[Author's Note: Professor Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya scrutinized the historical complexities surrounding the concept of 'Akhand Bharat' in his two essays titled "The Concept of Bharatavarsa and Its Historiographical Implications" and "Interrogating 'Unity in Diversity': Voices from India's Ancient Texts". Professor Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya taught at Jawaharlal Nehru University for a long time. Several of his critically important historical and popular writings contain significant and influential conceptualizations and methodological analyses. Interested readers can easily find his writings and books by searching online. The essay under discussion has been included in the book The Concept of Bharatavarsha and Other Essays. Examining diverse written sources, he identified the chronological transitions and shifts in the concept of 'Bharatavarsha' across various perspectives and viewpoints. Considering Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya’s analytical method is essential here. He paid close attention to the history of concepts and their varied perspectives. He interrogated the nature and provenance of diverse materials and data. Concurrently, he explored why and how various उपात्त (appropriated/dominant) and powerful historical narratives were constructed. Not merely as an exemplary role model of earlier historiography, but also within the context of multifaceted emergent trends in South Asian historiography and their renewed contemporary relevance, re-reading Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya’s thought and writings has become imperative. In our country's universities, the lamentable state of historiography is nothing new. Despite this, within specialized spheres, we notice an eagerness to engage with new historical thought, methods, and concepts. Perhaps its manifestations are not yet strongly visible here. Considering the aggressive, expansionist, and revitalized intellectual maneuvers of radical communalism and Hindutva over the past decade, engaging with cultural, intellectual, and democratic counter-responses is vital. Sensitive and rigorous reading against the grain is therefore deeply necessary. In this era of changing public sphere, rapid transformation, and social media nexuses, introducing people to the thought and works of scholars like Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, or re-engaging with them oneself, is, I believe, essential to lending meaning to this experience. I apologize in advance to readers for any unintentional errors.]
In this brief piece, by discussing the two aforementioned essays by Professor Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya—one of South Asia's most influential historians—I will attempt to examine the historiographical problems and crises surrounding the concept of 'Akhand Bharat', which is widely prevalent in Hindutva historical thought and political discourse. Both essays are profoundly rigorous and
- I translated the second essay into Bengali, and it can be read at this link:https://swadhinsen.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/191/।
- Braja Dulal Chattopadhyaya, The Concept of Bharatavarsha and Other Essays, State University of New York Press (1 September 2018)
knowledge- and source-grounded. He conducted his discussion through a meticulous examination of varied written sources. It is pertinent to mention here that Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya also shows us the path to critiquing the kind of history and historical consciousness we often mistake for genuine history today—one that is idealized, purely descriptive, overly reliant on inductive or deductive conclusions, born out of instantaneous social media reactions, and centered around views, shares, likes, and tags. A critical approach to history does not emerge spontaneously without certain foundational concepts and methodological training. The history-making spawned by Hindutva's 'WhatsApp University' is rife with countless instances designed to demean others, manufacture rivalries aligned with selective populist rhetoric, humiliate and oppress through words and discourses, and render targeted groups vulnerable to persecution and extermination across varied spaces. Critical historians of our time not only emphasize deciphering the combined operations of historical discourse across contemporary digital and academic spaces, but they also dissect how history is deployed in language, narratives, and propaganda through superficial, skin-deep formulations, or even through the deliberate distortion of citations from renowned scholars in the service of real-world oppressive, marginalizing, or electoral politics.
Professor Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya's two essays under discussion can serve as a vital 'intellectual antidote' against both the 'past-oriented impulse of hegemonic nationalism' and the 'perilous epistemology of postcolonial populism'. Far-right movements like Hindutva construct simplified yet potent narratives of an illustrious past to advance their contemporary political agendas; he has masterfully dismantled these essentialist narratives.
Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya's research and publications are not widely discussed within Bangladesh's academic and intellectual circles. Not only him, but there remains an astonishing silence in our academia regarding the historical thought and historiographical methodologies of numerous major historians, ranging from Romila Thapar and Satish Chandra to Muzaffar Alam, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Kesavan Veluthat, and many others. Discussing any work of Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya within a brief compass is not merely difficult; considering the methodological scope of his explanations and analyses, a truncated discussion might even risk trivializing the profound depth of his scholarship. Nevertheless, as an earnest reader and an ardent admirer, I have taken the liberty to initiate this discussion on the work of a thinker I deeply revere. Below, I have attempted to highlight a few central themes from his two aforementioned essays based on my own observations.
