This land, this nation

Akhand Bharat is a mainstay of Hindu nationalism — because land plays a key role in its ideology.

Written by Christophe Jaffrelot | Updated: January 12, 2016 11:21 am
 RSS, Akhand Bharat, Ram Madhav, PM Narendra Modi, ram madhav akhand bharat, rss akhand bharat, rss bharat concept, ram madhav al jazeera interview, Modi Govt, PM Nawaz Sharif, Al-Jazeera, Al-Jazeera interview, Pakistan, Bangladesh, indian express column Mehdi Hasan interviewed Ram Madhav on Al Jazeera last month.

Mehdi Hasan, who interviewed Ram Madhav on Al Jazeera last month, seemed to have been surprised by the map of Akhand Bharat that he had seen during his visit to the RSS’s Nagpur office. However, Akhand Bharat is one of the mainstays of Hindu nationalism.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh passed many resolutions that showed its attachment to this core issue. In 1953, its all-India general council declared: “We, therefore, reaffirm our faith in one and united India and pledge ourselves to renewed efforts for the fulfilment of this ideal of Akhand Bharat”. In 1965, the same body expressed its hope that one day “India and Pakistan will be united to form Akhand Bharat”.

 RSS, Akhand Bharat, Ram Madhav, PM Narendra Modi, ram madhav akhand bharat, rss akhand bharat, rss bharat concept, ram madhav al jazeera interview, Modi Govt, PM Nawaz Sharif, Al-Jazeera, Al-Jazeera interview, Pakistan, Bangladesh, indian express column Picture by: C R Sasikumar

This notion harks back to a specific view of the territory of India. While most students of Hindu nationalism have focused on its proponents’ emphasis on the figure of Bharat Mata, this metaphor of the body of the nation has obscured the key role of land in the ideology of Hindutva.

For V.D. Savarkar, a Hindu is first of all one who inhabits the land “from the Indus to the seas” and below the Himalayas, “so strongly entrenched that no country in the world is more closely marked out by the fingers of nature as a geographical unit”. But India is not only a geographical unit for Savarkar. It is also the Hindu holy land, whose sacredness is testified to by the cult of the rivers and mountains where pilgrims worship their gods. Therefore, India is not only the matribhoomi (motherland) or pitribhoomi (fatherland) but also the punyabhoomi (holy land) of Hindus. Hence Savarkar’s distinction between Hindus on the one hand, and Muslims and Christians on the other: “For though Hindustan to them is fatherland as to any other Hindu, yet it is not to them a holyland too. Their holyland is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and godmen, ideas and heroes are not the children of this soil”.

The RSS inherited this view of the Hindu land from Savarkar, as evident from the first stanza of the prayer that its members recite daily on the shakha ground: “Oh Mother (Bharatmata or Mother India) ever-affectionate to your children — salutation to thee. Oh Hindu land, I have been happily brought up by you. Oh the supreme benefactor holy land, this body be laid down for you.”

This mystique of the national land was further enhanced after Partition. In fact, Nathuram Godse decided to kill Mahatma Gandhi because he held him responsible for “the cursed vivisection of India”, as he told the jury during his trial. Just before being hanged, he and Narayan Apte shouted “Akhand Bharat amar rahe!”

After Partition, all the local branches of the RSS, on August 14 every year, began to hold a function called Akhand Bharat Sankalp Diwas for the formation of a reunited India. This perspective was supported by the conception of the territory of India that M.S. Golwalkar, the second RSS chief, spelled out in his book Bunch of Thoughts: “Our epics and our Puranas also present us with the same expansive image of our motherland. Afghanistan was our ancient Upaganasthan. Shalya of the Mahabharata came from here. The modern Kabul and Kandahar were Gandhar from where the Kauravas’ mother Gandhari came. Even Iran was originally Aryan. Its previous king Reza Shah Pehlavi was guided more by Aryan values than by Islam. Zend Avesta, the holy scripture of Parsis, is mostly Atharva Veda. Coming to the East, Burma is our ancient Brahmadesha. The Mahabharata refers to Iraavat, the modern Irrawady valley, as being involved in that great war… In the south, Lanka has had the closest links and was never considered as anything different from the mainland”.

