Some Indian right wingers have been propagating the idea of united India over the years, what is the historical basis to back that up? As far as I can see many areas forming Pakistan now have remained together in Maurya’s empire, Moghuls and then British. Other than that most of the areas forming Pakistan have been part of various central asian and persian empires, and this I am talking about the period preceding muslim rule in the subcontinent.
Re: United India
I think the concept is not the old one. Even in 7th Century, Arab historian made a division and used Hind o Sind for the area. The concept is probably from the British Era, because it was the time when whole of region (India, Pakistan & Bangla Desh) became colony under one rule. Before that the region was never remained under one ruler including during the period of the biggest dynasties in the region.
Re: United India
Some of the important maps I’ll be posting here:
550 BC the area divided into various small kingdoms, the most important one Gandhara.
500 BC, most of the areas now forming Pakistan are part of Persian empire. Small kingdoms in the Punjab called Pauravas.
300 BC, Maurya Empire which included most of Northern India.
50 AD Indo Parthians
100 AD Kushans
Restored attachments:
Re: United India
BTW in any case, if the region remained under single rule in past, today's facts are quite different for dreams like Akhand Bharata.
Re: United India
400 AD Pakistani areas divided between Persia and Kushans.
500 AD, Persia, Huns and Sindh is shown separate. Where as Gupta Empire and some other empires can be seen in India.
800 AD, Abbasids and Hindu Shahis in Punjab.
900 AD, Hindu Shahi, Multan, Sindh and Saffarid Dynasty.
1100 AD Ghaznavids
Re: United India
BTW in any case, if the region remained under single rule in past, today's facts are quite different for dreams like Akhand Bharata.
For most of our history the areas have never been combined, if we see the historical maps of the region while mainland India has almost always been divided into small kingdoms where as the areas forming Pakistan have been part of various Central Asian and Persian empires. I guess some Indians base their Akhand Bharat theory based upon Mauryas tenure where as their period is minuscule considering the thousands of years of history of this area.
Re: United India
I think the Chanakia is reported to be the person behind this Akhand Bharata concept, but I'm not sure whether the region remained under one ruler at any time for a longer period.
Re: United India
Hindu Shahis have been ruling in Pakistani Punjab, KP and Afghanistan from 500 AD to 1000 AD. And even they were based in Afghanistan.
Kabul Shahi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Shahi (Devanagari: शाही),[SUP][1]](Kabul Shahi - Wikipedia)[/SUP] Sahi,[SUP][2]](Kabul Shahi - Wikipedia)[/SUP] also called Shahiya [SUP][3]](Kabul Shahi - Wikipedia)[/SUP][SUP][4]](Kabul Shahi - Wikipedia)[/SUP] dynasties ruled one of the Middle kingdoms of India which included portions of the Kabulistan and the old province ofGandhara (now in northern Pakistan), from the decline of the Kushan Empire in the 3rd century to the early 9th century.[SUP][4]](Kabul Shahi - Wikipedia)[/SUP] The kingdom was known as “Kabul Shahi” (Kabul-shāhān orRatbél-shāhān in Persian کابلشاهان یا رتبیل شاهان) between 565 and 879[SUP][5]](Kabul Shahi - Wikipedia)[/SUP] CE when they had Kapisa and Kabul as their capitals, and later as Hindu Shahi when they moved their capital toHund.[SUP][6]](Kabul Shahi - Wikipedia)[/SUP]
The Shahis of Kabul/Gandhara are generally divided into the two eras of the so-called Buddhist-Shahis and the so-called Hindu-Shahis, with the change-over thought to have occurred sometime around AD 870.
[TABLE=“class: infobox geography vcard vevent, width: 290”]
[TR=“class: mergedrow”]
700s
Khingala of Kapisa
[/TR]
[TR=“class: mergedrow”]
- 964-1001
Jayapala
[/TR]
[TR=“class: mergedbottomrow”] - 1001-1010
Anandapala
[/TR]
Re: United India
Akhand Bharat means the kingdom of Maharaja Bharat on whose name India is named Bhaarat, Kuaravas and Pandavas were his direct decendents:) they were called BharatVanshi, means decendent of Maharaja Bharat of Mahabharat fame.
Hence the theory is to unite his entire kingdom, not prophecy like Gazawa-e-Hind
Re: United India
I have posted maps Of different eras spanning 2500 years, but for very few times and limited periods have the whole region been united. The religion of afghanistan has also been Hinduism/Buddhism but that's not enough to include it in Maha Bharat as well.
