Aurangzeb is more often that not used by parties like the VHP and Shiv Sena to convince Indians that he epitomises the 'evil' Muslim who killed, dispossessed and converted Hindus en masse.
While it is true that Aurangzeb was responsible for atrocities one needs to see him in the context of the time he belonged to. Aurangzeb was an absolute Monarch and like numerous Kings and Emperors, of his time and before his time, Aurangzeb committed and sanctioned acts as he pleased.
His brother Dara Shikoh, was put to death by Aurangzeb, not because Dara was tolerant of other religions, but because Dara had been their father Jahangir's favorite son and was Aurangzeb's rival in the battle of succession to the throne. Aurangzeb was not the first or last to take the throne after killing members of his own family. Aurangzeb's father Jahangir had infact kept his own ailing father, Shah Jahan in captivity and taken the throne.
What also needs to be noted that while under Aurangzeb conversions were encouraged and rewarded, forced conversions were definately not as Gautier staes "at 90 per cent". If 90% had been converted India would have been a Muslim majority country.
Comparing Aurangzeb to Hitler is far fetched because they existed more than 200 years apart and lived in very different worlds. Hitler came to power because he was elected by the Germans, Indians under Aurangzeb had no choice but to accept him as their Monarch.
History is littered by Kings who have done more harm than good, Aurangzeb happens to be just one among them and to single him out as the worst is questionable.
