South Asia typically includes India, the Maldives, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Some international textbooks and definitions may include Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Iran. The irony is that this region is geographically, culturally, and linguistically distinct, separated from the rest of present-day Asian nations by natural foundations – the Himalayan range, Hindu Kush mountains, the Karakoram range, Western and Eastern Ghats, rivers, and maritime boundaries – Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and the Palk Strait though these nations were and still are for the most part Sanatana in nature, at least geographically.
The term “South Asia” has an imperial and colonial history of development and adoption. The apparent reason is the systematic dilution of the civilizational reality of the Indian subcontinent in political, academic, and media discourse. While German academics (mainly Indologists) introduced the term, its widespread adoption is mainly due to its use by Western powers, notably the United Kingdom and the United States, and its subsequent acceptance by countries within the region.
Indology and Origins in Academia
The term “South Asia” originated in German academic circles in the 1950s. By the 1980s, describing people with roots in the countries mentioned above, including diasporas, was globally prevalent. However, it is contested as a single identity, with many preferring regional identifications. It was further reinforced as a replacement for the “Indian subcontinent” following the partition of British India in 1947. This change was supposedly cited to avoid “confusion” about studies of the Indian subcontinent, which focuses solely on Indian (often read Hindu) culture and civilization. The term gained further legitimacy as countries in the southern Asian region began to use it widely themselves, further diluting their regional and individual identities and accepting an umbrella term coined for them by outsiders to the region. This mental colonization – embracing and implementing the term adoption helped establish “South Asia” as the preferred term among scholars and officials.
Another reason for this new term is that while “Indian subcontinent” was used during the British colonial era, the rationale for using “South Asia” is considered more neutral to dilute the region’s historical Indianness. It supposedly avoids potential offense by not placing “India” as a prefix and differentiates the region from East Asia. However, no such changes have been imposed on the civilizational Chinese nations. The United States and the State Department significantly popularized the term “South Asia” and hyphenated India-Pakistan, thereby giving Pakistan legitimacy by default. The term gained further prominence after the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War when the U.S. and other world powers used it to refer to the region.
Not only the hyphen but the term South Asia since has been taken up by restaurants and businesses, diluting India and the identities of those in the region and the diaspora. For example, it is common for a person of Indian origin to refer to him/herself as South Asian instead of Indian. Those who are politically aware know the difference between an Indian identity (again, read Hindu) vs. a South Asian identity – which probably means those who have converted out of Hinduism and embraced non-dharmic religious identities.
Misleading Misnomer
The contrived term “South Asia” fails to capture the region’s rich historical context and the complex interactions between different regions. For example, Nepal and Bhutan have been influenced by both Indian and Tibetan civilizations, creating unique cultural identities that do not fit neatly into the “South Asian” category. Some territories within present-day India and Tibet and parts of Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh continue to be influenced by Indian and Tibetan dharmic civilizations. Such overlaps challenge the notion of an artificial umbrella of heterogeneous South Asian identity.
“Indian subcontinent” is an alternative term. However, its usage is systematically declining due to Indologists and powers beyond academia trying to 1) associate the Indian subcontinent with colonial ties and 2) maintain a strong push for the term South Asia. The term South Asia as a regional descriptor has several limitations and can be considered a misnomer for the following reasons:
The term “South Asia” continues to remain controversial for several reasons. Dharmic scholars argue that it diminishes India’s central historical and cultural role and overgeneralizes diverse cultures, and some argue that this term, too, has colonial origins. There is concern about its whimsical application, with positive aspects labeled “South Asian.” At the same time, negative stereotypes remain associated with specific countries (India) or religions (Hinduism and other dharmic religions that originated after that), leading to the erasure of regional dharmic identity.
Some scholars see the term as politically motivated, potentially downplaying India’s regional prominence or allowing other countries to distance themselves from specific associations. Cultural inaccuracy is another issue, as it often forcefully emphasizes diluted identity at the expense of regional diversity. The ambiguous geographical and contested boundaries of “South Asia” further complicate its usage. While proponents argue for its anti-India, anti-Hindu reference in academic and geopolitical contexts, critics contend it oversimplifies complex political dynamics, ignores distinct national identities, and disconnects people from their dharmic civilizational roots. This ongoing debate ignores the region’s identity, history, and representation.
Accurate Perspectives & Usage
In sum, the term “South Asia” dilutes the existence of Indian civilization and oversimplifies a region of immense religious, cultural, and historical complexity. Instead of relying on this misplaced catch-all phrase, one should adopt a more nuanced perspective acknowledging the area’s rich history and diversity.
This region is a civilizational monolithic entity, much like China, and a geographical area comprising distinct nations with cultural identities embedded in Sanatana Dharma. For instance, countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan have been shaped by multiple civilizational influences, including Indian and Tibetan. Hinduism and later Buddhism run through the fabric that shapes these present-day nations. Lumping them under the superficially created “South Asia” label fails to capture these historical and cultural nuances and risks erasing their dharmic characteristics.
Finally, it is crucial to acknowledge the historical influence of Indian civilization still exerted on neighboring countries. The cultural, linguistic, and religious underpinnings and impact of ancient Indian civilization are undeniable, thereby justifying referring to the area as Indian Subcontinent or Greater Indian Civilization. Each nation in the region might have evolved its own distinct identity, governance, and societal norms over time, but the historical, dharmic past cannot be erased.
The Chinese civilization is known to extend beyond the present-day boundaries of the Republic of China. Why isn’t India allowed the same respect and courtesy as Indologists and Western institutions? The erasure of indigenous cultures and civilizations is nothing new, though more awareness needs to be brought to misdirected acts. Squashing the misnomer and malefic “South Asia” label can foster a more accurate understanding of the region’s history and fabric. This approach allows one to appreciate the shared civilizational threads that connect these nations while simultaneously recognizing their trajectories in the global culture. In doing so, one consciously avoids the dilution of rich cultural pasts and promotes a more accurate depiction of a historically significant part of the world.
References
Kozłowski, J. (2021, March 3). Is the term “South Asia” correct? *The Diplomat*. https://thediplomat.com/2021/03/is-the-term-south-asia-correct/
Mishra, S., & Devarakonda, B. (2020). Health Inequities and Risk of Hypertension among South Asian Immigrants in the United States. PubMed Central. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7153721/
Misra, A. (2006). Heart Disease and Asian Indians/South Asians in the United States: A Historical Perspective and Overview. National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525125/
Observer Research Foundation. (n.d.). India’s cultural and civilizational influence on Southeast Asia. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/indias-cultural-and-civilizational-influence-on-southeast-asia
Singh, A. (2007). “Names Can Wait”: The Misnaming of the South Asian Diaspora in Theory and Practice. South Asian Review, 28(1), 13–28. https://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/amardeep_singh_names_can_wait.pdf
Smarthistory. (n.d.). Cultural exchange and syncretism in the arts of South Asia since 1200. https://smarthistory.org/reframing-art-history/cultural-exchange-syncretism-arts-south-asia-since-1200/
Wadhawan, N. (n.d.). Harmonizing Health: Cultural Reflections on South Asian Heritage Month. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/harmonizing-health-cultural-reflections-south-asian-month-wadhawan
Image: picuki.ai