Mohammed Ayoob further dilates on the subject as follows: The Hindu nationalism “is based on the notion that Hindus have exclusive claim to the country and Muslims and Christians are interlopers, who can be treated as second-class citizens at best.” I guess Mohammed Ayoob has hit the nail right on the head of the confusing question: Who are the rightful claimants to truncated India after partition? This question also begs another question: Who are the rightful claimants to Pakistan after partition? Well, because Pakistan was created to give Muslims an independent county of their own, like Israel of the Jews, by dividing India on the basis of religion, the answer to the first question has to be ‘Hindus’ and to the second question ‘Muslims’. Of course, it must be remembered, that under the Hindu umbrella are also included three other native religions — Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism — that had their origins in the Indian soil steeped in the Sanatana Dharma. Many nationalist Hindus ask, where was the need to divide India if its Constitution were to be Secular? An undivided India under a Secular Constitution would have been like it is now for the Minorities in India. And there would not have been mass uprooting of Hindu-Muslim families and killing as happened in 1947. My heart bleeds reading Kuldip Nayar’s autibiography ‘Beyond The Lines’ and other books related to partition. Largest human migration in history was the result. An estimated 1.4 crore. And there would not have been a Kashmir problem. It would have been one great Secular-Democratic India. A beautiful Pluralistic country like India today. Further, the Muslim majority States would generally have had Muslim Chief Ministers as in Kashmir now and this would have satisfied the people generally. Why? Didn’t we have Muslims as Chief Ministers in some States in India? In Maharashtra and Bihar for example?