First Essay: The Historiographical Implications of the Concept of 'Bharatavarsha'
Chattopadhyaya's essay on 'Bharatavarsha' is a 'masterclass' or foundational text in challenging anachronistic historical projections. Terminologically, this anachronism can be called 'territorial anachronism'. When any territorial identity of the present is constructed as eternal, unalterable, and normative, and then retrospectively projected onto territories of thousands of years ago, this very ahistorical anachronism occurs. Sifting through diverse sources across time and space, he has meticulously tracked the transformations of this concept of 'Bharatavarsha', along with its geographical contours and identifying characteristics. Furthermore, as we face the aggressive onslaught of nationalist appropriations of history, he zeroes in on why and how understanding these transformations is essential. Organized by specific themes, the main arguments of this essay are as follows:
1. The Dynamic Evolution of Bharatavarsha: Territorial Identity is Not a 'Given Reality'
At the very outset, Chattopadhyaya confronts his readers with the dominant or conventional view by questioning an idea taken for granted as timeless and unchangeable. Based on the territorial boundaries of the contemporary nation-state and the recognized identities of populations living within them, the prevailing assumption is: "The meaning or connotation of the country we inhabit has always been the same, and what we think about this country today is precisely how it was conceived in the past." He demonstrates unequivocally that the idea of Bharatavarsha was never a pre-existing given, nor were the various modern identities associated with this landmass (such as Indian culture, Indian tradition, Indian knowledge systems, etc.) self-evident truths. Rather, these have been "historically transformed." This very proposition can serve as the point of departure for departing from unilinear and monolithic historical narratives toward a rigorous, close analysis.
Simultaneously, he challenges another foundational assumption. Flattening or conflating a territory's inhabitants' way of life, language, traditions, dietary habits, religious practices, and varied cultural and biological identities alongside kin or collective markers is not only ahistorical; it is intrinsically intertwined with territorial anachronism. The way modern colonial epistemologies bundled geography, biological features, and cultural pluralities into a single, indivisible whole was, in fact, perpetually shifting across broader temporal and spatial planes during pre-colonial times.
To illustrate this fluidity and mutability, he traces the conceptual evolution of Bharatavarsha along the following trajectories:
a. From Specific 'Janapada' to a Broader Territory: He points out that initially, Bharatavarsha was merely "a segment of what it later came to encompass." It was likely tied to the janapada of the Bharatas. In ancient India, a janapada referred to an area or realm designated by lineage, kin-group, or ethno-linguistic community. The definition and descriptions of a janapada also varied considerably across different textual traditions. This early, localized spatial understanding stands in stark contrast to the grand regional claims of later eras. He further demonstrates: "Various independent janapadas gradually became the spatio-social components of a subsequent, larger concept or imaginative realm." This implies that there were no fixed or predetermined boundaries; rather, geography and territory underwent cumulative incorporation and evolution. The unified and universal reading of the 'Vedas' or 'Vedic' propagated by contemporary Hindutva ideologues originally carried diverse, multi-layered meanings and underwent historical shifts. Alongside Chattopadhyaya, many other historians and linguists have highlighted the heterogeneity in Vedic categorization, taxonomy, chronological shifts, and spatial markers. The present form of the Rigveda was compiled over an extended period; numerous portions are interpolations or later additions. Moreover, alongside the four Vedas, texts of the Brahmana, Samhita, and Upanishadic corpora are collectively regarded as the Vedic textual corpus. Pushing contemporary Bharatavarsha back into the Vedic era to validate the vision of an 'undivided and vast single territory' is entirely unfounded. Yet, across various sources, descriptions of Aryavarta, Madhyadesha, Jambudvipa, or the ancestral homeland of the Bharatas (the Bharata clan) are routinely presented as an ancient, unalterable, self-evident territory and culture corresponding to modern Bharatavarsha. Just as descriptions of spaces like Aryavarta, Madhyadesha, and Jambudvipa diverge across sources, the meanings of these identities were intimately linked to the narrative mode and specific intent of each individual text.
