Bangladesh and Myanmar MapMyanmar and Bangladesh Map
Background: Bangladesh. Lee, Yimou (December 28, 2016). Pitchford, Ruth, ed. "Bangladesh's Grenzschutz is protesting after the Myanmar Navy's fire on its fisher boat". Archives from the orginal on December 29, 2016. A minimum of four bangladesh fishers were wounded, two high-ranking officials with the German Federal Immigration Service declared Reuters. "Fishers who fish in Bangladesh's waters in the Bay of Bengal Cherrha Dwip were killed by a Myanmar Marine vessel," said Mohammad Saiful Absar, Bangladesh Boarder Commandant in St. Martin.
Bangladesh's frontier police officer lodged a remonstrative note to his colleagues in Myanmar on Wednesday, said AbuZar Al Jahid, Lieut U.S. Lieut of the Bangladesh Boarder Service in Teknaf.
Were Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Myanmar and the Maldives as well as Pakistan and Bangladesh part of the former'Akhand Bharat' or'Undivided India'?
Khant Bharat is a very weak approach. Yes, the geographic borders of what we can call "Bharat" have evolved over the course of the ages and have been much larger in the past. Nearly the whole area of contemporary India, the whole area of contemporary Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan and most of Afghanistan.
So, if we see this as a model for Akhand Bharat, we should also allow Buddhism to be seen as the adhesive that holds it together. However, I don't think the humans have a Buddhist dominant country in their minds when they talk about Akhand Bharat. Let's take a look at the Kushan empire.
Although they dominated large parts of northern India, their basis lay mainly in the area of contemporary Afghanistan. Her kingdom was probably an example of an Akhand of Central Asia more than an Akhand Bharat. Let's take the largest known Hindu imperium in India's past - the Guptamperium. But when you look at the map, you can see that it is quite small in comparison to others and definitely does not match Akhand Bharat's descriptions.
Not even half of the territories of contemporary India are covered. This is the expansion of the Chola Imperium - another Hindumperium. Originating from the Tamil land, Cholas had a completely different geographic imprint than other monarchies in India. The Chola empire is more like the British Colonies than any other kingdom in India. Under the reign of the Chola emperors, the heartland was restricted to southern India, the Maldives and Sri Lanka.
Other areas such as today's Bengal, Orissa, Bangladesh, Coastal Myanmar, large parts of contemporary Southeast Asia states such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam were also affluents of the Chola Empress. The Chola Imperium was mainly established as a naval imperium with the aim of safeguarding the navigation lanes in the Baltic Sea.
There was also a great deal of culturally influential work. When we look at the Chola empire as a model for Akhand Bharat, we have to cover almost all of Southeast Asia. Oddly enough, nobody says this, although India's civilisation has a far more obvious impact in today's Southeast Asia than in Afghanistan. Perhaps even Akhand Bharat's supporters comprehend that the claim that Southeast Asia has gone too far.
The area is also almost exactly the same as the Mauryan kingdom, with the accession of the Kashmir Valley also. This is the Marathamperium, the last of the Hindumpires. Absolutely not Akhand Bharat. Myanmar was part of Britain-India, but only for administration use. Not only was the central theme that united India Britain's reign, for the Brits even reigned Malaya and Singapore, which had nothing to do with India.
In fact, the central theme was the India based political movements, led by Congress and the Muslim League. It was widespread in the areas of contemporary India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, these political groups were not present in Burma and so the division of Burma into its own settlement in 1935 was hardly perceived in India.
Notice that even the British have not included Ceylon, Nepal and Bhutan among British India. This does not therefore warrant Akhand Bharat. There' s no question that the country's Bharat country has had an impact far beyond its borders. None of these estates had our simultaneous impact.
In different places the Hindu impact was noticeable in different areas. China's civilisation has a similar impact on Southeast Asia and can therefore make the same claims that Southeast Asia is part of a "Greater China". Probably the Turkic tribe of CEE had the most significant impact on Asia.
If one considers that Moguls were of Turkish origins and that the impact of Mogul is clearly evident in northern India's cultures and architectures, one can also argue that northern India, together with the countries of middle and minor Asia, is part of a "Great Turkestan". Perhaps the whole of Europe should be seen as part of "Greater Italy", considering the impact of the war?
If Akhand Bharat expresses the wish to extend India's policy borders, then it is at best naïve and in the worse case atrocious. However, if it is only a source of arrogance for the impact of our cultures on distant countries, then we should be proud and at the same time acknowledge that we are not one-of-a-kind in this area.