November 01, 2006
Speaking of Self-Description: "South Asian"Identity
Taz’s post today had one of the strangest statistics I’d ever seen — that 25% of South Asian Americans had, in 1990, identified themselves on the U.S. census as “white,” while 5% identified themselves as “black.”
It made me think of a post by progressive Muslim blogger Ali Eteraz from last week, where he discussed his own variant of an identity term crisis, not on racial but religious terms:
I onced asked a little kid I know what he was. He was like, um, er, I am a Pakistani-Muslim-American. I was like, what the hell, thats messed up, little kids shouldnt have to hyphenate their identities like that, man.
Then one day I was typing up a post and I was like dammit I am really tired of having to write out the whole word American-Muslim or American-Islam. Its just tiring.
So I decided that we needed a new ONE WORD term to call ourselves… In the end, I decided Im going to use AmeriMuslim - it is easy to understand, and it sounds like A merry Muslim. So from now on, thats what Im going to use as my identity, thats what Im going to teach nieces and nephews to say, and thats what Im going to use even in my actual publications.(link)
Given that Ali Eteraz is (I believe) of Pakistani descent, my first thought is to say, “well, why not South Asian?” If we want to limit it to just one word, why not “desi” or “deshi”? Of course, in a sense I already know the answer: if religion is the most important aspect of one’s identity, one obviously privileges it over ethnicity. (Analogously, I also know a fair number of conservative Sikhs who are adamantly “Sikh American” and not “Indian American” or “South Asian American.”)
Within individual states in the Indian Subcontinent, the term “South Asian” is rarely used. The progressive magazine Himal Southasian attempts to move beyond national identifications to a more regional, South Asian focus, but it’s the only enterprise I know of that does that. If “South Asian” exists mainly in the imagination of the diaspora, does that make it less meaningful?
Finally, I’ve noticed that more liberal Indian Americans in my acquaintance (of any religion) usually don’t bother with “South Asian” except when talking about someone whose national background isn’t known. It’s “Indian American” or just “Indian” (sometimes you even hear the slang term “Indo” — as in “there were a lot of Indos at the club”). In the comments at Sepia Mutiny at various points, people have also disparaged the term “South Asian” — mostly Indian nationalists, who’d rather deemphasize any association with Pakistan or Bangladesh. (On Pickled Politics, Sunny posted that conservative Hindus and Sikhs in England have been making similar arguments.) Is “South Asian” one of those terms that exists mainly in the abstract, to describe large groups and populations — but not necessarily individual people?
amardeep on November 1, 2006 02:19 PM in Identity · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
¤ pass the roti on the left hand side said: Our Famiglia in Italia: Part II
That term almost never enters my consciousness.
I identify as an "American".
Calling oneself "south asian", when one is "north american" seems a little odd. race has always struck me as an artificial construct. it's wierd when you can call yourseld "south asian" if you only go to vacations in south asia now and then, and were born in the US...
I completely agree with Amardeep's point. It is largely a meaningless term to individuals. Personally, I have never met anyone who self-identifies as "South Asian". They are all either Indian-American, Pakistani-American, Hindu-American, Muslim-American etc. or simply American.
I'm so glad you brought this up, Amardeep. I tend to think of "South Asian" as an English word for expressing "desi." (I'm not saying it's the literal translation, obviously.) Instead of saying Desi American, I would use South Asian American. So in that sense, the terms isn't generic or abstract to me. Growing up, I knew exactly what someone meant when they referred to "desi" people or things. I never assumed that they were referring to something or someone exclusively of Pakistani origin, like I am, but that they might be Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, etc. Now that desis are a much more visible and prominent community in North America, I think the term "South Asian American" is useful in that it provides a similar marker in English.
Whether we like it or not, desis are bound by common languages, customs, etc., even if they may be divided in terms of national origin or religion. (I don't know about race--what race are we? Still confused on this one.) So South Asian is a good marker for that--though you can, obviously, identify yourself in terms of even greater specificity (ie, South Asian American and Indian American, or South Asian American and Pakistani American). I think it's sad when we let religious or national politics get in the way of unifying the rich desi culture that is comprised of people who share both similarities and differences.
Personally, I have never met anyone who self-identifies as "South Asian".
Perhaps not personally, but you have virtually. Enchanted to make your acquaintance btw, in case I didn't say it a few months ago.
It has frustrated me for over two years now how commenters on this site keep misuderstanding the use of the word "South Asian" and disparage it out of contextual ignorance as much as because of sense of Indian Nationalism. Let me break it down:
1) You can call yourself both South Asian American and Indian American (or Pakistani American, Sri Lankan American, etc.). The terms are NOT mutually exclusive. It is totally based on the context of the situation.
2) NOBODY calls themselves South Asian when they are North American. Pulligore's comment above is a clear demonstration of the continuing misunderstanding I am talking about. They might call themselves an American of South Asian descent or an American of Indian (Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc.) descent. Here is an example:
Redneck: Hey, what are you?
Abhi: Ummm, what do you mean? Are you refering to my ethnicity?
Redneck: Yeah, are you middle-eastern or something?
Abhi: No, I am not middle-eastern, I am South Asian. My parents are from India.
Redneck: Oh. You speak good English.
Abhi: I'm an American that was born here so why wouldn't I?
3) Pulligore above says: "I identify as an 'American'." Again, identities are not mutually exclusive. They are based on context and are different from country to country! Don't dismiss them off-hand because of you own biases.
I completely agree with Amardeep's point. It is largely a meaningless term to individuals.
I call BS on you BidiSmoker. Have you ever been to the UM campus? Check it out some time.
1) You can call yourself both South Asian American and Indian American (or Pakistani American, Sri Lankan American, etc.). The terms are NOT mutually exclusive. It is totally based on the context of the situation.
Werd.
I call BS on you BidiSmoker. Have you ever been to the UM campus? Check it out some time.
As a U-M grad, werd to the squared.
If "South Asian" exists mainly in the imagination of the diaspora, does that make it less meaningful?
Only if we make it less meaningful. It's not like the diaspora doesn't have any effect on the desh.
I feel like we covered a lot of this here, but I'd say briefly: in the diaspora we have the luxury of being able to break down national boundaries and explore similarities and differences with other brownz without thinking of each other as enemies for whatever reason. So why not do it?