b. Epics and Puranic Imaginary: Chattopadhyaya sheds light on the role of texts like the Puranas in constructing a broader and continually evolving understanding. Much like other written sources, there are Mahapuranas, Upapuranas, and various classes of local Sthala-Puranas. The narrative styles and accounts of the Puranas underwent transformations and revisions across different eras. Even though they originally circulated as oral traditions, their form and structure shifted layer by layer. Scholars hold varying views regarding the chronology of when these traditions were committed to manuscripts. Nevertheless, most researchers propose a broad chronological timeframe—for example, the written forms of the Vishnu Purana or Vayu Purana date roughly between the 6th and 9th centuries CE. Similar textual variations and spatial divergences apply to epics like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana as well. Grasping the structural framing, nature, context, and discursive register of any text is crucial. Conflating any geographical, ethnic, or ethnographic description literally with the modern conception of linear time and space represents a methodological fallacy. In his analysis, Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya cites examples from these Puranas. He observes that, "at a particular juncture, through the medium of the epics and Puranas, Bharatavarsha acquired the imaginative contours of a vast and expansive terrain." He explains that this imaginative tableau or imagery turned Bharatavarsha into an "indispensable point of reference" even for the "smaller, peripheral regions." However, he explicitly cautions us not to mistake this literary construct for administrative or political unity—a crucial distinction that hegemonic nationalism routinely conflates.
c. Other Literary Sources: By analyzing Kalidasa’s poem Raghuvamsha (ca. 5th century CE) and the court poet Rajashekhara’s Kavyamimamsa (ca. 10th century CE) of the Gurjara-Pratihara court, he discusses the conceptual transformations and diversity of space, geography, and Bharatavarsha across these two textual traditions. Appraising the nature and narrative register of written sources or texts alongside contextualizing the author and composition is essential. Just as geographical accounts cannot be taken literally, the identities and cultures of the communities associated with those geographies cannot be accepted unquestioningly as historical 'truths'. Raghuvamsha is an idealized poetic work, and the nature of this literary genre must be borne in mind when evaluating Kalidasa’s poetic rendering of Raghu’s digvijaya (conquest of the quarters). On the other hand, examining the various directions of the conquest, Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya demonstrates that mentions of different places and janapadas are intertwined with their respective flora, produce, and geographical characteristics, providing a contemporary descriptive template of geography. Yet he notes:
"Kalidasa’s objective was not to deliver strict geographical accuracy. Rather, his aim was to use this schema or design to outline the terrain that a sovereign aspirant to imperial rule had to traverse. Several instances of locational arbitrariness are easily identifiable: for instance, hinting at the southern region only after Kalinga; omitting the Malaya range altogether, yet mentioning only Kerala in connection with the Sahya or Western Ghats; distinguishing Pragjyotisha from Kamarupa, and locating them within the context of Raghu's 'Udichi' or northern expedition. Once again, it can be stated that Kalidasa was far more interested in harmonizing Raghu’s itinerary with the primary schema of the four cardinal directions than in geographical fidelity." (Author's translation)
On the other hand, although Kavyamimamsa is a manual of Sanskrit poetic conventions, Rajashekhara anchored his directional layout around a central focal point. Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya suggests this center can be identified by imagining a north-south line passing through Kannauj in modern Uttar Pradesh. Here too, Bharatavarsha is represented as part of a Puranic cosmological schema. Concurrently, there is no correspondence between the concepts and characteristics of these locations and the territorial or religious-cultural construct of 'Akhand Bharat' ('Hindu Bharat' or a Hindu nation) propagated as historical truth today. Furthermore, the focal point of Rajashekhara's geographical conception was Aryavarta, and subsequently, Madhyadesha. Based on historical written sources, the Punjab-Haryana region spanning present-day India and Pakistan can be considered 'Aryavarta', while the expanse extending north of the Ganga-Yamuna Doab can be regarded as 'Madhyadesha'. However, modern concepts of territory or nation-states, which homogenize distinct geographies and communal identities through precise border demarcations, were entirely absent back then. The idealized representations presented in descriptions of these cardinal directions bear no resemblance to the meaning, substance, or connotations of contemporary Hindutva's 'Akhand Bharat'. He remarks:
what Rajashekhara sought to accomplish through reiterating Puranic material alongside novel additions was fundamentally to firmly establish a layout of Bharatavarsha within the Puranic framework; however, in his presentation, it was liberated from genealogical linkages. For future authors, this layout proved eminently adaptable to their own local contexts." (Author's translation)
2. The Perils of 'Retrospective Projection': Devaluing Plural Histories
One of the central focal points in Chattopadhyaya's most incisive critiques is the "retrospective thrust" of hegemonic nationalism. As an ideology, this thrust obscures the varied texture and plural weave of spatial and temporal relations. This focus articulates his objections and anxieties regarding the dangers and misconceptions inherent in "reinterpreting history to serve contemporary political agendas." He elaborates below on how this 'thrust' distorts historical inquiry:
a. Challenging the Concept of 'Fundamental Unity': In his view, when historical inquiry begins with the premise that "the 'fundamental unity of India' is the bedrock," it breeds a 'centre-centric' perspective. This approach filters and evaluates historical materials through a sieve, judging strictly to what extent they embody a 'pan-Indian' ideal or how far they deviate from it. In generating a predetermined, unified narrative, this process directly suppresses genuine spatial and temporal diversity.