The map of Akhand Bharat that Mehdi Hasan saw in Nagpur reflects this geography that is deeply influenced by history and mythology. In the modern era, the presence of Hindus in neighbouring countries, including Sri Lanka and Nepal, has reinforced such a weltanschauung. As a result, in 1983, one of the caravans of the VHP’s Ekatmata Yatra (pilgrimage of unity) was launched from Kathmandu to Rameshwaram. It converged in Nagpur, the headquarters of the RSS and the geographical centre of India, with those rallying from Gangasagar to Somnath and from Hardwar to Kanyakumari , before separating once again.

The valorisation of the cultural and historical borders of the Hindu civilisation (supported by the presence of Hindus in neighbouring countries) at the expense of the international frontiers of today’s nation-states echoes the past opposition of the Sangh Parivar to linguistic states, which in the 1950s-60s were seen as divisions of the nation. It may be interpreted as the root cause for interferences (and even intrusions) by New Delhi in the domestic affairs of foreign countries. Some observers saw the recent demand that was made to Kathmandu for amending the newly promulgated constitution of Nepal to take into account the interests of local Hindu groups in this light.

The revival of the Akhand Bharat issue may also adversely impact relations between India and Pakistan, which the recent meeting between Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif seemed to have brought back on track until the Pathankot attack. Historically, this notion has fostered the fear of India in Pakistan and has been instrumentalised by Pakistani rulers. In 1961, after the Goa operation, a Dawn editorial claimed that “Pakistan faces exactly the same danger as Goa did, and as soon as India feels strong enough to do so she will try to wipe out Pakistan because Indians in their heart of hearts still regard the areas now forming Pakistan as basically parts of Akhand Bharat (Undivided India) over which some day Hindu rule must be extended”. Six years later, in his autobiography, Friends Not Masters, Ayub Khan argued that it was India’s “ambition to absorb Pakistan or turn her into a satellite”.

In the course of the Al Jazeera interview, and in subsequent pieces of writing clarifying his stand, Madhav has explained that Akhand Bharat had to be a popular movement and not a political decision. Indeed, the people of India and Pakistan have so much in common that they are in the best position to reinvigorate the civilisation that Hindus, Muslims and others have crafted in the course of more than one millennium. To refer to the Akhand Bharat project may be of little help for achieving this goal. Instead, mutual respect and recognition of minorities’ rights in both countries would prepare the ground not only for societal interactions, but also for political confidence-building measures. That was the agenda for both the PMs, it seemed, when they met in Lahore last month. They will hopefully pursue it, in spite of the attempts of jihadi groups to derail the whole process, as well as those of opponents within India.