When you say "UM Campus," are you referring to THE UM campus or Michigan, ;)?
in the diaspora we have the luxury of being able to break down national boundaries and explore similarities and differences with other brownz without thinking of each other as enemies for whatever reason. So why not do it?
Hell yeah. I think we are well on our way.
As a U-M grad, werd to the squared.
Yeah? And speaking as the-only-brown-UC Davis-grad-EVER- who-wasn't-bitterly-settling-b/c-they-were-rejected-from-CAL...
...ah forget it. ;) Go Ags! More relevantly, GO BROWN! :D
There is only ONE "The UM Campus," and that is the great University of Michigan.
SM: Sorry, but he provoked me, I couldn't help it. I will refrain from getting off topic in the future. :)
GO TERPS! ;)
I agree with Abhi and Ismat with respect to 2nd gen folks, especially in the U.S. However, I do think among 1st geners, at least of my parents generation, the term South Asian is largely meaningless because they did not seem to interact much with desi folk outside of their respective communities (e.g., Tamils moving w/ Tamils, Gujus w/ Gujus, etc.). That has been my experience, anyway.
also, I'd like to pre-empt razib:
BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN!
Thanks for putting it that way, Vivek.
Sriram:
However, I do think among 1st geners, at least of my parents generation, the term South Asian is largely meaningless because they did not seem to interact much with desi folk outside of their respective communities (e.g., Tamils moving w/ Tamils, Gujus w/ Gujus, etc.).
I feel you, but wouldn't you say that they do identify with "desi"? I know my parents socialized (and still do) with quite a few other desi immigrants--Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Nepalese, etc.--when they came here, if only because they were living in a community where desis in general were few and far between.
Anyway, I just mean that to say that they did consider themselves desi, and so while they may not have termed themselves as such, also South Asian.
I feel you, but wouldn't you say that they do identify with "desi"?
I don't know whether they're the exception or not, but my parents, and most of their close friends, rarely if ever use the word, "desi." So again, with respect to my personal experience I would have to say no. At the same time, my parents have been living in the D.C. area, where there are brown folk a plenty, for over 30 years, so I'm sure their experience is different from that of your parents.
GO TERPS! ;)
Fear the Turtle!
I think South Asian is a term that is used to describe other people but not a term a person would use to identify themselves. It's analogous to "North American" which no US American or Mexican would use to describe himself. Although, oddly, I think Canadians sometimes use that term to describe themselves.
Btw, American is a classification of national origin, not race. Therefore, you cannot say your racial identity is American. That would be like saying your racial identity is Russian.
My mother has no problem with the term South Asian. But after three years of me throwing around the term Desi, she finally got fed up with it and told me that to her the term Desi meant North-Indian/Pakistani Hindi/Urdu speakers.
Any takers for the term Subconti? Eh eh? It has that abbreviation we all love to use - come on, who's enthu about Subconti?
term Desi meant North-Indian/Pakistani Hindi/Urdu speakers.
I've heard the same thing from older 1st gen people. But I think the divide between North and South was also much greater in the 70s than it is now.
Can't say I'm feeling Subconti all that much.
when someone asks me what i am, the first term that immediately comes to mind is indian. not my religion or regional affiliation. they usually come much later. the term south asian doesn't come to mind at all, except as some sort of geographical lumping, it doesn't really resonate as an identity with me, although i belonged to my college's south asian organization. it resonates as a suitable means/umbrella to describe a group of diverse people coming from similar but not the same culture (s). even the term indian subcontinent annoys some people, as does the term indian ocean. i think south asian is a term that satisfies everyone without offending too many people. it doesn't mean i disparage it or object to it.
i have an indian passport and i feel indian more than anything, even though i grew up knowing people and having best friends from other south asian countries. also, the term desi doesn't resonate with all people of indian descent either, but it doesn't mean they disparage it. while the diaspora has an impact on india and that is good at times, what resonates with the diaspora doesn't necessarily resonate or should always resonate with indians (who don't even always resonate with one another on a number of identity issues). A sense of camaraderie doesn't always require labels.
I am surprised that Indian Nationalist or Sangh Parivar sympathizers would oppose the term South Asians. This word and thought that whole South Asia is similar directly correlates with the RSS's concept of the Akhand Bharat. RSS is one of the biggest proponent of the thought that Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal & India should be united because they are culturally similar ... This South Asian concept would only help RSS.
Abhi: No, I am not middle-eastern, I am South Asian. My parents are from India.
I don't understand, why the second generation Indian-Americans are so eager to distance themselves from Indian-American tag. If your parents are from Indian then you are Indian-American. Just like a Chinese or Japaneese American wouldn't call himself Asian American whose parents were born in China/Japan, Abhi why is it so hard for you to accept that you are Indian-American.
When someone in US asks me where I am from? I respond India. I don't say South Asia. So, in a sense, I identify myself as an Indian American, although I have never used that word. South Asian American seems so unwieldy. I bet if I say that to an American, their eyes would go all cross-eyed. However, to a fellow Desi, I would identify myself as a Bombayite, because being a Bombayite is a true expression of my culture. Do I wish that I could describe myself as a Bombay-American to American people? Of course. If they understood what I meant
Is South Asian one of those terms that exists mainly in the abstract, to describe large groups and populations but not necessarily individual people?
Yes very much so. In fact, I would extend that to say that the term "Indian American" is also one of those terms that exists mainly in the abstract to describe a large group - but not necessarily individuals. We use the term because it's convinient. But, IMO, most first-generation Indians draw their identity from either the place they were born, or their caste. Most people are Bombaiyas/Kannadigas/TamBrahms/Punjabi/Sikh first and Indian next. If you have to use terms that are an accurate representation of individual identities, you will end up with a 1001 terms
Yes, I've been to Michigan's campus, but I didn't spend any time hanging out with the desi students there so I didn't realize they self-identified as "South Asian". At Cornell, people tended to be grouped according to national background. There was no "South Asians Student Association". My personal experience outside of college has been similar to Sriram's: the people I meet either identify themselves ethnically by their region or by nationality. I've yet to meet people outside of Sepia Mutiny and University profs that use the term "South Asian" to describe themselves. I'm not saying that don't do it, just that it's my experience.
I know people on here think I'm some sort of Hindu nationalist, but honestly that isn't the case. When asked, I consider myself South Indian-American, because that encompasses most of the cultural practices I identify with. The culture I'm familiar with has little in common with people from Pakistan, Punjab or Bengal (East and West). I think it's all about what people feel personally connected to; some people may feel "South Asian" others may feel "brown" and others make be "Indian-American" or "Pakistani-American". It's a personal choice.