b. Proposing a 'De-centered' Historical Method: Instead of searching for deviations from a preconceived ideal, Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya proposes a radical paradigm shift. He contends that such perspectives must be thoroughly dismantled. Rather than assuming that plural traditions emerged from a single uniform heritage, we ought to investigate how an overarching entity was gradually forged through historical processes. His call to uncover a kaleidoscopic or multifaceted spatio-temporal entity formed through the intermingling, friction, (and exclusion) of multiplicity across diverse spaces and sources constitutes a deeply 'decolonial' approach. This appeal seeks to unpack complex historical processes instead of relying on a unilinear, teleological, or deterministic framework of progress. Such a proposal directly counters Hindutva narratives, which forge opportunistic associations with concepts of tradition and identity by severing them from intricate historical contexts to fabricate simplified yet potent narratives of an illustrious past.
c. Colonialism and the Construction of a Homogeneous Past: Although Chattopadhyaya primarily engages with ancient texts, his work directly and indirectly exposes the enduring legacy of colonial thought regarding a unified Bharat. He notes that indigenous practices of writing history adopted colonial historiography as their primary template. This context is profoundly significant—for the concept of 'India' as a single, geographically circumscribed entity solidified decisively under British colonial administration. Chattopadhyaya remarks:
Whether in historiography or general thought, their identity had been established prior; an identity that received further impetus from colonial rule. Through their cadastral surveys, prepared cartographies, and various administrative apparatuses, they operationalized these concepts to construct a map-worthy, concrete regional identity, which was then projected onto the past. What was open and unfixed was now rendered a administratively defined, bounded country—'Bharatavarsha' emerged as the newly constructed centerpiece of a homogeneous historical narrative." (Author's translation)
This passage amounts to a direct indictment. In this critique, territorial anachronism and the mechanisms of its reproduction become central. He illustrates how colonial templates furnished the blueprint for postcolonial nationalist movements to manufacture a 'homogeneous historical narrative' and a 'mappable, rigid, and foundational regional identity', and how that identity was subsequently projected anachronistically onto the past. With unerring clarity, this critique exposes how "colonial epistemologies and narratives are re-symbolized" and converted into instruments used by native or domestic elites to enforce new modalities of hegemony and oppression.
Second Essay: Interrogating the Concept of 'Unity in Diversity': Voices Emerging from Ancient Indian Texts
This essay directly interrogates our deeply familiar, iconic dictum—'Unity in Diversity'. Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya unravels, layer by layer, the problematic origins and subsequent ideological appropriations of this concept. Chattopadhyaya demonstrates how this seemingly benign notion can be twisted to serve agendas of homogenization and exclusion.