The writer is senior research fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Paris, professor of Indian politics and sociology at King’s India Institute, London, and non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. K
    K SHESHU
    Jan 12, 2016 at 7:35 am
    The important issue is close co-operation and free of conflicts. When there are mistrusts between the south asian nations on various issues, they cannot yell to-gether. First step is to see the end of terrorist strikes in these countries by co-operating with each other.
    Reply
    1. a
      ak.dev
      Jan 12, 2016 at 8:25 pm
      Akhand Bharat if realised will only create an Akhand Muslim country and expedite the extinction of Hindus from the Akhand Bharat. However, one thing is for sure that Hindus are going to become minority soon and then cleansed like Kashmiri Pandits. This is not very far from 150 years from now.
      Reply
      1. A
        Archpagan
        Jan 12, 2016 at 8:23 am
        Perhaps it is not in the knowledge of this 'senior research fellow' that Mohammedans and Christians living in geographical India are Hindu converts or ethnic Hindus.
        Reply
        1. A
          Archpagan
          Jan 12, 2016 at 11:07 am
          Because , unlike Mohammedans and Christians , we Hindus never believed it was our religious duty to kill non-believers or non-conformists.
          Reply
          1. A
            AK
            Jan 12, 2016 at 9:34 am
            It was not ancient Kingdoms then. The British influence started with Babur's invasions. British started their rule during Mughal period, by then the Mughals were weakened by consistent hammering done by The Maratha's, The Peshwas, The Sikhs. and for you kind information the largest Hindu rule was formed by Chandragupt Maurya under the guidance of Channkya. It spanned from Iran to am and half of Burma and in south upto Tamil Nadu.
            Reply
            1. I
              Indian First
              Jan 12, 2016 at 12:09 pm
              India was never a single nation at any time in the history. Its only now after the independence India became one nation with federal system. Why did the congress leaders and Jinnah agreed to cut the nation into 3 pcs.. even Jinnah insisted, congress could have declined, what was the hurry to agree for the parion, if things not ok between the hindus and muslims after a decade or more, then they can think of the parion, or some other alternative system that make the muslims/hindus to have complete freedom in their faith related issues. They are all criminals of India..
              Reply
              1. I
                Indian First
                Jan 12, 2016 at 11:53 am
                Means you prefer to be slaves under english rule than to fight and die for the nation...what logic is this...
                Reply
                1. R
                  Rajesh
                  Jan 12, 2016 at 9:50 am
                  It has always been about the land. No one is interested in turning millions of s or Bangladeshis into Indians. It is only the undivided land we speak of. How can we or anyone else claim that cults from the Middle East are Indian?
                  Reply
                  1. B
                    Bihari Krishna
                    Jan 12, 2016 at 12:05 pm
                    Much of the goals of Akhanda Bharat, although not political union, could have been promoted through SAARC. But for India, Modi government included, it has only been of cosmetic importance all these three decades or more. Instead, big power hegemony seems to be the order of the day as evidenced by the mindless blockade that India, that is Bharat, continues to clamp against landlocked Nepal. While most of Nepal is overwhelmingly Hindu, and recent opinion poll before the promulgation of the consution showed people wanted to keep Nepal "Hindu Rastra", following the current Indian blockade, at least some section of por pinion see Hindutva more as a liability for the country. So, Ram Madhavjee has to think more coolly than the jingoism that his call for Akhanda Bharat seem to entail.
                    Reply
                    1. D
                      D.K. Bhatt
                      Jan 12, 2016 at 2:54 am
                      The post-independence scenario in the Indian sub-continent has proved that the parion of India on communal basis-- despite common history and culture of the two regions--was unnatural and merely a political agreement to avoid stalling of independence from the foreign rule. The Indian people including minorities hold a higher position in the Human Development Index in the sub-continent that falsifies the very basis of the two-nation theory. Whether one likes it or not , but historically it is true that once there existed an Akhand Bharat whose people shared many dimensions of life. Further parion of stan showed that communalism is not a foolproof glue to keep two regional aspirations togather and may become irrelevant. However nurturing a fond hope that one day the region may join to form a confederation like eny cannot be regarded as an evil wish for any resident of any of these countries including India.
                      Reply
                      1. d
                        dv1936
                        Jan 12, 2016 at 1:56 am
                        Why not begin with akhand Hindus. Is it possible.
                        Reply
                        1. S
                          ss
                          Jan 12, 2016 at 2:12 pm
                          HIndus must regard themselves as decidedly lucky that the Parion happened . It was this fact that ensured that the historical trend of the decline of Hinduism got arrested. Imagine the politics of an Akhand bharat where muslims consute forty five percent of the potion. Our secular parties would have a field day in courting the largest single vote bank in the country. Jinnah must be turning in his grave - had he any notion of how democratic polity will play out to the advantage of large social groups, he would have not raised the demand for a separate homeland for the muslims of the subcontinent.
                          Reply
                          1. I
                            indian
                            Jan 12, 2016 at 4:32 am
