In Defense of "South Asia"

This essay was originally published on Brown Pundits on July 11, 2025. It was written in response to some of the debates on that blog.

Recently, on “Brown Pundits”, there has been some discussion of the term South Asia. A commenter argued that this term is unacceptable to Indians and that Hindustan or Bharat should be used instead. Another commenter stated that he “hates” the term South Asia and suggested that in most cases Indian subcontinent could be used as an alternative. While everyone is entitled to their views, in this post I will argue the opposite position: that in certain contexts South Asia is the appropriate and indeed preferable term.

Before I begin to elaborate my argument, I want to discuss the objection that the term is “unacceptable to Indians”. India has a population of 1.44 billion (2023 statistics). I very much doubt that all of these people have been asked their position on South Asia vs. Hindustan. While there is certainly a vocal section of Indians who do find the term unacceptable–people whom I will loosely refer to as the Hindu Right–there are many other Indians who are perfectly fine with calling themselves South Asian. I know this for a fact because I am friends with some of these people. I grew up with them in America and have studied with them in the UK. The bottom line is that the section of the population that doesn’t like the term doesn’t have to use it but they have no right to stop others from identifying with it.

I will now turn to the definition of South Asia and the history of the term. For this purpose, I will refer to the Wikipedia article on South Asia–hopefully we can agree that this article is a neutral source and doesn’t reflect the dreaded “Pakistani nationalist” bias. According to Wiki, South Asia is defined as: “the modern states of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, with Afghanistan also often included, which may otherwise be classified as part of Central Asia”. While Bangladesh and Pakistan were part of British India, the other states were not. Thus “Hindustan” or “Bharat” are not appropriate substitutes for South Asia.

On the use of “South Asia” as opposed to “Indian subcontinent”, Wiki goes on to cite noted historians Ayesha Jalal and Sugata Bose as arguing that the Indian subcontinent has come to be known as South Asia “in more recent and neutral parlance”. This “neutral” concern mainly reflects the concerns of Pakistan and Bangladesh, where due to the complex history with India, the use of “Indian” in “Indian subcontinent” might offend political sentiments. The bottom line is that Indians have no right to dictate the use of terms to Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. One doesn’t have to agree with the reasoning for preferring “South Asia” but one has to respect the rights of people to employ the term.

As for the history of the term, it emerged in Western academic and policy circles in the late 1950s, particularly in the United States. It was adopted due to the desire to create a neutral term for the region and to move away from India-centric terminology.

My final argument for the term has to do with the need in some contexts (particularly in the diaspora) for more inclusive terminology. While there are certainly organizations that cater specifically to Indian or Pakistani professionals, there are also cases where “South Asian Americans” have common causes and purposes that justify the use of the more inclusive term. If I were living in the US, I would probably feel excluded from a group that labels itself “Indian American” and believe that due to my Pakistani origin, they would not want me. The same applies to an Indian who potentially wanted to join a group called Organization of Pakistani Entrepreneurs (OPEN). In my university, there were several different groups with clearly different agendas. The Hindu Students Association for example celebrated Hindu religious occasions. Since I’m not a Hindu, I did not attempt to join this organization or participate in their events. There was also an Indian Students Association but I’m not particularly clear on what they did (one assumes it was not celebrating Diwali since many Indian Muslims would presumably not want to do that). The Pakistani Students Association mostly celebrated Islamic festivals (due the conflation of Pakistani culture with Islam which is equally problematic in its own way). Since I am not particularly religious, I did not participate in their events either. It was the South Asian Students Association that organized events such as “Bhangra Blowout” which celebrated our common culture. This was the group that I was drawn to.

I can understand that those actually living in India or Pakistan may not really feel the need for “South Asian” as a term. Many of my fellow Pakistanis would probably reject the term, preferring to see themselves as either Pakistani or as members of the “Muslim Ummah”. However, these people don’t tend to comment on BP and this post is not really addressed to them.

In conclusion, I will continue to use “South Asia” going forward unless I clearly mean “British India” (in which case I will use that term). As a Pakistani, I don’t like the term “undivided India” since it undermines the existence of Pakistan (and Bangladesh). . Others are of course free to use whatever terms they find appropriate and identify with.

A core tenet of liberalism is that one cannot impose one’s own choices on others. Hopefully we can all operate under that principle going forward.