Picture: Author Swadhin Sen with Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya
1. The Colonial Genesis of 'India' as a Political Unit
Chattopadhyaya advances a potent argument that fundamentally challenges the conventional understanding of Indian history: "The notion of 'India' as a unit of historical inquiry is essentially a product of colonial provenance." This does not mean negating ancient cultural linkages; rather, he is critically dissecting the political and regional conception of India. He elaborates:
a. From Fluidity to a Fixed Political Entity: He notes that this unit or entity has primarily been viewed through a political lens, constructing the concept of the Indian subcontinent as an Indian State and a designated space for that state. Colonial knowledge and administrative structures reified the notion of a singular, geographically circumscribed entity, and later, the narratives of 'Akhand Bharat' were built upon the foundation of that very geographically reimagined entity.
b. The Fragmentation of Colonial Historiography: In this extensive essay, just as Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya draws upon diverse sources and texts, he also brings forth an exceptionally detailed and lucid methodology for reading those texts. Even after establishing the unitary concept of 'India', colonial historiography sliced Indian history into discrete fragments—categorized as Hindu, Muslim, and British periods or eras. Ironically, this very fragmentation carried out under the guise of periodization laid the groundwork for later communal interpretations; even nationalist historians, while merely altering the nomenclature to ancient, medieval, and modern, retained the exact same foundational basis of periodization. In doing so, the defining characteristics of historical periods or eras were engineered through religious binaries or polarizations. Today, this strategy is extensively weaponized—directly or indirectly—by Hindutva ideologues. Against the narrative of '1200 years of colonial subjugation (which includes the Mughal era)', this framework of periodization is deployed to define a homogeneous, immutable, and eternal Hindu 'Golden Age'. Here, Muslims—alongside the British—are conspicuously framed as alien invaders, polluters, and destructive agents who forcibly usurped 'Indian culture' (read: 'Hindu culture').
2. Critique of the Hallowed Convention of 'Unity in Diversity'
Chattopadhyaya does not dismiss the presence of diversity in India; rather, he closely interrogates the construction and instrumental utility of the trope termed 'Unity in Diversity'. His objective is to evaluate how accurately established historical scholarship reflects this imagery and to assess the nature of the proposed departures.
a. Disconnect Between Theory and Reality: He highlights a "real mismatch" that "exists between history and various ground-level surveys—anthropological, linguistic, and other disciplinary fields." This suggests that the grand narratives of unity we encounter routinely ignore empirical evidence of intricate regional and sub-regional diversity. This disconnect ultimately functions as a primary mechanism to sweep inconvenient social complexities and historical nuances under the rug to serve political ideologies.
3. Inconsistencies in the Idea of Fundamental Unity and the Many Faces of Difference
Evidently, among the primary foundational strategies through which Hindutva—and modern nationalism more broadly—popularizes historical narratives, is reading contemporary identities back into the past to trace their origins, continuities, and transformations through various historical actors. This involves asserting that from remote antiquity, across thousands of years, there existed an archetype, a fundamentally unified form, or a singular visage of the purported nation or identity. Just as that pure and sacrosanct archetype is constructed in myriad ways, certain sects, ideologies, communities, or social groups are concurrently branded as corrupters or deviants. A nationalist consciousness can never sustain or consolidate itself without manufacturing one or more 'Others'. The 'Self' is continuously negotiated, reimagined, and transformed through narratives of its relationship with the 'Other'. Both Hindutva and neo-Hindutva historical narratives are anchored upon certain foundational, foundationalizing discourses of othering. Within this essentialist narrative centered on Brahminical authority and the north-western region of present-day India (Aryavarta and Madhyadesha), claims of subsequent inclusion are made by invoking processes of Aryanization and Sanskritization across other territories. Concurrently, to align with presentist agendas, certain identities are legitimized as 'valid', while others are branded as 'invalid'. It is pertinent to mention that this primordial, eternal, and essentialist unity—whether peddled by Hindutva or nationalism—is propagated through selective citations from varied textual sources, distortions, and methodologically flawed interpretations across contemporary institutions, academia, publications, and contemporary social media channels, such that any dissenting or critical narrative is immediately stigmatized as anti-national, anti-Indian, or seditious. Analyzing diverse texts across different periods in this essay, Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya sets out to delineate the prevailing differences, processes of othering, contestations, and pluralities among various regions and communities of the ancient Indian subcontinent. For instance, citing the Rigveda, he observes:
