Recently (actually, about a month ago) I came across this article on the internet, where it was reported that the RSS has once again called for the re-emergence of an age-old concept, that of "Akhand Bharat".
The phrase "Akhand Bharat" literally translates as "Undivided India" and generally refers to a super-state of "Greater India" that encompasses the entire South Asia at its minimum and may include Afghanistan, Myanmar and even South-East Asia according to some definitions. The idea finds its bulk of supporters among conservative right wingers. It's often argued that the entire area has always belonged to India, and hence it's only natural that India should establish her political control over it. A cursory understanding of the subcontinent's culture and political history, however, would show that the concept makes little sense.
State boundaries change over time. Nations, ethnicities migrate. Demographics of regions change. It's an absurd idea to think that there exists some boundary for a country that is permanent.
China has this ridiculous idea of claiming all territories that were included in its greatest ever extent (and the Chinese do distribute maps showing vast lands of sovereign countries included in China ), but that doesn't mean that India too should be compelled to exhibit the same stupidity. The same region has been ruled by different kingdoms in different eras. If China can claim Central Asia, so can Mongolia! If India can claim Afghanistan, so can Iran, or even Macedonia, for that matter! :P
The truth is, while India has existed as a cultural/ geographical entity for several millennia (with, of course a great deal of internal diversity); India as a political entity didn't exist before the establishment of British Rule in 1857.
Also, while Afghanistan and South East Asia have been parts of Indian empires; there never was a time when both were the parts of the same empire. When the Mauryans had Afghanistan, their empire did not even include the Southern fringes of the Indian peninsula. Indian dominance in SE Asia reached its peak during the time of Cholas at a time when Northern India was divided in pieces.
At all times, the hills of North East Asia remained mostly independent. From the Mauryans to Mughals, Indian empires didn't capture any territory beyond the plains of Assam.
At certain points of time the sphere of Indian cultural influence did include an area from Central to South East Asia; but that influence did not come with military force. Cultural hegemony once upon a time is a bad argument for supporting expansionism.
And anyhow, adding more to the already large and rather diverse country is definitely not something to look forward to. The Republic of India has too many problems of her own to add some more from her current neighbours.
