New Delhi: On January 8, 2025, during the book launch of Early North India and its Coins in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath made a statement which was not quite ordinary cultural commentary. He remarked that ‘Bharatvarsha’ encompasses not just contemporary India but also Pakistan and Bangladesh, referring to this as ‘Greater India’. This assertion is neither isolated nor accidental.‘भारतवर्ष’ में वर्तमान का भारत भी है, पाकिस्तान भी है, बांग्लादेश भी है,यही वृहत्तर भारत है, यही भारतीयों का देश है… pic.twitter.com/DTKsc86Nev— Yogi Adityanath (@myogiadityanath) January 8, 2026This concept is part of an ideological movement that has been propagated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for decades in the name of ‘Akhand Bharat’ – ‘undivided India’. This notion not only views independent and sovereign neighbouring countries as integral to India but also characterises this purported geopolitical entity as a Hindu nation.Shortly after Adityanath’s remarks, on January 11, 2026, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spearheaded a ‘Shaurya Yatra’ (valour march) organised under the ‘Somnath Swabhiman Parv’ (Somnath pride festival) in Gujarat. The imagery and symbolism associated with this march represent the underlying political narrative that the party frequently flaunts without explicitly articulating it.Lights shaped like tridents, the word ‘Om’, and drums lined the road leading to the temple. Shivlings made of flowers were installed, and large banners carried the slogan “Akhand Somnath, Akhand Bharat (undivided Somnath, undivided India).”A drone show, held in the presence of the prime minister, also projected the same legend – Akhand Somnath, Akhand Bharat – alongside a trident, in the sky.With the exhibition of such symbols, this event no longer remained a mere religious gathering. It transformed into a public display of an ideology that merges religious symbols, nationalism, and a reinterpretation of history. The concept of Akhand Bharat is being actively endorsed in the public sphere too.‘Akhand Bharat is a political slogan’Historian Ruchika Sharma said that the original name for the entire subcontinent was not ‘Bharat’ but ‘Hind’. “The verse from the Mahabharata – ‘Durlabham Bharate Janma’ – which Yogi Adityanath cites does not pertain to ‘the land of Bharat’ in contemporary terms,” she said.Sharma said that in the context of the Mahabharata, ‘Bharata’ referred to a tribe, and this verse signifies that ‘it is challenging to be born into the Bharata tribe’. It bears no relation to the entire subcontinent or any notion of a unified nation, she said.Harbans Mukhia, a professor specialising in medieval history at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, also stated that the verse ‘has nothing to do with the land.’Sharma said that there is no evidence in the existing historical records to substantiate the assertion that the Indian subcontinent was regarded as a unified entity prior to the arrival of the Arabs, and said that the term ‘Bharatavarsha’ appears in the Hathigumpha inscription attributed to King Kharavela. This inscription was ordered by Kharavela from the Kalinga region of Odisha and states that Kharavela waged a war ‘against Bharatavarsha’. “If he was indeed fighting against Bharatavarsha, it suggests that at that time, Bharatavarsha was not synonymous with the whole subcontinent, nor was it included within Kharavela’s Kalinga. Therefore, it is evident that Bharatavarsha did not represent the entire subcontinent during that period, but was likely confined to the Gangetic plains,” Sharma said.Historian Harbans Mukhia too agreed with this and described ‘Akhand Bharat’ as a political slogan, asserting that it bears no relation to historical reality.Hindu Mahasabha and Akhand BharatExperts explained that the notion of ‘Akhand Bharat’ does not stem from ancient history, but rather from the ideologies of 20th-century Hindutva ideologues. It is understood that Vinayak Damodar Savarkar coined this idea, envisioning a unified India founded on ‘Hindutva’. Savarkar’s interpretation of ‘Hindu’ was controversial – he deemed Muslims and Christians as “incompatible with Indian civilisation” due to the fact that their holy sites were located outside of India.In 1937, Savarkar stated that Hindus and Muslims constituted “two opposing nations,” yet he persisted in advocating for ‘Akhand Bharat’. There is also historical evidence indicating that Hindutva leaders initially endorsed the Partition of India to establish a ‘Hindu nation’, but subsequently shifted to championing the concept of an undivided India.Shamsul Islam, a distinguished historian and former professor at Delhi University, shared an incident that happened during the Partition of Burma (currently known as Myanmar): “In 1935, Mahatma Otama served as the president of the Hindu Mahasabha. At that time, the British initiated discussions to establish Burma as an