the thought of the authors of early texts was characterized by a perception that social reality was constituted through the juxtaposition of opposing pairs, or a synthesis of multiple traits. It was explicitly asserted that the relations between these opposing pairs were manifestly irreconcilable. On the other hand, mutual relationships among perceived differences within social reality were articulated in multifaceted ways. The way the opposition between two categories was expressed in the Rigveda through terms like Arya and Dasyu did not merely signify the contemporaneity of two groups. Due to the immense cultural chasm between them, it was claimed that the Aryas needed to eradicate the Dasyus. The divide between the Arya and Mleccha categories may have originated from linguistic differences. In this context, as a generic category, the term Mleccha referred to various ethnic groups such as the Yavanas, Shakas, Tusharas, Chinas, and Hunas. The impossibility of these two ethnic groups dissolving into one another remained an enduring premise throughout antiquity. Because of their allegiance to everything associated with the Aryas (since authors of this early phase represented this very category), the portrait of the Aryas was painted as far more exalted compared to the others." (Author's translation)
He thoroughly analyzes the Natyashastra, Kamasutra, and various theatrical treatises. He attempts to demonstrate how—based on language, vocation, disposition, or religious identity—particular groups, janapadas, or regions were branded as lowly, degraded, and impure according to Brahminical yardsticks, while others were designated as refined language, pure vocations and dispositions, noble conduct, and daily practices ensuring Aryahood. Crucially, he also presents evidence showing how these disputes and yardsticks were transformed, renegotiated, and rearticulated across diverse places and times. Even though forest dwellers, Dalits, heterodox sects, and people, communities, or janapadas denying the authority of the Vedas were at times branded with derogatory epithets such as Pashanda, barbarian, Chandala, Mleccha, etc., he meticulously presents instances of how those very epithets acquired positive connotations once those groups, communities, or linguistic groups were assimilated and incorporated. He remarks:
"Just as Marga was defined as celestial and Deshi as terrestrial or ephemeral, so too were things designated as unholy or impure understood in opposition to what was holy or pure. The emergence of this conception of difference or division may have originated squarely within rigid Brahminical thought. However, any understanding of social reality must be grounded in perceptual experience; in its mutability and contingency; as conflict-prone, evolving; and mediated through the agency of human actors." (Author's translation)
The primary problem with the idea of 'Unity in Diversity' is: which diversities were recognized as compatible with broader, dominant worldviews and yardsticks, when, and how—and which ones were progressively excluded? How much diversity could exist while still preserving unity? Which diversities could be accommodated within the imagined mold of unity, and which ones would be stigmatized as dangerous to unity or as destructive forces? He treats these questions with utmost seriousness.
a. The Region as 'Fractured Space': Chattopadhyaya observes that in historical thought, "the 'region' was a fractured space or place, regarded merely as a fragment of a larger whole; and it was viewed primarily through the lens of a generalized history belonging to a broader cultural area or state apparatus." Treating regions merely as constituent elements of a larger entity through this 'fragmentation' or fracturing impedes a holistic understanding of their distinctive histories and contributions—echoing his critique of the 'centre-centric' perspective in the first essay.
b. Historographical Self-Evidence of National Sensitivity: Most crucially, Chattopadhyaya highlights the fallacy of conflating territory with sensibility. He clearly asserts:
"The argument that any collective sensibility—such as a specific nationalism—inherently or self-evidently attaches to a particular place is completely unfounded. No sensibility or sensitivity is a 'given quality' of that place or of the human collectivity residing within it. It is a sensibility acquired historically, and one that is subject to transformation or mutation." (Author's translation)
This argument directly undermines Hindutva’s claim asserting an ancient, innate, and immutable Hindu national character, or the existence of a set of acquired attitudes, intellectual faculties, and sentiments inherent to Hindus. Geographic or territorial determinism essentializes human conduct, emotion, sensibility, intellect, valor, or baser instincts by tying them directly to a specific territory or geographical attributes. Relevant to note, Nazi ideology similarly presumed the link between sacred soil and blood as a self-evident, given attribute. In dominant narratives of various regions and nations shaped by racism, ethno-nationalism, and identity politics, new mutations of geographic determinism continuously gain currency. Crucially, during the crystallization of Hindutva consciousness in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the perceived effeminacy, softness, and physical debility of Hindus began to be coded as a deviation from an illustrious, valorous, powerful, and masculine past. Various gymnasiums, physical culture clubs, and local martial-arts initiatives emerged. Several strands of the anti-colonial nationalist movement became entangled with this masculine revivalism of Hindutva. Specifically, while certain groups calling for armed struggle against the British harnessed this pursuit of masculine prowess and heroism for anti-colonial battles, they simultaneously branded Muslims as a colonial power and identified Muslim rule as the reason behind the decline of this Hindu masculine potency. Therefore, the concept of 'Akhand Bharat' is not merely territorial; rather, it is also a project aimed at actualizing an imaginary defined by specific sensibilities, gendered identities, biological characteristics, and cultural norms.
