Yeah and educated and self-righteous, and 'well researched' person like you does not know Bahadur Shah Zafar died way after 1857.
By Bahadur Shah Zafar's time ordinary Hindus had no qualms about the distant king in Delhi who did not seem to matter. If you ever come across the travails of the occupants of Red fort after the defeat of 1857, you would come across stories of how ordinary Hindus helped the scattered remnants of royal family. One named Basanti accompanied Bahadur Shah Zafar's grand daughter until she was able to escape from India, for example.
You are afflicted with the disease of acute Hindu Nationalism and that is why you make statements like:
1. Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple.
2. Muslim kings were not productive (as though they were supposed to run industrial enterprises and not bring peace and stability).
3. Hindus were happy about Bahadur Shah Zafar dying in 1857.
4. You respect Pakistan and its people.
Both the bit about happiness and death in 1857 are wrong factually. The rebellious army that marched Delhi was composed of both Hindus and Muslims. Upon reaching Delhi, this army - quite out of control - declared their support for Bahadur Shah Zafar in their quest. What sort of Hinuds were they sir who did not act per your description?
I asked you for reference about Taj being a Hindu temple and this was your answer:
"We know nothing about the Taj and as i said before Delhi is a semi arid dry place,hindus wouldn't like to be there."
Source:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ng-top-global-landmarks-10.html#ixzz2XpQQR8Lc
Yeah some 'educated', 'well researched' and 'righteous' person you claim to be. You run when asked for substantiating a lie. You are neither educated, nor righteous. You are a bigot and your posts well demonstrate that fact. If you claim that you represent Hindus, then I hope that some among them slap you for disrespecting them.
You can not respect your history, how can you even claim to respect Pakistan or its people?