independent nation. Mahatma Otama was against this proposal. He contended that Hindus and Buddhists were united, which led to his removal from the presidency. Subsequently, the Hindu Mahasabha, under the leadership of Savarkar, consented to the Partition.”In later years, Islam said, Bhai Parmanand, a prominent member of the Arya Samaj associated with the Hindu Mahasabha, wrote in his autobiography that in 1905, he and Lala Lajpat Rai were engaged in correspondence regarding India’s future. In a letter addressed to Lala Lajpat Rai, Bhai Parmanand expressed his view: “At that time, I found it impossible to imagine the current unity (Hindu-Muslim). I believed that the territory beyond Sindh ought to be incorporated into a larger Muslim state along with Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Province. Hindus from this region should relocate, while Muslims residing in other parts of India should migrate to this region.”Islam added, “At the dawn of the 20th century, Lala Lajpat Rai also advocated for a separate nation for Muslims. The concept of segregating Buddhists and Muslims was also proposed by Hindu nationalists.”It is significant to note that Lala Lajpat Rai was affiliated with the Hindu Mahasabha and also served as its president. Similarly, Avaidyanath, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath’s mentor, was also associated with the Hindu Mahasabha.RSS and Akhand BharatThe notion of ‘Akhand Bharat’ has been a fundamental pillar of Hindutva ideology. This idea repeatedly surfaces in RSS documents, speeches, and training material. According to RSS textbooks, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Tibet were once part of India. Maps depicting Akhand Bharat are commonly seen with Sangh volunteers.It is significant to mention that a similar map was found with Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, as he was being led to the gallows. Before being executed, Godse chanted the slogan, “Akhand Bharat Zindabad (Long live undivided India).”Himani Savarkar, Godse’s niece, spoke to BBC Hindi about her uncle’s final wish:.“He wrote that certain parts of his body should be preserved, and when the Indus River is once again included in an independent India and an undivided India is rebuilt, his ashes should be immersed in it no matter how many generations later that happens.” RSS leader Mohan Bhagwat has also spoken about ‘Akhand Bharat’ and ‘Hindu Rashtra’ on multiple occasions. In 2022, Bhagwat asserted that Akhand Bharat would become a reality within 10-15 years. He further stated that those who try to come in the way will be eliminated.In response to questions regarding the notably aggressive tone of this language, RSS joint general secretary Manmohan Vaidya defended Bhagwat’s remarks, asserting that the concept of ‘Akhand Bharat’ is geocultural rather than geopolitical. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his tenure as chief minister of Gujarat in 2012, had also said in an interview that ‘Akhand Bharat’ signifies cultural unity.Harbans Mukhia posed the question, “If this is solely from a cultural standpoint, then Southeast Asia should also be encompassed within Akhand Bharat. Hindu culture has historically influenced that region and continues to do so. Therefore, why limit Akhand Bharat to Afghanistan and Myanmar? Extend it further to include Indonesia as well,” Mukhia remarked as he laughed.Senior journalist Sushant Singh wrote in Foreign Policy, “The notion of ‘Akhand Bharat’ is intrinsically connected to the core principles of the RSS – organisation (organised unity) and purity (purity of the race).” According to the ideology of the Sangh, India transcends the definition of a modern nation-state; it is an ancient, cultural-religious civilisation with boundaries that extend well beyond the current political maps.Political-religious projectExperts believe that the concept of ‘Akhand Bharat’ is not merely a cultural memory, but a political-religious project. It envisions a South Asia that existed before the arrival of Islam, thus inherently opposes pluralism, secularism, and the concept of the modern nation-state.When leaders from the BJP and RSS refer to sovereign nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh as part of India, it transforms from a simple historical debate into a complex interplay involving relations with neighbouring countries, the secular values enshrined in the Indian constitution, and the status of minorities within the country.From Somnath to Lucknow, while platforms and symbols may vary, the underlying message remains the same – this is an India that reshapes history to align it with its ideological aspirations. The question is not how the past ought to be remembered, but whether a fabricated interpretation of that past should serve as the foundation for current and future politics.Translated from the Hindi original – which appeared first in The Wire Hindi – by Naushin Rehman.