c. Challenging the Concept of 'Akhand Bharat': The narrative of 'Akhand Bharat' is one that "projects a modern political identity onto diverse historical landscapes and cultures." Chattopadhyaya's arguments demonstrate that such projections are fundamentally anachronistic. In contemporary historical narratives, "the anxiety and terror voiced over political unification versus decentralization and plurality" is essentially a modern concern. Conversely, this anxiety rests on a foundation that ceaselessly invents and reinvents an enemy cast as demonic, impure, profane, inherently degenerate, speaking base dialects, and displaying profane or un-Indian habits—all set in opposition to difference, plurality, and tolerance. This language and narrative are by no means reflections of historically examined and scrutinized political, cultural, and religious realities. The pre-modern Indian subcontinent was certainly marked by divisions, disputes, and discords; yet Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya repeatedly demonstrates that there is no historical ground for retroactively mapping those past differences, conflicts, or sectarian disagreements to legitimize contemporary conflicts, altercations, divisions, and alienation.
A Close Examination: Postcolonial/Decolonial Debates and the Uniqueness of Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya's Analysis
The razor-sharp erudition of Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya presented in these two essays offers us a formidable framework that helps in deciphering and dismantling the historical revisionism and rewriting at the very core of Hindutva ideology. His scholarship directly exposes and intellectually challenges the perilous epistemology of that 'postcolonial populism' which, while deprecating critical inquiry, sanctimoniously embraces only selectively curated indigenous knowledge. Compared to populist, slogan-driven, or counter-identitarian protests and discourses, Chattopadhyaya’s analytical and interrogative reading can prove far more effective in dismantling the intellectual foundations of Hindutva. Otherwise, simplistic and populist counter-narratives run the dangerous risk of turning complementary to the Hindutva narrative of 'Akhand Bharat', merely inventing arguments to confer legitimacy upon it.
1. A Shield Against Hindutva's Historical Manipulations
The narrative of 'Akhand Bharat' positioned at the nexus of Hindutva is fundamentally reliant on an ahistorical and essentialist understanding of India's past. This narrative is not merely geographically expansionist; under diverse guises and pretexts, it superimposes a modern political identity over the multi-directional and intricate interactions of diverse historical landscapes and cultural pluralities. This imposition is distinctly an act of epistemic violence. Such epistemic and intellectual violence in turn rationalizes real-world alienation, barbarity, violence, killings, and subjugation. Chattopadhyaya’s scholarship meticulously demonstrates the historical fallacies embedded in Hindutva and hardline nationalist claims, including that of 'Akhand Bharat'. By proving that Bharatavarsha was never a fixed regional entity but an evolving concept, and that the conception of India as a political unit is fundamentally of colonial origin, he methodically deconstructs and shatters the notion of a timeless, unified, and indivisible Hindu nation. Furthermore, Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya interrogates the strategy employed by Hindutva ideologues to profess an anti-Western and anti-colonial stance regarding knowledge systems. Varied identity politics—akin to Hindutva—often exploit the assumed legitimacy of decolonial thought to legitimize a nationalist and essentialist narrative, establishing varied workshops that manufacture populist rhetoric. Such anti-Westernism or anti-colonial posturing frequently reinterprets history solely to serve immediate political agendas. Consequently, the boundary distinguishing genuine decolonial critique from revanchist, hegemonic nationalism gets dangerously blurred.
2. A Truly 'Decolonial' Methodology
Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya’s analytical framework and inferential method are methodologically and authentically decolonial. He does not merely seek to replace one monolithic narrative (the colonial) with another (the essentialist indigenous). Instead, he advocates for a nuanced, context-sensitive reading of primary sources. Such reading and critical inquiry accentuate historical dynamism and diversity. His call to "completely invert" the centre-centric perspective is a foundational methodological requirement for any genuine decolonial undertaking. This methodology brings to the fore the demand and necessity of engaging with the multiplicity of spaces and sources constituting the raw materials of history. This approach stands entirely antithetical to the Hindutva project—a project that "routinely enters into a selective relationship with concepts of tradition and identity, severing them from their complex historical contexts to manufacture simplified yet potent narratives of an illustrious past, sustaining continuous efforts to recover and resurrect that imagined past."
