Akhand Bharat: Understanding the Cultural Concept of Akhand Bharat that Respects Sovereignty

The thinking and concept of ‘Akhand Bharat’ is once again at the centre of the public discourse. On the occasion of the book release Vibhajan Kaaleen Bhaarat Ke Sakshi on November 25, RSS Sarsanghchalak Dr Mohan Bhagwat said: “Akhand Bharat is possible not through force, but through Hinduism. There is a need for a glorious Akhand Bharat for the welfare of the world, so there is a need to awaken patriotism… truncated India needs to be re-united, all the parts separated from India, which themselves are now part of India. They do not tell the part, they need it more.”

Just two days after this, on November 27, among the enlightened citizens of Gwalior, reiterating the resolve of ‘Akhand Bharat’, Dr Mohan Bhagwat said: “If India has to remain India, it must remain Hindu. And if a Hindu has to remain a Hindu, then India will have to be united.” It is not that the Sarsanghchalak is the first person to give voice to this thinking and concept.

In the past, Maharishi Arvind, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay, Ram Manohar Lohiya and all other sages and great men have been contemplating this direction. The question arises whether such thoughts are just fantasies or are there any solid socio-cultural-geographical basis behind them? If we see factually, at least these three countries were one just before Independence.

Today, when there is rule of law in the country, supremacy of the Constitution, civil rights are protected by the court, yet so-called liberals are occasionally seen advocating referendums on different issues in different parts of the country. Will they explain why a plebiscite was not held before a big and important decision like partition?

There were almost the same aspirations, the same dreams and the same struggles. Even after going through the same restrictions, similar tortures and atrocities, the country got only fragmented freedom, not perfect. At the cost of terrible bloodshed, riots, arson and looting. The reasons for which the Partition was accepted by the then leadership who were fearful and apprehensive, were those reasons eliminated from the root after Partition or were they done? If not, then why the division? Was it logical and justified to succumb to the dogma of a few ambitious leaders and a few thousand and millions of violent-chaotic mobs of the then Congress leadership? Today, when there is the rule of law in the country, the supremacy of the Constitution, civil rights are protected by the court, yet so-called liberals are occasionally seen advocating referendums on different issues in different parts of the country. Will they explain why a plebiscite was not held before a big and important decision like Partition? The nation is not just a piece of land, which should be handed over happily on someone’s demand by serving it on a plate. Can a broken idol be installed in temples? The mind is also a temple; to what extent was the denial of the nation-god statue established in the country’s collective psyche justified? Not only culture and traditions, but also nature and geography have tied this country in a wonderful thread of unity. That is why from the time of Vedas and Puranas, we had a clear and vibrant form of the nation in front of us. Our Puranakars did not just declare— 

‘‘उत्तरं यत् समुद्र्रस्य हिमाद्र्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम्।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र सन्तति:।’’

Nature and geography had created a wonderful unity, this pain of the division of that motherland, this pain must be troubling every sensitive and patriotic Indian from time to time! Does just drawing lines on a map make a country? Do people living across borders share feelings of pain and struggle during slavery, common heritage, common traditions, common ancestors, don’t matter? The ancestors of most of the people and leaders who wanted Pakistan were also Hindus only a few hundred or two hundred years ago. Because of this, their culture was also Hindu or Sanatan culture. Changing the creed and worship system does not change the nation and culture? Shouldn’t it change?

Minority Never Faced Insecurity in India

Is it not true that the common citizens of Akhand Bharat had, in 1905, demolished the devious tricks of Partition by the imperialist power with mutual understanding and cooperation? Is there any doubt in this that the freedom-struggle of 1857 fought together beyond the boundaries of religion and handed  a defeat to the  Britishers? Not only this, in 1937, for the first time, the British tried unsuccessfully to create distance and separation between Hindus and Muslims by reserving seats based on religion and community. Even at that time, the Muslim League got only 20 per cent votes in the reserved seats because Indian society was not only religion-based but also culture-based. Then why and why this division? Can its justification be justified on any ground? If the separated countries are put on the test of development and peace, then the futility of Partition becomes more clear. Has there been any special change in the condition of the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh, which came into existence on the basis of religion and later separated from it? 

The ancestors of most of the people and leaders who wanted Pakistan were also Hindus only a few hundred or two hundred years ago. Because of this, their culture was also Hindu or Sanatan culture

On various parameters of education, security, equality, freedom, civil rights and standard of living, are the conditions of the Muslims of those two countries better than the Muslims living in India? The amount of effort that is made for the development and upliftment of minorities in India is hardly done anywhere else! Rather, the minority groups, whose number is negligible, have never had to face any kind of insecurity or inequality in India. Not only in the Constitution, but in practice also, from the President, Vice-President, Minister to various institutions and committees, qualified people of the minority community have been sitting in the highest positions. Even in the pre-Independence era, the majority of India never treated anyone discriminatory on the basis of ritual or creed-religion. Parsis, Jews, Christians, Muslims all have a common sense of acceptance in the coexistence culture here.

The foreign castes like Shaka, Hun, Kushan and Yavan abandoned their sense of segregation and accepted their merger in the all-inclusive culture here. Sects like Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs have been an integral part of the Sanatan culture here for centuries, moving and growing along without any conflict. Why, because the Sanatan culture of India has developed a supernatural life-view of seeing all in one and one in all even though accepting different rituals of worship. The constant and practical realisation of ‘Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudha Vadanti’ will continue to re-inspire and awaken India from the possibilities of being united.

British’s Policy of Divide and Rule

Remember that 100-200 years are of no importance in the life of any nation. Feelings and thoughts and sadhana and resolution should be alive. Would anyone have ever thought that Israel, which was destroyed 2000 years ago, would emerge as a strong nation in 1948? We have seen Germany united in 1989 even after breaking the strong walls of the last century, if there is a strong and collective will. Both Vietnams united.

Even after changing religion, Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, did not change its culture. We saw 15 Central Asian countries coming together on improvised movements and on weak-artificial grounds to break away from the Soviet Union. 

We have to remember that the Partition of India was not natural. This was the result of the British’s policy of divide and rule, the transfer of power in a hurry and the short-sightedness of the leadership, the over-ambition of some leaders and the dreadful appeasement. Whereas the nature, culture and geography here all three make a strong basis for its integrity. General Cariappa had said that India would be united again.

The famous writer Van Valvonenburg said that geographically the division of India and Pakistan is so irrational that one wonders how long it would last. In conclusion, in the words of Maharishi Aurobindo: “India will be united again, it is certain because this is its destiny.”