I don’t know enough about Afghanistan nor do I know many Afghans.

I have decided to stick to Music and Literature which are the subjects I have a degree in. Geopolitics is not my field. In any case, I blog at my personal blog where I have complete control of who comments and I can delete any comments that rub me the wrong way (Hindutva or anti-Pakistan). Not that an article on the Indian novel should give rise to any Hindutva comments in any case. But if it does, those go away.

I think Afghanistan is in a border zone. If “South Asia” means SAARC, than they are in. If “South Asia” means the Indian Subcontinent, then they are out. Even half of Pakistan is technically on the Iranian Plateau and not actually part of the Indian Subcontinent. But Pakistan as a whole is South Asian.

Afghanistan was never part of British India. That’s why the Durand Line exists. British India stopped at Peshawar.

I hate the term “AfPak”. I don’t want Pakistan to be lumped in with Afghanistan. I’d rather be lumped in with India (though that has its own problems).

I think even the Obama Administration stopped using “AfPak” cause they realized it made little sense and it upset the Pakistanis.

If you are not an uber fan of Hindutva comments, how will you handle Afghan comments?

Why are Afghans not South Asians? They were also a part of British India along with Sikhim, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Burma, Maldives, Nizam, Kashmir.

Much of “British India” was ruled by princely states and were not nationals of the Crown.

Haha – AfPak is part of the Southern Stans..

South Asia is a lot bigger than just India and Pakistan. But of course as the countries with the two largest populations we tend to dominate the narrative.

It makes for a bit of a boring blog (frankly). It would be interesting to hear about internal Bangladeshi politics between Hasina Wajid and Khalida Zia (for example) or what Bangladeshis think about Pakistan nearly 50 years post-liberation. These are just two examples off the top of my head.

It would also be interesting to get Nepali perspectives or even Afghan perspectives (though I think Afghanistan is stretching the boundaries of what is considered “South Asia”).

Otherwise, you could rename this forum “Indo-Pak Pundits” or something.

He is welcome too-

The Indo-Pak conceptions of nationhood define the existential identity of South Asia..

Butul Miah should write for BP (seriously). This site needs a Bangladeshi perspective. Otherwise we become way too India-Pakistan focused. We now have a Sri Lankan. So why not a Bangladeshi?

The people who live in the places they rule aren’t typically as fond for some reason ☺.

India annexing Bangladesh would have been a disaster, let’s face it. They complain enough of the immigration into India between 1971-1990. You would have had a large Indian Muslim sub-state with it’s own nationalist agenda [eventually, it was bound to happen]. Plus India itself was poor and [in overall terms] rather weak… taking on a rather big additional laggard would have done nobody any good. The advantages would have been ports and manpower; but it’s easy to look back on it now and say that — at the time, it was a place much more impoverished and less educated than India.

Besides, there just isn’t the same dangerous rhetoric or necessity between India and Bangladesh that there is between India and Pakistan. Even if Bangladesh surges ahead of India in per capita income, economy, education, infrastructure etc., will Indians really view it as a “challenge” or “rival”, the way they do with Pakistan? I can’t see it. Country is just too small, there isn’t enough “cultural friction” [few Indians as a % will argue about claims on Bengali heritage or even care], and I think in the next 10-15 years [once the current “Hindu resurgence” dies down and proves a failure] even religious friction that exists in muted tones will have hit the high tide mark. So what’s left? Basically cricket rivalry/hatred.