3. Unmasking 'Decolonial Nationalism' as a Contronym
Hindutva ideologues turn the word 'decolonization' into a 'contronym'. Here, subverting the primary aim of critiquing and resisting colonial thought, sensibilities, knowledge systems, and practices, they instead rationalize new forms of hegemony and oppression. In that sense, Hindutva's anti-colonial or anti-Western posturing can ultimately be identified as a superficial, slogan-driven, historically flawed, and opportunistically curated populist narrative and maneuver. Chattopadhyaya's analysis regarding the colonial provenance of India as a political unit and the consequent emergence of a 'homogeneous historical narrative' demonstrates how seemingly anti-imperialist, popular narratives (such as Akhand Bharat's 'rejection of foreign invaders') can paradoxically "replicate the logic of colonial power"—through regional expansionism, cultural homogenization, and the imposition of a hegemonic narrative. The Hindutva propaganda claiming that medieval Indian history was misinterpreted, and that the era of 'invading or destructive Muslims' was sometimes wrongly presented as an age of creating and renewing Indian civilization, is precisely the kind of 'historical rewriting' that Chattopadhyaya dissects. Difference, assimilation, exchange, conflict, syncretism, and contestation existed among diverse communities across various regions throughout multiple phases of history. The identifier 'Hindu', as weaponized by Hindutva forces to define a community with specific religious attributes, is historically and inextricably bound up with the multifaceted epistemologies of colonial rule. Thus, the imaginary of Akhand Bharat and the conceptualization of a monolithic Hindu nation were formulated under the shadow of colonialism, through a dialogue with the colonial experience. He demonstrates that the very scheme of periodization relied upon by Hindutva ideologues to proclaim an Akhand Bharat is itself a colonial legacy.
4. The Perils of Essentialism and the Erasure of Pluralism
By demonstrating the continuously evolving nature of Bharatavarsha and critiquing the simplistic trope of 'Unity in Diversity', Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya advocates for a pluralistic understanding of India's past. This stands in direct opposition to the Hindutva agenda's "emphasis on a monolithic 'Indianness' or 'Hindu identity.'" Such emphasis is essentially a "strategic maneuver to homogenize and flatten diverse historical and cultural realities." Alongside Romila Thapar and Manan Ahmed Asif, his scholarship accentuates that diverse modes existed for understanding and recording the history of 'ancient' and 'medieval' India, which challenge simplistic narratives of a monolithic past. As Asif points out, the multicultural region known as Hindustan was abandoned under European influence, giving rise to the notion that 'India is essentially Hindu.'
Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya's scholarly rigor restrains us from uncritically adopting local narratives despite their underlying biases or historical inaccuracies. Instead, he constructs a model of critical historical inquiry that prioritizes empirical evidence and contextual understanding over ideological constructs.
Chattopadhyaya's essays are not merely historical analyses; they represent a profound exercise in critical scholarship, equipping us with the intellectual arsenal to recognize and resist the 'strategic co-optation' of history and identity by 'hegemonic nationalist' forces. By accentuating historical dynamism and contextual specificity, his historical consciousness and analytical methodology become indispensable if we are to stand against the narrative populism of a nationalist past, as well as the practices of labeling, othering, and inciting hatred weaponized through modern social media.
…
30 December 2025 | Arunapalli, Savar
About the Author: Swadhin Sen is an archaeologist. He teaches in the Department of Archaeology at Jahangirnagar University. His primary interest lies in acting as a facilitator to foster dialogues between the past and the present through an interdisciplinary perspective. Attentive to the perils of separating land and water or severing the human world from the non-human realm in ecological contexts, he is currently conducting research in the northern and southern regions of Bangladesh. He is deeply engaged with the politics of the past and archaeology, identitarian debates, and contemporary critical concepts. He shares a deeply sensitive intimacy and profound affection for water and rivers. He was born in Barishal. Email: swadhin.sen@gmail.com
The Ahistorical Vacuity of the 'Akhand Bharat' Concept: Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya's Incisive