I don't understand, why the second generation Indian-Americans are so eager to distance themselves from Indian-American tag.
S Jain,
Again, you are making a totally false assumption. Because I didn't use the phrase Indian-American in that one example of a conversation doesn't mean I don't use it regularly or even MORE OFTEN than I use the word "South Asian." You have a preconceived idea about 2nd gens that you are projecting on to the phraseology used here. In fact someone asked me just last night "Are you middle-eastern?" You know what I replied? "No, I'm Indian." It had to do with the context of that situation (which I won't be explaining here).
out of curiosity, do diaspora sri lankans, pakistanis and bangladeshis identify with the term south asian or advocate the use of south asian as much as many indians, indian-americans etc. appear to or is the drive to use it stemming primarily from people of indian descent? saarc meetings and geography class are two of the rare times we used "south asian" in school.
My mother has no problem with the term South Asian. But after three years of me throwing around the term Desi, she finally got fed up with it and told me that to her the term Desi meant North-Indian/Pakistani Hindi/Urdu speakers.
I can't really get around 'desi' either, it just feels foreign and awkward. That isn't even from a south/sri lankan pride POV either - I can't even speak tamil.
I go with brown. South Asian too, but only if i'm writing an essay :P
I don't understand, why the second generation Indian-Americans are so eager to distance themselves from Indian-American tag.
An interesting question. I think it's because we don't see much difference among 2nd gen-ers from various south asian backgrounds and most white people don't see any difference whatsoever. Also, we should acknowledge that in the 5000+ year history of the Indian subcontinent, countries such as Pakistan or Bangladesh are very new and people of our great-grandparents generation and beyond didn't identify that way because those countries didn't exist.
It's kind of like how people with african ancestry don't see themselves as Nigerian-American or Congo-American, just black. In fact, most black people don't even know what part of africa their ancestors are from.
Where the world is not broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls
... let my world awake
(Happy belated Halloween Bondus!)
Calling oneself "south asian", when one is "north american" seems a little odd. race has always struck me as an artificial construct. it's wierd when you can call yourseld "south asian" if you only go to vacations in south asia now and then, and were born in the US...
I understand what this means, but when people ask me and I say "American" (which I do! or more lately "New Yorker") they want more. As my kids say, "Ugh. Fine. What are your parents? What are your grandparents?" I specifically answer Indian. To me, "American" is not a race, but is "Indian" or "South Asian" a race? Oh this is all so confusing.
We in the South Asian diaspora in the Caribbean refer to ourselves as "East Indians" - to diffrentiate from the Amerindians (Arwaks and Caribs). We refer to anyone born in the South Asian sub-continent as "Indian nationals." The stress on the word "Indian" is probably because we are 5th generation or higher, and so when our ancestors left the sub-continent, it was all just "India."
I don't believe we've come up with a term for the second generation South Asians in America. But the word South Asian is a conveninent term to refer to the diaspora in general - whether you are 1st, 2nd, or 5th.
Whether the words "South Asian" or "Desi" are a false construction or not is not at all relevant to me. When it comes down to it, when you are looking from the outside in, Brown is Brown. There are many similarities culturally, linguistically etc. which is nice. More importantly to me, the terms allow for a critical mass of brown interests to potentially gain representation in this country, which after all is what we do care about. Don't you remember all teh hate crimes etc. after 9/11? If we always break ourselves down by country of our parents origin, or worse, states and languages, we all lose out in the political landscape.
2nd generation lawyers have formed South Asian Bar Ass'ns in most of the big cities. A notable exception is in Chicago where the South Asian/Indian/brown/savages/desi lawyers took a vote in their membership and decided that they would call themselves the Indian American Bar Association of Chicago. Of course, this alienated the Pakistani lawyers who then formed the Pakistani American Bar Ass'n. The rest of the South Asian Bar Ass'ns from the other cities were not very pleased with the decision of the Chicago group. No word yet on where the Sri Lankan or Bangaleshi lawyers are supposed to go in Chicago.
Calling oneself "south asian", when one is "north american" seems a little odd. race has always struck me as an artificial construct.
Race is an artificial construct and nations are not?!!!
Subcontinental...
Brownz (copyright Razib)
I carry my Indian tag always, that does not mean I disregard for other South Asian countries. In fact @ AGU (American Geophysical Union) meeting, on Friday December 16th, I am giving a talk on joint work between India and Pakistan , and other countries involved too. If you (Abhi) at AGU meeting in SF, please do drop by.
I can empathize that as an Amerian, you (one) has shared experiences with other South Asian countries. I have close friends from Pakistan origin too. However,
Joint work or friendship or respect or shared experiences ~= (not equal) ~= fuzzy terminology.
Ground reality in South Asia
You will be surprised how much interaction goes between South Asian countries - India-Pakistan border in Rann of Kutch is completely porous, so India-Bangladesh border. But I have to agree with BidiSmoker's assesment about South Asian term used on Sepia Mutiny and from ivory towered faculty has no real meaning. It is just bakwaas.
its all context (and geography). i am, simultaneously: global citizen, asian, south asian, non-resident indian, indian, north indian, UPite and Delhiite.
Interesting, Safraz - I'm curious - does anyone use the term brown there to self-identify? Not just Desis/South Asians.
Analogously, I also know a fair number of conservative Sikhs who are adamantly Sikh American and not Indian American or South Asian American.
Actually, Deep, I beg to differ. Most of those who primarily identify with being Sikh-American have no problem being SouthAsianAmerican as well, even if it is not their primary affiliation. What they object to, however, is being Indian-American. It's a post-1984 political decision to intentionally alienate themselves from a state they feel no kinship with.
While Indians in the ivory tower of Columbia Uni etc go on painting everything SOUTH ASIAN, no one asked the poor Nepalis, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis if they would like to fall under the same bucket.
So now there are situations where Pakis, Lankans, Nepalis etc automatically disassociate themselves from anything "SOUTH ASIAN"
I have even heard that SOUTH ASIAN is a conspiracy by Indians to get them under same "Akhand Bharat" thing.
