My dear Salman,
            This is with reference to your letter of March 10, 2009 regarding your book ‘Sons of Babur’.  You had very kindly sent me a copy when it was published and asked for my comments.  I had gone through it but refrained from offering any comment.  I wanted to discuss some aspects with you whenever we had an opportunity. 
The predominant secular view is that the ‘sons of Babur’ had fully Indianised themselves and the Mughal state was a national state. 

The fact that in 1857 uprising, the powerless and old Bahadur Shah Zafar was adopted as the leader is cited as evidence. But looking more closely I find that Zafar was chosen as the leader because the Indian polity was divided and the various rebel groups would have never accepted one of themselves as the leader.  The more important fact is that the Mughal Empire was always looked upon by the Muslims of the sub-continent as their empire.
It was not an Islamic state but in many ways it supported the Muslim establishment and the Muslim elite.  The Moghals married Rajput princesses but there is no explanation why they never gave their daughters to Rajputs!  It would not be correct to apply modern standards of secular state to the Mughal state but the lack of reciprocity continues to irk the Hindu mind, which looks upon medieval India as a battle ground pitting Islam against the Hindu people. What is worse is that this Hindu mind wishes to reverse the course of history and adopts revanchist courses which erupt from time to time into verbal or physical aggression against the Muslim Indians, who are in theory equal citizens of the secular state.  Partly responsible for this is the manner in which the state has  taught history in independent India and successive governments have failed to curb the anti-Muslim propaganda which goes on not only in the classroom, but from the public platform and through publications and the media. This explains why communalism has gone underground but every generation, including the Hindu elite is more communal than its predecessor. ‘Babar ki Aulad’  is yet another ex-pression of communal hatred. Babar hated India, Zafar loved it as his mother land. Babri Masjid was not important to Muslim because it was built by Babar or on his order but because it stood on a consecrated site.

I have gone far away from the subject of your letter.  But I have very limited experience of organizing dramatic performance and can add little to the vast experience that Muzaffar Ali undoubtedly processes.
With kind regards