Here is a precise of an article written the the daily Dawn news:

Reassessing the Mughals

By Every society has a collective memory of its past, but each generation interprets it according to their present perspective. Sometimes, the past may be rejected as an obstacle to future progress, but at other times it is used as an inspiration for a struggle against present weaknesses.
History shows that when a country is colonised, its people and resources are used to further strengthen colonial power. After acquiring political power in India, the East India Company was surprised at the widespread popularity of the Mughal Empire. Although, the Mughal Empire was in the process of decline and the emperor had lost his authority, the people of India were still loyal and respectful to him.
Nadir Shah, who occupied Delhi after defeating the Mughals in 1737, failed to replicate the glory of the Mughal rule. He left India with the looted treasury of the Mughals while the dynasty remained intact. Likewise, Ahmad Shah Abdali invaded the subcontinent several times, but had no aspirations to rule it. He looted and plundered, forcibly married a Mughal princess and left for Afghanistan along with the acquired wealth and the family of his newly-wed wife. This gave the Marathas an opportunity to oust the Mughal emperor and to plant their candidate on the throne, but they still preferred to rule in the name of the Mughal emperor.
________________________________________
History has shining examples of religious bigotry being shunned in order to accommodate marginalised communities into the mainstream
________________________________________
Following the same tradition, the East India Company recognised the emperor as the legitimate ruler of India and paid homage to him. Even though the company had political power, the Mughal emperor remained popular among his subjects. Therefore, in the first phase, the company ruled in the name of the Mughal emperor, posing as the inheritors of the Mughal Empire and retaining nearly all its institutions and etiquettes.
However, the policy and the attitude of the company changed when it gained power and decided to create its own administrative set-up to get recognition as the legitimate rulers of India. At this stage, the Mughal past was denied and portrayed as despotic and oppressive. The idea behind the motive was to convey a message to the people of the subcontinent that the company had liberated them from a tyrannical rule and established a benevolent and enlightened government.
The company further propagated their campaign through history writing. The British historians published a series of books on the Sultanate and Mughal history, distorting it in order to prove that the Muslim rule was tyrannical and biased against the Hindus. Elliot’s History of India: as told by its own historians I(1848) is one of the series of history books which condemned the Mughal past but justified the British rule.
The Mughal past was again interpreted differently during the freedom movement against the British Raj. The historians of the subcontinent, under the influence of nationalism, glorified the Mughals whose rule culturally integrated the Hindus and the Muslims as one community. Their argument was that the Mughal rule created a pluralistic society in which there was no religious discrimination. It was the basis of their popularity which had strengthened their empire.
In the 1920s, history was communalised and historians on both sides condemned as well as admired the Mughal past. There was also a conflict in history writing between secularist and religious minded historians. To the secularists, Akbar was a ruler who ‘Indianised’ the Mughal Empire and laid down the foundations of religious tolerance and communal harmony. During his reign both the Hindus and the Muslims shared administration and contributed in the expansion of the empire.
But according to the Islamist historians, Akbar was the cause of the Mughal decline as he appointed the Hindus on high posts, depriving the Muslims of their high status. They admired Aurangzeb who deviated from the policy of Akbar and introduced religious practices, which alienated the non-Muslim subjects. In Pakistani history writing, Akbar has no place while Aurangzeb is regarded as a pious ruler, admired and projected as the best emperor.
There is a need to reassess the Mughal past in view of our present situation. We must try to understand why their rule flourished for such a long period (1526-1857). The reason for its continuity and popularity was its policy of religious tolerance and providing opportunities to talented people to play their role in administration, irrespective of their creed, caste and ethnicity. It respected the local traditions and preserved their values and institutions. Marginalised communities can only be assimilated into the society as long as there is religious tolerance.

Precise

Some societies shun their history while some learn from it to solve their problems. History reveals that a colonial power always utilizes a country’s resources to consolidate its hold. The East India Company, after gaining political power in India, was impressed by the popularity of the Mughals.
Nadir Shah, who conquered Delhi in 1737, wasn’t a match for the Mughal honour. So, he left India with the plundered wealth. Similarly, Ahmed Shah Abdali ransacked the sub-continent and didn’t intend to rule. The Marathas also exploited the opportunity by enthroning their candidate.
Seeing popularity of the declining Mughal rule, the British initially, acknowledged the Mughal Emperors. However, as the political stature of the British grew, they tried to consolidate their administrative setup. So, the Mughals were projected as tyrannical and the British as the emancipators.
The Company sponsored British historians to document a perverted version of history in which the Mughal rule was declared as discriminatory towards the Hindus.
During the freedom Movement against the British, the history was again construed according to the whims of the British Raj. The Mughals were propagated as champions of religious harmony.
In 1920, the history was bifurcated. The secularists considered Akbar a true ‘Indian’ who gave equal importance to all religious communities. The Islamists abhorred Akbar although, praised Aurangzeb’s religious policies. In Pakistan’s history literature, Aurangzeb unlike, Akbar, is held in high esteem.
It is imperative to learn something from the Mughal history and its longevity. The prosperity of the Mughal Empire was ensured due to social equality and religious harmony. Only religious harmony can ensure equal rights for minorities.

Total words: 764
Required words: 754
Words written: 764

Please someone evaluate my precise

It's a good attempt but don't try to include something from yourself like "The Company sponsored British historians to document a perverted version of history in which the Mughal rule was declared as discriminatory towards the Hindus". Just stick to the things in passage.

__________________
It always seem impossible until its done.

Thanks saad. I appreciate your intrest.

Come on people, I want some more evaluations.

It is a good effort but to focus a point in precise is to comprehend abstract of paragraph with coherence of events.

__________________
Mayoos tou vo ho,jis ka Rab na ho......!

Mr Channa, first of all thanks for commenting on my precies. Could you please comprehend your comment further as i am unable to understand it fully.

Thanks

Dear the term is "Precis",not precise or precies.

__________________
Expect problems,and eat them for breakfast.

Thanks for your contribution Ali