So question is, if the intended audience of Pakis, Nepalis, Lankans hate the mention of SOUTH ASIAN term why on earth Srinivasans and other SAJAites go on with their South Asian thing? And why is Sepiamutiny - which publishes bollywood and 90% posts linked to India - keep on insisting South Asian tab?
South Asian term is a passe..get over it.
sa, does that mean that south asian americans are not asian americans? otherwise why wouldn't they just join the asian american bar association or is that restricted to east and southeast asians? (not a facetious question by the way). and then what happens to middle eastern and other asian-descent (like central asian) lawyers? human beings truly are fascinating animals in this respect.
It is just bakwaas.
That's what they said about women voting, too. But it happened. Things change, over time. And it just might happen that the terms I prefer, for the solidarity they create i.e. "South Asian" or "brown" might win this stupid, far-too-often-hashed-out-on-this-blog contest.
In fact @ AGU (American Geophysical Union) meeting, on Friday December 16th, I am giving a talk on joint work between India and Pakistan , and other countries involved too. If you (Abhi) at AGU meeting in SF, please do drop by.
Damn, will miss it. But my co-authors may present a paper there. I will let you know. I have 7 weeks to finish writing six chapters. Blech.
what's with labeling people who identify as sikh american as "conservative"? using an identity label to place a judgement on who is conservative or liberal sounds beyond silly. i identify as an american and i identify as a sikh-american and i identify as south asian am and i identify as liberal. nothing is mutually exclusive.
also, not everyone is pulled by a certain identity label all the time. i call myself a sikh-american if i'm describing myself in issues specific to sikhs who are also american. but i also call myself south asian american, depending on the venue, most often with people who are "in" on identity language or who aren't threatened by a pan-brown-nation concept. for me, these terms are used to describe not just "alliances" but also my worldview, which are not always static and are in continual flow. and that suits me just fine.
Race is an artificial construct and nations are not?!!!
touchet...
Given that Ali Eteraz is (I believe) of Pakistani descent, my first thought is to say, well, why not South Asian? If we want to limit it to just one word, why not desi or deshi?
Resonating #27 & #34...I lived in India for 14 years before moving here...I would not use the word "desi" to a non desi because how the heck is a non desi supposed to know what a desi is. And I don't need to use the word desi with a desi person because they take one look at me and know I am one.
The only time that word is uttered by me is in writing, idendifying a brown person, I use the word desi, which to me means Indian/Pakistani/Bangladesh/Sri Lankan...and I don't extend outside of those countries.
When someone asks me "Where are you from" they are asking me because I'm of some "ethnicity" that makes it obvious I may not have been born here. I gladly and always say India unless A. I want to be obnoxious with someone just wanting to chat me up in an unwelcome gesture or B. I'm outside of NYC and then I answer 'I'm from New York.'
Caveat: If I say I'm from NY and someone insists "No really where are you really from" I will then turn obnoxious and continue to give them details about NYC because at that point it confirms to me that the person is seeking to make me a foreigner and I find it mildly offensive. Not losing any sleep over it but that is how I've always seen my identity.
I think I get asked at least once a day on an average where I'm from. Today the manicurist asked me. I always say India. I don't really have a problem with it. It's the absolute truth. The context of "South Asian" never ever occurs to me. I simply don't use that word, it somehow comes across as foreign prescribed to me. I am from India, I have no problem saying I'm from India. It's like someone from Colorado asking me where I'm from. I'll say New York. Why the heck would I say "North east"...I find the whole "south asian" thing ambigious in that way.
This is the final rule. When I'm outside of the United States I ALWAYS say I'm American when someone asks me where I'm from. Perhaps that sounds complicated but it's almost always 100% clear to me.
oh ennis! i agree!
Paging SpoorLam!
Race is an artificial construct and nations are not?!!!
Word to the nth power...
I wonder how 2-gens whose parents come from various east Asian countries (China/Tw/Viet...) react to themselves being classified as 'Asian' by everyone else in the US, and whether there are similar debates. As people who went to college in the US...did you notice any of that?
I do see some of that courtesy facebook...for instance, huge online wars betn Tw-Americans and Chinese-Americans.
Perhaps that sounds complicated but it's almost always 100% clear to me.
I suppose thats all that matters...
Personally, I prefer 'brown',
or even better, 'macaca'.
#44:
While Indians in the ivory tower of Columbia Uni etc go on painting everything SOUTH ASIAN
Why does Columbia get singled out for these things? I mean don't get me wrong, Columbia and I have had our differences, but why Columbia in particular?
I quoted the following in Taz's post on affecting the desi community, but it's so good I have to quote it again:
The making of "South Asia" within the sets of power relations I mentioned above this is one of the reasons why I feel especially uncomfortable identifying with the term. We can all proclaim awareness of Indias hegemonic presence in the region, but that doesnt change the fact that most uses of the term still collapse one nation-state within the region with a term that claims to represent the entire region. Not to mention that particular states within come to stand-in for the entire nation-state.I tried to explain this in a classroom setting to a professor who, while acknowledging the course's limitations, shrugged as if he couldnt do anything about it. In doing so, he completely missed the intellectual implications of what I was saying. This isnt an argument about making something "representative" in an tokenistic way add a little Nepal here, a little Sri Lanka there but to think about how "South Asia" might be differently conceived from those particular vantage points. Otherwise, what is the point of any of us holding on to the label? Id rather let go of the term. As it is, even though Ive found myself drifting towards the term in the last few years (thanks in large part to my academic work), I cannot consider myself properly "South Asian." [Link]
"Paging SpoorLam!"
why? because some people don't use south asian? or because some people do? or because some people don't want to identify as indian? or just because :) which group is spoor lam meant to inflict himself on? :) or is it everyone?
For NotASouthAsian:
This trifling game ("Indian vs. South Asian")is getting so old, I can pay a premium for it (still in the original box! mint!) on eBay. This Mutiny is brown. We like the term South Asian. We write about stuff that happens in the countries that surround India. We care. If you dont, then thats unfortunate. Getting snide in an ANONYMOUS tip isnt going to change our minds, surely you had to be aware of that. If not, let this musing of mine clue you in: inclusiveness is how we roll, even though every one of our parents once had an Indian passport and exactly eight dollars in their pocket, upon landing at JFK. [From December 29, 2005: We are the World, We are South Asian]
Any takers for the term Subconti? Eh eh?
In fact, in geology and other related physical sciences fields, the term is Indian subcontinent.