Re: United India
Akhand Bharat means the kingdom of Maharaja Bharat on whose name India is named Bhaarat, Kuaravas and Pandavas were his direct decendents:) they were called BharatVanshi, means decendent of Maharaja Bharat of Mahabharat fame.
Hence the theory is to unite his entire kingdom, not prophecy like Gazawa-e-Hind
Can you tell a bit more about this maharaja bharat :)
Re: United India
I thought Bharata name came from the name of step brother of Bhagwan Rama. So it means that before that there was no united India (Akhand Bharata concept). Is Ramayan old than Mahabharata?
I think be it the concept of Akhand Bharata or Ghazwa e Hind, all relates to human greed of expansion 
Re: United India
^ I think it serves two benefits expansionism and to infuse nationalism in India. While the Indians mock Pakistanis for twisting their history in favour of the Arab/afghan Muslim invaders the same seems to be the case of India where they want to show as if there was a united India historically although you can see any tenure of the subcontinent the unity can not be seen. :) Secondly I have seen people claim that the partition of the subcontinent is due to religion alone although most Of the times these areas have not been part of India and in quite a few cases most of the areas (forming Pakistan now) have been a part of the same empires.
Besides what's the difference in hindutva's concept of akhand Bharat and sheikh zaid hamids ummah :)
Re: United India
Probably they could not be united due to these persistent invasions. :)
Re: United India
Chankya never envisaged any concept that he cannot make a practicality,this is entirely modern hindutva concept, Hindu MahaSabha was the first one to propose partition, and RSS is first to claim it as new concept:)
Maharaja Bharat was ancestor of main actors of Mahabharat, he was son of Maharaja Dushyant and Brahmin Daughter of Vishwamitra, teacher of Bhagwan Ram and his wife, an apsara, a dancer of heaven, similar to ‘hoor’:), he was chakravarti raja, Chakravarti mean the one who controls entire region, Indian society has intertwined their history with mythology that sometimes they take everything is real. For Hindus, Ram, Krishna and all other stories are practical history:), though mainstream historians never considered all these stories as real:)
Bharat. brother of Bhagwan Ram is different from Maharaja Bharat, as Ram’s brother never became Maharaja:)
Both of these concept are political requirement of the parties, and the ideals are so high that people fall for it, Mosquitoes kill more people in pakistan than drone even thought mosqitoes exist for hardly six months, but pakistan’s problem is drone not mosquitoes:D
Ummah is very noble concept, Ummah means unity in muslims, this means at least entire asia at peace:), Gazwa-e-hind is considered as prophecy while Akhand Bharat is just a dream that means uniting entire Indian subcontinent mentioned in Vedic Geography.
Re: United India
my two cents
i won't go into historical perspective.........
don't want to offend any pakistani friends here.to be frank majority of indians would want nothing to do with pakistan
except for guys who live in aboard and few internet guys for majority of indians pakistan is like afghanistan,every place is like FATA with taliban ruling some of the areas
can say this because lack of media exposure, unlike in pakistan where you guys have access to bollywood/tv shows,in india there is no content on pakistan except for bomb blast :)
only positive holy places for sikhs to visit,heard news about two days back that pakistan denied visas for this guys to visit pakistan
Re: United India
^ the partition cannot be reversed, but I want to discuss the topic of akhand Bharat which comes up every now and then as if the Indian sub continent was a united area in history which it was not. Most of the areas were united under Maurya (South India was out of that empire) then under muslims and British.
Re: United India
^^
akhand bharat term can be more of Ancient world or continent then a country........
whatever you say end of the day all the places in sub continent have more in common when compare to europe/central Asia,even a south indian family structure would be more similar to punjabi then european/central asian
Re: United India
my two cents
i won't go into historical perspective.........
don't want to offend any pakistani friends here.to be frank majority of indians would want nothing to do with pakistan except for guys who live in aboard and few internet guys for majority of indians pakistan is like afghanistan,every place is like FATA with taliban ruling some of the areas can say this because lack of media exposure, unlike in pakistan where you guys have access to bollywood/tv shows,in india there is no content on pakistan except for bomb blast :) only positive holy places for sikhs to visit,heard news about two days back that pakistan denied visas for this guys to visit pakistan
babloos, I agree that there is a certain set of mind in Indian public for Pakistan due to media's role, but I don't think that opponents of Akhand Bharata or similar expansion theories on any side bother about the situation being portrayed. They are just behind their dreams to be fulfilled at any cost without thinking of the future consequences.