ironically saved him from being labeled as bigot.
It led to a reactionary whitewashing by Indian historians affiliated with the Aligarh School. In post-independence Indian historiography, admitting that a major Mughal emperor was a fundamentalist bigot was seen as a grave threat to national unity.