In plate tectonics, India collides with Asia, not South Asia collides with Asia. It is the Indian plate. Remember, plate tectonics was mostly developed in 60s, and is not pre-independence scientific construct. I am glad they are not caught up PC nuances.
I think biologists/ paleo-biologists use Indian subcontient when they talk of time, evolution, etc.
When subcontinent is involved it's always the Indian subcontinent. I've never heard it called the South Asian subcontinent.
But when we're trying to come up with some term and idea that everyone can identify with, I don't think we can ask everyone to call themselves Indian.
This whole confusion with the South Asian and the Desi and the this and that only becomes confusing when you take the politics out of it. These are politically loaded terms, each of them, and we all have various interpretations of what their politics are.
To me, South Asia and brown are cool because it gives us a starting point, devoid of any national or religious terms, from which we can begin to relate to each other.
one more thing...
And why is Sepiamutiny - which publishes bollywood and 90% posts linked to India - keep on insisting South Asian tab?
b/c we're not evil, inconsiderate jerks. we have mutineers who trace their roots to bangladesh, pakistan, sri lanka, nepal, guyana...the kind thing to do is include our friends, not ignore them. i would call this an "indian" blog the same day i wished someone jewish "merry christmas". ain't gonna happen, b/c that's just plain wrong.
i don't care if it's got the stench of academia 'round it...the whole point of this mutiny is that we are defining it and ourselves right now. and if we want to use "south asian", we can make that term our own. we can mold it to fit our purposes. it doesn't have to suck...or be this divisive, really.
Personally, I don't like to use a generic term like "Desi" to identify Indians, Pakis, Bangladeshi's, SriLankans, Nepalis. Main reasons being:
1.With the amount of hatred/radicalism coming out of Pakistan and Bangladesh, I do not want in anyway contribute towards confusing "Desi" & by "deduction" India with crazy mullahs/jihadists...similar to what has occured to the feelings evoked by the term "middle east"...
2.Lot of animosity and historical distrust exists between India, Pakistan & Bangladesh....We can save the discussion on who/why/what for another day. But, I certainly don't want to be clubbed together with Pakis or Bangladeshis. Nothing personally against them....but I want to draw the line there.
FYI...I also know several Pakis/Bangladeshis calling themselves Indians/Desi to avoid any extra attention/scrutiny. Imagine that!!
Nothing personally against them....but I want to draw the line there.
I bet some of your best friends are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis...
I'm just sayin...
Here's an email from Rajiv Malhotra that circulated widely last year. Its the same type of "Indian" argument to be found employed by British Hindus on the Pickled Politics thread at the moment which Prof. Singh referenced, though the author goes all over the place in the "conclusion," even going so far as to demonize Harvard. Personally, I take brown over South Asian as an umbrella term -its aesthetic and monosyllabic. South Asian is a cold war term, I believe, much like "Third World," but I respect the preference of the bloggers here.
From: n
Date: Nov 3, 2005 6:30 AM
Subject: SouthAsianism in US colleges _ Rajiv Malhotra
To:
Came in the email, requesting wide dissemination: Apparently some kid
wrote this to him.
"> On 11/3/05, xxxxx wrote:
I have read many of your articles and you often talk about how Indian's
identities often get reprogrammed to 'South Asian'. Until reading your
articles I never really gave much thought to this 'South Asian' movement on
campuses. I am currently enrolled in college and I have personally seen many
of my own friends reprogram their identities to 'South Asian'. It is
alarming to me how impressionable many Indian youth are while in college.
Nowadays most Indian kids are more concerned about being politically correct
and appearing "open minded". After reading your articles I have tried to my
best to convince people to assert an Indian-American identity however, I
believe my efforts so far have been failures. You have written about how
Indian's identities are "South Asianized" but you have not written why so
many Indian youth have followed this path. I think one reason is that this
'South Asian' movement has been successful is because Indian kids often have
strict upbringings and this creates a rebellious mentality in many youth. I
believe that Indian girls are often the most susceptible to brainwashing of
"South Asianists" because they are often subject to stricter treatment from
parents and the rest of the Indian community then boys. "South Asianists"
seem to exploit this and exaggerate it to the point where Indian/Hindu
culture is associated with social ills against women. These "South
Asianists" also exploit the way Indian parents push their kids to enter
wealth generating fields and denounce this as being materialistic and
superficial. Another trend I've also noticed is the way "South Asianists"
dismiss the success of Indians in America as not being the result of hard
work, intelligence and education but because of "immigration law" as Mr.
Vijay Prashad put it.
http://www.asiansinamerica.org/museum/comm_ind.html
Even my own sister constantly tries to propagate this to me. It amazes me
even more how almost all the people getting caught up in this 'South Asian'
movement are Indians. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis always join their own or
Muslim student organizations. Every time I point this out to fellow Indians
none of them can ever give a valid reason or beat me in a debate as to why
Indians should bother with the 'South Asian' tag. I grew up in a mainly
Bangladeshi and Pakistani part of Brooklyn. From when I was a little kid I
understood how different and how little I have in common with non-Indian
South Asians. I believe Indians in Britain are much more aware of their
Indian identity because skirmishes and fights between the Indian and
Pakistani youth there are a common occurrence from what I have heard. On top
of that is the well documented gap in education and achievement between the
two communities with Indians rising to the top and Pakistanis confined to
ghetto areas like the ones in Bradford and Birmingham. Because America is a
big piece of land and also the fact that the more affluent areas where
Indians are more prominent and the working class neighborhoods/ghettos of
NYC where Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are more prominent, are so
geographically isolated, Indians living in places like Long Island and
Edison, NJ have no idea how different their ideal of South Asian unity and
how reality is. I commend you for what you are doing for the Indian-American
community. It is absolutely essential that we do whatever we can to make
sure India is portrayed in positive light.
-- Sxxxxxxxxx
Rajiv's comments in response:
He correctly observes that while Pakistani and Bangladeshi organized
counterbalancing initiatives also exist on campuses, Indians have more
willingly internalized the British imperialist structures and now are
available for American institutionalized reprogramming. In some call
centers in India they are being "taught" to think, feel, dress, eat
and talk like Texans, New Yorkers, etc - some specific white identity
they can select from a catalog.
"South Asian" seems to be a temporary/unstable state pending further
engineering - it suggests, "I am ready to be tutored to become
whatever you want." Its significance is not based on what it is, but
based on what it leaves behind (by way of implied and polite
rejection) so as to clear the space for fresh programming.
