Aurangzeb was the most divisive Mughal Emperor. No-one was as cruel before him or after him in the Mughal Dynasty. In fact, even the Hindu kings supported Bahadur Shah Zafar when he had virtually no power left. It is due to his (Aurangzeb's) cruelty that the Maratha and Sikh empires arose.
He personally oversaw the torture of Sambhaji Maharaj, the maratha king. He tried his best to get him converted to Islam, which was the most perverted use of power. This is a documented fact and not contended by any historian.
He did not spare his brother, Dara Shikoh - the rightful heir of the empire or even the Sikhs.
He was intelligent enough to cultivate personal ties with the Rajputs as they provided him with strong manpower. Rajputs had been serving the Mughals for generations, but despite that there were several open rebellions against Aurangzeb throughout India. He was the main cause of the destruction of the Mughal empire.
He could not carry out the destruction of all the temples simply because he didn't have the means to do so and doing so would have caused an open rebellions, so his destructions were systematic.
Akbar is praised because his subjects were relatively happy and were allowed to pursue their religios beliefs without hindrance.
I have never found myself agreeing with Mr. Gautier, but on this matter I completely stand by him.
To agree with the philosophy of Aurangzeb would be to agree with a Tyrant and any one who praises him for any reason whatsoever is an enemy of secularism.