                            RSS is a idealogically stagnant organisation and has no clue of modern nationhood, global dynamics etc.
                            Reply
                            1. B
                              BharatK
                              Jan 12, 2016 at 12:11 am
                              Author: Keep your garbage in your own dustbin.
                              Reply
                              1. K
                                Karigar Medha
                                Jan 12, 2016 at 5:52 pm
                                Ol' Chris Chaff-a-lot is upto his sly tricks as usual. Always looking at things with a 'critical' POV, i.e. critical only of Hindus. No mention in his 'analysis' of s not just thinking of, but ACTING on Islamic "Dar-Ul_Islam" ideas via Jihadi terror. Akhand Bharat has a historical rationale, and is not about 'conquest of the other' as is Jihad. But fool IE and other Indian ELM will still fall over themselves to give these kind of views prime space.
                                Reply
                                1. N
                                  Nikhil Kelkar
                                  Jan 12, 2016 at 12:17 am
                                  Why would we want akhand bharat and inherit more problems? Lets develop the Bharat in the present sense first. Since a lot of our soldiers have died, I hate to make loose comments, but if it were up to me, I would have given away the bloody Kashmir region as well. Why hold on to a region who doesn't want to be with us? We can progress so much with the regions who are willing to be in the Indian state.
                                  Reply
                                  1. M
                                    Murthy
                                    Jan 12, 2016 at 2:44 pm
                                    If Palestinians can claim all of Palestine as theirs even though Jews were also natives of Palestine, I do not see why Hindus cannot affirm - if not make a political or military claim as of now - that all the land of Bharata Varsha is the Land of the Hindus. Western scholars like this author, accept the notion of "Muslim Land" but not of "Christian Land" or "Hindu Land". They are helping Muslim majority countries to drive out their Non-Muslim minorities but encourage Muslim Minorities to spread and colonise through a high birth rate Christian and Hindu majority countries. Hindus should NEVER give up the hope that one day, through peaceful means, through the efflux of time, their ancient Holy Sites in stan and Afghanistan will be restored to them again.
                                    Reply
                                    1. M
                                      Murthy
                                      Jan 12, 2016 at 2:56 pm
                                      Leave religion(s) aside for a moment. Ask, "How come Indus Valley's bullock cart designs, pottery and other metal working methods could be found in Southern India ? How come all Indian scripts in use today trace their origins to Brahmi, the script that evolved in what is known as stan and N.W. India, including Kashmir? How come so many language groups have diffused into each other, Sanskrit words in Dravidian, some Dravidian and Munda words in Sanskrit? The answer: "From 5,000 B.C. a persistent ACCULTURALISATION - sorry to use such a long and technical word - has happened in India. This phenomenon included religious beliefs, some contradictory of each other, and religious rituals. " The resulting chemical compound can be called HINDU, because it is unique and is really a distillation of all of the wisdom and effort of generations of INDIANS, meaning people who were Sons of the Soil.
                                      Reply
                                      1. M
                                        Me Marathi
                                        Jan 12, 2016 at 2:50 pm
                                        While Jaffrelot and Han are just trying to further their so called research on India ( with their limited abilities) , they are bound to have skewed thoughts and interpretations , because of their "lineage ". That's their inherent trait. But India shall thrive and become one BIG superpower in next 100-200 years.
                                        Reply
                                        1. O
                                          Observer
                                          Jan 12, 2016 at 9:00 am
                                          This autor fantasizes that "Greater" India was ever one political eny? Can anyone name one King or Emperor who ruled from this vast stretch from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and Baluchistan to Burma before Queen Victoria. And the last I heard, Victoria was not a product of this holy land! Look at Europe, it has never been a single political eny. But can anyone deny there is a broad and distinct cultural affinity across Europe, regardless of the linguistics and political divisions? For someone truly interested in "culture" political boundaries cannot matter at all. For a "cultural" organization, the RSS is rather suiously too obsessed with real estate. To use "culture" as a weapon to divide people in order to attain power is the height of cynicism and dishonesty.
                                          Reply
                                          1. P
                                            pankaj
                                            Jan 12, 2016 at 3:35 am
                                            Zero idea of Hindu or Indians... Majority of Hindus have understanding that afganisthan and stan were part of Hindu or vedix mahajanpads and that w akhand Bharat map shown was culturally one eny having Hindu/Buddhist (again for Hindu Buddha and Nanak were Hindus, so were buddha's Brahmin teachers and even Buddha's Brahmin disciples who codified Buddhism) and the fact that even Greek and Arabs recognized it as one cultural or Hindu civilization... But same majority doesn't like stan etc to be part of even a loose Indian federation till the political Islam rules these countries and people in those countries understand and accept their Hindu past happily..
                                            Reply
                                            1. Load More Comments