The emerging global caste system has whites at the top, whiteness (as
cultural identity for people of color) as second, and South Asian just
below whiteness for those still unable/unwilling to claim full
whiteness. Those who remain behind as "native" Indians are seen as the
new outcasts; they are vulnerable to future genocides resulting from
overpopulation and civilizational clashes. Are we Indians turning into
global shudras-for-hire with no identity of our own other than
whatever the latest master assigns?
Postmodernism is an imperialist export - via co-opted (whitened) third
world intellectuals - to distribute "theories" that support this trend
as being desirable and/or inevitable. Whitened intermediaries like
Harvard's Homi Bhabha are rewarded with cushy Ivy League jobs and
turned into role models for facilitating the bandwagon effect among
Indian intellectuals who are anxious to escape the "problems of
Indianness." Meanwhile, the Harvard cabal under the choirship of
Sugata Bose dishes out demonology against Indian culture to make the
carrots more attractive for assuming new identities: hence the role of
Harvard as the epicenter for studying sati, dowry, incest, caste,
gender conflict as Indian "essences."
Indian culture which is deemed valuable is repackaged as "white" (such
as yoga/meditation these days...) and this appropriation is sold to
confused Indians as being a compliment by the whites. Whatever is left
behind after the scavenging is branded as backward/facsist Indianness.
Between these two extremes of whiteness and Indianness, the South
Asian labeling provides the safety of a middle ground with enough
ambiguity and wiggle room to customize and personalize. The student
who wrote the email rightfully blames orthodox parents. I would add to
his list the role of US based lazy and pompous Indian cultural leaders
who naively play into this phenomenon...
When subcontinent is involved it's always the Indian subcontinent. I've never heard it called the South Asian subcontinent.
Guess the term "South Asia" has more to do with the classification of Asia into different regions than anything to do with giving the "Indian Subcontinent" an identity to go with. "South Asia" is a classification perpetuated by the western media (in my perception).
So if you are talking of an identity I wouldn't go with "South Asia" but rather use the "Indian Subcontinent" or "desi" as prevalent in the US. But if the question is what part of asia are you (or your ancestors) from, the answer could very well be "South Asia".
Muhahahahah. Good points Kush. Go India.
i would call this an "indian" blog the same day i wished someone jewish "merry christmas".
not to go off-topic or add fuel to this inferno... but this isn't really the same thing, right? (i'm really asking here)...
as in when people were wishing me for ramadan & diwali (and i was wishing them as well) ...
i celebrate diwali b/c i'm indian and we've always done it (even though i'm not hindu) ...
arrghh ... maybe its all just toMAYto / toMAHto
I bet some of your best friends are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis...I'm just sayin...
Vivek..you are very right. I do have friends who are Pakis and some are Muslims from India/Palestine.And as a side info, I grew up in a Muslim Majority town & went to a school, where we had 5 Hindus in class of 50 students(rest were Muslims).So..I have had the experience of being a minority within India & it wasn't always bad.
But I being realistic about the eventual political implications these kinds of words/phrases have....they evolve into something, we might later regret.
To me, South Asia and brown are cool because it gives us a starting point, devoid of any national or religious terms, from which we can begin to relate to each other.
This is missing the point - it's the political connotations that drive people crazy. See Ennis' comment about certain Sikh Americans who want to distance themselves from India by using the term South Asian. Well, there's a flip side to that sentiment.
Whose God is it anyays,
Good question, the whole thing is a mess. There is an Asian American Bar Ass'n which include Indians as well as Pacific rim countries. Then there is the Indian American Bar Ass'n. Some brown lawyers are in both, some are only in one and not the other. This was discussed at Indian American Bar Ass'n of Chicago's meeting, that is, if there already is an Asian American Bar Ass'n, what is the point of a South Asian American Bar Ass'n? The answer was that Indians are sufficiently unique from other Asians to warrant a separate group.
Later, when the question came up as to whether the group should be Indian or South Asian American Bar Ass'n, the argument was that India is different from a generic South Asia so the group's name should represent that distinction. Also, South Asian was too broad/generic a label vis a vis the already existing Asian Amererican Bar Ass'n. By a very close vote (a difference of about 3 votes I recall), the name Indian was chosen.
So essentially, if you are a lawyer in Chicago, you could be a member of the Asian American Bar Association, the South Asian American Bar Association (not in existence, yet), and the Indian American Bar Association.
My thought is that this is ridiculous. The next thing people are going to do is create a Punjabi American Bar Ass'n of Chicago, a Kashmiri American Bar Ass'n of Chicago, a South Indian Bar Ass'n of Chicago, etc. Then a brown will have to join 4 associations.
Maybe there will soon be a website called indiamutiny.com.
In plate tectonics, India collides with Asia, not South Asia collides with Asia. It is the Indian plate.
Indian Plate, Indian Ocean, Indian Subcontinent etc, flatters Indians who have inherited the name, but alienates the other nations that were carved out from Indian in recent times, especially the muslim ones who (ridiculously) choose to identify with west asia.
Yeah? And speaking as the-only-brown-UC Davis-grad-EVER- who-wasn't-bitterly-settling-b/c-they-were-rejected-from-CAL...
I wasn't rejected from CAL, I never applied and UCD was my first choice, so I wasn't bitterly-settling either! GO AGGIES!
When I was in college, there weren't that many brown people at Davis (ANNA can attest to this, I remember seeing you around campus) and I never really connected with the desi community there, so I think any term you use in any way that anyone can somehow associate with is fine.
Why do we all need to agree on which term to use? Why not just use the one you are most comfortable with and associate with yourself? Personally I use the term Indian not South Asian. My nationality is American (I was born and raised here) and my ethnicity/race is Indian. I never feel the need to explain to people I was born here, unless they make stupid comments like "Wow, you speak really good english!"
Briefly, I'm Bangladeshi (by birth and citizenship). So I don't identify as Indian, Indian-American, Pakistani, or Pakistani-American. But obviously, there is something about people of sub-continental origin that makes me self-identify as one of them; why else am I reading SM? Now brown, desi (deshi), and South Asian are all apt self-descriptors, but I find South Asian least confusing to non-desis; so that's the label I tend to use.
JoAT: I, too, say American when asked outside of the States. Part of it is to show people that not all Americans are blonde and blue. What can I say, teachable moment. Or obnoxious.
Siddhartha: I'm curious as to what you say when people ask, what with your multi-culti background... French? African? I have a friend who is, by most people's terms, white. She refers to herself as African; she was born and raised in Africa. If you're a white South African, or a Kenyan whose family originated in India but has lived in Africa for generations, can you call yourself African? Who draws the line?
P.S. I dig the term subconti.
Abhi hits it on the nail for the SA label. Replace the SA label with India and Indian-American with any sub national (sikh, mallu, tam, telugu, bong...) identity and the argument makes perfect sense.
I am glad they are not caught up PC nuances.Thats a no brainer. Because plates, trees, animals and genes all have political identities.
yeda nath (#69):
This is missing the point
To quote Skunk Anansie:
Yes it's f**king political!
Everything's political!
I don't think it's missing the point at all. EVERY term has its political baggage. If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, change it or don't use it.
I love brown people! And inclusion!
BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN!
On another note - anyone ever have East Asians balk when claiming Asianess? This frustrates me. Plate tectonics be damned. India The subcontinent is now part of Asia. Damn it.
And why is Sepiamutiny - which publishes bollywood and 90% posts linked to India - keep on insisting South Asian tab?b/c we're not evil, inconsiderate jerks. we have mutineers who trace their roots to bangladesh, pakistan, sri lanka, nepal, guyana...the kind thing to do is include our friends, not ignore them. i would call this an "indian" blog the same day i wished someone jewish "merry christmas". ain't gonna happen, b/c that's just plain wrong.
i don't care if it's got the stench of academia 'round it...the whole point of this mutiny is that we are defining it and ourselves right now. and if we want to use "south asian", we can make that term our own. we can mold it to fit our purposes. it doesn't have to suck...or be this divisive, really.
Thank youuuuuu.
How funny about Chicago.
They are trying to create an Indian Bar Association in Houston. There already exists a South Asian Bar Association butthe stated reason for another one is that the South Asian Bar is too political and overrrun by Pakistanis. The truth is that the president is a very active Muslim Indian attorney active in civil rights. The first meeting of Indian atttorneys will be a DIWALI lunch this Friday (noon at Madras pavilion).
Wow!
I guess us lawyers should just shut up and sit down. It is so bizarre to see this play out because the promoters of the Indian Bar are mostly 1st gen, new immigrants or older uncle types and the South Asian Bar is 2nd gens.
shaad: Now brown, desi (deshi), and South Asian are all apt self-descriptors
Many millions of Indians, especially from the East (of Mongloid stock) are not brown, but can be classified as yellow. Many other "South Asians" from Bhutan, Nepal and Tibetan exiles can also be classified as such. [Forget about other minorities like Chinese Indians, Baghdadi Jews, Anglo Indians, French-Indians, etc etc who are probably not brown either.]
India is a brown country as much as the US is a white country. :-)
i knew the comments on this one would go bonkers!
...especially the muslim ones who (ridiculously) choose to identify with west asia....Why should i care about them. I am only concerned with finding an appropriate label for those who choose to identify with the commonality, while preserving their distinct traits.
Damn, I need to work but I can't stop checking back for comments every 10 mins!
sa, thanks. wow, that is one confusing stew! i can somewhat buy the argument for a separate south asian bar association, given that it appears that south asians aren't really included in the term asian (unlike in the uk where it's the other way around), even though we are asian as anyone else. however, although i don't see south asian as a particularly useful cultural/identity term (otherwise why aren't Balinese Hindus South Asian as well?) and more of a political/geographical one, it suits a bar association representing people from that geographical area (i know i've botched that sentence badly but too lazy to rewrite). i see no need for a separate indian bar association unless, as the above poster pointed out, there are allegations of politics etc. and incompatible goals and we know south asians - we may want to unite at the best of times but we are all too ready to divide at the worst!
Why should i care about them. I am only concerned with finding an appropriate label for those who choose to identify with the commonality, while preserving their distinct traits.They will end up accusing you of alienating them eventually.
The idea of South Asia and South Asians is just as arbitrary as the idea of India and Indians.
Why should i care about them. I am only concerned with finding an appropriate label for those who choose to identify with the commonality, while preserving their distinct traits.
They will end up accusing you of alienating them eventually.
Thats fine. There are no guarantees in life. I
The idea of South Asia and South Asians is just as arbitrary as the idea of India and Indians.
Yeah, and when I write about Indian history that goes back past nationalism, I realize that I can't really use the word "India" unless I refer to it as the "South Asian [or subcontinental] region that is now India" because "India" is also a relatively recent idea.
This relates to Desi identity through the lens of being mixed, which I think can add an alternative layer to choosing the way I identify my connection to India. So, here are my thoughts:
I have always found that most average Americans are unsatisfied with the term "American" when I describe myself because they end up asking me follow-questions like "what are you?" or "where are you from?" (carbon-base life form from California does not do the trick). Also, I'm proud of my roots so I like to celebrate them.
But I run into problems. When I say that I'm half Indian, people ask me what tribe I am affiliated with because their first impulse when they hear the word "Indian" is to completely disregard the nation of India. (which is an entirely different issue that could be discussed at lenght in its own post) When I say "half-desi," the average American doesn't know what I mean, so South Asian tends to be less confusing because people aren't faced with a) an unfamiliar term or b) the confusion caused by their own stubborn adherance to an age-old misnomer.
But there is another problem. Because I am mixed, the next comment I get is, "You don't look Indian. You're skin is light. I thought you were Mexican." Sometimes I just resort to "my Dad is from India and my Mom is from Ohio." For all of my Asian friends, "half Indian" and "half South Asian" work just fine as they all have their own complicated identifiers.
I am currently experimenting with made up terms. So far I have Desipean (to pay homage to my Dad's Indian origin and my Mom's ancestral roots in Eastern Europe and England), AmerDesi, Indimerican, and AmerIndian.
I think I could also use Desi Au Lait, but here on the mutiny, I like to be SemiDesiMasala ;)
So I read through all #67 comments and of course its impossible to respond to everything I want so I'll try to be brief.
1. Nations and Races are both artifical constructs, created to rally a group around an identity. This identity may be created b/c it is needed in the face of extreme difference with those you live with (bangladesh being neither pak. or indian) or in the face of possible discrimination (pak. thinking it wouldnt have a role in new india) or simply b/c its a power play (think milosevic).
2. SAA as all my papers say, or South Asian American, is used to denote not only a similar culture but a similar external perception of who we are. We are not e. asian due to phenotype differences (despite similar filial piety and lack of cultural focus on individuality) No one from this constructed area of South Asia needs to say they are South Asian. It is those who live outside of it who need to identify themselves. In areas that are dominated by Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis etc. there is no need to say you are SAA, but hell there is only what..1% of the population that even fits SAA. As critical mass is reached (if it is ever reached) the label will probably disappear. As of now it is identification. We are treated the same, assumed to be the same, and hold ties in the same geographical area.
3. Addressing tectonic plates as not political. The Indian subcontinent was used b/c of the political existence of India. The name was not changed but is inherently political. There is nothing about the plate itself that is "Indian"
4. Politically speaking, as I said earlier, we are 1% of the population and have similar concerns. We are generally split among the wealthy and the poor...the educated (any grad school) and the h.s. graduates. There is a disparity tied to our immigration patterns and the laws that dictated them. Labels are always political, even some indian names are set up to denote familial affiliation for old reasons of clanship. we have the opportunity to not carry forward the useless bickering between south asian countries and personally I am all for it.
Lastly, I id as brown, American, Asian American, South Asian American and, when pushed, Indian. Like Abhi said, context is everything.
The idea of South Asia and South Asians is just as arbitrary as the idea of India and Indians.True, but you are ignoring the strong need (for mere mortals) to have an identity in this world. And the identity has to have a name for it to viable.
I think I could also use Desi Au Lait
Heh, Heh
True, but you are ignoring the strong need (for mere mortals) to have an identity in this world. And the identity has to have a name for it to viable.
No, it's not ignoring the need for identity. I have such a need for identity that mine has at least 5 layers, you see. I'm still South Asian. And all those other things.
amerindian is already taken :) also, given the perception that geographical knowledge of their own country, much less the rest of the world, is not that advanced amongst some/many americans (and they themselves always joke about it), how much more useful is south asia as a locator, i wonder? does it even really matter whether what one says? i told a lady on a plane i was from india and she asked me how far that was from illinois. might as well say antarctica to some people.
Maybe there will soon be a website called indiamutiny.com.
There already is! The person that started it was someone who was repeatedly banned from this website for countless offenses including hurling childish insults at us for using the term "South Asian." His entire website is one big SM rip-off. They even call each other "Mutineers." How sorry is that?
Its just plain idiotic to use the word "brown" to identify people from the subcontinent, for obvious reasons:
1. Not all indians are brown. The majority of desis are black by global standards. Dont let the exclusive identification in the Anglosphere of "black" with africans confuse you.
2. Not all browns are desis. Malays, mexicans, arabs etc are generally seen as brown. Try and find commonality with them with your claims of being a fellow brown and see how far you get. About as far as you will get with east asians with your claims of being a fellow asian.
Currently, the most acceptable term to identify desis remains "south asian". Neither south indians, nor pakistanis, bangladeshis, sri lankans, nepalese etc could object to that.
I feel like I use different terms in different contexts-- 'South Asian American' is a nice umbrella description at times, 'Indian-American' works when I'm with some people, 'Kannada' rarely works unless people know where Karnataka happens to be, etc. 'Brown' is awesome because it just feels warm and fuzzy. Whatever we term ourselves, we are still fine-tuning a catch phrase that truly embodies our identity. We might never agree on the best diction, but it's all relative!!
As for the use of the the term "Desi"...well I only use it when I'm with Brown folks who are not South Indian-- around my Kannada peeps, I use "Namooru", the Kannada equivalent that just has a good ring to it. Don't forget your Southies, y'all-- our languages are incredible.
and randomly-- I went to CAL so GO BEARS!! WOOHOOO!!! ;) But I still got love for all my fellow UC-ers, no matter which campus you represent.
Which incidentally brings me to a curious kinship:
What makes me a "world citizen"?
Ans. The old fashioned term Liberalism (in the US; Fiscal conservative, socially liberal...tending towards libertarian) and other modern values. Literature, music, movies, etc.
What makes me an Indian?
Ans. Identification to my roots in India, its literature, arts and other forms of culture. My Hinduism.
Ergo, I can easily converse with a Southern US gent who shares the same taste in films, music and literature, but I could have enormous difficulty in conversing for more than 2 minutes with a Pakhtoon tribal from NWFP or a villager from Tamil Nadu. In other words, what brings us together as Indian or South Asians are similar urban middle class and upper middle class tastes in art culture [1] and in issues that affect our native countries or us through our ethnic/genetic heritage [1]. That combined with (for some) ideals to do something good for our native countries.
[1] Identity based on genetic commonality, whether geographical or otherwise is confusing. For instance, South Asians suffer disproportionately from heart disease, and therefore hospitals have segmented this population and made specific policies for them. Hence, such segmentation is important. But methinks this definition of 'South Asian' excludes people from Nepal and Bhutan.
My thought is that this is ridiculous. The next thing people are going to do is create a Punjabi American Bar Ass'n of Chicago, a Kashmiri American Bar Ass'n of Chicago, a South Indian Bar Ass'n of Chicago, etc. Then a brown will have to join 4 associations.
Today (Nov1st) is the state formation day of Andhra Pradesh, the first state to be reorganized based on linguistic identity, after a lot of blood shed. Now they want to split the state into two.(three,four..., depending on who it is ). The vandalism on wikipedia page should give you a hint as to the type of arguments that get thrown in.
The whole debate has the eerie similarity of earth being demolished for hyperspace way.
it's the political connotations that drive people crazy.Thanks. Its crazy people that drive the political connotations from everything :P. Stuff to use in the other debate.
...brown.
Today (Nov1st) is the state formation day of Andhra Pradesh, the first state to be reorganized based on linguistic identityAlso Karnataka, same day, same year.
Shruti (#88):
Yeah, and when I write about Indian history that goes back past nationalism, I realize that I can't really use the word "India" unless I refer to it as the "South Asian [or subcontinental] region that is now India" because "India" is also a relatively recent idea.
Thank you for understanding.
Vinay (#91):
True, but you are ignoring the strong need (for mere mortals) to have an identity in this world. And the identity has to have a name for it to viable.
Nooooooooo... of course we need identities. I'm just saying - why not South Asia?